NationStates Jolt Archive

. . . Then what would be a good alternative for government income that wouldn't be theft? (This is not about debating whether taxation really can be considered theft or not, but just other, possible alternatives for government income that would be reasonably sufficiant.)

No no no, it's property that's theft.

In answer to your real question: sell something whose sale price is far higher than the cost of production.
Drugs!

They sell us these little metal disks and rectangles of green papers with pictures of dead Presidents. They are somewhat nice medallions and engravings, but not really the kind of art you like to look at over and over.

Our government is so inept, however, that the Lincoln medallion is actually sold at a loss.

There is no practical way for a government of any size and function to raise revenue sufficient for its function without taxation.

They sell us these little metal disks and rectangles of green papers with pictures of dead Presidents.

Sounds creepy. Are they rotting, and stuff?
The Presidents, I mean. Not the disks.

. . . Then what would be a good alternative for government income that wouldn't be theft? (This is not about debating whether taxation really can be considered theft or not, but just other, possible alternatives for government income that would be reasonably sufficiant.)

There really aren't any.

A government produces universal goods (economically speaking, all services are goods). There is nothing the government can produce that a competitor could not produce more profitably for a more select market. Ergo, if the government sold its goods it would have to price everything higher than market value. In which case, it could only sell by forcing the market.

Even "user fees" are only taxes by another name, since the government forces the market by closing out competitors. You can't say, no thank you, I prefer to register my car with a private registry service charging a lower fee. The market is closed- forced.

Since we want the government to provide its goods- parks, roads, courts, defense- universally, we must accept that the government must function as a special case and not as a typical economic entity. That is, we accept that a government has some powers, including taxation, that a private individual or corporation does not, in return for its provision of universal goods.

All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. The answer is to eliminate as much of government as is possible, essentially leaving only what is necessary to defend the citizens from each other and from external hostile forces.
Given this, the federal government's drastically reduced funds should be taken in as fair a way as possible, either via a small national sales tax or via some sort of membership dues assessed to state governments which would be taken from their revenues which, in turn, were accumulated through a state sales tax.
This sales tax is still theft; it is simply the least morally reprehensible form of theft.

All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft.

oh please :rolleyes:

Sounds creepy. Are they rotting, and stuff?
The Presidents, I mean. Not the disks.
The artwork would certainly be more interesting if they were. Perhaps you've hit on a new strategy to boost the value of the dollar?

The artwork would certainly be more interesting if they were. Perhaps you've hit on a new strategy to boost the value of the dollar?

I sure hope not; we Canadian consumers have a good thing going here. Screw the export industries!

All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. The answer is to eliminate as much of government as is possible, essentially leaving only what is necessary to defend the citizens from each other and from external hostile forces.

Or we could just hand out hand grenades. Cheaper and faster.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.
Another agency forcibly takes a portion of that wealth.

Regardless of what that agency intends to do with that wealth, it has taken it from you by force; i.e. it has stolen it from you.

pROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO RAISE FUNDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE TO ADOPT THE FAIR TAX. bECAUSE THE PEOPLE ONLY PAY WHAT THEY WANT TO PAY.

All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft.
Without a government, there isn't such a thing as "property" in the first place, only "possession" of what you can physically hold on to. In an Ayn-Randian-type libertarian world, you could not even hire security personnel to help you hold on to more stuff than is in your own physical grip: if they have enough strength or weaponry to prevent someone else from grabbing your stuff, they have enough to take it from you; why should they settle for a "wage"?

pROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO RAISE FUNDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE TO ADOPT THE FAIR TAX. bECAUSE THE PEOPLE ONLY PAY WHAT THEY WANT TO PAY.

*pss* Typing in all caps is like yelling.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.
Another agency forcibly takes a portion of that wealth.

Regardless of what that agency intends to do with that wealth, it has taken it from you by force; i.e. it has stolen it from you.Not quite. You entered into the deal by living within the borders of the country. I can understand being upset about where it is spent, but I really don't get the view of tax being bad. Tax is the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

This is an interesting question.

Let's look at history at some of the things the govt has tried:

The TVA project institued by the FDR administration has been an utter failure;

SSI, also institued by the FDR administration, is failing;

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are running at a lose;

The FDIC does not charge properly to cover higher risk accounts;

And last but by no means THE last the senate lunch room: this lunchroom has been under govt control for a while and has not turned a profit and was losing money at the tax payers expense. The senate has recently voted to privatize the lunchroom and let outside companies take control. These are the same clowns that want to run health care for every citizen and when they can not even run a small restaurant.

The best alternative to taxation is simply plundering resources from other countries. Since they don't count as people, it's not theft either.

"Without a government, there isn't such a thing as "property" in the first place, only "possession" of what you can physically hold on to. In an Ayn-Randian-type libertarian world, you could not even hire security personnel to help you hold on to more stuff than is in your own physical grip: if they have enough strength or weaponry to prevent someone else from grabbing your stuff, they have enough to take it from you; why should they settle for a "wage"?"

All property here means is possession under the law, the protection of which from other people would fall under the drastically reduced powers of the government I previously proposed. Under such a government, your property would be what you hold as your possession, and is therefore protected from infringement by other people by the law and its enforcers. The limited government I proposed would allow for both a military and a police force.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.
Another agency forcibly takes a portion of that wealth.

Regardless of what that agency intends to do with that wealth, it has taken it from you by force; i.e. it has stolen it from you.

Said agency manages the country on your behalf and in doing so provides you with a range of services. If you can live in a country without using any government service at all then feel free to complain about how tax is theft.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.
Another agency forcibly takes a portion of that wealth.

Regardless of what that agency intends to do with that wealth, it has taken it from you by force; i.e. it has stolen it from you.

Not even close.

If the "other agency" is the agency which allows you to accumulate wealth through your own abilities by, say, protecting said wealth from theft, protecting you from assault, providing the infrastructure for international trade and defense, and in short, makes the means available to you so that you do not have to worry about building roads, making sure food and water are safe, and so on -- it seems to me that paying your fair share for those services with enabled you to accumulate wealth seems PERFECTLY moral.

Also, if you don't like how the money is "taken" from you, you have every right to take your money and leave. Perhaps somewhere where they don't take your money quite so amicably.

"Not quite. You entered into the deal by living within the borders of the country. I can understand being upset about where it is spent, but I really don't get the view of tax being bad. Tax is the price you pay to live in a civilized society."

The government does not own the property of the country. The country's border is simply the sphere within which the government has power to act. By living within this sphere, an individual has in no way given up their moral right to property.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.

accumulate wealth by taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to me by society, while protected by those institutions designed to keep the society running.

I accumulated wealth only because I have been protected by law, and the enforcers of law. I have accumulated wealth because I was given loans by the government, and governmentally regulated agencies which require them to keep interest rates I can pay back, so I could attend school. I have accumulated wealth because I had roads I could use to get to school, and buses to take me there.

I accumulated wealth not by going out into the wilderness and beating a path through the dark and primevil. I accumulated wealth by taking advantage of those things provided to me, and are continually provided to me.

Taxation isn't just "taking my wealth". It's taking a part of my wealth which I have only accumulated due to taking advantage of things paid for by, you guessed it, taxes.

You think it's morally wrong to "take my wealth" by force? I think it's morally wrong for you to accumulate wealth, then shirk your responsibilities and try to get out of paying what you owe for the privlidges and protections you have taken advantage of in order to be able to accumulate that wealth.

You didn't make it on your own, you made it on the back of all the advantages society gave you. And you owe some of it back.

The limited government I proposed would allow for both a military and a police force.
Unpaid volunteers won't make for a very effective military or police.

Unpaid volunteers won't make for a very effective military or police.

Tmutarakhan, can't you at least of a little bit of faith in the socio-economic model known academically as "mob rule"?

"Not even close.
If the "other agency" is the agency which allows you to accumulate wealth through your own abilities by, say, protecting said wealth from theft, protecting you from assault, providing the infrastructure for international trade and defense, and in short, makes the means available to you so that you do not have to worry about building roads, making sure food and water are safe, and so on -- it seems to me that paying your fair share for those services with enabled you to accumulate wealth seems PERFECTLY moral.
Also, if you don't like how the money is "taken" from you, you have every right to take your money and leave. Perhaps somewhere where they don't take your money quite so amicably."

The government does not allow one to accumulate wealth, it is supposed to protect that wealth from others. As it stands now, the government is no better than the Mafia, running a "protection" racket in exchange for massive amounts of "fees" assessed for its services. This is theft, regardless of who's running the "protection". Now, the least morally reprehensible way of ensuring this continued protection of personal life and property is the means I discussed earlier, which does allow for a police force.
I was not speaking of taxation in America. I was speaking of taxation per se. Regardless of which country is doing the taxing, it is immoral. America is, without a doubt, the freest and most fair government in the world, at least in my opinion. This does not in any way detract from the fact that taxation is immoral.

Tmutarakhan, can't you at least of a little bit of faith in the socio-economic model known academically as "mob rule"?The system Nicea proposes has been implemented in Somalia. Perhaps he could visit, and give his impressions of how well it works?

"Unpaid volunteers won't make for a very effective military or police."

The reason we allow for any taxation at all is to ensure the existence of a paid police and military force. The military would be paid volunteers.

The government does not own the property of the country. The country's border is simply the sphere within which the government has power to act. By living within this sphere, an individual has in no way given up their moral right to property.Ok, fine. Send a letter to the U.S. government seceding your property from the country, see what happens.

Ok, fine. Send a letter to the U.S. government seceding your property from the country, see what happens.

Absolutely nothing, I should imagine. Don't they have better things to do down at the government?

"Ok, fine. Send a letter to the U.S. government seceding your property from the country, see what happens."

Again, since the government does not in any way own the property of the country, secession is unnecessary.

"Unpaid volunteers won't make for a very effective military or police."

The reason we allow for any taxation at all is to ensure the existence of a paid police and military force. The military would be paid volunteers.

So how is that taxation not the moral equivalent of theft? That you think that the money will be used well hardly excuses theft.

Does Andaras have a slightly more annoying, slightly less literate twin?

"So how is that taxation not the moral equivalent of theft? That you think that the money will be used well hardly excuses theft."

If you'll look at my posts, you'll see that even that minor taxation is in fact still morally equivalent to theft: all taxation is. The reason we allow any taxation at all is to guarantee the bare-bones minimum necessary for a functioning nation. Namely, a military and a police force.

. . . Then what would be a good alternative for government income that wouldn't be theft? (This is not about debating whether taxation really can be considered theft or not, but just other, possible alternatives for government income that would be reasonably sufficiant.)


It could be argued that natural monopolies, such as electricity and water distribution could be ways of making money for the government out side of taxation.

A good example would be the Tennesee Valley Authority. It was created during the Great Depression to help rebuild the area. The government built dams for the purpose of producing electricity and consistently ran a profit until the government was forced to sell off the assets to a commercial company due to regulations that forbid the government from competing with commercial business......or something like that.

Personally, I believe if the government owned all natural monopolies there would be less need for the government to tax us, and portions of it would be forced to operate like a business making deficit spending less inclined.

"So how is that taxation not the moral equivalent of theft? That you think that the money will be used well hardly excuses theft."

If you'll look at my posts, you'll see that even that minor taxation is in fact still morally equivalent to theft: all taxation is. The reason we allow any taxation at all is to guarantee the bare-bones minimum necessary for a functioning nation. Namely, a military and a police force.

But like I say, that doesn't excuse theft because it still relies on your judgement as to what is worthwhile - a judgement I may not agree with. I can't say "yes, it's your bicycle but I really want to go to the shops, so I'm taking it". Some people may say that the bare bones of a functioning nation includes universal healthcare and education and road building and public transport. Is taxation no longer theft now we've called them necessary?

The government does not allow one to accumulate wealth, it is supposed to protect that wealth from others. As it stands now, the government is no better than the Mafia, running a "protection" racket in exchange for massive amounts of "fees" assessed for its services. This is theft, regardless of who's running the "protection". Now, the least morally reprehensible way of ensuring this continued protection of personal life and property is the means I discussed earlier, which does allow for a police force.
I was not speaking of taxation in America. I was speaking of taxation per se. Regardless of which country is doing the taxing, it is immoral. America is, without a doubt, the freest and most fair government in the world, at least in my opinion. This does not in any way detract from the fact that taxation is immoral.

Let's see... basic understanding of property, check. Basic understanding of services... nope. Basic understanding of contractual agreements... nope.

Nicea, first and foremost, contracts are the basis upon which property is founded. If I have a contract to sell you 10 beads for 1 dollar, that contract needs to be enforced. This is known as a contractual agreement. Would you agree that contracts are good? Without them, there is little anyone can do. The entire argument you make about police forces and the military is based on a contract between the government and the police/soldiers. The economy is based on contracts.

However, there is another important contract. The contract between the government and the people. Rousseau called this the "Social Contract". There are obligations on both sides; the people to the government, and the government to the people. Defense, as you have said, should be one of the government's responsibilities to the people. In return, the people "pay" the government for the services. It is *not* taken forcibly; if you don't like it, you end the contract by leaving, thus no longer receiving the services of the country. Like any other contract-- say, those armed guards you use to protect your stuff-- one side provides a service, the other side provides the cash.

So, taxation is nothing like theft.

If the "other agency" is the agency which allows you to accumulate wealth through your own abilities by, say, protecting said wealth from theft, protecting you from assault, providing the infrastructure for international trade and defense, and in short, makes the means available to you so that you do not have to worry about building roads, making sure food and water are safe, and so on -- it seems to me that paying your fair share for those services with enabled you to accumulate wealth seems PERFECTLY moral.

Don't forget that it's the agency that actually produces the wealth. That little green slip of cotton-paper mix? It doesn't spring fully formed out of the Earth.

Again, since the government does not in any way own the property of the country, secession is unnecessary.

But if you are in a contract with the government, it does not matter if the government owns your property or not, you still owe something back. It's not a matter of the government owning everything, but a matter of contractual agreements.

"But like I say, that doesn't excuse theft because it still relies on your judgement as to what is worthwhile - a judgement I may not agree with. I can't say "yes, it's your bicycle but I really want to go to the shops, so I'm taking it". Some people may say that the bare bones of a functioning nation includes universal healthcare and educational and road building and public transport. Is taxation no longer theft now we've called them necessary?"

That's why I said it would be the least morally reprehensible, not the most morally praiseworthy. Any taxation is immoral. The only reason for allowing any at all is to ensure the continued existence of the nation. This does not rely at all on what is worthwhile; only on what is necessary. Universal healthcare, public education, public roads and transport all might be very laudable, but they are not necessary to ensure the continued existence of the nation. The military and the police are, in fact, necessary. So, for any form of government proposed for a nation, it must allow for a military and a police force.

"Don't forget that it's the agency that actually produces the wealth. That little green slip of cotton-paper mix? It doesn't spring fully formed out of the Earth."

That little slip of cotton-paper mix is another government yoke. The wealth produced under the government I proposed would be hard currency, as no government agency would exist to mint or print money.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.

What makes it yours?

Perhaps you (as part of society, in concert with others) produce wealth, but by what standard do you allocate it to yourself as a matter of right?

"But if you are in a contract with the government, it does not matter if the government owns your property or not, you still owe something back. It's not a matter of the government owning everything, but a matter of contractual agreements."

I never once signed any contract with the government. The government was created by the people, and it's job is to protect my safety and property. I owe it nothing; I am in no contractual agreement with the government.

You, through your own abilities and on your own agency accumulate wealth.
Another agency forcibly takes a portion of that wealth.

Regardless of what that agency intends to do with that wealth, it has taken it from you by force; i.e. it has stolen it from you.

Not exactly. Wealth is subjective. All of it. And in a Capitalist society the value of anything is entirely the subjective consensus of the society- the "Market". You may put great skill and effort into something, I might just find something laying in a ditch, but if the Market values the thing I found above the thing you worked for, well, there you have it. Hence, Pet Rocks.

Ergo, Capitalism is something that is embedded within a society, it is not the other way around, a structure in which society is embedded. Without the society, capitalism (a great thing, mind you) has no meaning. Since Capitalism is a subset embedded within society, it is in not at all impossible to have other subsets also embedded, even if they don't follow the same rules and patterns. Since Capitalism requires the Society, if other structures, such as Government, are required for the Society to exist, then Capitalism must allow for its existence, or else Capitalism itself ceases to exist.

Government and Capitalism (or any version of Economy) are subordinate structures within a Society- we take the sum of it all, including other things such as Language and Ritual, and call it a Civilization. These subordinate elements need not obey each other's rules, they do not provide the same goals. Just as the rules of your Bathroom and Bedroom need not be mutually applicable for your home to function. It is not applicable to apply the Market's rule of Theft to Government Taxation.

That little slip of cotton-paper mix is another government yoke. The wealth produced under the government I proposed would be hard currency, as no government agency would exist to mint or print money.

:confused:

"Not exactly. Wealth is subjective. All of it. And in a Capitalist society the value of anything is entirely the subjective consensus of the society- the "Market". You may put great skill and effort into something, I might just find something laying in a ditch, but if the Market values the thing I found above the thing you worked for, well, there you have it. Hence, Pet Rocks.

Ergo, Capitalism is something that is embedded within a society, it is not the other way around, a structure in which society is embedded. Without the society, capitalism (a great thing, mind you) has no meaning. Since Capitalism is a subset embedded within society, it is in not at all impossible to have other subsets also embedded, even if they don't follow the same rules and patterns. Since Capitalism requires the Society, if other structures, such as Government, are required for the Society to exist, then Capitalism must allow for its existence, or else Capitalism itself ceases to exist.

Government and Capitalism (or any version of Economy) are subordinate structures within a Society- we take the sum of it all, including other things such as Language and Ritual, and call it a Civilization. These subordinate elements need not obey each other's rules, they do not provide the same goals. Just as the rules of your Bathroom and Bedroom need not be mutually applicable for your home to function. It is not applicable to apply the Market's rule of Theft to Government Taxation."

The "your rules don't apply to me" approach has long been used, throughout history, to justify any number of immoral behaviours. It is not a capitalist understanding of theft, it's the moral definition of theft, the taking of property forcibly from another.

":confused:"
Hard currency, such as gold.

"But if you are in a contract with the government, it does not matter if the government owns your property or not, you still owe something back. It's not a matter of the government owning everything, but a matter of contractual agreements."

I never once signed any contract with the government. The government was created by the people, and it's job is to protect my safety and property. I owe it nothing; I am in no contractual agreement with the government.

Oh really? And why does it owe anything to you if you don't give anything in return? You said it must provide military and law enforcement services to you and others. That sounds like a contract to me. And not all contracts are written in paper. Some are simply by abiding in one spot. For example, let's say you enter a church. You, by the act of entering that church, are in a "contract" to abide by the rules they set forth; namely, to be quiet (mostly) and not disturb anything. Informal contracts are as binding as formal contracts, and government counts as both.

And besides, I'm pretty sure you are a citizen of the United States. That means that you, or your parents, or your grandparents, etc. *did* sign a contract, namely the act of coming over here and applying for citizenship.

Hard currency, such as gold.

Right… because gold has more inherent value than legal tender…

It is not a capitalist understanding of theft, it's the moral definition of theft, the taking of property forcibly from another.

So if I want to buy a sandwich, but I don't actually want to pay for the sandwich, they can't take my money from me?

"Not exactly. Wealth is subjective. All of it. And in a Capitalist society the value of anything is entirely the subjective consensus of the society- the "Market". You may put great skill and effort into something, I might just find something laying in a ditch, but if the Market values the thing I found above the thing you worked for, well, there you have it. Hence, Pet Rocks.

Ergo, Capitalism is something that is embedded within a society, it is not the other way around, a structure in which society is embedded. Without the society, capitalism (a great thing, mind you) has no meaning. Since Capitalism is a subset embedded within society, it is in not at all impossible to have other subsets also embedded, even if they don't follow the same rules and patterns. Since Capitalism requires the Society, if other structures, such as Government, are required for the Society to exist, then Capitalism must allow for its existence, or else Capitalism itself ceases to exist.

Government and Capitalism (or any version of Economy) are subordinate structures within a Society- we take the sum of it all, including other things such as Language and Ritual, and call it a Civilization. These subordinate elements need not obey each other's rules, they do not provide the same goals. Just as the rules of your Bathroom and Bedroom need not be mutually applicable for your home to function. It is not applicable to apply the Market's rule of Theft to Government Taxation."

The "your rules don't apply to me" approach has long been used, throughout history, to justify any number of immoral behaviours. It is not a capitalist understanding of theft, it's the moral definition of theft, the taking of property forcibly from another.

":confused:"
Hard currency, such as gold.

You keep saying that someone is taking property forcibly from another. Tell me, where is the force? They send you the tax form; you send them money. If you don't, you are breaking the laws, and that is not force, that is a part of the contract you signed when you became a citizen.

Hard currency, such as gold.

You mean the metal that only has any worth whatsoever because the government decided it does?

What's even more amusing is that currency as it exists only exists from a historical perspective to spare people having to carry around large amounts of gold.

What do you think currency is from a historical perspective, other than "I owe you a gold nugget"?

:confused:


That little slip of cotton-paper mix is another government yoke. The wealth produced under the government I proposed would be hard currency, as no government agency would exist to mint or print money.

Hard Currency: A commodity in such general use that most people will accept it in an exchange.

He's basically advocating a return to the direct barter system, a system which is about 4000 years out of date. There is no such commodity available to us today- for example, the supply of gold, in today's market prices, is so low compared to the overall size of the global economy that using it as currency would result in either the price of gold inflating to match the need for currency (and then it is no longer "hard") or the economy being hamstrung by having less than 10% of the cash it actually needs. Some people have suggested oil, but we have seen recently that the price of oil is far to volatile to be of use as a hard currency.

That little slip of cotton-paper mix is another government yoke. The wealth produced under the government I proposed would be hard currency, as no government agency would exist to mint or print money.

So, do you have an example of a nation that has actually worked according to your idealistic and naive theory?

Because those of us who live and work in real economies don't have time for economic dreams that only work in novels.

Fiat money has its uses. For example, a banking system is virtually impossible with a "hard" currency. The very act of having such a system *creates* fiat currency, if only in bank notes. This means that, on a hard currency, it would be rather difficult to run a modern economy, would it not?

"Oh really? And why does it owe anything to you if you don't give anything in return? You said it must provide military and law enforcement services to you and others. That sounds like a contract to me. And not all contracts are written in paper. Some are simply by abiding in one spot. For example, let's say you enter a church. You, by the act of entering that church, are in a "contract" to abide by the rules they set forth; namely, to be quiet (mostly) and not disturb anything. Informal contracts are as binding as formal contracts, and government counts as both.
And besides, I'm pretty sure you are a citizen of the United States. That means that you, or your parents, or your grandparents, etc. *did* sign a contract, namely the act of coming over here and applying for citizenship."

The government was created for a specific purpose, to protect its citizens and their property. This is not a resource it's offering, as if it has any independent reason for its existence: to protect the citizens and their property is the reason for its existence.
Your conception of a contract is blown out of proportion to suit your argument. In reality, such a conception of a contract would not function at all. Contracts' stipulations are specifically spelled out, not some nebulous set of assumptions as to the way people will behave. Even if my parents or grand parents did sign a contract upon gaining citizenship, I did not. I am a legally independent agent, and contracts cannot be entered into on my behalf.

"So if I want to buy a sandwich, but I don't actually want to pay for the sandwich, they can't take my money from me?"
No, they can't. Just as you can't take the sandwich from them.

"You keep saying that someone is taking property forcibly from another. Tell me, where is the force? They send you the tax form; you send them money. If you don't, you are breaking the laws, and that is not force, that is a part of the contract you signed when you became a citizen."

You said it yourself. The force is codified in the law itself. If you do not pay your "protection" money to the government, they arrest you and put you in jail.
Again, I signed no contract whatsoever with the government.

The irony most anarcho-capitalist types don't get (but their annointed economics saints like Friedman did) is that despite the idea that "hard" currencies are good, a free floating "artificial" currency is the most perfect "free market" currency you can have, because its value is nothing more and nothing less than the current market value. Having no intrinsic value at all, it is free of any influence other than pure market pricing. Perfect capitalism. Friedman, for this very reason, advocated a free floating currency.

No, they can't. Just as you can't take the sandwich from them.

Precisely. So you can't help yourself to the resources of the government without compensating them. No theft involved.

"You mean the metal that only has any worth whatsoever because the government decided it does?"

No, I mean the metal that people value independent of government assessment because it is scarce and people wish to acquire it.

The government was created for a specific purpose, to protect its citizens and their property. This is not a resource it's offering, as if it has any independent reason for its existence: to protect the citizens and their property is the reason for its existence.
Your conception of a contract is blown out of proportion to suit your argument. In reality, such a conception of a contract would not function at all. Contracts' stipulations are specifically spelled out, not some nebulous set of assumptions as to the way people will behave. Even if my parents or grand parents did sign a contract upon gaining citizenship, I did not. I am a legally independent agent, and contracts cannot be entered into on my behalf.

First of all, look up the phrases 'tacit consent' and 'social contract'. Also, if you want to quote someone's post, hit the quote buttom in the lower right corner of their post.

There is no practical way for a government of any size and function to raise revenue sufficient for its function without taxation.

That, although it may be true, is unfounded. I say we let the government run casinos.

Precisely. So you can't help yourself to the resources of the government without compensating them. No theft involved.

shhhh. You just broke his brain.

"Oh really? And why does it owe anything to you if you don't give anything in return? You said it must provide military and law enforcement services to you and others. That sounds like a contract to me. And not all contracts are written in paper. Some are simply by abiding in one spot. For example, let's say you enter a church. You, by the act of entering that church, are in a "contract" to abide by the rules they set forth; namely, to be quiet (mostly) and not disturb anything. Informal contracts are as binding as formal contracts, and government counts as both.
And besides, I'm pretty sure you are a citizen of the United States. That means that you, or your parents, or your grandparents, etc. *did* sign a contract, namely the act of coming over here and applying for citizenship."

The government was created for a specific purpose, to protect its citizens and their property. This is not a resource it's offering, as if it has any independent reason for its existence: to protect the citizens and their property is the reason for its existence.
Your conception of a contract is blown out of proportion to suit your argument. In reality, such a conception of a contract would not function at all. Contracts' stipulations are specifically spelled out, not some nebulous set of assumptions as to the way people will behave. Even if my parents or grand parents did sign a contract upon gaining citizenship, I did not. I am a legally independent agent, and contracts cannot be entered into on my behalf.


By not leaving the country, you have agreed at the least to abide by the contracts your parents signed.

It may be a "nebulous" definition of a contract, but I may assure you that the stipulations for a contract between a government and its citizens *are* specifically spelled out. You follow the laws, the government enforces the laws. Go look at the law book if you need to find out the terms of your contract.

The government was created for a purpose, sure. But the government is an entity. Corporations, individuals, families, governments, all are entities. Citizenship is a contract between two entities: the government, and the individual.

So, if the government, once created, must provide for the people, why? What does it get in return? *How* does it provide for the people? Essentially, you are proposing a system where a group of people (those who work in the government) are essentially "servants" or "slaves" to another group of people, by forcing one group to fulfill a duty without any promise of repayment.

"Precisely. So you can't help yourself to the resources of the government without compensating them. No theft involved."

Incorrect. You assume the government is a self-interested entity, as is the sandwich seller. It is not. It is a publicly-created entity with one express purpose, to protect the nation's citizens and their property.

The government does not allow one to accumulate wealth
There is not the slightest possibility of "accumulating" anything without a government. Otherwise whatever you don't have in your hands at the moment anybody else can walk off with at any time.

The government was created for a specific purpose, to protect its citizens and their property.

Which one are you talking about? Mine has a charter which begins: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's a lot more than just protection there. I could find a lot of wiggle room just in that "more perfect union" line alone, and I'm mostly conservative.

"Precisely. So you can't help yourself to the resources of the government without compensating them. No theft involved."

Incorrect. You assume the government is a self-interested entity, as is the sandwich seller. It is not. It is a publicly-created entity with one express purpose, to protect the nation's citizens and their property.

The government is an entity. Yes? Like a corporation, it is an entity.

Contracts are specifically worded agreements signed between two entities, yes? You've stated this before. You can sign contracts between individuals, corporations, etc.

Ergo... it is possible to sign a contract between government-entity and individual-entity. Yes?

Now, let's take this a step further. What might this contract entail?

I'm sure you can figure out where this is going.

Incorrect. You assume the government is a self-interested entity, as is the sandwich seller. It is not. It is a publicly-created entity with one express purpose, to protect the nation's citizens and their property.

I didn't know goals entered into simple transactions. So if the sandwich seller also sells, say, cola, what should we do with him? I mean, that contravenes his express purpose as a sandwich seller.

Neo Art: Wow. I totally think I did.

Also, why is it wrong to assume the government is not a self-interested entity? It is difficult for an entity to exist without its own self-interest in mind.

That, although it may be true, is unfounded. I say we let the government run casinos.

why? just for the lulz?

Also, why is it wrong to assume the government is not a self-interested entity? It is difficult for an entity to exist without its own self-interest in mind.

*cue hackneyed joke about actions of US government*

[QUOTE=New Malachite Square;13793853]I didn't know goals entered into simple transactions. So if the sandwich seller also sells, say, cola, what should we do with him? I mean, that contravenes his express purpose as a sandwich seller.
QUOTE]

WIN.

I think that just ended the whole thread.

"The "your rules don't apply to me" approach has long been used, throughout history, to justify any number of immoral behaviours. It is not a capitalist understanding of theft, it's the moral definition of theft, the taking of property forcibly from another.
.

The prior purposes of arguments, for good or bad, do not matter. Physics was used to design atom bombs, it does not make physics bad. It is simply a fact that the rules used within a paradigm cannot always be applied to other paradigms, even if both paradigms are embedded together within a single larger paradigm.

Simply put, if Capitalism requires Society, and Society requires Government, and Government requires Taxation, then Capitalism requires Taxation, your moral evaluation of it notwiithstanding.

"By not leaving the country, you have agreed at the least to abide by the contracts your parents signed.
It may be a "nebulous" definition of a contract, but I may assure you that the stipulations for a contract between a government and its citizens *are* specifically spelled out. You follow the laws, the government enforces the laws. Go look at the law book if you need to find out the terms of your contract.
The government was created for a purpose, sure. But the government is an entity. Corporations, individuals, families, governments, all are entities. Citizenship is a contract between two entities: the government, and the individual.
So, if the government, once created, must provide for the people, why? What does it get in return? *How* does it provide for the people? Essentially, you are proposing a system where a group of people (those who work in the government) are essentially "servants" or "slaves" to another group of people, by forcing one group to fulfill a duty without any promise of repayment."

Since I am in no contract, I cannot be held to the stipulations of that contract.
I never signed such a contract. The laws are spelled out; why I must abide by them are not. We do not obey laws because we signed a contract. We obey laws because they are enforced. When giving money becomes codified into law, it becomes theft, and thus, immoral.
The government is not a self-interested entity. It has no existence apart from serving its sole purpose. People and corporations do, they have goals, projects, plans, etc. The government exists to do one thing only; there is no way to "compensate" it because there is nothing there to compensate.
Asking why the government must protect its citizens and their property is the equivalent of asking why a heart pumps blood: that is its sole purpose. I have in no way stated that there ARE any government employees; I have only spoken about the government itself. How the government goes about its purpose is handled externally. Now, I have granted that the government cannot function without taxation and employees, that's why I have proposed a drastically reduced government, limited only to the necessary functions of government. Thus, the government employees are compensated. The government, by its nature, cannot be.

"Simply put, if Capitalism requires Society, and Society requires Government, and Government requires Taxation, then Capitalism requires Taxation, your moral evaluation of it notwiithstanding."

I can accept that. I've been arguing that taxation is necessary for the government to function, that's why we limit government to only the necessary components for a nation to function, to minimize the immoral taxation that occurs.

The prior purposes of arguments, for good or bad, do not matter. Physics was used to design atom bombs, it does not make physics bad. It is simply a fact that the rules used within a paradigm cannot always be applied to other paradigms, even if both paradigms are embedded together within a single larger paradigm.

Simply put, if Capitalism requires Society, and Society requires Government, and Government requires Taxation, then Capitalism requires Taxation, your moral evaluation of it notwiithstanding.

Hmm... I think the question here is whether or not government requires taxation, though...

IMHO, I think it doesn't... It could be like Sudan, which draws revenues from oil funds raised by state run companies, closing its borders to every other oil company. It could do it by mercantilism, which requires excessive government control of... basically, everything... and colonies. It could do it by plunder, as Rome did, until it fell by being too big to continue to support itself...

Or it could tax its citizens, like modern governments do. Take your pick.

I think that just ended the whole thread.

Sweet. I always wanted to do that.
*detonates thread, shards of weird semantics fly outward*

"I didn't know goals entered into simple transactions. So if the sandwich seller also sells, say, cola, what should we do with him? I mean, that contravenes his express purpose as a sandwich seller."

The goals and plans simply establish the sandwich seller as a self-interested entity. He sells his sandwiches and his cola to make money, to further his own agenda of providing for his wife and children, buying that new sports car, etc.

The government has no goals or plans. It doesn't accumulate money for its own purposes, because it has no purposes other than its sole purpose of protecting the safety and property of its citizens.

"I didn't know goals entered into simple transactions. So if the sandwich seller also sells, say, cola, what should we do with him? I mean, that contravenes his express purpose as a sandwich seller."

The goals and plans simply establish the sandwich seller as a self-interested entity. He sells his sandwiches and his cola to make money, to further his own agenda of providing for his wife and children, buying that new sports car, etc.

The government has no goals or plans. It doesn't accumulate money for its own purposes, because it has no purposes other than its sole purpose of protecting the safety and property of its citizens.

Since I am in no contract, I cannot be held to the stipulations of that contract.
I never signed such a contract. The laws are spelled out; why I must abide by them are not. We do not obey laws because we signed a contract. We obey laws because they are enforced. When giving money becomes codified into law, it becomes theft, and thus, immoral.
The government is not a self-interested entity. It has no existence apart from serving its sole purpose. People and corporations do, they have goals, projects, plans, etc. The government exists to do one thing only; there is no way to "compensate" it because there is nothing there to compensate.
Asking why the government must protect its citizens and their property is the equivalent of asking why a heart pumps blood: that is its sole purpose. I have in no way stated that there ARE any government employees; I have only spoken about the government itself. How the government goes about its purpose is handled externally. Now, I have granted that the government cannot function without taxation and employees, that's why I have proposed a drastically reduced government, limited only to the necessary functions of government. Thus, the government employees are compensated. The government, by its nature, cannot be.


"Since I am in no contract, I cannot be held to the stipulations of that contract.
I never signed such a contract."
Some contracts are implicit. Look at highway laws, for example. By using that highway, you agree implicitly to follow the rules of that highway. Or in this case, the state that runs the highway. Similarly, by using the things provided by the government, such as defense and law enforcement, you are implicitly agreeing to the contract between you, as an individual, and the government.

When you turn 18, if you are a citizen of the country, it is your duty to decide whether or not to agree to that implicit contract. If you leave, you do not agree; if you stay, you agree. It doesn't matter that you never signed something explicit; the very fact that you use the services provided by the government means you agree to the contract.

"We do not obey laws because we signed a contract. We obey laws because they are enforced. When giving money becomes codified into law, it becomes theft, and thus, immoral."

So the only reason you obey laws is because they are enforced, eh? So if they weren't, you wouldn't? I obey laws because it is my responsibility to my government and other people, and know that, in return, other people will obey the laws. And I know the government will do its best to punish those who don't.

"The government is not a self-interested entity. It has no existence apart from serving its sole purpose. People and corporations do, they have goals, projects, plans, etc. The government exists to do one thing only; there is no way to "compensate" it because there is nothing there to compensate."

Strange, I thought that my (and every other human) purpose was to reproduce and continue the line of the human race. And I thought the purpose of a corporation was to make profit for its shareholders and its employees. And I thought that these, be they individuals, companies, etc. used plans, projects, and goals to achieve these purposes. You say that government has a purpose too, but you seem to have defined *this* purpose so as to preclude using plans and projects. Wait, what? What about all the projects and plans and goals the government has set before? Do they mean nothing? And what is different about this purpose?

"Now, I have granted that the government cannot function without taxation and employees, that's why I have proposed a drastically reduced government, limited only to the necessary functions of government. Thus, the government employees are compensated. The government, by its nature, cannot be."
Have you ever played BioShock?

Voluntary donations, a government lottery etc

Someone teach the new kid how to use the quote button.

Voluntary donations, a government lottery etc

Voluntary donations only work when people want to give to the government, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. It would also prevent the government from taking any controversial or unpopular decisions. Also, voluntary donations would be unsteady, and probably not on the scale that the government requires.

A lottery might be nice for really small governments, but again, there's a scale problem and a problem of constant funding.

Basically, all these are like fundraisers, but they can't be on a large scale, or if they are, they are easy to stop from the public.

No no no, it's property that's theft.

In answer to your real question: sell something whose sale price is far higher than the cost of production.
Drugs!
Insurance!

Someone teach the new kid how to use the quote button.

Like this? I can quote, I'm just used to other forums... where it's sometimes just easier to copy and paste.

Voluntary donations only work when people want to give to the government, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. It would also prevent the government from taking any controversial or unpopular decisions. Also, voluntary donations would be unsteady, and probably not on the scale that the government requires.

A lottery might be nice for really small governments, but again, there's a scale problem and a problem of constant funding.

Basically, all these are like fundraisers, but they can't be on a large scale, or if they are, they are easy to stop from the public.

I do agree with this, it's not at all possible in developed nations of today

"But like I say, that doesn't excuse theft because it still relies on your judgement as to what is worthwhile - a judgement I may not agree with. I can't say "yes, it's your bicycle but I really want to go to the shops, so I'm taking it". Some people may say that the bare bones of a functioning nation includes universal healthcare and educational and road building and public transport. Is taxation no longer theft now we've called them necessary?"

That's why I said it would be the least morally reprehensible, not the most morally praiseworthy. Any taxation is immoral. The only reason for allowing any at all is to ensure the continued existence of the nation. This does not rely at all on what is worthwhile; only on what is necessary. Universal healthcare, public education, public roads and transport all might be very laudable, but they are not necessary to ensure the continued existence of the nation. The military and the police are, in fact, necessary. So, for any form of government proposed for a nation, it must allow for a military and a police force.

But if it's morally reprehensible, you shouldn't do it. If you accept there are good reasons to do so then there's no real distinction between stealing for an army and stealing for healthcare.

Like this? I can quote, I'm just used to other forums... where it's sometimes just easier to copy and paste.

Not you, Nicea.

:upyours:

I wasn't even talking to you.

Not you, Nicea.



I wasn't even talking to you.

Someone else that's new needs to read the thread before posting

comment deleted :(

Insurance!

"Insurance"!

All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. The answer is to eliminate as much of government as is possible, essentially leaving only what is necessary to defend the citizens from each other and from external hostile forces.
Given this, the federal government's drastically reduced funds should be taken in as fair a way as possible, either via a small national sales tax or via some sort of membership dues assessed to state governments which would be taken from their revenues which, in turn, were accumulated through a state sales tax.
This sales tax is still theft; it is simply the least morally reprehensible form of theft.

Taxation is NOT morally equivalent to theft. In return for paying your taxes you get a wide variety of services, including well-maintained roads, utilities, many services, and national defense.

Now, if the government taxed the populace and then provided nothing in return, THAT would be theft. But that doesn't happen in most countries, and therefore this weird Libertarian obsession with tax being theft is ridiculous.

"Simply put, if Capitalism requires Society, and Society requires Government, and Government requires Taxation, then Capitalism requires Taxation, your moral evaluation of it notwiithstanding."

I can accept that. I've been arguing that taxation is necessary for the government to function, that's why we limit government to only the necessary components for a nation to function, to minimize the immoral taxation that occurs.


So if your conclusion is that Taxation is both Necessary and Morally Reprehensible, I would submit that this means your views of morality must need fine-tuning. As I see it, something that is necessary cannot be immoral.

Unless you measure things solely by how far they fall short of some idealized, imagined perfection, which is not how I view the world.

Yes, it is immoral to throw objects at people- but if the object is a life preserver, and the person fell off a ship, we make exceptions.

There is no practical way for a government of any size and function to raise revenue sufficient for its function without taxation.
Why not? States could act like corporations.

Easiest way of this would be for the country to own the land and then leasing out to its users, ie. the people & businesses needing the land.

Or, let's think of Exxon Mobil: If EM would be a country which would get funds by selling oil products across the globe there would hardly be neeed for taxes, assuming the population stays under 10-15 millions.

Why not? States could act like corporations.

Easiest way of this would be for the country to own the land and then leasing out to its users, ie. the people & businesses needing the land.

Or, let's think of Exxon Mobil: If EM would be a country which would get funds by selling oil products across the globe there would hardly be neeed for taxes, assuming the population stays under 10-15 millions.

Dude, I haven't really been following this thread but that is a really good idea for eliminating federal tax. What sux now is that the states get like 1/3 of their budget in grants from the Federal government. Basically, the feds use that money to control the state i.e. do what I say or I will take ur money! Many presidents and congressmen have gotten the states to conform to ideas by threatening their budgets.

This is not what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said that the states should have independent governments and become laboratories of democracy. You see, a crucial, experimental part of our government is lost when the feds control the states. Our system loses its ability to try new things.

I am really high right now and I hope this makes sense. Man it took me like 20 minutes to write all that...damn

Oh yes, 'taxation is theft', just one of the better libertarian conspiracy theories, along with other classics like:

Federal reserve is run by Communists
Federal reserve is run by Jews
Federal reserve is run by the Illuminati

etc etc etc...

. . . Then what would be a good alternative for government income that wouldn't be theft? (This is not about debating whether taxation really can be considered theft or not, but just other, possible alternatives for government income that would be reasonably sufficiant.)

In that case, free donations.

...

...

...

AHAHAHAHAHAH!

Anyway taxes AREN'T theft: we might argue whether the amount of services the State gives to its citizens justifies the amount of taxation, or whether the burden is distributed fairly, but not on taxation itself.

"Without a government, there isn't such a thing as "property" in the first place, only "possession" of what you can physically hold on to. In an Ayn-Randian-type libertarian world, you could not even hire security personnel to help you hold on to more stuff than is in your own physical grip: if they have enough strength or weaponry to prevent someone else from grabbing your stuff, they have enough to take it from you; why should they settle for a "wage"?"

All property here means is possession under the law, the protection of which from other people would fall under the drastically reduced powers of the government I previously proposed. Under such a government, your property would be what you hold as your possession, and is therefore protected from infringement by other people by the law and its enforcers. The limited government I proposed would allow for both a military and a police force.

Without government there is no law. I never trust libertarians who just want a military and police force. Actually, nm, I never trust libertarians.

Also

learn2quote.

"Simply put, if Capitalism requires Society, and Society requires Government, and Government requires Taxation, then Capitalism requires Taxation, your moral evaluation of it notwiithstanding."

I can accept that. I've been arguing that taxation is necessary for the government to function, that's why we limit government to only the necessary components for a nation to function, to minimize the immoral taxation that occurs.

Only your subjective opinion dictates what the "necessary components" are. In my opinion, public health care, schools, roads, transportation, water, sewage treatment and power are necessary.

If taxation is evil, just because you want to have a couple things done by the government doesn't make it suddenly okay to do just a little bit. "A little bit of theft" is no more okay than "a little bit of murder," or "a little bit of genocide." Either it's theft, and it's not okay, ever, or it's not theft.

"Taxation is Immoral", you say?

Fine. I reject your concept of morality.

My morality says taxation is perfectly moral and correct. And mine is equally as valid as yours.

"Taxation is Immoral", you say?

Fine. I reject your concept of morality.

My morality says taxation is perfectly moral and correct. And mine is equally as valid as yours.

Next he'll say something either about "natural law" or the "first principles of the universe." Or it will be the same bullshit but with a different name. Just watch.

Of course, in all probability, this is just a troll trying to work up NSG or just parody libertarians.

Next he'll say something either about "natural law" or the "first principles of the universe." Or it will be the same bullshit but with a different name. Just watch.


I would not take that as a bet...

If you think taxation by the country you live in is theft you can always move to another country.

In that case, free donations.

...

...

...

AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Rumour has it, on Canadian tax returns there is an actual bracket for voluntary contributions. Amazingly enough, they actually do make some money on that every year.

I quite like the idea. Have some basic level of taxation for those government services that everyone necessarily uses (eg national defense or police), and have a user pays system for others (eg healthcare or welfare) where you can sign up and pay everywhere and then use it when necessary, or choose to get through life on your own merits.

If you think taxation by the country you live in is theft you can always move to another country.
Yeah, that's not really a valid argument. Just because I could move to another school to escape my bully, bullying isn't all of a sudden no longer wrong.

Most of the people who believe that taxation is theft believe either that there would be no state, and therefore no taxation, or that the theft is the lesser of two (or more) evils.
There are also ideas of user fees and lotteries, etc.

Of course, taxation isn't theft, but that's beside the point.

The government does not own the property of the country. The country's border is simply the sphere within which the government has power to act. By living within this sphere, an individual has in no way given up their moral right to property.

If you hold citizenship of that country, then you have an agreement with that state, including being subject to it's laws, including it's right to tax you. If you don't like it, then you can always surrender your citizenship and find another country willing to take you, or purchase a ship, and live in international waters.

You didn't make it on your own, you made it on the back of all the advantages society gave you. And you owe some of it back.

Well said.

It could be argued that natural monopolies, such as electricity and water distribution could be ways of making money for the government out side of taxation.

<SNIP>

Personally, I believe if the government owned all natural monopolies there would be less need for the government to tax us, and portions of it would be forced to operate like a business making deficit spending less inclined.

Brunei, Nauru, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the UAE follow this approach, though some of these countries have corporate taxation, but no direct personal income tax. All of these nations, however, have extremely abundant natural resources (except Nauru, which has exhausted it's natural reserves of phosphate, and is now dying on it's feet)

Many other governments engage in this, in addition to the revenues they get from personal direct taxation, using such industries as power generation and telecoms. It also serves the added purpose of providing some industry or commodity that would otherwise not be developed, or developed to such a high standard (I.e. Rural utilities, which can be profitable, be often only in the very long term).

Sensible though the idea is, I can't really the most fanatical Libertarians agreeing to it as an alternative to the "evils" of taxation, as it implies, shock horror, a government consisting of more than armed thugs.

and have a user pays system for others (eg healthcare or welfare) where you can sign up and pay everywhere and then use it when necessary, or choose to get through life on your own merits.

Or the merits of your parents since that kid who was smarter and more resourceful than you died of a preventable illness aged 9 because her parents couldn't afford healthcare. But obviously coming out of the wrong vagina is an example of her bad decision making and lack of merit.

Yeah, that's not really a valid argument. Just because I could move to another school to escape my bully, bullying isn't all of a sudden no longer wrong.

Who said anything about wrong? I merely suggest that if you don't like what the majority of people in your country of residence agree with you should leave.

Rumour has it, on Canadian tax returns there is an actual bracket for voluntary contributions. Amazingly enough, they actually do make some money on that every year.

Source? In any case, Canada doesn't rely on voluntary contributions for a significant amount of the federal budget.

I quite like the idea. Have some basic level of taxation for those government services that everyone necessarily uses (eg national defense or police), and have a user pays system for others (eg healthcare or welfare) where you can sign up and pay everywhere and then use it when necessary, or choose to get through life on your own merits.

Given that such voluntary services would work more less like private schemes why have the government offer them?

Yeah, that's not really a valid argument. Just because I could move to another school to escape my bully, bullying isn't all of a sudden no longer wrong.

The argument was never that since one can move its not wrong. It was more like if you live in a "bad" neigborhood where you are regularly mugged and you could afford to move to a "good" neighborhood you're an idiot if you stay where you are.

how I hate the "you can always move" argument!

To rule others an assemblage of men must kill and hurt until other men become conditioned to believe their abusers' ways are just/right/law. Stealing from others isn't what makes a government. Someone can steal from you w/out ordering you to do anything. It's oppressive violence, armies and deputies, that's the fist step to government. The second is for people to help their conquerors, treating them as superiors, instead of fighting them. Government's defining trait is immoral and an act worse than theft. For suppression to be preferable the disruption of freedom from the state must be worse than it's abuse. Patriotism=Stockholm Syndrome. But if we really don't know what's good for us and our rulers do then it could be a favor for them to bind us.

Oh yes, 'taxation is theft', just one of the better libertarian conspiracy theories, along with other classics like:

Federal reserve is run by Communists
Federal reserve is run by Jews
Federal reserve is run by the Illuminati

etc etc etc...

What a cheap and transparent attempt to conflate believing taxation is theft with being a Nazi.

And why would you care about the Jews anyway? The ones that died at Stalin's hands were just bourgeoise enemies that needed to be removed, right? Tell you what Andaras; you quit justifying genocide and mass murder, then maybe we'll take your self-righteous yammering about how libertarians hate Jews more seriously. Until then - live in a glass house? don't throw stones.

What a cheap and transparent attempt to conflate believing taxation is theft with being a Nazi.

yes, there certainly has been no overlap at all whatsoever between libertarians and your run of the mill right wing conspiracy theorists. none at all. they are noted for it, in fact.

yes, there certainly has been no overlap at all whatsoever between libertarians and your run of the mill right wing conspiracy theorists. none at all.

Oh, so guilt by association? Weak.

But the subject isn't even libertarianism or libertarians and their demographics.

In this case the subject is AP asserting that saying "taxation is theft" is equivalent to conspiracy theories about Jews. Saying "taxation is theft" is NOT, however, equivalent in any way to conspiracy theories and Jew-hating. Period. Not even the same ballpark.

On the other hand, AP himself has come right out and tried to justify Stalin's mass murders, including that of Jews, on this forum.

So is his trolling hypocrisy something you want to defend? Go right ahead, I'm sure you'd do a better job than he, but I'd wonder why.

On the other hand, AP himself has come right out and tried to justify Stalin's mass murders, including that of Jews, on this forum.

So is his trolling hypocrisy something you want to defend? Go right ahead, I'm sure you'd do a better job than he, but I'd wonder why.

I fear many people here on these forums have only dealt in Communist theory yet have no concept in practise. What do you think revolution is? A revolution by consensus? Where we all sat down and agreed over a cup of coffee? Do you really expect things to change overnight? Do you really expect complete social transformation to be anything but a murderous process? It's a war to build socialism, and you have to fight it like you fight any other war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads, you can't just give it up. Stalin was a revolutionary and he aggravated class struggle and defeated the bourgeois and their allies. End of story.

I fear many people here on these forums have only dealt in Communist theory yet have no concept in practise. What do you think revolution is? A revolution by consensus? Where we all sat down and agreed over a cup of coffee? Do you really expect things to change overnight? Do you really expect complete social transformation to be anything but a murderous process? It's a war to build socialism, and you have to fight it like you fight any other war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads, you can't just give it up. Stalin was a revolutionary and he aggravated class struggle and defeated the bourgeois and their allies. End of story.

Thanks for alleviating any doubt the posters who haven't heard your insane justifications of mass murder might have had.

And for, you know, proving my point. That was nice of you.

Insurance!

Drugs insurance!
Insurance drugs?

Oh, so guilt by association? Weak.

But the subject isn't even libertarianism or libertarians and their demographics.

In this case the subject is AP asserting that saying "taxation is theft" is equivalent to conspiracy theories about Jews. Saying "taxation is theft" is NOT, however, equivalent in any way to conspiracy theories and Jew-hating. Period. Not even the same ballpark.

On the other hand, AP himself has come right out and tried to justify Stalin's mass murders, including that of Jews, on this forum.

So is his trolling hypocrisy something you want to defend? Go right ahead, I'm sure you'd do a better job than he, but I'd wonder why.

i care nothing for any of the stally's shit. but the 'taxation is theft' conspiracy theory is a fucking conspiracy theory. an even dumber one than most. it is one of the family of conspiracy theories that treats the law as a form of magic - where if you know the proper magic words you can undo the spell.

i care nothing for any of the stally's shit. but the 'taxation is theft' conspiracy theory is a fucking conspiracy theory.

No, it's a simple phrase. A slogan. A way of looking at tax other than gushing about 'giving back to the community.' Not a 'theory.'

There's no 'conspiracy.' No one's implying any secret organizations or the use of magic powers, hokey physics, aliens, hidden gunmen, illuminati or jewish globe-controlling cabals.

It's no more or less the equivalent of the anti-capitalist phrase "Property is theft." With the possible exception of being a bit more accurate a way of looking at things.

Frankly it's a bit disappointing how quick you folks are to go from:

Agree with the phrase, 'taxation is theft.' -> Libertarian -> Conspiracy Nut -> Hates Jews ZOMG!

Crimony.

If you really see taxation as theft I urge you to never use anything that tax has been spent on

Dont use the roads, the trains, busses, hospitals, schools, dont go to government funded events, eat subsidized food, drink from the water supplies or even live in areas that have government funded services that may include electricity or sewrage.

For alot of things more money is taken off the rich to pay for the poor.

hmm after you have refused to ever use all of thoes things I wonder what state you will be in.

Living in the wild, trying to build your own society of 1 I guees. Prehaps there really is a reason tax occurs. Of course if you really dont want to be taxed your free to move somewhere that dosnt have a functioning tax system. How does Ethiopia sound?

No, it's a simple phrase. A slogan. A way of looking at tax other than gushing about 'giving back to the community.' Not a 'theory.'

There's no 'conspiracy.' No one's implying any secret organizations or the use of magic powers, hokey physics, aliens, hidden gunmen, illuminati or jewish globe-controlling cabals.

It's no more or less the equivalent of the anti-capitalist phrase "Property is theft." With the possible exception of being a bit more accurate a way of looking at things.
.

But that libertarian view only works as a valid criticism of late welfare capitalism, or today's remnants of it, it's certainly not a criticism of socialist production, which in itself has no 'taxation' as income and money circulation do not exist in socialism. The libertarian critique therefore comes down to a sectarian dispute with liberals and 'leftists' within the existing bourgeois political system, it certainly does not work against Communist revolutionaries, and with socialism in general, within such 'taxation' does not exist as taxation only applies to bourgeois society.

Marx did indeed recognize progressive or graduated taxation as a method of welfare capitalism because it allowed the State to artificially deflate prices, or through other measures curb the losses incurred by capitalist production for the common toiling worker.

In short, the libertarian critique does nothing to diminish Marxist theory, if only to criticize the 'bourgeois-socialists' within the the comfortable and selected political realm of the ruling class.

In regard specifically to taxation the libertarian critique represents the most extreme and 'close to the line' of what is in the interests of the bourgeois, what libertarianism demands is about as close to what the ruling class want as possible. When you consider the class struggle that is why libertarianism will never come to power in the current bourgeois system, because THAT'S NOT IT'S PURPOSE, the purpose of libertarianism is just like others on the far-right, to attack the working class and Communists from a different angle, a different perspective, and to ensure the ruling class is 'multi-pronged' in it's assault upon the political fronts of the working class. It's important to remember that the ruling class and bourgeois society generally is not the government, nor is it any small cabal of conspirators, it is systematic and not individual, and all society forms a function of it's defense, whether conscious or unconscious.

Even the lone apathetic worker forms a small part in the defense of bourgeois society through his silence, and others play different parts, the far-right from a nationalistic perspective (defense of nation=defense of private property), etc etc. Social-democrats play a role too, in their 'softly-softly' approach they let steam out of the capitalist pressure-cooker so it doesn't explode. ALL PARTS OF BOURGEOIS SOCIETY EXCEPT COMMUNISTS AND CLASS CONSCIOUS WORKERS PLAY A PART IN IT'S DEFENSE.

In short, libertarianism will remain on the fringe because that's where it works best. I prefer to see the reality of a political organization and it's class basis, not it's propaganda.

No, it's a simple phrase. A slogan. A way of looking at tax other than gushing about 'giving back to the community.' Not a 'theory.'

There's no 'conspiracy.' No one's implying any secret organizations or the use of magic powers, hokey physics, aliens, hidden gunmen, illuminati or jewish globe-controlling cabals.

it's a slogan of the 'tax protester movement'. look it up.

I am somewhat of a libertarian. I believe tax has a point its just that it has been elevated to a status that is too high.

I believe in tax for the environment, roads, police, military, promoting tourism, public education and public health for the young as well welfare in some (but by no means as much as most people) instances.

A libertarian dosnt need to be against tax. They can just believe that the amount of tax being spent is being spent in the wrong areas or too much is going to areas that deserve tax.

A libertarian may believe in a tax rate of 10% instead of 30%+ or communism. There is a recognition that tax serves a purpose for every party. The question is what purpose?

From my first post I did a very pro tax line because tax does alot of good in areas. I dont want to see the police leave because that creates anarchy. I also believe that if people believe tax is theft they should repay all the services they have used. Tax is VERY IMPORTANT

Tax becomes wrong when it goes to support a small group of individuals that dont deserve it or too much is spent in the wrong areas (ie unnecessary road works).

But when tax is used for true public good/service it should be welcomed and very well managed instead of being used for political vote buying.

The libertarian view on tax isnt used to counter the left. It is a view that is based upon people believing the government shouldnt be wasting money on areas they deem it wasted. For me that includes most of the sports and arts.

The government does not allow one to accumulate wealth, it is supposed to protect that wealth from others. As it stands now, the government is no better than the Mafia, running a "protection" racket in exchange for massive amounts of "fees" assessed for its services. This is theft, regardless of who's running the "protection". Now, the least morally reprehensible way of ensuring this continued protection of personal life and property is the means I discussed earlier, which does allow for a police force.
I was not speaking of taxation in America. I was speaking of taxation per se. Regardless of which country is doing the taxing, it is immoral. America is, without a doubt, the freest and most fair government in the world, at least in my opinion. This does not in any way detract from the fact that taxation is immoral.

A) The "quote" button is your friend.

B) What? Does the Mafia build and maintain roads and infrastructure that you use? No.

Try again, that first effort was amazingly pathetic.