NationStates Jolt Archive

Taxation is held to be "theft" but the better term is extortion.

Extortion is obtaining of money and/or services and/or property from someone through coercion. Coercion is of course getting someone to do something through the use of force or threat of force. In this case, coercing people to part with large chunks of their income since if they didn't, they'd be sent to prison and deprived of their freedom and dignity. And given the nature of prisons, perhaps more than even that.

(I know someone's going to point out that taxation is legal, whereas both extortion and theft are illegal. Let me just say to those that you're missing the point. We are not talking about the literal criminality of taxation, but the immorality of it.

Also, I am more or less only talking about the US here.)

The War on Terror is a Protection racket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket). Who are they protecting us from? Saddam's ghost? Imaginary weapons of mass destruction? I don't know, but it's costing me and everyone else money.

I have a limited amount of time on this earth. During that limited time I must work to get limited amounts of money, using my limited amount of energy. So the euphemistic "protection money" that I am being forced to pay is not something I am going to just shrug and dismiss while chewing my cud. In a very real sense, time is money and life is time - taxation is my life blood being drained away.

Now it's true that taxation pays for some good things, like [corrupt] police and [torturing people in Guantanamo bay] national defense. But try as I might, I find it hard to accept these meager benefits as outweighing the fact that I didn't order them. I didn't ask for them. And that if I don't foot the bill, I will go to prison.

On the other hand, theft is merely taking money or whatnot from people. Perhaps without their knowledge. This is tame and far less insidious from the Shock and Awe campaign of euphemistic platitudes - like "payment for services" - and coercive sickness. Shit, who pays for prison, too? I do! One of the "services" I am apparently paying for is forcefully imprisoning other people who refuse to pay them! How twisted can you get?

People, "Choose between paying us money, leaving your home forever or go to prison for surprise buttsecks" is NOT a choice. It's a mugging, and the fact that it's legal is a meaningless distinction to me. Taxation isn't theft, it's extortion.

Discuss.

Citizens consent to taxation via the social contract. Thus, it's neither extortion nor theft.

And without a source of revenue for the government, where would it have the money to provide basic services such as law enforcement, the military? And if you're going to say that should be up to the states, let's all remember how well the Articles of Confederation worked out in the beginning.

The United States government is not a public television station. Not enough people are going to contribute money to it willingly in order to make it work. The actual results of Trickle Down Economics proves that if you give people more money with the hopes of having them spend that surplus on everything else, you'll be disappointed when they keep that money for themselves instead.

Taxes are necessary because people are inherently too selfish to think about giving to their country.

Well, are you prepared to personally shoulder all of the costs of the services you use every day, directly and indirectly?

You might not pay for prisons, but I highly doubt your insurance premiums or health insurance would cost the same without them, let alone your personal safety. You don't use all of the roads and rails in your area, but without them you wouldn't be able to live a life better than a subsistence farmer without them, nor would there be as many good roads available if they were managed entirely on the basis of profit. The same is true of any number of government services, from the local to the national. Unless you live entirely in a self-sufficient bubble, you reap the benefits of taxes every single day. The natural counterpart to this is paying taxes to ensure those services are provided at a level you expect.

The thing is, without taxes we would not be anywhere near the level of economic development seen today. No interstate or local highways, limited electricity and water service, limited telephone and internet service (if any), limited education, limited air transportation, and no agencies or legal system to protect us from the abuses that happen under any economic system.

Citizens consent to taxation via the social contract. Thus, it's neither extortion nor theft.

The "social contract" is no contract at all, and there are many people who quite clearly do not 'consent' except by coercion. I pay not because I am trying to maintain what's best for society and support the social hiearachy of the fatherland, I pay because if I do not, I get ass-raped in prison.

Thus, extortion.

And without a source of revenue for the government, where would it have the money to provide basic services such as law enforcement, the military?

Well, without a source of revenue for muggers, where would they get the money to provide such basic services as knife sharpening or methamphetamine purchases?

Do you see this is a circular argument? Government needs money to pay for law enforcement. Law enforcement includes imprisoning people who don't pay it money. Therefore the extortion is necessary because otherwise the government wouldn't be able to extort.

And I don't consider my nation's military killing tens, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a "service" to me or anyone.

The United States government is not a public television station. Not enough people are going to contribute money to it willingly in order to make it work. The actual results of Trickle Down Economics proves that if you give people more money with the hopes of having them spend that surplus on everything else, you'll be disappointed when they keep that money for themselves instead.

Taxes are necessary because people are inherently too selfish to think about giving to their country.

You might well argue that extortion is necessary, but you're not disagreeing that it is in fact extortion, which is my point.

Unless you live entirely in a self-sufficient bubble, you reap the benefits of taxes every single day.

OK, so extortion is beneficial to me...

Well, without a source of revenue for muggers, where would they get the money to provide such basic services as knife sharpening or methamphetamine purchases?

Do you see this is a circular argument? Government needs money to pay for law enforcement. Law enforcement includes imprisoning people who don't pay it money. Therefore the extortion is necessary because otherwise the government wouldn't be able to extort.

So are you insisting that the United States should be a socialist or communist nation where money is invalid then? Nevermind that you're arguing a false dilemma that criminals work solely for profit and that without fundings for law enforcement there would be no crime.

So are you insisting that the United States should be a socialist or communist nation where money is invalid then?

...no...

Nevermind that you're arguing a false dilemma that criminals work solely for profit and that without fundings for law enforcement there would be no crime.

Sheer sophistry. Criminals have a variety of motivations and whether crime would exist without law enforcement or not is quite irrelevant as well.

And without a source of revenue for the government, where would it have the money to provide basic services such as law enforcement, the military?
Seems like the military has been way overprovided ever since WWII ended, and particularly the last decade.

That's because it's some government clerk who decides how much of your money to take, and how to spend it. Not you.


The actual results of Trickle Down Economics proves that if you give people more money with the hopes of having them spend that surplus on everything else, you'll be disappointed when they keep that money for themselves instead.
Keep for themselves and what? Make a collection?


You might not pay for prisons, but I highly doubt your insurance premiums or health insurance would cost the same without them,
Prisons aren't the only way of prosecution. Fines for misdemeanors and minor felonies, exile for major felonies, termination in extreme circumstances seem much more reasonable to me.

As for healthcare cost without government control, probably less. High cost of medical services creates a potential competition. This competition isn't realized because of the tons of government-mandated procedures involved, from personnel certifications to red tape.
Free market would create lower-cost alternatives - not as comfortable, not quite as high-quality, but much cheaper.


No interstate or local highways,
Toll roads.

limited electricity and water service, limited telephone and internet service (if any)
Not at all. All of these are commonly provided by private companies. Especially telephone and internet.

limited education, limited air transportation,
Air transport is 100% private, AFAIK. Education? Please, nearly everyone has to pay for college anyway, and school wouldn't be nearly as expensive.
Keep in mind that you'd have about twice more money.

Oh man. Not another one of these...I decided to use Skeletor

http://www.flashgiochi.org/materiale-per-forum/immagini-old/img/Not.this.shit.again.jpg

I have a limited amount of time on this earth. During that limited time I must work to get limited amounts of money, using my limited amount of energy. So the euphemistic "protection money" that I am being forced to pay is not something I am going to just shrug and dismiss while chewing my cud. In a very real sense, time is money and life is time - taxation is my life blood being drained away.

Try living without public roads, street lights, laws, hospitals, sanitation, telecommunications, and law enforcement for a while. Then come back and tell us that taxation is life blood being drained away.

Assuming you live.

Try living without public roads, street lights, laws, hospitals, sanitation, telecommunications, and law enforcement for a while. Then come back and tell us that taxation is life blood being drained away.

Assuming you live.

Especially when privatized services end up charging a hell of a lot more than the government would have. Or the local law enforcement turns mercenary to supplement a now non-existent budge.

For all the bitching and whining done about taxation, not one person I have ever seen, libertarian hyperintellectual posing notwithstanding, has ever proposed a viable alternative.

For all the bitching and whining done about taxation, not one person I have ever seen, libertarian hyperintellectual posing notwithstanding, has ever proposed a viable alternative.

Because it's always easier to complain about something than propose an actual working solution. They want their cake and eat it too.

Free market would create lower-cost alternatives - not as comfortable, not quite as high-quality, but much cheaper.


And probably not as safe.


Toll roads.


Not all roads are toll roads. The vast majority of them are toll free.


Not at all. All of these are commonly provided by private companies. Especially telephone and internet.

Much of the underlying infrastructure was government built.

You could always move into the wilderness and live off of the land. Like that guy on public television that made that log cabin, and carved spoons out of wood and stuff? He seemed pretty happy. I'm pretty sure he paid property taxes, but I'm also pretty sure there are many places in the U.S. where you could live nomadically, as a hunter-gatherer, and run a very low risk of encountering any government agents.

It's like I told the judge the other day, supermarkets are supposed to sell produce, that's their job, I don't see why I should pay for their job.

The judge called it shoplifting.

Not at all. All of these are commonly provided by private companies. Especially telephone and internet.

I'm really not so sure you want to use the telecom industry as an example of how the free market, unhindered by regulation, is best for consumers, considering, well...you know.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_break_up_of_AT%26T)

You could always move into the wilderness and live off of the land. Like that guy on public television that made that log cabin, and carved spoons out of wood and stuff? He seemed pretty happy. I'm pretty sure he paid property taxes, but I'm also pretty sure there are many places in the U.S. where you could live nomadically, as a hunter-gatherer, and run a very low risk of encountering any government agents.

Trollgaard has a TV show?

And quick, say something witty, it's your 2k post!

You could always move into the wilderness and live off of the land. Like that guy on public television that made that log cabin, and carved spoons out of wood and stuff? He seemed pretty happy. I'm pretty sure he paid property taxes, but I'm also pretty sure there are many places in the U.S. where you could live nomadically, as a hunter-gatherer, and run a very low risk of encountering any government agents.

And that worked wonders for Ted Kaczinsky.

And probably not as safe.
Yes, that's part of all the "cheapness" package. You pay $2,000 for fixing a tooth, while outside the West it could cost $20, you get all the comforts, service, safety, guarantees, right to file malpractice lawsuit. You want it cheap, you have to put up with more basic approach.


Not all roads are toll roads. The vast majority of them are toll free.
But they could be toll roads, if there wasn't the government.


Much of the underlying infrastructure was government built.
Yes, but the gov't is not some charity that takes resources out of the sky. It was built with tax money. And government-done work always costs more than private.

Yes, but the gov't is not some charity that takes resources out of the sky. It was built with tax money. And government-done work always costs more than private.

Which by and large is fine, because while the government should be cost conscious, it shouldn't be profit motivated. In fact the LAST thing you want the government to be is profit motivated.

For example, the Massachusetts Bay Transport Authority (MBTA) is a semi private entity that handles public transportation in the boston area. It is BILLIONS of dollars in debt, which the government is helping to pay it off. In a recent interview with the general manager of the MBTA, he was asked how its agency could be so in debt. He responded that if we wanted the MBTA to be profit motivated, the first thing they'd do is cut the lines that don't generate profit, and reduce the number of trains in service.

Which would make getting to work for the tens of thousands of people who ride the MBTA ever day rather difficult

Trollgaard has a TV show?

And quick, say something witty, it's your 2k post!

No, there weren't any ferrets in the one I saw.

I have nothing particularly witty to say, but I do have a second cousin who refuses to pay income taxes because (supposedly) they're voluntary. He lives on a farm in Kansas and keeps all of his savings in gold. Or at least, he did, until his son (who's a heroin addict and also a deeply creepy boy) and nephew stole his gold and fled across the country.

A few months after that they were stopped in Colorado driving a stolen car with a body in the trunk. Last I heard of them. True story.

I have nothing particularly witty to say, but I do have a second cousin who refuses to pay income taxes because (supposedly) they're voluntary. He lives on a farm and Kansas and keeps all of his savings in gold. Or at least, he did, until his son (who's a heroin addict and also a deeply creepy boy) and nephew stole his gold and fled across the country.

A few months after that they were stopped in Colorado driving a stolen car with a body in the trunk. Last I heard of them. True story.

this is acceptable. Also, freaky.

...I kinda like that

Try living without public roads, street lights, laws, hospitals, sanitation, telecommunications, and law enforcement for a while. Then come back and tell us that taxation is life blood being drained away.

I'm glad you're happily assuming that without taxation none of those things would exist, despite Vault 10's generally adequate rebuttal of that concept... but it's irrelevant to the fact that taxation is what it is - extortion. Sure, maybe I'd die without taxation. Maybe I'd die without paying that mugger in the park. Maybe I'd die without Mafia Protection. Doesn't change the point here even if the 'maybe' were 'definitely.'

Assuming you live.

One tends to assume that street lights aren't necessary for human life, yes.

For all the bitching and whining done about taxation, not one person I have ever seen, libertarian hyperintellectual posing notwithstanding, has ever proposed a viable alternative.

I don't see how that's relevant. What, a complaint isn't valid unless one also has the solution to all problems?

You could always move into the wilderness and live off of the land. Like that guy on public television that made that log cabin, and carved spoons out of wood and stuff? He seemed pretty happy. I'm pretty sure he paid property taxes, but I'm also pretty sure there are many places in the U.S. where you could live nomadically, as a hunter-gatherer, and run a very low risk of encountering any government agents.

I'm not so sure of that. A lot of seemingly viable land is ruined by pollution, for example. And hunter gatherer lifestyle requires quite a bit of land per person.

Anyway, "Pay us money, or run away into the hills as a fugitive and have no further contact for the rest of your life" isn't any more of a choice than "Love it or leave it" or "You owe us or Vinnie will break your kneecaps."

I don't see how that's relevant. What, a complaint isn't valid unless one also has the solution to all problems?

Is complaining about a system invalid unless you can propose a better alternative to that system? Yeah, pretty much.

Yes, but the gov't is not some charity that takes resources out of the sky. It was built with tax money. And government-done work always costs more than private.

A lot of large scale public works simply would not happen if left to private business.

Space exploration would be nowhere if left to private business.

Second, private business generates a greater gap between the haves and have nots - no one wants to build a railway to poor, isolated towns, as in, those that would benefit the most.

Education alone...

The "social contract" is no contract at all, and there are many people who quite clearly do not 'consent' except by coercion. I pay not because I am trying to maintain what's best for society and support the social hiearachy of the fatherland, I pay because if I do not, I get ass-raped in prison.

Thus, extortion.


Do you use public roads? Would you call the police if someone was breaking into your house? Would you allow firemen to save your property if it was burning?

At the worse, taxes are the legal extraction of a fee, but they are not extortion.

From a practical standpoint how is "pay your taxes or you will be punished" any different from "don't murder people or we will punish you"? In fact, if we want to take this post to a logical end, all law is "extortion".

From a practical standpoint how is "pay your taxes or you will be punished" any different from "don't murder people or we will punish you"?

Extortion is about the acquisition of something, almost always money, by the use of force.

Telling someone not to commit a homicide is so completely different that I'm honestly stumped as to how anyone could be so deficient as to believe they're "practically" the same thing.

Is complaining about a system invalid unless you can propose a better alternative to that system?

Nope.

Yeah, pretty much.

What's hilarious is how you were going on about how unintelligent I supposedly am. Aren't you a lawyer? I mean, aren't you supposed to be able to argue in a way that isn't completely retarded?

Extortion is about the acquisition of something, almost always money, by the use of force.

Telling someone not to commit a homicide is so completely different that I'm honestly stumped as to how anyone could be so deficient as to believe they're "practically" the same thing.

And in this instance, laws are designed to extort compliance. So technically all laws are extortion, just not financially motivated extortion. Would you want all laws abolished along with taxes because they technically happen to be extortion?

Extortion is about the acquisition of something, almost always money, by the use of force.

Actually, extortion can be about physical property, but also services and actions. Thus threatening force to acquire property is as much extortion as threatening force to acquire adherence to conduct.

Telling someone not to commit a homicide is so completely different that I'm honestly stumped as to how anyone could be so deficient as to believe they're "practically" the same thing.

Really now? Then how about you explain to me how "pay taxes or go to jail" is any different, from a practical perspective, from "don't murder, or go to jail"

Nope.

I know you like to think so because it'd make your life easier, but the fact of life is that here in the adult world, people who complain without proposing solutions aren't called "smart". They're called "whiners"

And for good reason.

What's hilarious is how you were going on about how unintelligent I supposedly am.

Pointing out the nonsensical and insipid consequences to your post isn't "going on about" how unintelligent you are. It's bringing attention to what you demonstrate about yourself.

Aren't you a lawyer?

Yes, I am.

I mean, aren't you supposed to be able to argue in a way that isn't completely retarded?
The inability to show a nuanced understanding of just about anything on your part doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Consider the lesson on the law of extortion a freebie.

Anyway, "Pay us money, or run away into the hills as a fugitive and have no further contact for the rest of your life" isn't any more of a choice than "Love it or leave it" or "You owe us or Vinnie will break your kneecaps."

I don't see where any other choice exists: you live as a member of a community, within its rules, or you live alone. Every place in the world that has two or more people living together has rules. You don't get to pick which one you're born into, but you're going to be born into one of them, and you're going to have to follow those rules unless you want to start your own society somewhere. The only alternative I could find would perhaps be if some chunk of land was designated for everyone who didn't feel like being a part of a community (I hear Wyoming isn't doing much). Then you could all scavenge for food and kill each other and do it for free.

Then again, eventually someone would get sick of the anarchy and try to form alliances, and establish territorial boundaries, and you'd be back at square one.

Then again, eventually someone would get sick of the anarchy and try to form alliances, and establish territorial boundaries, and you'd be back at square one.

People should read more Hobbes. If anarchy is such a damned good thing, then why is the majority of our history spent doing anything, even following the edicts of deranged madmen, to avoid it?

this is acceptable. Also, freaky.

...I kinda like that

If bizarre and horrifying extended families can't spawn entertaining stories, what good are they?

If bizarre and horrifying extended families can't spawn entertaining stories, what good are they?

Well, in some parts of this country, sex. Which I suppose is an entertaining story in and of itself...

Really now? Then how about you explain to me how "pay taxes or go to jail" is any different, from a practical perspective, from "don't murder, or go to jail"


Perhaps you can explain to me what the difference is, from a practical perspective, between committing homicide and paying taxes.


I know you like to think so because it'd make your life easier, but the fact of life is that here in the adult world, people who complain without proposing solutions aren't called "smart". They're called "whiners"

Boy, you just can't resist the flame, can't resist the ad hominem. I wonder what possible miseries can plague your life that you feel the need to constantly attempt to insult people you don't know.

Pointing out the nonsensical and insipid consequences to your post isn't "going on about" how unintelligent you are.

I was referring to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13956116&postcount=210) of yours. I realize that was over a half hour ago, so you might have conveniently forgotten, and that's why I'm reminding you.

And while you are pointing out something nonsensical and insipid, that something is just your own dribbling assertions.

Yes, I am.

Funny. Most lawyers I've encountered were reasonable people. Just goes to show that my anecdotal experiences are not a good basis for generalization, I suppose.

The inability to show a nuanced understanding of just about anything on your part doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Consider the lesson on the law of extortion a freebie.

As mentioned in the original post - I guess you conveniently forgot that part too - I wasn't saying that taxation is literally extortion according to the law.

And declaring that I don't understand "just about anything," while another impressively lame ad hominem, doesn't make it so. Grow the fuck up or GFTO.

If bizarre and horrifying extended families can't spawn entertaining stories, what good are they?

Oh come on, bizarre and horrifying families are one of the key foundations of entertaining stories:

http://www.ideofact.com/archives/Addams%20Family.jpg

People should read more Hobbes. If anarchy is such a damned good thing, then why is the majority of our history spent doing anything, even following the edicts of deranged madmen, to avoid it?

People should study animals other than themselves more, too. What looks like anarchy in the conventional sense rarely is. Anarchy does not lead to more successful reproduction. Anarchy is, I dare say, unnatural.

From a practical standpoint how is "pay your taxes or you will be punished" any different from "don't murder people or we will punish you"? In fact, if we want to take this post to a logical end, all law is "extortion".

Murdering people is bad but not paying your taxes is good. I know this because all morality is based on the teachings of Ayn Rand.

Edit: I may have added a rogue "not" in a way which altered my meaning quite substantially.

A lot of large scale public works simply would not happen if left to private business.
Space exploration would be nowhere if left to private business.
Well, yeah, and some doubt if it actually is anywhere, or most of the money misses the point.

Second, private business generates a greater gap between the haves and have nots - no one wants to build a railway to poor, isolated towns, as in, those that would benefit the most.
No, a private company won't build a standard gauge rail with hourly 20-car trains, and all amenities, with standard fare.

But they can build a light rail system with small trains going at local rush hour, at increased fare, and thus compensate for their expenses, furthermore, make profit. Where there's demand, comes supply.


You don't get to pick which one you're born into, but you're going to be born into one of them, and you're going to have to follow those rules
That's the issue. That's why the government's job should be to ensure these rules are as lax as possible, to suit everyone. But that's beside the point.

Not murdering people is bad but not paying your taxes is good. I know this because all morality is based on the teachings of Ayn Rand.

So I suppose you can call moonshiners shooting up them thar revenooers the First Objectivists.

Perhaps you can explain to me what the difference is, from a practical perspective, between committing homicide and paying taxes.

One is considered a social bad. The other is considered a social good. Or perhaps you meant the difference between paying taxes and NOT committing homicide.

In that case, the difference, while on the surface, are consequential, when reduced to its most basic, are really rather similar. Both are things that society believes should be done. Both are things that are enforced by law. Both are things that are punishable by non compliance.

Boy, you just can't resist the flame, can't resist the ad hominem.

I calls em as I sees em.

I wonder what possible miseries can plague your life that you feel the need to constantly attempt to insult people you don't know.

Yes, you see right to my core. Obviously this is a result of some deep seated trauma, how ever did you know? :rolleyes:

Here's a tip. If you want people to stop saying you said stupid things, stop saying stupid things.

I was referring to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13956116&postcount=210) of yours.

I am aware of what you were referring to. I stand by the point that I was merely pointing out when stupid things were said.

I realize that was over a half hour ago, so you might have conveniently forgotten, and that's why I'm reminding you.

And while you are pointing out something nonsensical and insipid, that something is just your own dribbling assertions.

Hmm...I'll give it a C-. A good faith effort, but in the end, uninspired and unoriginal.

Funny. Most lawyers I've encountered were reasonable people. Just goes to show that my anecdotal experiences are not a good basis for generalization, I suppose.

I'm entirely reasonable. I quite reasonably point out that stupid comments are stupid comments.


As mentioned in the original post - I guess you conveniently forgot that part too - I wasn't saying that taxation is literally extortion according to the law.

But you neglected to explain how this "extortion", which really isn't extortion at all, is any different from every other law.

You still haven't, by the way.

And declaring that I don't understand "just about anything," while another impressively lame ad hominem, doesn't make it so.

Perhaps not, but this:

Grow the fuck up or GFTO.

Does.

Try again when you're older.

Well, in some parts of this country, sex. Which I suppose is an entertaining story in and of itself...

Another true story: On my one and only trip to Kansas for a family reunion, I went to a roller skating rink where there was supposed to be a gathering, looked around confusedly for some sort of sign or congregation of people, and then realized, as random strangers kept saying hello to me, that they'd rented the rink for the afternoon and every person in it was related to me.

The kicker: At least 20 or so of the people in attendance lived in the area--a town of about 250 people.

I'm probably lucky I can walk upright.

I'm probably lucky I can walk upright.

and have fingers.

and have fingers.

And nobody plays the theme song to Flipper at his birthday parties.

That's the issue. That's why the government's job should be to ensure these rules are as lax as possible, to suit everyone. But that's beside the point.

I think it's entirely the point. I also think that the basis of human society (and, you know, most life) is not that the community adapts to fit the individual, but that the individual adapts to thrive in society.

And nobody plays the theme song to Flipper at his birthday parties.

Location: Yay Area GIRL

Well, inbreeding does that I suppose.

Well, inbreeding does that I suppose.

Well, if you believe everything that's printed on the Internet then your chances of being a guest star on Dateline NBC jumps up by that much.

:tongue:

And nobody plays the theme song to Flipper at her birthday parties.

Fixed. Also, I bet Flipper had a few IQ points on some of my relatives.

Well, if you believe everything that's printed on the Internet then your chances of being a guest star on Dateline NBC jumps up by that much.

:tongue:

Oh don't' joke, my brother spend a year in state prison for that...

Hey Rydan, how's that for messed up family stories?

Well, if you believe everything that's printed on the Internet then your chances of being a guest star on Dateline NBC jumps up by that much.

:tongue:

Point. But if I was going to lie about myself, I'd probably start by not admitting I have hick lawless possibly-inbred relatives. Unless that's, like, all the rage now!

Point. But if I was going to lie about myself, I'd probably start by not admitting I have hick lawless possibly-inbred relatives. Unless that's, like, all the rage now!

by the way it's been bugging me, is that "yay area" supposed to be "bay area"? It's driving me nuts.

Citizens consent to taxation via the social contract. Thus, it's neither extortion nor theft.

I never signed this "contract".

Serious response to thread: Taxes are neither, they are payment for services rendered. Now if only we could get the government to render the services we want and dispense with the services we don't . . .

No, a private company won't build a standard gauge rail with hourly 20-car trains, and all amenities, with standard fare.

But they can build a light rail system with small trains going at local rush hour, at increased fare, and thus compensate for their expenses, furthermore, make profit. Where there's demand, comes supply.


But sometimes there is insufficient demand to make a service profitable, even if that service is beneficial to society as a whole.

Oh don't' joke, my brother spend a year in state prison for that...

Hey Rydan, how's that for messed up family stories?

What did he do, solicit Chris Hansen?

I never signed this "contract".

A poor argument, unless you think it's ok for someone to murder you, because they never explicitly agreed not to.

What did he do, solicit Chris Hansen?

Taylor

by the way it's been bugging me, is that "yay area" supposed to be "bay area"? It's driving me nuts.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b385/TYCOON510/yayarea.jpg

You gotta get with the LINGO, yadadamean?

One is considered a social bad. The other is considered a social good.

One is extortion. The other is not.

Or perhaps you meant the difference between paying taxes and NOT committing homicide.

In that case, the difference, while on the surface, are consequential, when reduced to its most basic, are really rather similar. Both are things that society believes should be done. Both are things that are enforced by law. Both are things that are punishable by non compliance.

One resembles extortion much more than the other. The other only resembles extortion from the perspective of someone who believes that delivering stupid, childish insults is a valid argument method.

I calls em as I sees em.

Yes, you see right to my core.

Yes, you see right to my core. Obviously this is a result of some deep seated trauma, how ever did you know? :rolleyes:

Hey, I just call em like I see em.

Here's a tip. If you want people to stop saying you said stupid things, stop saying stupid things.

Except the only person saying that is you. The only person stooping to ridiculously immature insults here is you. Apparently you think they improve your argument somehow instead of making you look like an angry little kid.

I am aware of what you were referring to.

No, you weren't, because the insult I was referring to was not related to the subject at all. The post you made the insult in didn't even mention the subject, and was just indeed going off on how stupid you believe I am.

I stand by the point that I was merely pointing out when stupid things were said.

Yeah I guess that's easier than admitting when you're being an ass.

I'm entirely reasonable. I quite reasonably point out that stupid comments are stupid comments.

Of course. Whatever you say. Sure.

But you neglected to explain how this "extortion", which really isn't extortion at all, is any different from every other law.

You still haven't, by the way.

See, I could, but you'll just whip out some lame-ass insult, congratulate yourself for being "nuanced," and there's no point when you'll lie just to save face (as you already have).

Perhaps not, but this:



Does.

Try again when you're older.

Me telling you to grow the fuck up proves how stupid I am?

But you telling me to come back when I'm older is what, "nuanced" genius? Whatever. I stand by my point, grow the fuck up.

Both are things that society believes should be done.
As this thread proves, rather just a large fraction of the society.



I call taxes extortion, because they are involuntarily collected payment for involuntary services. I didn't order Iraq War, yet I have to pay for it.
And it's no small deal. Iraq War's cost is estimated at between $1.5 trillion and $3+ trillion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html). This money comes out of the people's pockets. Say, as an active taxpayer, under progressive tax, I might be responsible for 1/60,000,000 of government's tax income. Then it makes the cost of Iraq War for me alone between $25,000 and $50,000+.
WTF, dear sirs, do you squander my money without even asking me?

I would like such decisions to be taken by logging onto a secure government website (or come in person), and see the list of approved and proposed expenses. And there a line, saying, "Start the Iraq War, $40,165, 8 years". You click "approve", and see a message:
"Congratulations! $5,035 have been deducted from your account for the purposes of national security. Total payment of $40,165 will be collected over the following 8 years."

Then we'd see more money coming where it's actually useful - education, roads, etc - and less squandered. And most importantly, it at least could be considered payment for some services rather than outright protection racket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daistallia 2104
Citizens consent to taxation via the social contract. Thus, it's neither extortion nor theft.

I never signed this "contract".

Serious response to thread: Taxes are neither, they are payment for services rendered. Now if only we could get the government to render the services we want and dispense with the services we don't . . .

Well I cant opt out of a social contract and still live in the area. If your calling it a social contract you may be right. Its "sign this contract or live in the sea"

I think i may need to consult someone over that choice

One is extortion. The other is not.

Because..you say so apparently?
So you're arguing that "pay taxes or you go to jail" is extortion but "don't kill or you go to jail" is not, based on the fact that you defined extortion in your own way, and not in any way related ot what it actually means. Oh, of course, I forgot. When you say "extortion" you don't use the word in the way it's ACTUALLY defined, but rather the definition that you made up.

Which is very convenient of course, but renders this entire thread pointless.

Which is very convenient of course, but renders this entire thread pointless.

A true shame given the intellectual rigour on display.

As this thread proves, rather just a large fraction of the society.



I call taxes extortion, because they are involuntarily collected payment for involuntary services.

But extortion need not be for payment, it can be for non monetary goods, services, or to refrain from taking an action. YOu make the same mistake the OP does, and use the word improperly. If pay taxes or go to jail is extortion, then so is don't murder, or go to jail.

Extortion doesn't just mean monetary. It can be any act, payment, or omission. To claim that laws related to paying money are extortion but not for compelling conduct are not is simply to use the word improperly.

And you can define words however you want, but making up definitions is poor form.

Except the only person saying that is you.

I'm saying it too. Your argument boils down to "taxes are extortion because I say so and if you disagree then you just don't get it." Issuing edicts and declarations is not reasoned debating.

I would like such decisions to be taken by logging onto a secure government website (or come in person), and see the list of approved and proposed expenses. And there a line, saying, "Start the Iraq War, $40,165, 8 years". You click "approve", and see a message:
"Congratulations! $5,035 have been deducted from your account for the purposes of national security. Total payment of $40,165 will be collected over the following 8 years."

Then we'd see more money coming where it's actually useful - education, roads, etc - and less squandered. And most importantly, it at least could be considered payment for some services rather than outright protection racket.

So your issue isn't taxation itself, but the way it's implemented. Which I think most people have a problem with, but we (the U.S.) have only ourselves and people sort of like us who lived hundreds of years ago to blame.

So your issue isn't taxation itself, but the way it's implemented. Which I think most people have a problem with, but we (the U.S.) have only ourselves and people sort of like us who lived hundreds of years ago to blame.

Yeah in the end the tax system is what the majority of the people want. Then again the majority of people are stupid. They want more services and less taxes at the same time

The idea that they interact with each other just dosnt register

Which is very convenient of course, but renders this entire thread pointless.
Spare a thought for the spectators, it's been a good show to watch so far.


As this thread proves, rather just a large fraction of the society.



I call taxes extortion, because they are involuntarily collected payment for involuntary services. I didn't order Iraq War, yet I have to pay for it.
And it's no small deal. Iraq War's cost is estimated at between $1.5 trillion and $3+ trillion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html). This money comes out of the people's pockets. Say, as an active taxpayer, under progressive tax, I might be responsible for 1/60,000,000 of government's tax income. Then it makes the cost of Iraq War for me alone between $25,000 and $50,000+.
WTF, dear sirs, do you squander my money without even asking me?

Welcome to representative government with temporarily electoral based mandates.


I would like such decisions to be taken by logging onto a secure government website (or come in person), and see the list of approved and proposed expenses. And there a line, saying, "Start the Iraq War, $40,165, 8 years". You click "approve", and see a message:
"Congratulations! $5,035 have been deducted from your account for the purposes of national security. Total payment of $40,165 will be collected over the following 8 years."

Then we'd see more money coming where it's actually useful - education, roads, etc - and less squandered. And most importantly, it at least could be considered payment for some services rather than outright protection racket.

We'd see everyone refuse to pay for anything because they reckon enough other people will that they won't have to.

Plus long-term strategies would be a complete impossibility if every time they needed cash for a new initiative it depended on electoral whim in a given period of time. You'd have to make every policy independantly workable of every other, which'd cost more and not be as effective.

And you'd have to scale back government to almost nothing since people aren't going to sit on a website long enough to approve all the expenditures a government needs.

So your issue isn't taxation itself, but the way it's implemented. Which I think most people have a problem with, but we (the U.S.) have only ourselves and people sort of like us who lived hundreds of years ago to blame.

Yeah, cept they were all white men. Which, ok, is kinda like me but not as much like you.

And check your TGs (again)! :p

So you're arguing that "pay taxes or you go to jail" is extortion but "don't kill or you go to jail" is not, based on the fact that you defined extortion in your own way, and not in any way related ot what it actually means.

No. But that's a nice strawman you're burning there.

Oh, of course, I forgot. When you say "extortion" you don't use the word in the way it's ACTUALLY defined, but rather the definition that you made up.

I mean "the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property;"

As defined in the English language. Not everything is a legal definition and I made it clear what connotation I would be using in the OP. Don't like it? Well, why don't you come up with some crack about my mother and then congratulate yourself for being nuanced, subtle and brilliant.

I mean "the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property;"

As defined in the English language. Not everything is a legal definition and I made it clear what connotation I would be using in the OP. Don't like it? Well, why don't you come up with some crack about my mother and then congratulate yourself for being nuanced, subtle and brilliant.

Don't need to. You've already pretty much demonstrated your own error through your ill conceived and poorly thought out methods of trying to differentiate tax laws with every other set of laws.

If one is extortion, all the rest are extortion. If you're trying to use the term "extortion" to mean only related to payment of monies, then, simply put, you're using it wrong.

Whatever people have to say about your mother not withstanding.

I might also point out that if this is how you typically response to people pointing out the error in your thinking, this site may move a tad too fast for you.

A poor argument, unless you think it's ok for someone to murder you, because they never explicitly agreed not to.

See the "devilsadvocate" tags and the fact that only the second (unquoted) part was labeled a "serious" response.

No. But that's a nice strawman you're burning there.



I mean "the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property;"

As defined in the English language. Not everything is a legal definition and I made it clear what connotation I would be using in the OP. Don't like it? Well, why don't you come up with some crack about my mother and then congratulate yourself for being nuanced, subtle and brilliant.

The OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/extort?view=uk) defines 'extort' as "obtain by force, threats, or other unfair means", a quick glance the internet suggests others agree, this narrow definition is apparently solely yours. Congratulations with that.

I'm saying it too. Your argument boils down to "taxes are extortion because I say so and if you disagree then you just don't get it." Issuing edicts and declarations is not reasoned debating.

It would be great if someone like you would actually read the posts I make. Like the OP in which I explicitly stated:

We are not talking about the literal criminality of taxation, but the immorality of it.

And while you're at it, tell me how Neo Art's endless stream of insults and ad hominems are "reasoned debating." I'd like to know. Really. Tell me how calling someone stupid is a valid argument.

Welcome to representative government with temporarily electoral based mandates.
Yes, a good proof that it doesn't work, and ends up into a choice between hell and frying pan. Robin Hood wannabe versus likely warmonger and Bush successor.
The ladder from the lower class to the government is long gone, now you choose between "elites" many of whom have never been middle-class, and who have too much money to care. And the choice is not really yours, you only get to pick the party, out of two, both of them not matching your views.
It's a mockery of democracy.


We'd see everyone refuse to pay for anything because they reckon enough other people will that they won't have to.
No, I mean, everyone pays, but "yes-sayers" pay first, and feel the hit on their pockets right as they approve the spending.

It's way too easy to squander the money when it isn't yours.

Plus long-term strategies would be a complete impossibility if every time they needed cash for a new initiative it depended on electoral whim in a given period of time. You'd have to make every policy independantly workable of every other, which'd cost more and not be as effective.
It wouldn't, I've described what long-term spending looks like.
Same with any other big project.

And you'd have to scale back government to almost nothing since people aren't going to sit on a website long enough to approve all the expenditures a government needs.
Then it indicates that the government should cut down on its expenditures - if you can't be cared to approve or reject it, chances are you don't need it.



So your issue isn't taxation itself, but the way it's implemented. Which I think most people have a problem with, but we (the U.S.) have only ourselves and people sort of like us who lived hundreds of years ago to blame.
It's a big difference. Current taxation is "Give us 35% of your money, we know better than you how to spend it. No, make it 40%."
When you get to choose, directly, what to spend the money on, in the federal, state, and city jurisdictions, and how much to spend, it can least count as community ordered services.

See the "devilsadvocate" tags and the fact that only the second (unquoted) part was labeled a "serious" response.

I was merely responding to the argument, not the poster.

The OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/extort?view=uk) defines 'extort' as "obtain by force, threats, or other unfair means", a quick glance the internet suggests others agree, this narrow definition is apparently solely yours.

And Merriam Webster (http://m-w.com).

Oops, you're wrong.

It would be great if someone like you would actually read the posts I make. Like the OP in which I explicitly stated:

Here's the problem. You said you wanted to discuss the "immorality" of it, but you haven't actually discussed anything that has to do with, you know...morality.

You basically stated that tax laws are immoral, and when that presumption was challenged, rather than substantiate your claim, you got defensive and argumentative. You claimed they were extortion, but then flatly refused to explain why that label should apply to tax laws, but not other laws, other than by the fact that you said so. You were asked how tax laws, from a moral perspective, differed from laws prohibiting other actions, and rather than respond and back up your position, you stomped your feet like a five year old, put your metaphorical fingers in your ears and proclaimed "NUH UH!"

You showed up, declared tax laws "immoral", and "extortion" (all the while admitting you were using the word improperly) then refused to substantiate your claim, refused to argue your perspective, refused to respond to questions, and instead of demonstrating your point was correct, tried to challenge others to prove your unsubstantiated claim incorrect. In your own thread that you started.

You fail. Good day sir. Come back when you learn how to substantiate your claims.

It would be great if someone like you would actually read the posts I make. Like the OP in which I explicitly stated:



And while you're at it, tell me how Neo Art's endless stream of insults and ad hominems are "reasoned debating." I'd like to know. Really. Tell me how calling someone stupid is a valid argument.

I read the drivel you attempt to pass off as intelligent debate. You set up a dishonest debate in your original post by defining the argument in a way that made it impossible to disagree with you. Your definition of extortion is so narrow and, as far as I can tell, unused by anyone outside of yourself. You set up the whole thread so that your side was law. Any attempt to disagree with you has been dismissed as not conforming to this ridiculous definition of the argument that you've created. At very best, your post is trolling.

Neo Art's posts are entirely irrelevant to your lack of debating acumen. Just because he plays the condescending, holier-than-thou debating "tactic" does not mean I need to overlook when you do it. And if you have questions regarding my opinion of Neo Art's debating tactics, there was a thread about a guy and anal sex a few weeks back that you can refer to. I'm not a big fan of his, either, you see.

And Merriam Webster (http://m-w.com).

Oops, you're wrong.

"1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice"

No, you see the word 'especially' here means 'mostly/mainly but not exclusively'. If it meant exclusively money or other property then it wouldn't be in there.

Neo Art's posts are entirely irrelevant to your lack of debating acumen. Just because he plays the condescending, holier-than-thou debating "tactic" does not mean I need to overlook when you do it.

Less a tactic, and more a simple way of amusing myself. Though one should not mistake my "attitude" for inability :p

Less a tactic, and more a simple way of amusing myself. Though one should not mistake my "attitude" for inability :p

I don't doubt your ability, when you desire to use it.

The ladder from the lower class to the government is long gone, now you choose between "elites" many of whom have never been middle-class, and who have too much money to care.

Probably why Bill Clinton rocked. He's been there, man, he feels your pain. He also loves fried food and ladies and has a black best friend. It's like we're the same person!

Then it indicates that the government should cut down on its expenditures - if you can't be cared to approve or reject it, chances are you don't need it.

Do you really think that if everyone could choose where their tax money went, enough people would send enough money to education to keep public schools operational and even quasi effective? I'm not being an ass, I'm really curious. I want to believe it, but I don't.


I don't doubt your ability, when you desire to use it.

Ooh, subtext burn!

Here's the problem. You said you wanted to discuss the "immorality" of it, but you haven't actually discussed anything that has to do with, you know...morality.

I suppose this is the part where you try to delude others that it's me, and not you, who was pushing the legal argument.

You basically stated that tax laws are immoral, and when that presumption was challenged, rather than substantiate your claim, you got defensive and argumentative.

I got 'defensive' because you decided to flame and insult.

My only mistake is in responding to that kind of crap.

You claimed they were extortion, but then flatly refused to explain why that label should apply to tax laws, but not other laws

You flatly pretended there's no difference, "practically speaking," between HOMICIDE and TAX EVASION.

You were asked how tax laws, from a moral perspective, differed from laws prohibiting other actions, and rather than respond and back up your position, you stomped your feet like a five year old, put your metaphorical fingers in your ears and proclaimed "NUH UH!"

Your very first post to me was nothing but insult.

And I need to explain what the moral difference is between tax laws and laws against killing people are? Murder is prohibited in just about every moral and ethical position on Earth. Why don't you find the Commandment against tax evasion.

You showed up, declared tax laws "immoral", and "extortion" (all the while admitting you were using the word improperly)

Now you're just plain lying.

I am not using the term in a legal fashion. That is not me "admitting" to "using the word improperly."

then refused to substantiate your claim

You refused to even address it. No, instead you went straight for the ad hominem. I suppose it's a lawyerly tactic - deliberately insult someone so they're more emotive when inevitably they respond. But it's completely unreasonable and immature.

, refused to argue your perspective, refused to respond to questions

I've argued my perspective and responded to questions. You've insulted and flamed and flamebaited. I don't actually have an obligation to respond to trolls like you. When you learn how to communicate with people instead of just waving your dick around, maybe I'll give you a bit more respect.

And I need to explain what the moral difference is between tax laws and laws against killing people are? Murder is prohibited in just about every moral and ethical position on Earth. Why don't you find the Commandment against tax evasion.
.
How about:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's

Less a tactic, and more a simple way of amusing myself.

Well now that you've admitted you're here to just to jerk people around and make yourself feel better by insulting others, you can be completely dismissed.

"1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice"

No, you see the word 'especially' here means 'mostly/mainly but not exclusively'. If it meant exclusively money or other property then it wouldn't be in there.

Because it says "especially," that is "especially" what I am using. That is the connotation.

I read the drivel you attempt to pass off as intelligent debate. You set up a dishonest debate in your original post by defining the argument in a way that made it impossible to disagree with you.

Oh, you can disagree, but making stupid insults as Neo Art has been doing is not a valid argument.

It won't be even if you decide that they're a good thing for you to do as well.

Your definition of extortion is so narrow

As opposed to the 'definition' whereby everything in the world can be defined as 'extortion?' Yeah I like my words to be a bit more specific.

and, as far as I can tell, unused by anyone outside of yourself.

This just in: Clomata is Merriam-Webster.


Any attempt to disagree with you has been dismissed as not conforming to this ridiculous definition of the argument that you've created. At very best, your post is trolling.

If you think my post was trolling, then by all means report it to the mods and see if they agree with you.

Neo Art's posts are entirely irrelevant to your lack of debating acumen. Just because he plays the condescending, holier-than-thou debating "tactic" does not mean I need to overlook when you do it.

Ah, but you do need to overlook it when he does it, does it first, and does it even in threads and posts having nothing to do with the subject.

And if you have questions regarding my opinion of Neo Art's debating tactics, there was a thread about a guy and anal sex a few weeks back that you can refer to. I'm not a big fan of his, either, you see.


But you ignore it and ignore the fact that my 'defensiveness' (his word) is the result of his baiting and flaming. Why is that?

How about:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's

Heh. OK, but there is a very clear and obvious moral difference between killing and not killing, versus paying money to the government and not doing so. That's a fine quote you see but it doesn't hold a candle to the near-universality of the immorality of murder.

All of which is actually an interesting point, seeing how my taxes DO wind up paying for murder, so indirectly it can be seen as the same thing.

Because it says "especially," that is "especially" what I am using. That is the connotation.



You are using it as exclusively referring to that, Merriam-Webster does not define it in that sense, but has the definition covering a much wider spectrum. As far as I can see, you're the only one saying that extortion exclusively refers to money.


Heh. OK, but there is a very clear and obvious moral difference between killing and not killing, versus paying money to the government and not doing so. That's a fine quote you see but it doesn't hold a candle to the near-universality of the immorality of murder.
Taxes have been a part of more or less every civilisation to have existed, and murder has been sanctioned in many of them in one form or another. Outlaws were originally people who opted out of the social contract, were not protected by rule of law and could be killed if you had the inclination.

Heh. OK, but there is a very clear and obvious moral difference between killing and not killing, versus paying money to the government and not doing so. That's a fine quote you see but it doesn't hold a candle to the near-universality of the immorality of murder.

All of which is actually an interesting point, seeing how my taxes DO wind up paying for murder, so indirectly it can be seen as the same thing.

Okay, let's try restating this without all the attitude.

No one thinks that the difference between tax evasion and murder is negligible. Let's just clear that up right now.

Your argument against taxes seems to be based on the fact that you never "asked" for the services rendered by the government, and that you should have a choice as to whether or not you participate and use these services and pay for them, or you don't use them and don't pay.

The problem is that the people of the United States, both past and present, created these laws. They voted for them. They decided to fashion their society in this way. You can not choose to live outside of society's laws and live within society. You may work to change laws, or eliminate laws, or reform laws, but you can't opt out of them. You can't say, "I'm not going to pay taxes, but I also won't use the services of the police, roads, education, etc." because when you do that, you are no longer a participant in your society.

If you're not a participant in your society, you lose the rights that come with participation. You are no longer under the protection of laws that preserve your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can say "deal me out" if you want, but at that point there is no longer any obligation to protect your rights and freedoms, because you have none. Or rather, you have the same as any animal--the right to live if you can.

Taxes have been a part of more or less every civilisation to have existed, and murder has been sanctioned in many of them in one form or another. Outlaws were originally people who opted out of the social contract, were not protected by rule of law and could be killed if you had the inclination.

Goddammit, you just said in two sentences what I wasted about 200 words on.

Goddammit, you just said in two sentences what I wasted about 200 words on.

I'm lazy like that :p

Um, just to point out the blindingly obvious, but the quote "ass-raping" unquote tends to be limited to prisons with convicts who committed violent crimes...usually it doesn't happen in softer prisons like those for tax-evaders...

And as for the whole "Taxation is theft" concept, it's been done to death, explanation wise for why it's not.

Ah, but you do need to overlook it when he does it, does it first, and does it even in threads and posts having nothing to do with the subject.

But you ignore it and ignore the fact that my 'defensiveness' (his word) is the result of his baiting and flaming. Why is that?

I am under no obligation to respond to Neo Art's posts in any fashion, simply because you believe I should. To be perfectly honest, I overlook Neo Art's posts because I have him on ignore, and I generally do not view his posts unless they are responded to later on. Let's get beyond this mistaken belief that, for some reason, valid criticism of you requires criticism of Neo Art.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your pertinent points in this thread. I've not expressed my opinion on the matter. I believe both sides have merit. But your attitude preceded Neo Art's flames. Let's look back.

One tends to assume that street lights aren't necessary for human life, yes.

This, right here, dismissing all the other validly included social services and focusing, instead, on street light fixtures. Anyone being intellectually honest could plainly see that the "assuming you live" comment more directly referred to hospitals, or sanitation services, or law enforcement, but you instead decided to hone in on street lights. Poor form.

As far as who fuelled the fires first, let's explore.

Telling someone not to commit a homicide is so completely different that I'm honestly stumped as to how anyone could be so deficient as to believe they're "practically" the same thing.

I mean, aren't you supposed to be able to argue in a way that isn't completely retarded?

Now, to head you off at the proverbial pass, the first instance I can find where one might consider Neo Art to be flaming would be his first post:

For all the bitching and whining done about taxation, not one person I have ever seen, libertarian hyperintellectual posing notwithstanding, has ever proposed a viable alternative.

And since you specifically mentioned you weren't proposing an alternative:

I don't see how that's relevant. What, a complaint isn't valid unless one also has the solution to all problems?

The "hyperintellectual posing" wouldn't really refer to you.

So, so far, we've got you calling Neo Art deficient and completely retarded, while, at best, he has said you are posing hyperintellectually.

At this point, Neo Art bites your flamebaiting, and fires back.

I know you like to think so because it'd make your life easier, but the fact of life is that here in the adult world, people who complain without proposing solutions aren't called "smart". They're called "whiners"

And for good reason.

Pointing out the nonsensical and insipid consequences to your post isn't "going on about" how unintelligent you are. It's bringing attention to what you demonstrate about yourself.

The inability to show a nuanced understanding of just about anything on your part doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Consider the lesson on the law of extortion a freebie.

To which you responded in kind.

I wonder what possible miseries can plague your life that you feel the need to constantly attempt to insult people you don't know.

Which, for the record, is an incredibly ironic statement.

And while you are pointing out something nonsensical and insipid, that something is just your own dribbling assertions.

Funny. Most lawyers I've encountered were reasonable people. Just goes to show that my anecdotal experiences are not a good basis for generalization, I suppose.

Grow the fuck up or GFTO.

At this point, the discourse just degenerates essentially to back and forth mudslinging by both parties.

So forgive me if I find your attempt at framing yourself as an innocent to be in slight disagreement with the course of the thread. You've had a dismissive and condescending attitude on this topic from the get go, far before Neo Art joined in on your fun. This thread was not created with the intention of fostering actual debate, but to look down upon anyone who might disagree with you.

Yes, that's part of all the "cheapness" package. You pay $2,000 for fixing a tooth, while outside the West it could cost $20, you get all the comforts, service, safety, guarantees, right to file malpractice lawsuit. You want it cheap, you have to put up with more basic approach.


Malpractice suits without government would be worthless unless you had more guns than the one being sued.


But they could be toll roads, if there wasn't the government.


Could be, could be. Private industry has shown that it has no interest in providing a service it cannot charge for, especially if it doesn't provide higher profits than costs. Roads to small populace centers would simply not exist if they were all privately built unless said populace center was made up of billionaires willing to pay ridiculous tolls.


Yes, but the gov't is not some charity that takes resources out of the sky. It was built with tax money. And government-done work always costs more than private.

Government work always costs more than private, but government work does more than private. Good luck getting even one solitary private company putting up street lights.

Malpractice suits without government would be worthless unless you had more guns than the one being sued.
Now that's slipping into another scenario, I only meant legalizing medical care with much less licensing. But in the other scenario, government would keep the arbitrage role.


Could be, could be. Private industry has shown that it has no interest in providing a service it cannot charge for, especially if it doesn't provide higher profits than costs.
Then it has to be a service it can charge for, that's it.


Roads to small populace centers would simply not exist if they were all privately built unless said populace center was made up of billionaires willing to pay ridiculous tolls.
Well, if providing said road costs much more than the populace center is worth, is it always a wise decision?
BTW, if the populace center exists, there most likely already is a road, they don't spawn out of nowhere like particle pairs. So it's rather "populace centers in locations where it's prohibitively expensive to build a road to wouldn't exist".


Government work always costs more than private, but government work does more than private. Good luck getting even one solitary private company putting up street lights.
Pay for them and they'll be there. The company won't refuse an order to place them.

Wow, what a redundant thread... I... really can't be bothered to formulate a reply when so many others have already done so.

People should read more Hobbes. If anarchy is such a damned good thing, then why is the majority of our history spent doing anything, even following the edicts of deranged madmen, to avoid it?But this is interesting. I believe there is only one root problem with anarchy. And this problem, like those with all other forms of society, is a problem with humanity. From a psychological view point I believe the problem is referred to as freedom anxiety. The condition whereby a human has to take responsibility for his or her self and make their own decisions. It's one of the things that I took a while to realise is that not everyone relishes their independence. People seem to instinctively seek out others to tell them how to live their life, what rules to abide by and so forth. Or at least a majority do. Hence, anarchy is not viable because people, as a group, aren't independent for it. People are too willing to seek out others to delegate the big decisions to, whilst allowing them to get on with the mundane.

I referenced psychology earlier as I think many psychologists believe that some psychological problems are a manifestation of excessive freedom anxiety -- to the extent that it has begun interfering with mundane decisions in a person's life.

PS. I hope I made sense. I only just got up and have to leave the house in 5 minutes >.<

In most of humanity "history" civilization didn't exist.

Well, if providing said road costs much more than the populace center is worth, is it always a wise decision?
BTW, if the populace center exists, there most likely already is a road, they don't spawn out of nowhere like particle pairs. So it's rather "populace centers in locations where it's prohibitively expensive to build a road to wouldn't exist".
Better scenario:

There exists a privately owned major road from somewhere to somewhere else. Someone wants to build a home close by, so they don't just buy a piece of property and build a house on it, but also buy property leading from the road to their house and build a road on it. As other people then also want to move close to this new house, they need to pay for the right to use this new road leading there, either by buying a stake in it together with their house, or by paying tolls every time. The former seems a more sensible arrangement. And as people buy and sell houses in this new community, they automatically buy and sell stakes in the road leading there as well, together with the responsibility to contribute to any maintenance or expansion costs decided upon in an owners' meeting.

Roads are probably the easiest public good to account for without a government. There are much more difficult ones.

Now that's slipping into another scenario, I only meant legalizing medical care with much less licensing. But in the other scenario, government would keep the arbitrage role.


And how's this government going to arbitrate, much less, enforce anything without money? Charity bake sales?


Then it has to be a service it can charge for, that's it.


A lot of things that are considered public services aren't charged for the way a private practice does for one very simple reason. There's no way to charge for it. And some, you don't. Imagine calling up fire protection services while your house is on fire and being told that you'd need to fork over $499.99 before they'd send a truck.


Well, if providing said road costs much more than the populace center is worth, is it always a wise decision?
BTW, if the populace center exists, there most likely already is a road, they don't spawn out of nowhere like particle pairs. So it's rather "populace centers in locations where it's prohibitively expensive to build a road to wouldn't exist".

Roads must be maintained. Roads are also constructed when a new population center is being built. These things cost money. Unless you want toll booths everywhere, no private company is going to build a road it can't make a profit off.


Pay for them and they'll be there. The company won't refuse an order to place them.

You're making a fundamental mistake. You're assuming that private citizens will pay directly for street lights. Or for that matter, that they'll do it enough to ensure that the roads are somewhat lit, while footing the electrical bill and not able to charge free riders.

People should read more Hobbes.
That they should, but at the same time, they should have a good critical examination of Hobbes' rather strange interpretation of 'human nature', and a look at (the rather obvious) differences between Hobbes' State of Nature and organised anarchy proposed.

isnt pretty much all government authority based on extortion, threats and bribery?

we like to pretend that there is some kind of contract, common good thing going on but no one ever asked ME to sign a contract. that is all just left-brain, after-the-fact justification for the way governments work. it makes the bitter pill easier to swallow.

not that im saying that that is a BAD thing.

Who cares what you call it?

The best thing about taxation is taking it from those who can afford it then redistributing it.

Problem is, those who can afford it are getting better and better at not paying it. Sigh.

organised anarchy

oxymoron.

In most of humanity "history" civilization didn't exist.Depends on your definition of history and civilization. Most definitions agree that civilization (permanent settlements sustained by agriculture) was around longer than history (the act of recording past events in written form), though some would argue that nomads had civilization or that oral traditions count as recording past events.

oxymoron.
V for Vendetta.

V for Vendetta.

For great justice!

For great justice!
"Anarchy means 'without leaders'; not 'without order'."

"Anarchy means 'without leaders'; not 'without order'."

Noun

* S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder)

Moreover, from a practical standpoint, in the end, human nature being what it is, they're pretty much the same thing.

To clarify, I accept that one definition of anarchy is "without rulers", I merely reject that it is the sole definition.

However, when I state that a concept of "ordered anarchy" is an oxymoron, I do not do so with the belief that the sole and only definition of anarchy is "without order", it is merely one definition. A definition of anarchy as society without rulers may appear consistent with the phrase "ordered anarchy".

I merely contend that regardless of what definition of anarchy you use, the end result would be the same, a system of "ordered anarchy" would quite rapidly cease to be either orderly, or anarchy.

Okay, let's try restating this without all the attitude.

I didn't give you 'attitude.'

No one thinks that the difference between tax evasion and murder is negligible.

Well. Except Neo Art.

Your argument against taxes seems to be based on the fact that you never "asked" for the services rendered by the government, and that you should have a choice as to whether or not you participate and use these services and pay for them, or you don't use them and don't pay.

My argument is primarily that taxation isn't "theft" as is often stated but more like "extortion." Interestingly most people here aren't disagreeing with me. Neo Art is simply saying (when you strip away the flaming, baiting, insults and masturbatory ego-padding) that if taxation is extortion then so is everything else. Others have said that taxes are necessary.

Um, just to point out the blindingly obvious, but the quote "ass-raping" unquote tends to be limited to prisons with convicts who committed violent crimes...usually it doesn't happen in softer prisons like those for tax-evaders...

I don't think that's "blindingly obvious." Feel free to insult me now.

Even if there is no ass-raping whatsoever, it's still a threat of force that qualifies for the force part in extortion.

To be perfectly honest, I overlook Neo Art's posts because I have him on ignore

Well if that's the case then no wonder you seem to be missing about half the picture.

As far as who fuelled the fires first, let's explore.

Now, to head you off at the proverbial pass, the first instance I can find where one might consider Neo Art to be flaming would be his first post:

Yeah, you'll have to look in another thread where Neo Art literally popped out of nowhere to insult me for no reason. He then followed me here to continue berating me. The fact that I mistakenly responded in kind doesn't suddenly put him in the right. Retroactive justification fails. In fact, if I was a "whiner" (one of the many insults he's chosen to levy during this tiresome little quarrel) I might whine to the mods about harassment, but I won't. At any rate the fact that you ignore him explains to my satisfaction why you're mistaken here.

This, right here, dismissing all the other validly included social services and focusing, instead, on street light fixtures. Anyone being intellectually honest could plainly see that the "assuming you live" comment more directly referred to hospitals, or sanitation services, or law enforcement, but you instead decided to hone in on street lights. Poor form.

I didn't have an obligation to address any of them because it was completely irrelevant to my point, just as the tangential nonsense about how extortion can be a legal term was. Robin Hood may well give to the poor. He's still committing theft in order to do so.

So forgive me if I find your attempt at framing yourself as an innocent to be in slight disagreement with the course of the thread. You've had a dismissive and condescending attitude on this topic from the get go, far before Neo Art joined in on your fun.

Neo Art began the flaming BEFORE I even started this thread, before I said anything to him whatsoever, as I've already said. And he really came out of fucking nowhere to do so. Now can we drop fine the Neo Art discussion already? I let a troll flamebait me. My bad, now I'm moving on to someone who won't be deriving masturbatory pleasure from pissing random strangers off online.

isnt pretty much all government authority based on extortion, threats and bribery?

we like to pretend that there is some kind of contract, common good thing going on but no one ever asked ME to sign a contract. that is all just left-brain, after-the-fact justification for the way governments work. it makes the bitter pill easier to swallow.

not that im saying that that is a BAD thing.

I think it's a bad thing when the US prison population is greater than the national populations of many small countries, greater per capita than any other country, greater than the prison populations of any other country. I think it's a bad thing when the US spends half a trillion dollars every year on 'defense,' invades foreign nations based on outright lies. Try as anyone might, I am unconvinced that this is a "Service Rendered" to me for which I should be grateful and meek.

Try as anyone might, I am unconvinced that this is a "Service Rendered" to me for which I should be grateful and meek.

You're not required to be either grateful or meek. you're merely required to obey the law. Don't like it? Vote for someone who will change it.

Ain't democracy grand?

Well. Except Neo Art.


I'm really quite curious to see you point out the quote where NA said this.


I don't think that's "blindingly obvious." Feel free to insult me now.

I feel no particular need to insult you, but that is pretty obvious. Tax evasion doesn't get you put in with rapists.


Yeah, you'll have to look in another thread where Neo Art literally popped out of nowhere to insult me for no reason.

I hate to break it to you, but you are on an internet forum. You can't actually dictate that only Poster A can respond to your posts insulting Poster A. When you decided to put on rather absurd airs and insult Muravyets in the process, someone other than Muravyets called you on it. Oh, poor you.

He then followed me here to continue berating me.

Again, you are on an internet forum. If you do not wish people to disagree with you, I suggest having conversations elsewhere.


I didn't have an obligation to address any of them because it was completely irrelevant to my point, just as the tangential nonsense about how extortion can be a legal term was.

Extortion...."can be" a legal term? Extortion IS a legal term, and I'm not at all clear on how what the word "extortion" means is merely "tangential" to a discussion of whether taxes are extortion. This is why people don't think you are making much sense.

I'm not at all clear on how what the word "extortion" means is merely "tangential" to a discussion of whether taxes are extortion. This is why people don't think you are making much sense.

Why are you trolling?

Taxation is held to be "theft" but the better term is extortion.

Extortion is obtaining of money and/or services and/or property from someone through coercion. Coercion is of course getting someone to do something through the use of force or threat of force. In this case, coercing people to part with large chunks of their income since if they didn't, they'd be sent to prison and deprived of their freedom and dignity. And given the nature of prisons, perhaps more than even that.

Taxation is the payment for the services that the government gives to you. There is not more coercion from the government than any other business if you use their services and then don't pay. In fact, there is even less coercion.

The government is the biggest company in the country and you should count your blessing that it is not profit-oriented. One good thing the government's got for himself is the economy of scales. They do big order and can get a reduced rate than you or me. Otherwise your fees for such things as highways, healthcare, police, etc. would be much higher.

The War on Terror is a Protection racket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket). Who are they protecting us from? Saddam's ghost? Imaginary weapons of mass destruction? I don't know, but it's costing me and everyone else money.
That's what you get for appointing incompetents at the head of the company. Poor business strategy.

I have a limited amount of time on this earth. During that limited time I must work to get limited amounts of money, using my limited amount of energy. So the euphemistic "protection money" that I am being forced to pay is not something I am going to just shrug and dismiss while chewing my cud. In a very real sense, time is money and life is time - taxation is my life blood being drained away.
Not as much as if you would have to pay for all those services individually. Besides, you've got options: move elsewhere, spend some of your time in jail, go into politics to get things changed.

While we're at it, you're wasting an awful lot of your life blood on the internet while you could be making money. You waste also an awful lot of your life blood ranting about something that you won't be able to change. I suggest paying your taxes to be a better "life blood / loss" ratio that what you are doing.

Now it's true that taxation pays for some good things, like [corrupt] police and [torturing people in Guantanamo bay] national defense. But try as I might, I find it hard to accept these meager benefits as outweighing the fact that I didn't order them. I didn't ask for them. And that if I don't foot the bill, I will go to prison.
You still reaped the benefits of them. You had the service, now pay for it. It's how it works. I don't see you moaning about paying for electricity, so why do you moan for police?

People, "Choose between paying us money, leaving your home forever or go to prison for surprise buttsecks" is NOT a choice. It's a mugging, and the fact that it's legal is a meaningless distinction to me. Taxation isn't theft, it's extortion.

Discuss.
It IS a choice. It's just that the sensible people choose the less painful. Like they always do. You had your services for a year, now pay the service provider. You don't like the provider? Change it. (Move or elect another one)

Why are you trolling?Do you have avatars or disabled or what? Take a close look at what Poli has chosen to represent herself with...

=P
I kid. OOTS needs to update regularly

I look at it this way If you don't like the taxes where you are then leave (AKA vote with you feet.) I live in New York state which has some of the highest taxes in the nation. In the next few years I plan to sell my house and move to another state with lower taxes.
My Total state and local tax bill will go from about $5,500 to about $1,500 per year.

Now if your pissed off about how the Feds run things go to central America or some place like that.

Do you have avatars or disabled or what? Take a close look at what Poli has chosen to represent herself with...

....represent? You mean she's not really a....

...

oh god.

The "social contract" is no contract at all, and there are many people who quite clearly do not 'consent' except by coercion. I pay not because I am trying to maintain what's best for society and support the social hiearachy of the fatherland, I pay because if I do not, I get ass-raped in prison.

Thus, extortion.

What a load of rubbish. Tell your goverment that you no longer want to benifit by the services they provide you, and let me know what happens.

Why are you trolling?

I'm just vicious like that. I hate...um...what's-his-face...so much that I simply had to cruelly insult him by politely pointing out the flaws in his argument.

....represent? You mean she's not really a....

...

oh god.God can't help you now! >=D
I'm just vicious like that. I hate...um...what's-his-face...so much that I simply had to cruelly insult him by politely pointing out the flaws in his argument.It is the meanest of insults.

Do you have avatars or disabled or what? Take a close look at what Poli has chosen to represent herself with...

=P
I kid. OOTS needs to update regularly

Haley and I have a lot in common, although I am somewhat better-endowed.

By which I mean "endowed with a nose." (Also I'm not quite as into treasure as she is. Also I prefer my men to have functioning brains. But other than that, we have a lot in common. :tongue: )

Haley and I have a lot in common, although I am somewhat better-endowed.

By which I mean "endowed with a nose." (Also I'm not quite as into treasure as she is. Also I prefer my men to have functioning brains. But other than that, we have a lot in common. :tongue: )Lucky you. I look like some Zombie-hunting jerk if his hair were dyed brown and if he were a fraction of an inch shorter... =(

oxymoron.
How so? Anarchists oppose hierarchy, and hierarchical government, not organisation.

Hobbes is talking about a 'State of Nature' where, not only is there no hierarchy, apart from that of brute force, but no organisation either. This is far and away from the theories of unhierarchial societal organisation as proposed by the likes of Godwin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, et al.

....represent? You mean she's not really a....

...

oh god.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

I'm really quite curious to see you point out the quote where NA said this.

Are you curious enough to read through the thread yourself?

I feel no particular need to insult you, but that is pretty obvious. Tax evasion doesn't get you put in with rapists.

Quick questions for you.

What did Al Capone go to prison for?
Where did he go to prison?

I hate to break it to you, but you are on an internet forum. You can't actually dictate that only Poster A can respond to your posts insulting Poster A. When you decided to put on rather absurd airs and insult Muravyets in the process, someone other than Muravyets called you on it. Oh, poor you.


I wasn't trying to "dictate" to people.

And I wasn't insulting Muravyets.

And even if I were, Neo Art wasn't calling me on anything, let alone my supposed dictatorship in which I was supposedly insulting Muravyets. He was just being insulting, and he's continued to be so to "amuse himself." i.e troll.

Again, you are on an internet forum. If you do not wish people to disagree with you

I do believe I said "berate," not "disagree with."

, I suggest having conversations elsewhere.

Oh, is this you trying to dictate what I can and can't do? By your own logic I guess it is.

Extortion...."can be" a legal term?

Words have - get this - more than one connotation!

More than one definition!

More than one context!

Yes it's true, and it's amazing I know.

Taxation is the payment for the services that the government gives to you.

How is hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis a "service" to me?

There is not more coercion from the government than any other business if you use their services and then don't pay.

How am I using the "services" of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis?

The government is the biggest company in the country and you should count your blessing that it is not profit-oriented. One good thing the government's got for himself is the economy of scales. They do big order and can get a reduced rate than you or me. Otherwise your fees for such things as highways, healthcare, police, etc. would be much higher.

One bad thing the government has is a monopoly on the use of force and a tendency to kill innocent people en masse. I think that's worse than an alleged price reduction.

That's what you get for appointing incompetents at the head of the company. Poor business strategy.

That's a bit of understatement but true.

Not as much as if you would have to pay for all those services individually. Besides, you've got options: move elsewhere, spend some of your time in jail, go into politics to get things changed.

Those really aren't options. They are offers I can't refuse.

While we're at it, you're wasting an awful lot of your life blood on the internet

Not 20-30% of my life.

You waste also an awful lot of your life blood ranting about something that you won't be able to change.

Yeah, several minutes of my time.

You still reaped the benefits of them. You had the service, now pay for it.

What benefits would those be again?

It's how it works.

Yes, extortion is how it works. Also, ass-rape is how it works. Let's go to rape crisis centers and tell the victims to learn the important lesson of futility and silence.

It IS a choice. It's just that the sensible people choose the less painful.

Putting a knife to a woman's throat and telling her to STFU or die. That's a choice too right?

And a service! If the woman doesn't like it she can always move to another country.

Quick questions for you.

What did Al Capone go to prison for?
Where did he go to prison?
The fact that he was head of the Chicago Mafia might have had something to do with it...

Are you curious enough to read through the thread yourself?

Yes, which is why I did so. Now I'd kinda like to see the invisible post where NA said that.


Quick questions for you.

What did Al Capone go to prison for?
Where did he go to prison?

Quick questions for you:

When did this occur?
Is Al Capone considered a typical example of tax-evading citizens by any sane human being?


I wasn't trying to "dictate" to people.

And I wasn't insulting Muravyets.

And even if I were, Neo Art wasn't calling me on anything, let alone my supposed dictatorship in which I was supposedly insulting Muravyets. He was just being insulting, and he's continued to be so to "amuse himself." i.e troll.

You seem to be making a habit of having your own special definitions of terms. "Amusing oneself" =/= "trolling" to anyone but you. My post discussing my similarities to a cartoon character above amused me. Was it trolling?


Oh, is this you trying to dictate what I can and can't do? By your own logic I guess it is.

......this just keeps getting sillier.


Words have - get this - more than one connotation!

More than one definition!

More than one context!

Yes it's true, and it's amazing I know.

Indeed! Which would sort of seem to indicate that disagreement over your personal definition would be valid and relevant!

The fact that he was head of the Chicago Mafia might have had something to do with it...

Umm are the correct answers tax evasion, and Alcatraz?

Umm are the correct answers tax evasion, and Alcatraz?
Sure, but we all know Capone wasn't sent to Alcatraz because the Federal government was worried he'd avoid tax again...

Try living without public roads, street lights, laws, hospitals, sanitation, telecommunications, and law enforcement for a while. Then come back and tell us that taxation is life blood being drained away.

Assuming you live.
Excellent points.....right to the point, especially the last point!!

How so? Anarchists oppose hierarchy, and hierarchical government, not organisation.

Hobbes is talking about a 'State of Nature' where, not only is there no hierarchy, apart from that of brute force, but no organisation either. This is far and away from the theories of unhierarchial societal organisation as proposed by the likes of Godwin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, et al.

because organization in a collectivist sense gravitates towards hierarchy. I find the idea of ordered anarchy a lot like communism. Great on paper, but a failure when held to the scrutiny of reality.

I have a feeling that it's less that Al Capone was in danger by being incarcerated with the general prison population as it was that the general prison population was in danger by being incarcerated with Al Capone.

Yes, which is why I did so. Now I'd kinda like to see the invisible post where NA said that.

Perhaps he's erased it. Regardless, I don't see the point in doing so.

Quick questions for you:

When did this occur?

I don't see how that's relevant unless you're holding to the concept that if it happened in the past it doesn't matter. A foolish concept.


Is Al Capone considered a typical example of tax-evading citizens by any sane human being?

Was he or was he not sentenced for federal tax evasion?

Tell you what, since it's so "blindingly obvious" you can just give me some real sources that state that tax evaders never get sexually violated in prison. Can't be too difficult. And unlike your stalwart and truly noble 'defense' of Neo Art it's a bit more relevant.

You seem to be making a habit of having your own special definitions of terms. "Amusing oneself" =/= "trolling" to anyone but you.

"Amusing oneself by antagonizing other people on an internet forum," more like. Oops, more of that 'context' thing that you don't like.


Indeed! Which would sort of seem to indicate that disagreement over your personal definition would be valid and relevant!

My "personal definition" is the first one listed in the dictionary I cited. The one you said was "unique to me" but I notice instead of conceding that you were wrong there, you just continue on and on. You drop it and hope it to be forgotten without having to admit anything. Kind of like your accusation of me "trying to dictate" too. That was pretty silly of you.

Come on, can't you carry the torch? Shit, I'm STALIN while we're at it!

How is hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis a "service" to me?
"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"

Besides, the war is only one of the thousands of services that the government provide. Shareholders have no say when Universal Pictures release a movie that tank, either.

How am I using the "services" of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis?
You'll have oil twenty years from now whereas you might have oil shortage otherwise. Besides, taxes are not paying solely for the war so your argument is moot.

One bad thing the government has is a monopoly on the use of force and a tendency to kill innocent people en masse. I think that's worse than an alleged price reduction.
Ha!
One word: Blackwater. There, monopoly denied!

That's a bit of understatement but true.
Thank You

Those really aren't options. They are offers I can't refuse.
But you see, you can refuse them. The options aren't really good but they are there. You can always move elsewhere if you really don't like your options.


Not 20-30% of my life.
Don't care, honestly. I was pointing out that if you value your time and money so much, you're wasting a lot of it despite having to pony up 20-30% of it.


What benefits would those be again?
Police protection
Healthcare
Education
Road and other Infracstructure
National and International Representation
Military force as a deterrent
and that's off the top of my head, I could probably find many others.


Yes, extortion is how it works. Also, ass-rape is how it works. Let's go to rape crisis centers and tell the victims to learn the important lesson of futility and silence.
Let's ignore the obvious fallacy of that post and argue that every single service you have ever paid is based on the same extortion. Your claim of extortion is not based on any argument besides "it's extortion!"

Putting a knife to a woman's throat and telling her to STFU or die. That's a choice too right?
Yes

And a service! If the woman doesn't like it she can always move to another country.
Where her taxes pay for a better police force. Apart from the logical fallacy of equally a mugging to taxes, what's your point?

My "personal definition" is the first one listed in the dictionary I cited.

Not a single source, quoted by you or anyone else, defines extortion purely and solely in monetary terms.

Which you've conveniently ignored. But that seems par for the course for you, doesn't it?

"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"


Right. The entirely plausible Iraq Invades California scenario.


Besides, the war is only one of the thousands of services that the government provide.

This war is not a service.

Shareholders have no say when Universal Pictures release a movie that tank, either.

They aren't thrown into prison if they refuse to buy stock, either.

You'll have oil twenty years from now whereas you might have oil shortage otherwise.

Bullshit. And even if that was true, it's a bullshit justification just as much as the "WMD" one was.

Besides, taxes are not paying solely for the war so your argument is moot.

Taxes aren't paying solely for police and hospitals either, so your argument is moot. Except mine is more relevant... street lights do not outweigh mass slaughter. I have ethics. Is this going to be a problem for you?


Ha!
One word: Blackwater. There, monopoly denied!


One word: subcontractor. Monopoly preserved.

But you see, you can refuse them. The options aren't really good but they are there. You can always move elsewhere if you really don't like your options.

"Love it or leave it." No matter how many times this or a variant of this sentiment is blurted out it is no more valid.

Don't care, honestly. I was pointing out that if you value your time and money so much, you're wasting a lot of it despite having to pony up 20-30% of it.

Well let's see. I've spent a good hour or so typing here while doing other various entertaining things.

I know you don't care, but if you don't care, how about you don't care to make silly statements like comparing an hour of my time to 20-30 percent of my entire life?

Police protection
Healthcare
Education
Road and other Infracstructure
National and International Representation
Military force as a deterrent
and that's off the top of my head, I could probably find many others.

Hmm, nope, not a single one of those is a benefit resulting from dead Iraqis.

Your claim of extortion is not based on any argument besides "it's extortion!"

I guess that'd be true if one ignored everything I said.

Putting a knife to a woman's throat and telling her to STFU or die. That's a choice too right?
Yes

OK, we're done here. Coercion is NOT consent. Period.

Perhaps he's erased it. Regardless, I don't see the point in doing so.

"I notice instead of conceding that you were wrong there, you just continue on and on. You drop it and hope it to be forgotten without having to admit anything."


Was he or was he not sentenced for federal tax evasion?

Was he or was he not well-known to have committed a great many more serious crimes?

Tell you what, since it's so "blindingly obvious" you can just give me some real sources that state that tax evaders never get sexually violated in prison. Can't be too difficult.

...yeah, proving a negative is NEVER difficult, and a totally reasonable demand!

Oh, wait, no, the onus would actually be on you, since you're the one who made the initial assertion. Go figure.

And unlike your stalwart and truly noble 'defense' of Neo Art it's a bit more relevant.

Yup, that's me, nobly "defending" people by suggesting that maybe you ought to back up your statements about what they said with actual quotes. Oh man oh man, I'm a real knight in shining armor.


"Amusing oneself by antagonizing other people on an internet forum," more like. Oops, more of that 'context' thing that you don't like.

Indeed, because suggesting Al Capone was a typical example of the average tax-evading citizen shows a real focus on context. Who could argue with that?


My "personal definition" is the first one listed in the dictionary I cited. The one you said was "unique to me" but I notice instead of conceding that you were wrong there, you just continue on and on. You drop it and hope it to be forgotten without having to admit anything. Kind of like your accusation of me "trying to dictate" too. That was pretty silly of you.

My apologies, I should have been more clear. Your personal definition is not unique to you in the context of the whole world, but in the context of this discussion. I am quite sure other people exist who agree with you. Of course, other people also exist who think the government is conspiring with aliens to control our brains with mind-rays, but since they're also not taking part in this discussion, I don't see as how they matter immensely. The essential point is this: you cannot simply assert "my definition is right and all of yours are wrong, neener neener" and expect that to be accepted as a valid argument.

Come on, can't you carry the torch? Shit, I'm STALIN while we're at it!

Nah, Stalin generally threw anyone who disagreed with him in gulags rather than throwing tantrums at them. Clearly different.

Not a single source, quoted by you or anyone else, defines extortion purely and solely in monetary terms.

Do you know what the word "especially" means?

Do you know what emphasis is?

The source did not define extortion purely and solely in legal terms...

Which you've conveniently ignored.

...which you've conveniently ignored...

But that seems par for the course for you, doesn't it?

...but it seems par for the course for you. Now, do go on with the idiotic insults you believe make you look so clever and mature.

Do you know what the word "especially" means?

Yes, but I don't think you do. Here's a hint. It doesn't mean "solely"

Now, do go on with the idiotic insults you believe make you look so clever and mature.

You keep talking about other people's lack of maturity, but to be frank, the only person here who looks like he lost his temper is you.

Was he or was he not well-known to have committed a great many more serious crimes?


Irrelevant. He was incarcerated for tax evasion.

...yeah, proving a negative is NEVER difficult, and a totally reasonable demand!

It's not "proving a negative." It's demonstrating the "blindingly obvious" with some sources that support your assertion.

I guess it's not so "blindingly obvious" after all.

Yup, that's me, nobly "defending" people by suggesting that maybe you ought to back up your statements about what they said with actual quotes. Oh man oh man, I'm a real knight in shining armor.

No, nobly "defending" people by coming up with idiotic one-liners such as this. "Defending" people by joining in Neo Art's oh-so-mature insult-fest, which itself was yet another "defense" of Muravyets (according to you).

Indeed, because suggesting Al Capone was a typical example of the average tax-evading citizen shows a real focus on context.

He doesn't need to be a "typical example," he only needs to be an example.

And now it looks like you're deliberately ignoring it just so you can continue championing your "blindingly obvious" assertion.

Why waste any more time on you when you're going to just ignore whatever I say in a vomitous spew of self-righteous cheek?


My apologies, I should have been more clear. Your personal definition is not unique to you in the context of the whole world, but in the context of this discussion. I am quite sure other people exist who agree with you. Of course, other people also exist who think the government is conspiring with aliens to control our brains with mind-rays

Wow. Yeah, that's it. Merriam Webster is now invalid as a dictionary because they're all crazy conspiracy freaks.

The essential point is this: you cannot simply assert "my definition is right and all of yours are wrong, neener neener"

I can assert whatever I want. Luckily I never asserted that strawman you're burning right there.

Nah, Stalin generally threw anyone who disagreed with him in gulags rather than throwing tantrums at them. Clearly different.

Oh, but I'm a dictator! You said so! Trying (cruelly!) to dictate that poor Neo Art can't 'defend' Muravyets and 'call me out' by blurting out lame insults! I'm dictatorial and mean!

Yes, but I don't think you do.

It's clear to me we could fill a book with the stupid shit you think.

Here's a hint. It doesn't mean "solely"

Here's another hint, Strawman Arson: it doesn't mean "to be ignored in favor of imaginary definitions I prefer." It means an emphasis, an emphasis I am emphasizing, and which you are ignoring because to do otherwise would be to piss down the leg of your own inadequacy. Now come on, don't you have some lame crack about how vastly superior you believe you are?

It's like watching a total nervous breakdown in fast forward....

I guess the internet is too much stress for some people.

Now come on, don't you have some lame crack about how vastly superior you believe you are?

Nah, it's ok. Any comparison I would make between the two of us would do naught but further paint the picture you've already drawn for all of us.

Right. The entirely plausible Iraq Invades California scenario.
Who cares? You asked for a reason. I gave you one. You don't like it, that's your problem. You got what you asked for.

And that is besides the ridiculous notion you advance that taxes are solely paying for the war. It is not.

This war is not a service.
That is besides the ridiculous notion you advance that taxes are solely paying for the war. It is not.

They aren't thrown into prison if they refuse to buy stock, either.
Thay made the choice of investing there. Thay are shit out of luck about decision about the money they put in.
You made the choice of living there. You are shit out of luck about decision about the money you put in.
My analogy stands.

Bullshit. And even if that was true, it's a bullshit justification just as much as the "WMD" one was.
I do not care which justification is true or not. What matter is there is a justification and the congress and president decided to go in.

And, let me repeat myself here: that is besides the ridiculous notion you advance that taxes are solely paying for the war. It is not.

Taxes aren't paying solely for police and hospitals either, so your argument is moot. Except mine is more relevant...
How so?

street lights do not outweigh mass slaughter. I have ethics. Is this going to be a problem for you?
No problem for me. But that is besides the ridiculous notion you advance that taxes are solely paying for the war. It is not.

One word: subcontractor. Monopoly preserved.
Maybe that wasn't a good example. Let's use the mafia. Surely that are not doing what they do for the governement. Surely they are using violence. Your monopoly fails.

"Love it or leave it." No matter how many times this or a variant of this sentiment is blurted out it is no more valid.
I always spoke of the change of government options but that is besides the point. The pointis that you used the services, now you have to pay for it.

Well let's see. I've spent a good hour or so typing here while doing other various entertaining things.

I know you don't care, but if you don't care, how about you don't care to make silly statements like comparing an hour of my time to 20-30 percent of my entire life?
You argued that taxation is a waste of you time. I am merely saying that there are others waste of your time you have no beef in indulging in. It shows your stance to be either 1. Hypocritical or 2. Irrelevant.

Hmm, nope, not a single one of those is a benefit resulting from dead Iraqis.
again, that is besides the ridiculous notion you advance that taxes are solely paying for the war. It is not.

I guess that'd be true if one ignored everything I said.
I did read everything you said. It's always been "It's extortion!". Or insults and quibble about how other posters argue. Prove me wrong, please.


OK, we're done here. Coercion is NOT consent. Period.
Oh my, you've done it again and changed the meaning of a word. This time: choice. Die or give me your money IS a choice. I know this because there are two proposition: 1. Die and 2. Give me your money. So I do have a choice.

Besides, extortion is always about choice. The guy thinks you would prefer to give him money (or other things) instead of the consequences (be it jail, divulgation of something you've done, dying).

I'm glad we're done 'cause it's gettin tiresome having to re-learn every definition of basic words.

Interesting how that first quote just disappeared...

Irrelevant. He was incarcerated for tax evasion.

Not so much irrelevant, no, since the whole point you were making with you Capone example is "tax evaders have to fear being locked up with violent criminals." The fact that the only tax evader you can come up with who actually had to fear any such thing was, y'know, a violent criminal seems just a wee bit relevant.


It's not "proving a negative." It's demonstrating the "blindingly obvious" with some sources that support your assertion.

I guess it's not so "blindingly obvious" after all.

Interestingly enough, I never used the phrase "blindingly obvious." And yes, asking for evidence that something has never happened is ridiculous. The onus is on the person who made the positive assertion, which would be you.


No, nobly "defending" people by coming up with idiotic one-liners such as this. "Defending" people by joining in Neo Art's oh-so-mature insult-fest, which itself was yet another "defense" of Muravyets (according to you).

Really? I've joined in an insult-fest? Interesting. Please show me where I "insulted" you. I've pointed out the flaws in your arguments, which is, you know, what one does in a debate, but I don't quite recall calling you any names. I'm sure you can show me where I did so, though, since those names were so terribly insulting.


He doesn't need to be a "typical example," he only needs to be an example.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you want your argument to make any sense whatsoever. Generally, people going for good arguments like to use good examples, rather than completely ridiculous ones, but you can certainly dare to be different if you like.

And now it looks like you're deliberately ignoring it just so you can continue championing your "blindingly obvious" assertion.

Why waste any more time on you when you're going to just ignore whatever I say in a vomitous spew of self-righteous cheek?

"Ignore" seems to be another word you may want to double-check in the dictionary. Addressing a point and explaining its flaws is usually not what most people would consider ignoring said point.

But I do quite enjoy the phrase "vomitous spew of self-righteous cheek." That's almost poetic, right there.



Wow. Yeah, that's it. Merriam Webster is now invalid as a dictionary because they're all crazy conspiracy freaks.

"Luckily I never asserted that strawman you're burning right there." Quoting you in answer to you is fun.

I can assert whatever I want. Luckily I never asserted that strawman you're burning right there.

Really? You haven't repeatedly stated that NA's argument in regard to your definition is trolling, tangential, and irrelevant, while offering no actual support for any of those conclusions? Hmm, that must have been the other Clomata.


Oh, but I'm a dictator! You said so! Trying (cruelly!) to dictate that poor Neo Art can't 'defend' Muravyets and 'call me out' by blurting out lame insults! I'm dictatorial and mean!

"Luckily I never asserted that strawman you're burning right there." Quoting you in answer to you is still fun.

Taxation is held to be "theft" but the better term is extortion.
No, it's not.

I know someone's going to point out that taxation is legal, whereas both extortion and theft are illegal. Let me just say to those that you're missing the point. We are not talking about the literal criminality of taxation, but the immorality of it.
There's nothing immoral about taxation.

Perhaps he's erased it. Regardless, I don't see the point in doing so.
The Hell he did.

Admit you were wrong rather that trying to weasel out of it, will ya?


Why waste any more time on you when you're going to just ignore whatever I say in a vomitous spew of self-righteous cheek?
You sure do know how to invite to a debate.

Taxation is held to be "theft" but the better term is extortion.

Extortion is obtaining of money and/or services and/or property from someone through coercion. Coercion is of course getting someone to do something through the use of force or threat of force. In this case, coercing people to part with large chunks of their income since if they didn't, they'd be sent to prison and deprived of their freedom and dignity. And given the nature of prisons, perhaps more than even that.

(I know someone's going to point out that taxation is legal, whereas both extortion and theft are illegal. Let me just say to those that you're missing the point. We are not talking about the literal criminality of taxation, but the immorality of it.

Also, I am more or less only talking about the US here.)

The War on Terror is a Protection racket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket). Who are they protecting us from? Saddam's ghost? Imaginary weapons of mass destruction? I don't know, but it's costing me and everyone else money.

I have a limited amount of time on this earth. During that limited time I must work to get limited amounts of money, using my limited amount of energy. So the euphemistic "protection money" that I am being forced to pay is not something I am going to just shrug and dismiss while chewing my cud. In a very real sense, time is money and life is time - taxation is my life blood being drained away.

Now it's true that taxation pays for some good things, like [corrupt] police and [torturing people in Guantanamo bay] national defense. But try as I might, I find it hard to accept these meager benefits as outweighing the fact that I didn't order them. I didn't ask for them. And that if I don't foot the bill, I will go to prison.

On the other hand, theft is merely taking money or whatnot from people. Perhaps without their knowledge. This is tame and far less insidious from the Shock and Awe campaign of euphemistic platitudes - like "payment for services" - and coercive sickness. Shit, who pays for prison, too? I do! One of the "services" I am apparently paying for is forcefully imprisoning other people who refuse to pay them! How twisted can you get?

People, "Choose between paying us money, leaving your home forever or go to prison for surprise buttsecks" is NOT a choice. It's a mugging, and the fact that it's legal is a meaningless distinction to me. Taxation isn't theft, it's extortion.

Discuss.

Um. Setting aside the question of the social contract, there are these little things called "democracy" and "voting."

When the person being "extorted" has a say (not to mention, en masse the entire say) as to what is "extorted" and why, is the situation really morally equivalent to criminal extortion?

Moreover, your entire diatribe seems to assume that the one being "extorted" lives in an essentially democratic, free market economy, but ignores the fact that the one being "extorted" lives in an essentially democratic, free market economy where the extortion is (1) integral to the system you seem to morally endorse and (2) fundamentally consensual.

No. But that's a nice strawman you're burning there.

I mean "the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property;"

As defined in the English language. Not everything is a legal definition and I made it clear what connotation I would be using in the OP. Don't like it? Well, why don't you come up with some crack about my mother and then congratulate yourself for being nuanced, subtle and brilliant.

1. Nothing like use a word "extorting" to define the word in question -- "extortion." (And before you cite Merriam-Webster, I am aware that is where you are getting your definition from. My point is that it nonetheless isn't very helpful.)

2. Yes, there are looser lay uses of legal terms like extortion, but that doesn't change the fact that the term is essentially legal in nature. Black's Law Dictionary defines extortion as "the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." The Model Penal Code gives an even more specific definition. Under either, your use of the term is either indefensible or meaningless (or both!).

3. Your "moral" use of extortion simply assumes there is necessarily something wrong any time someone is induced to do something they would rather not do. That is a pretty weak example of immorality.

You flatly pretended there's no difference, "practically speaking," between HOMICIDE and TAX EVASION.

*snip*

And I need to explain what the moral difference is between tax laws and laws against killing people are? Murder is prohibited in just about every moral and ethical position on Earth. Why don't you find the Commandment against tax evasion.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand the point Neo Art made?

Neo Art never claimed, "pretended," or otherwise indicated that there is NO difference, practically speaking, between HOMICIDE and TAX EVASION. To the contrary, his point was that AS YOU ARE USING THE TERM EXTORTION there is no difference between a law against homicide and a law against tax evasion. Neither is really extortion -- but both are extortion under your use of the term.

Finally, it is rather bizarre and circular to claim that tax laws are immoral based on characteristics they share with laws against homicide and then try to point to the immorality of homicide as a distinction between laws against homicide and tax laws.

EDIT: BTW, you do realize that "extortion" IS generally regarded as a type of "theft"? So saying something is "extortion, not theft" is rather nonsensical. But that is, I admit, a rather niggling point.

Um. Setting aside the question of the social contract, there are these little things called "democracy" and "voting."

When the person being "extorted" has a say (not to mention, en masse the entire say) as to what is "extorted" and why, is the situation really morally equivalent to criminal extortion?

Moreover, your entire diatribe seems to assume that the one being "extorted" lives in an essentially democratic, free market economy, but ignores the fact that the one being "extorted" lives in an essentially democratic, free market economy where the extortion is (1) integral to the system you seem to morally endorse and (2) fundamentally consensual.
Although I agree with little of Clomata's remarks, or at least the rather silly way in which s/he puts them, I think taxation and genuine representation is an interesting topic to discuss.

There is a number of pertinent issues to do with taxation that should really be discussed, and your post above brings up more; taxation without representation (currently in the UK, 16-year-olds are taxed yet cannot vote), the issue of whether the current 'democratic' systems (most of us) live under truly represent us, the accountability of government, taxes being spent in our name on things we are morally opposed to, etc.

It's a shame this discussion has gone down this certain path.

The "social contract" is no contract at all, and there are many people who quite clearly do not 'consent' except by coercion. I pay not because I am trying to maintain what's best for society and support the social hiearachy of the fatherland, I pay because if I do not, I get ass-raped in prison.

By not revolting against the current system or moving away, you have given tacit concent.

I never signed this "contract".

See above.

Well I cant opt out of a social contract and still live in the area. If your calling it a social contract you may be right. Its "sign this contract or live in the sea"

I think i may need to consult someone over that choice

Sure you can opt out. Either move away or revolt.

Although I agree with little of Clomata's remarks, or at least the rather silly way in which s/he puts them, I think taxation and genuine representation is an interesting topic to discuss.

There is a number of pertinent issues to do with taxation that should really be discussed, and your post above brings up more; taxation without representation (currently in the UK, 16-year-olds are taxed yet cannot vote), the issue of whether the current 'democratic' systems (most of us) live under truly represent us, the accountability of government, taxes being spent in our name on things we are morally opposed to, etc.

It's a shame this discussion has gone down this certain path.

Indeed. There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had about taxation. This just isn't one of them. :tongue:

By not revolting against the current system or moving away, you have given tacit concent.
That's a piss-poor set of options there, especially as one of them is almost certainly going to wind up with you dead or incarcerated for life.

Social contract theory, and the 'tacit consent' that comes along with it, is pretty flawed; not only do I have little or no say in whether I wish to agree with the 'contract', I cannot determine the terms of said 'contract'.

For a start, by using the resources of a nation to be born, educated, etc., I have supposedly given 'tacit consent' long before I am old enough to appreciate what a 'social contract' is, nevermind whether I wish to 'sign' it. Moreover, I would argue I have little or no option to ensure the government keeps up its end of the 'contract', what with me having little taste for armed rebellion against a modern industrialised state on its own ground.

No, it's not.

...so do you have anything other than assertion here, or are you 'right just because you say so?'

There's nothing immoral about taxation.

see above...

The Hell he did.

It's pretty weak when you all have to harp on this one minor (and irrelevant) point in order to thump your chest about how right you believe yourselves to be.

Admit you were wrong rather that trying to weasel out of it, will ya?

Oh, is that what people in this thread do now? Tell you what, I'll admit to being wrong on a minor and irrelevant point if Poli Dearie admits to being wrong in all the times I've caught him/her.

Of course now you'll claim I never have. God you people are predictable.

You sure do know how to invite to a debate.

Indeed. I'm keeping my cool remarkably so given that I'm faced with a cliquish pack all repeating the same arguments, getting shot down and then repeating them again.

Not so much irrelevant, no, since the whole point you were making with you Capone example is "tax evaders have to fear being locked up with violent criminals." The fact that the only tax evader you can come up with who actually had to fear any such thing was, y'know, a violent criminal seems just a wee bit relevant.

How many do I have to come up with before you'll acknowledge the FACT that there is a legal precedent in this country for being locked up in maximum security prisons for the crime of federal tax evasion?

An infinite amount, right? It'll never satisfy because you might have to concede on something.

That's "blindingly obvious" to me.

He was a violent criminal, but he was not convicted of anything other than income tax evasion.

Interestingly enough, I never used the phrase "blindingly obvious." And yes, asking for evidence that something has never happened is ridiculous. The onus is on the person who made the positive assertion, which would be you.

Yeah, I needed to demonstrate that someone had indeed been placed into maximum security prison for federal income tax evasion. And I did. Now you can either admit that yes, the government doesn't always send tax evaders to cushy club meds but sometimes decides to make an example out of them and sends them to other places. Or you can continue your game of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!" and nitpicking ridiculous things in a pathetic attempt to score minor points.

I'm guessing you'll do the latter.

Really? I've joined in an insult-fest?

Yes indeed, by supporting the insults of your fellow posters and liberally sprinkling inane mockery. Don't expect to get more than you give.

I've pointed out the flaws in your arguments

Well, you've ignored my arguments, but the word "arguments" is in there so you're kind of close.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you want your argument to make any sense whatsoever. Generally, people going for good arguments like to use good examples, rather than completely ridiculous ones, but you can certainly dare to be different if you like.

Ah... so now it doesn't make any SENSE to you. Now it's "completely ridiculous." So - it's an example, but you don't like it so it's invalid.

And it's ridiculous because this is all such a minor point. Being sent to even a MINIMUM security prison is STILL the threat of force and STILL supports my argument of extortion. You're grasping at straws and trying to score points with completely irrelevant (to the topic and my argument, ya know) points.

Really? You haven't repeatedly stated that NA's argument in regard to your definition is trolling, tangential, and irrelevant, while offering no actual support for any of those conclusions? Hmm, that must have been the other Clomata.

I never stated that "my definition is right and all of yours are wrong, neener neener."

Kind of like how you never said the phrase "blindingly obvious." Only you know... more relevant.

By not revolting against the current system or moving away, you have given tacit concent.


Yeah. Kind of like how if a woman doesn't physically overpower me or run away, she's consenting to have sex.


Ooh, Cat-Tribe is replying! Yay. Sorry Neo Art, I'll be ignoring you in favor of someone who actually has my respect.

After I get some sleep, that is. (I predict someone will now claim that I'm running away and conceding and applaud themselves for their victory. This is NSG after all.)

That's a piss-poor set of options there, especially as one of them is almost certainly going to wind up with you dead or incarcerated for life.

Social contract theory, and the 'tacit consent' that comes along with it, is pretty flawed; not only do I have little or no say in whether I wish to agree with the 'contract', I cannot determine the terms of said 'contract'.

For a start, by using the resources of a nation to be born, educated, etc., I have supposedly given 'tacit consent' long before I am old enough to appreciate what a 'social contract' is, nevermind whether I wish to 'sign' it. Moreover, I would argue I have little or no option to ensure the government keeps up its end of the 'contract', what with me having little taste for armed rebellion against a modern industrialised state on its own ground.
the problem seems to me to be that the bigger the population the less opportunity you have to revolt successfully. there is no meaningful chance to "move away" to a system more to your liking because every place has coercive governments. so you have no choice but to submit to whatever the government tells you to do.

Yeah. Kind of like how if a woman doesn't physically overpower me or run away, she's consenting to have sex.
Bad analogy and irrelevant to boot.


Ooh, Cat-Tribe is replying! Yay. Sorry Neo Art, I'll be ignoring you in favor of someone who actually has my respect.

After I get some sleep, that is. (I predict someone will now claim that I'm running away and conceding and applaud themselves for their victory. This is NSG after all.)
You do that, maybe we'll have a better debate afterwards.

Taxation is held to be "theft" but the better term is extortion.

.

Yeah, I'M from western Massachusettes, TOO! :D

the problem seems to me to be that the bigger the population the less opportunity you have to revolt successfully. there is no meaningful chance to "move away" to a system more to your liking because every place has coercive governments. so you have no choice but to submit to whatever the government tells you to do.
Indeed.

Moreover, I don't hate everything about the system I live in, but I cannot discuss the terms of the 'contract', or even get my views properly represented.

...so do you have anything other than assertion here, or are you 'right just because you say so?'
It's not extortion is a legal sense. It's not extortion in any other sense either. Most of the important arguments - social contract, democratic system, lack of illegality, goods and services provided in return - have all been done, so you can chalk it up to "I'm right because they say so."


see above...
You claim it's immoral. I say it's not. Since you haven't given any real reasoning as to how it is immoral, besides implying that it's immoral because it's extortion in a legal sense (which it isn't) why do you expect me to put more effort into it than you did?


It's pretty weak when you all have to harp on this one minor (and irrelevant) point in order to thump your chest about how right you believe yourselves to be.
It's weaker that you have to lie to avoid admitting that you were wrong about such a minor (and irrelevant) point. It tarnishes any credibility you may have had.


Oh, is that what people in this thread do now? Tell you what, I'll admit to being wrong on a minor and irrelevant point if Poli Dearie admits to being wrong in all the times I've caught him/her.

Of course now you'll claim I never have. God you people are predictable.
I don't care about whether or not you've caught her in anything, or imagine that you've done so. It doesn't justify you making stuff up to avoid admitting your errors, nor do they make your errors any less wrong.

You're just hiding again now.


Indeed. I'm keeping my cool remarkably so given that I'm faced with a cliquish pack all repeating the same arguments, getting shot down and then repeating them again.
Thing is, you lack the "shooting down" part.



He was a violent criminal, but he was not convicted of anything other than income tax evasion.
The next part of your question though: Why did he go to Alcatraz?



Yeah, I needed to demonstrate that someone had indeed been placed into maximum security prison for federal income tax evasion. And I did. Now you can either admit that yes, the government doesn't always send tax evaders to cushy club meds but sometimes decides to make an example out of them and sends them to other places. Or you can continue your game of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!" and nitpicking ridiculous things in a pathetic attempt to score minor points.

I'm guessing you'll do the latter.
But it's an atypical and unique situation. Yes, he was sent to a prison together with bad and dangerous men - though he was rather high on that "bad and dangerous" scale. Has it happened again since then?

<snip>

EDIT: BTW, you do realize that "extortion" IS generally regarded as a type of "theft"? So saying something is "extortion, not theft" is rather nonsensical. But that is, I admit, a rather niggling point.
Oh, come on, that's not niggling. That's the punchline of this joke. :D

I just want to thank all of you apparently functionally sane NSGers who have made it unnecessary for me to violate my policy of not participating in the OP's argument by making my whole argument for me -- and making it much better than I could have. Thank you all, very kindly. It's nice to know that I wasn't the crazy one in the room, this time.

It's nice to know that I wasn't the crazy one in the room, this time.

THIS time....

I love former Libertarian candidate Harry Browne's campaign add Showing him blowing up the internal revenue building to make his point. That was a classic add to make his point.

While I thought you had a capable charismatic candidate in Harry Browne. His strong support of legalizing illegal drugs turned me off. His isolationist USA foreign policy turned me off.

Give me a Libertarian on economics, moderate on social issues, strong on foreign policy and defense and I could vote for him or her.

I guess such a libertarian does not exsist. Or would that not be a Libertarian.

I had this big long post written up, and then I accidentally hit back on my browser. Now it is all gone. :(

Indeed.

Moreover, I don't hate everything about the system I live in, but I cannot discuss the terms of the 'contract', or even get my views properly represented.
calling it a contract is just making pretty what isnt pretty at all.

it doesnt matter that someone like clomata is getting a far better deal than the one he wants. he has no say in what deal he gets no matter how good or bad it is.

Probably why Bill Clinton rocked.
Didn't suck as much as Bush concerning foreign policy.

Still doesn't change the fact we have choices limited to two parties.


Do you really think that if everyone could choose where their tax money went, enough people would send enough money to education to keep public schools operational and even quasi effective? I'm not being an ass, I'm really curious. I want to believe it, but I don't.
I think yes. Where else would they have their priority? It's among the things everyone cares about the most, and it doesn't cost anywhere as much as wars.
I'm not talking about donation system, rather closer to direct democratic involvement in determining discretionary spending; everyone still pays.

But if people actually elected to decrease spending - well, so is the will of the people. And not just some guys who happen to be influential in a party that has a few ideas half the people agree with more than those of another party. However, seeing as some people actually support tax increase, I don't see the society deciding education out, not until nearly everything else apart from healthcare is out.

THIS time....
I know my own limitations. ;)

I had this big long post written up, and then I accidentally hit back on my browser. Now it is all gone. :(
Ouch. I hate when that happens, but it's usually for the best in the long run.

Oh, is that what people in this thread do now? Tell you what, I'll admit to being wrong on a minor and irrelevant point if Poli Dearie admits to being wrong in all the times I've caught him/her.

Done! I freely admit to having been wrong on every occasion when you have "caught" me.

Now, if you could actually point to such an occasion, that would be great.

By the way, while I appreciate that you have decided to consider me dear to you, I really don't know you that well. Maybe you could buy me dinner or something before you start with the terms of endearment?

Of course now you'll claim I never have. God you people are predictable.

Your psychic powers are astounding. Sadly, they are not accurate, as I'm happy to accept your admission that you were simply making shit up. Thanks!


Indeed. I'm keeping my cool remarkably so given that I'm faced with a cliquish pack all repeating the same arguments, getting shot down and then repeating them again.

Yeah, cursing and insulting people is some impressive cool-keeping. Go you!

By the way, you do know that most of the people disagreeing with you don't know each other any better than you know them, right? At least one of them has quite specifically stated his dislike of another member of this theoretical "clique." Sometimes, when everyone seems to think your arguments don't work, it's because your arguments don't work.


How many do I have to come up with before you'll acknowledge the FACT that there is a legal precedent in this country for being locked up in maximum security prisons for the crime of federal tax evasion?

Oh, I acknowledge that. There is a precedent for known violent criminals being locked up in maximum security prisons after being convicted of tax evasion. Of course, since that wasn't what you were arguing, I'm not sure how that helps. You still haven't given any reason to believe that people pay their taxes out of fear of being thrown in maximum security prisons and ass-raped, which was how this whole Al Capone discussion started.

An infinite amount, right? It'll never satisfy because you might have to concede on something.

That's "blindingly obvious" to me.

Again, your psychic powers are impressive, but I suggest practicing a bit more with the Tarot deck next time.


Yeah, I needed to demonstrate that someone had indeed been placed into maximum security prison for federal income tax evasion. And I did. Now you can either admit that yes, the government doesn't always send tax evaders to cushy club meds but sometimes decides to make an example out of them and sends them to other places. Or you can continue your game of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!" and nitpicking ridiculous things in a pathetic attempt to score minor points.

I really do not believe that anyone has denied that the federal government sends tax evaders to maximum security prisons when those tax evaders happen also to be mob bosses.


Yes indeed, by supporting the insults of your fellow posters and liberally sprinkling inane mockery. Don't expect to get more than you give.

Strangely enough, while I can understand that your own precognitive skills might lead you to such a conclusion, I don't actually have a telepathic connection to other posters. I cannot control what they say, and unless I explicitly say, "Yeah, so-and-so! Insult Clomata! Rah rah rah!" you have no logical basis to claim I have "supported" anyone's insults. I have disagreed with you and pointed out issues with your arguments. I hate to break it to you, but that's what people do in a discussion. Perhaps you could try writing a blog with comments disabled if you wish to be able to make points and not have anyone critique them?


Well, you've ignored my arguments, but the word "arguments" is in there so you're kind of close.

Again, you really seem to be having trouble with the word "ignore." People who have not posted in this thread have ignored your arguments. I quite patently have not.


Ah... so now it doesn't make any SENSE to you. Now it's "completely ridiculous." So - it's an example, but you don't like it so it's invalid.

You really seem to like completely altering the meanings of words. I have repeatedly explained in detail why, precisely, your argument is irrational. That has nothing to do with my personal affection for it. I find some irrational arguments to be quite lovable.

And it's ridiculous because this is all such a minor point. Being sent to even a MINIMUM security prison is STILL the threat of force and STILL supports my argument of extortion. You're grasping at straws and trying to score points with completely irrelevant (to the topic and my argument, ya know) points.

If it's irrelevant, why are you arguing it? You were the one who suggested that tax evaders are regularly sent to maximum security prisons to be "ass-raped" by violent criminals. You were challenged on this assertion. You could have backed down from said "irrelevant" assertion anytime, but instead you've been arguing the point for a great deal of this thread.


I never stated that "my definition is right and all of yours are wrong, neener neener."

Kind of like how you never said the phrase "blindingly obvious." Only you know... more relevant.

How, exactly? I rephrased your position in an obviously and deliberately silly way to highlight its ridiculousness. You keep attributing a quote to me I never said for no discernible reason, as if I'm somehow required to defend it. Please explain how the latter is more relevant than the former.

calling it a contract is just making pretty what isnt pretty at all.
Oh, I quite agree.

Hence the scare quotes.

But this is interesting. I believe there is only one root problem with anarchy. And this problem, like those with all other forms of society, is a problem with humanity. From a psychological view point I believe the problem is referred to as freedom anxiety. The condition whereby a human has to take responsibility for his or her self and make their own decisions. It's one of the things that I took a while to realise is that not everyone relishes their independence. People seem to instinctively seek out others to tell them how to live their life, what rules to abide by and so forth. Or at least a majority do. Hence, anarchy is not viable because people, as a group, aren't independent for it. People are too willing to seek out others to delegate the big decisions to, whilst allowing them to get on with the mundane.

I referenced psychology earlier as I think many psychologists believe that some psychological problems are a manifestation of excessive freedom anxiety -- to the extent that it has begun interfering with mundane decisions in a person's life.

PS. I hope I made sense. I only just got up and have to leave the house in 5 minutes >.<

I agree with some of this, but I think your assumption that this is merely a human condition is unfounded. If that were the case, we would see anarchy at every level of nature except the human one--but we don't.

In most of humanity "history" civilization didn't exist.

I didn't give you 'attitude.'

Well. Except Neo Art.

My argument is primarily that taxation isn't "theft" as is often stated but more like "extortion." Interestingly most people here aren't disagreeing with me. Neo Art is simply saying (when you strip away the flaming, baiting, insults and masturbatory ego-padding) that if taxation is extortion then so is everything else. Others have said that taxes are necessary.

I did you the courtesy of stating your views as I understood them, inviting clarification from you, and then rebutting them without making belittling comments or invoking other posters. You should have shown the same courtesy, but I don't think you're capable.

I did you the courtesy of stating your views as I understood them, inviting clarification from you, and then rebutting them without making belittling comments or invoking other posters. You should have shown the same courtesy, but I don't think you're capable.

Troll.

taxation, but the immorality of it.

There is none. Next thread!

Taxes are a necessary evil....

Its all about where the burden falls...if you make a million dollars a year, you should pay a shitload of taxes...

If you make less than a hundred thousand...you shouldnt pay alot of taxes...

The real threat is the supposed "Fair Tax" that has to be killed...

Troll.

Libertarian.

Libertarian.

.....woman

Give me a Libertarian on economics, moderate on social issues, strong on foreign policy and defense and I could vote for him or her.

Meaning?

Indeed. There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had about taxation. This just isn't one of them. :tongue:

No, only adults get to have those, I hear. :(

I think yes. Where else would they have their priority? It's among the things everyone cares about the most, and it doesn't cost anywhere as much as wars.
I'm not talking about donation system, rather closer to direct democratic involvement in determining discretionary spending; everyone still pays.

But if people actually elected to decrease spending - well, so is the will of the people. And not just some guys who happen to be influential in a party that has a few ideas half the people agree with more than those of another party. However, seeing as some people actually support tax increase, I don't see the society deciding education out, not until nearly everything else apart from healthcare is out.

As someone who works in the public school system, it's been my misfortune to see how often people don't care about their own kids' educations, let alone education in general.

I certainly admit that I would like the U.S. to practice more direct democracy--eliminating the electoral college would be a nice start, so the candidate that the most people vote for can actually become the president. I don't enjoy watching my tax dollars fund a war I don't endorse. I don't think that it qualifies the process as extortion, though.

.....woman

wow it sounds like a fight between 5 year olds

IM TELLING MY MUMMY

Oh man. Not another one of these...I decided to use Skeletor

http://www.flashgiochi.org/materiale-per-forum/immagini-old/img/Not.this.shit.again.jpg

It was to be expected. Libertarians and evangelicals have in common that they feel the urge to confront the unbelievers with their One Truth. Personally I like the thread about cats better, but this thread does have a certain entertainment value. Your decision to use Skeletor was a wise one, by the way.

As someone who works in the public school system, it's been my misfortune to see how often people don't care about their own kids' educations, let alone education in general.
Well, actually caring about it, in actions, is a substantial commitment. But how many people practically care about their health? They're ready to spend money on it, but at least as much as giving up junk food turns out much harder. So it's that people just don't care much about anything not immediate.



I certainly admit that I would like the U.S. to practice more direct democracy--eliminating the electoral college would be a nice start, so the candidate that the most people vote for can actually become the president. I don't enjoy watching my tax dollars fund a war I don't endorse. I don't think that it qualifies the process as extortion, though.
Maybe, maybe not. Just for the sake of it, let's compare tax to mafia's pizzo - the extorted 'protection pay'.

Mafia's protection pay is semi-voluntary, and 20% of businesses don't pay it. If you refuse to pay the pizzo, you risk to lose your business. If you refuse to pay the tax, you are guaranteed to lose your freedom.
Mafia, too, has variable taxes based on profitability, but they are arguable and compromises are possible if you actually can't pay. Taxes aren't arguable.
Mafia's "protection" does include actual protection - they suppress regular street crime, and will prosecute those who harm you. Police, too, provide a similar service to those who pay the taxes.
Mafia, too, provides other services than protection, such as bypassing bureaucracy and supplying information. These are much less extensive than government's, but the pizzo is much smaller than the taxes.
Mafia provides a generally fixed package of services, with little choice over how much do you need them; i.e. you can't choose "just a little protection". Government provides a fixed package with no choice.

I don't want to imply that mafia is better than the government, but it's not like the difference is beyond comparison. Operation is hardly dissimilar.
Just let the clients vote on which son should inherit the family, and you'll even make it into a US-style democratic government.