Why are people scared of taxes?

[Kontakt]

True, but there is no time for that. Colonies first, fix humanity later.

[1714557849]

1714557849

[1714557849]

1714557849

[1714557849]

1714557849

[1714557849]

1714557849

[dank]

But if you don't fix humanity first, those colonies will have the same problem with ego.

[Kontakt]

Then they can solve that alone after the earth is wiped sterile by a freak solar flare.

[Richy_T]

Then they can solve that alone after the earth is wiped sterile by a freak solar flare.

Sorry, we need your space colony money to bail out big banks and car manufacturers. Have a RC buggy to play with instead.

[Kontakt]

I WILL SEND THAT RC BUGGY TO MARS AND LEARN WITH IT

You can't stop science! SCIENCE IS THE ONE TRUE RELIGION!

[asdf]

its more convenient to pay taxes [...]

So other people should be coerced, with threat of force, to pay for your convenience. Gotcha.

wow, why would you support force on people?

I'm not the one advocating taxes.

saying its more convenient is not advocating taxes or force

just pointing out

i dont like force

You don't like force, but it's more convenient, so...

[asdf]

I have always seen coercion to be quite necessary.

That's always been the opinion of the authoritarian.

I just don't see voluntary cooperation as compatible with human nature.

Perhaps because you perceive coercion as necessary?

I'll ignore the circular argument you're presenting, and ask you this. Why do you think people would cooperate as a whole if left to their own devices?

Why do you think a monopoly on force can instill virtue?

People, for the most part, respect property of others and trade freely. In the pursuit of profit they provide others with goods and services that they need. People cooperate and trade peacefully every day for mutual benefit, do you not see this? If you have a job and buy things, you're "cooperating". All the state does is interfere with and restrict voluntary trade with violence. If humans can't cooperate, then how can a government work?

It's not circular reasoning: You believe that coercion is necessary, therefore, to complement this belief you must also believe that cooperation is incompatible with human nature. He's saying the causality is backwards.

[Kontakt]

I have always seen coercion to be quite necessary.

That's always been the opinion of the authoritarian.

I just don't see voluntary cooperation as compatible with human nature.

Perhaps because you perceive coercion as necessary?

I'll ignore the circular argument you're presenting, and ask you this. Why do you think people would cooperate as a whole if left to their own devices?

Why do you think a monopoly on force can instill virtue?

People, for the most part, respect property of others and trade freely. In the pursuit of profit they provide others with goods and services that they need. People cooperate and trade peacefully every day for mutual benefit, do you not see this? If you have a job and buy things, you're "cooperating". All the state does is interfere with and restrict voluntary trade with violence. If humans can't cooperate, then how can a government work?

It's not circular reasoning: You believe that coercion is necessary, therefore, to complement this belief you must also believe that cooperation is incompatible with human nature. He's saying the causality is backwards.

So what of all the scammers, especially here?

[Pteppic]

Theft is about more than just taking by force. If you steal a laptop and the police come and confiscate it back off you, then they are taking it by force, but it is not theft, because you had no legal claim on the laptop and someone else did. If the bailiffs come to your house and take your tv, they are using force, but again, by taking out the loan, you signed away your legal claim on your property, so it is not the same as theft.

The government makes the laws and the laws say you have to pay tax. So according to the law, the government has a legal claim on your money, so it is not theft to take it by force.

Tax is only theft if you can argue that there is some law that supersedes the government's law that they can raise taxes.

[myrkul]

its more convenient to pay taxes and know i dont have to worry about not being able to travel freely because someone else owns the means of getting to another place

Except that's precisely the situation we have now... Or do you not need a license mother-may-I pass where you live?

[nobbynobbynoob]

Tax is only theft if you can argue that there is some law that supersedes the government's law that they can raise taxes.

The common law?

And unlawful confiscation of property with physical force (or threat thereof) is robbery, not theft.

[Richy_T]

Theft is about more than just taking by force. If you steal a laptop and the police come and confiscate it back off you, then they are taking it by force, but it is not theft, because you had no legal claim on the laptop and someone else did. If the bailiffs come to your house and take your tv, they are using force, but again, by taking out the loan, you signed away your legal claim on your property, so it is not the same as theft.

The government makes the laws and the laws say you have to pay tax. So according to the law, the government has a legal claim on your money, so it is not theft to take it by force.

Tax is only theft if you can argue that there is some law that supersedes the government's law that they can raise taxes.

You need to learn to differentiate between the legal, the moral and the ethical realms. Taxes are not legally theft but if we assume that correctness is defined by law, then where is the reasoning behind changing laws?

[nobbynobbynoob]

Tax is only theft if you can argue that there is some law that supersedes the government's law that they can raise taxes.

You need to learn to differentiate between the legal, the moral and the ethical realms. Taxes are not legally theft but if we assume that correctness is defined by law, then where is the reasoning behind changing laws?

Also, if government has the authority to rob and call it tax, then any of us can just band together with some guns, call ourselves government and do the same, and that is fine?

The big moral question then is: are various serious crimes, in this instance robbery (with violence), somehow okay because we legalize them in the name of government? The same applies even more so to extrajudicial homicide.

[Arto]

Guy A: "Hey buddy, isn't that your car over there?"
Guy B: "Yeah. So?"
Guy A: "So someone's breaking into it! Look!"
Guy B: "Well, that's the price I pay to live in a civilized country."
Guy A: "Huh? Now he's hot-wiring it. You just gonna stand there?"
Guy B: "I'm willing to contribute to this great society we live in."
Guy A: "What are you talking about? You're being robbed!"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. It's not robbery. It's the will of the people."
Guy A: "What people? Aren't you the one who paid for the car?"
Guy B: "Yeah, but the guy who's taking it is serving the common good."
Guy A: "How does that guy stealing your car help the common good?"
Guy B: "Well, I trust he'll do useful things with my car."
Guy A: "Weren't you going to do useful things with it?"
Guy B: "Yes, but if we each just used our own stuff, there would be chaos!"
Guy A: "Well, you can trade stuff, but that guy just stole your car!!"
Guy B: "No he didn't. By living on this block I agreed to lose my car."
Guy A: "So anyone can swipe your car, and you don't mind?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly! Only the local carjacker can do it."
Guy A: "So whoever decides to be a carjacker is allowed to rob you?"
Guy B: "Well, if I don't like it, I can try to appoint a new local carjacker."
Guy A: "What would be the point of that? The new guy would still steal your car!"
Guy B: "Yes, but he would be representing me while stealing my car."
Guy A: "What does that mean?! How does a thief represent you?"
Guy B: "Because I can ask him to do good things with my car."
Guy A: "And will he listen to you, and do what you want?"
Guy B: "Well, so far they never have. But I keep trying."
Guy A: "Why would you even try?"
Guy B: "You have to participate. Otherwise you can't complain."
Guy A: "Yes I can! I'm not the one claiming that I should be robbed!"
Guy B: "You have to work within the system."
Guy A: "What system? The system made up by the carjackers?"
Guy B: "Of course. It's the civilized thing to do."
Guy A: "Why not oppose carjacking altogether?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. Every town has to have some carjacking."
Guy A: "So you're just going to keep putting up with being robbed?"
Guy B: "It's not robbery. The carjackers have my implied consent to do it."
Guy A: "What? You told them they could take it?"
Guy B: "No, but by living here, that counts as me giving them permission."
Guy A: "Who says so?"
Guy B: "The carjackers. They say being here counts as agreeing to be robbed."
Guy A: "And you believe them?!"
Guy B: "Look, if you don't like being robbed, leave my neighborhood!"
Guy A: "But I'm saying that you shouldn't be robbed!"
Guy B: "Yes I should, you wacko, fringe kook! Now go away!"

[cedivad]

I don't know why ppl are always scared of paying taxes.
taxes are actually a great thing but only if everyone pays them and if they are spend on useful things only. Just look out your window and you will see lots of things paid with your taxes you use everyday.

Taxes are no more a great thing than a band of thieves robbing a whole village and then using some of the loot to pay for a homeless family's dinner and shelter. It's still theft and it's still wrong.

Don't make the classic mistake of noting only what is seen and forgetting about what isn't. Taxes are theft of money, money that if left in their owner's hands could have been saved, could have been invested into a company and created some jobs, could have been spent much more efficiently and where the market regulated by strictly it's consumers i.e. the free market really wants it, and not where some bureaucrat thinks will earn him some points in the next election while stuffing his own pocket with a nice portion of it.


I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of being oppressed and robbed by this gang of thugs known as the government and without incriminating myself I'll say only this: If one should ever make a stand against theft - taxes, why not do it with Bitcoin?

What % do you pay of taxes over your net income? Here in Italy it's the 55%, plus "hidden" taxes, like the paper for being able to drive a car (1000€/year) etc.

[Pteppic]

Tax is only theft if you can argue that there is some law that supersedes the government's law that they can raise taxes.

You need to learn to differentiate between the legal, the moral and the ethical realms. Taxes are not legally theft but if we assume that correctness is defined by law, then where is the reasoning behind changing laws?

Also, if government has the authority to rob and call it tax, then any of us can just band together with some guns, call ourselves government and do the same, and that is fine?

The big moral question then is: are various serious crimes, in this instance robbery (with violence), somehow okay because we legalize them in the name of government? The same applies even more so to extrajudicial homicide.

Okay, apparently I wasn't clear. I was trying to argue that simply taking something by force does not make it robbery or theft. I gave the examples of the bailiff and the police confiscating stolen goods. What, then is the difference between the police confiscating stolen goods and a bank robber taking cash from a bank since both involve taking goods by force?

My answer was that the thief doesn't have a legal claim on the property that the police confiscates, whereas the bank does have a legal claim on the money stolen from it.

So whether the government is robbing you depends on whether they have a legal claim on the money they are taking. Simply taking it by force is not enough.

I don't expect you to agree with me now, but is it any clearer where I am coming from?

[Richy_T]

Okay, apparently I wasn't clear. I was trying to argue that simply taking something by force does not make it robbery or theft. I gave the examples of the bailiff and the police confiscating stolen goods. What, then is the difference between the police confiscating stolen goods and a bank robber taking cash from a bank since both involve taking goods by force?

My answer was that the thief doesn't have a legal claim on the property that the police confiscates, whereas the bank does have a legal claim on the money stolen from it.

So whether the government is robbing you depends on whether they have a legal claim on the money they are taking. Simply taking it by force is not enough.

I don't expect you to agree with me now, but is it any clearer where I am coming from?

OK. So what you're missing is that it's not about not applying force, it's about the non-initiation of force. In your scenario, the robber initiated the use of force and is therefor in the wrong.

[nobbynobbynoob]

So whether the government is robbing you depends on whether they have a legal claim on the money they are taking. Simply taking it by force is not enough.

I don't expect you to agree with me now, but is it any clearer where I am coming from?

Yes, that makes some sense. "Government" (essentially a powerful armed monopoly) declares forcible expropriation of personal property legal and then its representatives often attempt to carry that out in practice, but the action is still what the common law would refer to as robbery (or robbery with violence).

From a personal perspective, the more of that expropriated property that is misappropriated by government for all kinds of corrupt and inappropriate purposes, the closer I am drawn to pure-anarchist thinking. Years ago, I would never have imagined considering anarchy potentially a good thing.

[Atlas]

Simply taking it by force is not enough.

Yes it is if you can maintain your possession of the property you have stolen. That's all that matters.

Any purported legitimacy is a spook. If its in your hands, it is yours regardless of the law.

[myrkul]

Simply taking it by force is not enough.

Yes it is if you can maintain your possession of the property you have stolen. That's all that matters.

Any purported legitimacy is a spook. If its in your hands, it is yours regardless of the law.

Possession is 10 tenths of the law, eh?