Why are people scared of taxes?

[myrkul]

So you're in favor of hobbling the military?

You miss - intentionally, I think - the point. I say again, What happens if you don't want to go to prison for not paying taxes?

[1714512407]

1714512407

[1714512407]

1714512407

[1714512407]

1714512407

[1714512407]

1714512407

[Kontakt]

So you're in favor of hobbling the military?

You miss - intentionally, I think - the point. I say again, What happens if you don't want to go to prison for not paying taxes?

Obviously, if you resist arrest, you will be compelled to go, not shot on sight.

[sturle]

If threatening to kill someone is immoral, why is using that threat moral when "required by law"?

No law in my country will threaten to kill anyone.  In fact the most common reason for people getting political asylum in most of Europe is a death penalty, or a real threat of a death penalty, in their home countries.  Only a handful countries still practice death penalty, and I have no plans to go there.

And I'm still not answering your silly hypothetical questions with no base in modern reality.  Go back in time and ask me then, or whatever.

[myrkul]

So you're in favor of hobbling the military?

You miss - intentionally, I think - the point. I say again, What happens if you don't want to go to prison for not paying taxes?

Obviously, if you resist arrest, you will be compelled to go, not shot on sight.

And if you resist further?

[myrkul]

If threatening to kill someone is immoral, why is using that threat moral when "required by law"?

No law in my country will threaten to kill anyone.

The police in your country are unarmed, then?

[Kontakt]

So you're in favor of hobbling the military?

You miss - intentionally, I think - the point. I say again, What happens if you don't want to go to prison for not paying taxes?

Obviously, if you resist arrest, you will be compelled to go, not shot on sight.

And if you resist further?

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

[sturle]

They have exempted themselves from all "gun control" laws and have all lethal weapons imaginable at their disposal, and use them with impunity (which means never worrying about being imprisoned, let alone prosecuted, for murder, civil rights violations resulting in death). "Not at all", my ass.

What country is this?  In my country it is very common to own a gun, but the police do not carry guns.  The police are allowed to arm themselves if the situation requires it, but the rules are very strict and it rarely happens.  Violence involving firearms is very rare.

[sturle]

If threatening to kill someone is immoral, why is using that threat moral when "required by law"?

No law in my country will threaten to kill anyone.

The police in your country are unarmed, then?

Correct.

[myrkul]

What happens if you don't want to go to prison for not paying taxes?

Obviously, if you resist arrest, you will be compelled to go, not shot on sight.

And if you resist further?

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

[sturle]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

[myrkul]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Who would not be there trying to kidnap you if you had payed the tax. And I'd hardly call defending oneself from being kidnapped "threatening."

[TheButterZone]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Which means holding a cellphone, a hose nozzle, or nothing more than a 10-month-old baby and them "mistaking" it for a lethal threat to get away with shoot-on-sight murder, and the courts protecting their own perjuring fellow government agents.

[Kontakt]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Which means holding a cellphone, a hose nozzle, or nothing more than a 10-month-old baby and them "mistaking" it for a lethal threat to get away with shoot-on-sight murder, and the courts protecting their own perjuring fellow government agents.

So, if you felt threatened by someone, and had no clue what they are holding, would you shoot them in self-defense if you felt you were in danger? Your stance on gun rights is irreconcilable with police that won't use their guns.

Japanese policemen rarely carry guns, and even less rarely use them. This is possible because of the restrictions on gun ownership in Japan.

PMCs that you all suggest as a replacement for the police have even itchier trigger fingers.

[myrkul]

So, if you felt threatened by someone...

The real question is why do they feel threatened?

[sturle]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Who would not be there trying to kidnap you if you had payed the tax. And I'd hardly call defending oneself from being kidnapped "threatening."

The police wouldn't be there in the first place if you paid your tax.  Stop whining like a baby and pay your tax like a grownup.

I doubt the police would make arrests in anything but property, unless you threaten them.  Your property is more valuable than you when the tax is to be paid.  Kidnap you!?  To demand ransom?  You sure have a child's fantasy.  The government has the right to take back their property, and throw you out of it if necessary.  Just like you have if someone live at your place without paying the the rent.  If they don't like your rent, they are free to move to another place with a lower rent.  And so are you when it comes to taxes.

[myrkul]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Who would not be there trying to kidnap you if you had payed the tax. And I'd hardly call defending oneself from being kidnapped "threatening."

The police wouldn't be there in the first place if you paid your tax.  

Which is exactly what I said.

So what makes their demanding payment, backed up by the threat of force, moral when if I were to do that, it would not be?

You say that "governments have the right to tax you." Why?

[Kontakt]

Then you become a threat to yourself and others. You will be taken without lethal harm if at all possible. If you provide a significant threat to officers, they are entitled to shoot you in self defense.

So, we have arrived at the threat of death. From not paying taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Who would not be there trying to kidnap you if you had payed the tax. And I'd hardly call defending oneself from being kidnapped "threatening."

The police wouldn't be there in the first place if you paid your tax.  

Which is exactly what I said.

So what makes their demanding payment, backed up by the threat of force, moral when if I were to do that, it would not be?

You say that "governments have the right to tax you." Why?

You are living within their sovereign territory, using their services and being protected by them. That, frankly, couldn't be clearer. Even if the government were replaced by private companies, you would pay just as much and receive less.

[myrkul]

You are living within their sovereign territory, using their services and being protected by them. That, frankly, couldn't be clearer.

Well, I'll agree that I do live within the borders of the US. I do occasionally use their "services", but I am not being protected by them. Do I need to provide the "no duty to protect" links again?

Here's a question: Why am I paying for services I don't use, and why does merely living here grant them the right to extort money from me?

Even if the government were replaced by private companies, you would pay just as much and receive less.

On the contrary, in every market where a monopoly has been removed, the service has improved, and prices have decreased. I could show you examples, but you can research them yourself, if you'd like.

[sturle]

You say that "governments have the right to tax you." Why?

I have written many posts explaining that.  Go back and ask about the specifics you don't understand, and I may be able to explain them to you again.  I understand it can be difficult when you lack basic logic knowledge and don't believe in the right to property.  (Because it is evident to anyone with a basic understanding og property and logic.)

[myrkul]

You say that "governments have the right to tax you." Why?

I have written many posts explaining that.  Go back and ask about the specifics you don't understand, and I may be able to explain them to you again.  I understand it can be difficult when you lack basic logic knowledge and don't believe in the right to property.  (Because it is evident to anyone with a basic understanding og property and logic.)

But I do believe in the right to property. I just want to know why the government thinks it's OK to take mine.