Defend Taxation

[FirstAscent]

So, there's no tax-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why?

Because though it "evolved", as you say, it is wrong, and coercive, and I say, unnecessary. Prove me wrong. That's what this thread is for. And you're still failing miserably.

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you (as by your standards). It's no great loss, though.

[myrkul]

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you.

Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

[FirstAscent]

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you.

Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

Taxation is no more theft than the paying of association dues. But if you don't view it that way, and reject taxes outright, at this point in your life, then are you really someone who's going to change his mind? Does it really matter that much to the rest of us how you think?

Yes, I know that you view association dues as voluntary. Good for you. But they really aren't that voluntary. The alternative is to move (being coerced to, it would seem) if you don't wish to pay the association dues.

Nobody really cares that you have labeled taxes as violent coercion. Because, really, it would seem that in your world with no taxes, I will be violently coerced to remain on my property if I object to payment of fees, tolls, and any number of other expenses.

I'll take the bundled package and simply not be bothered all the time by decisions of where I wish to be the least violently coerced on a daily basis, thank you.

[myrkul]

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you.

Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

Taxation is no more theft than the paying of association dues. But if you don't view it that way, and reject taxes outright, at this point in your life, then are you really someone who's going to change his mind? Does it really matter that much to the rest of us how you think?

Yes, I know that you view association dues as voluntary. Good for you. But they really aren't that voluntary. The alternative is to move (being coerced to, it would seem) if you don't wish to pay the association dues.

So, now it's not rent, but association dues?

I've been in a Home-owner's association, before, they had a big long contract I had to sign before I could move in. I could probably still dig it up.

Where's the contract? When did I sign it?

[FirstAscent]

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you.

Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

Taxation is no more theft than the paying of association dues. But if you don't view it that way, and reject taxes outright, at this point in your life, then are you really someone who's going to change his mind? Does it really matter that much to the rest of us how you think?

Yes, I know that you view association dues as voluntary. Good for you. But they really aren't that voluntary. The alternative is to move (being coerced to, it would seem) if you don't wish to pay the association dues.

So, now it's not rent, but association dues?

I've been in a Home-owner's association, before, they had a big long contract I had to sign before I could move in. I could probably still dig it up.

Where's the contract? When did I sign it?

I don't care where your contract is. I suppose it's your birth certificate, your citizenship papers, the signing of your tax return, the receipt you received for buying a hamburger that spells out the sales tax you paid, the W-4 you signed, the deed to your property, whatever.

I don't fucking care where your contract is. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't earn and don't buy.

Let me make myself crystal clear: your AnCap world is going to nickel and dime me to death if I choose to live, and in ways that I will feel coerced to do so.

So I don't care that you're complaining and demanding that someone defend taxes to you. I don't care that your requirements for what a contract is not being met.

I don't fucking care.

[myrkul]

I don't fucking care.

Hmmm... Compelling argument.

[FirstAscent]

I don't fucking care.

Hmmm... Compelling argument.

Where did you miss the part within my argument that I said I don't care about what you require in the way of a contract or what you expect from others with regard to your viewpoint?

[myrkul]

I don't fucking care.

Hmmm... Compelling argument.

Where did you miss the part within my argument that I said I don't care about what you require in the way of a contract or what you expect from others with regard to your viewpoint?

The part where you say you don't care, but keep posting.

[myrkul]

....
I'll take the bundled package and simply not be bothered all the time by decisions of where I wish to be the least violently coerced on a daily basis, thank you.

That is a good argument in favor of taxes, 'all this running shit's complicated, I'll just pay some sucker to do it for me'.

Except that's not an argument for taxes. It's an argument for voluntary delegation, but not taxation. Voluntary delegation, FirstAscent's "bundled services" can, and probably would, since they're so convenient, exist in an AnCap society, but like cable TV, or insurance policies, you would get to choose which bundle.

[Bjork]

Taxation is payment to your country/government for their "service" of allowing you to live/reside in their "property".

Now, you said that this was not a fair argument because countries don't really "own" their land because they claimed it through violence etc, but I disagree.  How else does one claim/own land (if not through violence)?  This goes back to John locke and Rousseau's ideas about property, but it is not possible for anyone to own anything without committing a "violence" against others.  If one wishes to claim land/property he is necessarily impeding on the rights of others by saying that they cannot enter/use this property now, he is committing a "violence" against them.

Imagine a "state of nature" where everybody owned/shared everything (no property). The first man to "claim land" is directly impeding on the rights of others by taking their property/preventing them from "using" the land that they were once able to use.

I suppose one could also imagine the "state of nature" as existing where nobody owns anything.  Still, a person claiming land and fencing out others is impeding on the "rights" of the others to possibly claim that land... This is perhaps weak, but still valid IMO.

I think there are only 2 rational conclusions:
1. Property is immoral and not-just.  Perhaps a "state of nature" as Rousseau described is what is "just"
2. property, and thus taxation, is "just"

[myrkul]

Taxation is payment to your country/government for their "service" of allowing you to live/reside in their "property".

Now, you said that this was not a fair argument because countries don't really "own" their land because they claimed it through violence etc, but I disagree.  How else does one claim/own land?  This goes back to John locke and Rousseau's ideas about property, but I still stand by the claim that it is not possible for anyone to own anything without committing a "violence" against others.  If one wishes to claim land/property he is necessarily impeding on the rights of others by saying that they cannot enter/use this property now, he is committing a "violence" against them.

I think there are only 2 rational conclusions:
1. Property is immoral and not-just.  Perhaps a "state of nature" as Rousseau described is what is "just"
2. property, and thus taxation, is "just"

This is an interesting argument. Decidedly flawed, but interesting.

If I stake a claim of unowned, virgin forest, am I thereby committing a violence on everyone else?

[Bjork]

I edited my argument for further clarification.

This is an interesting argument. Decidedly flawed, but interesting.

If I stake a claim of unowned, virgin forest, am I thereby committing a violence on everyone else?

yes

[myrkul]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

[Bjork]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

[myrkul]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

That's an interesting perspective. What if, instead of fencing it off, I plant wheat? Does that destroy the right of another to plant begonias?

[Bjork]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

That's an interesting perspective. What if, instead of fencing it off, I plant wheat? Does that destroy the right of another to plant begonias?

John Locke would say that work entitles one to ownership.  His followers/thinkers claim that if one puts work into something, he necessarily owns it.  Incidentally, Karl Marx thinks the same thing...  Locke would say that you would own the land because you planted wheat, and it would be just for you to defend the wheat from others.

Rousseau would say that you can plant the wheat if you want, but that does not entitle you to ownership of the land.. OR of the wheat.  Anyone can just come take the wheat from you (well, he would claim you never owned it anyways) essentially..

[myrkul]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

That's an interesting perspective. What if, instead of fencing it off, I plant wheat? Does that destroy the right of another to plant begonias?

John Locke would say that work entitles one to ownership.  His followers/thinkers claim that if one puts work into something, he necessarily owns it.  Incidentally, Karl Marx thinks the same thing...  Locke would say that you would own the land because you planted wheat, and it would be just for you to defend the wheat from others.

Rousseau would say that you can plant the wheat if you want, but that does not entitle you to ownership of the land.. OR of the wheat.  Anyone can just come take the wheat from you essentially..

But what about you, what do you say?

[Bjork]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

That's an interesting perspective. What if, instead of fencing it off, I plant wheat? Does that destroy the right of another to plant begonias?

John Locke would say that work entitles one to ownership.  His followers/thinkers claim that if one puts work into something, he necessarily owns it.  Incidentally, Karl Marx thinks the same thing...  Locke would say that you would own the land because you planted wheat, and it would be just for you to defend the wheat from others.

Rousseau would say that you can plant the wheat if you want, but that does not entitle you to ownership of the land.. OR of the wheat.  Anyone can just come take the wheat from you essentially..

But what about you, what do you say?

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

[myrkul]

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

Well, simple:
The other people had not worked on that land, and you had. Work entitles you to ownership, and since they had not worked on the land, they had no claim on it.

[Bjork]

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

Well, simple:
The other people had not worked on that land, and you had. Work entitles you to ownership, and since they had not worked on the land, they had no claim on it.

Well that works I suppose .  So now the question is did the "government" put "work" in and justly acquire their "land" and therefore have the right to levy taxes?