4 ms·

>No, it's legal. Your soundbite has no place in a serious discussion. Feel free to say it's equitable to theft, or you see it as no different, but we both know

>No, it's legal. Your soundbite has no place in a serious discussion. Feel free to say it's equitable to theft, or you see it as no different, but we both know it is not actual theft, and all you are doing is avoiding the question, which could have been done just as easily by leaving it out. Theft is the Involuntary Taking of a persons property, Taxation is most certainly theft The fact that is is approved by government, or legal, does not transform it into something else.

X86BSD 11y ago
+1 And as I mentioned earlier if it's not voluntary there is no enforceable contract between the two parties. Might does not make right. You can pass all the laws you wish to state otherwise but it doesnt change the facts.
kbenson 11y ago
Taxation is an exchange of goods for services. Services you've received your entire life. If you want to reclassify it as theft, then every use of a public road by you is theft of services, and you and the government are just stealing from each other. It's the contract you were born under, or chose to accept if you immigrated. If you don't like it, you are allowed (encouraged even!) to get involved and try to change it, or you can shop around for a different location that has better terms, or no terms at all (good luck, you might find a place, but I doubt it would be a desirable place to live). That's the reality of the situation, rejecting it will only work for so long until it is forcible reasserted. It may not always be the case, but it's the case now.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  WOW, Just wow... The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you... Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you... Maybe one day you will see the light of liberty, but I doubt it The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face.. I will leave you with a few Links http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6 https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index The Philosophy of Liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ Have a nice evening
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face. That's what being born as a citizen is. The "contract" in question is not a legal construct, but a societal one. It's the same as your relationship to your parents. You both have obligation to each other, but that can be reassessed if one side does not held up. Being born into a contract is not inherently unfair, it's only unfair if the contract itself is unfair and does not allow for change. > http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ I just watched the first video. It's laughably one sided, presents starting conditions to prime you for later arguments, and uses visuals that look to be eyes to specifically tailored to prime your response through emotion rather than rational thought. I am not impressed. > The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you It's relative, and I am, by nature, a relativist. For example, I do not believe ownership is an inherent right, but a societal construct, and as such when discussing something as large as changing that way in which our society functions at a core level, you can't use ownership as the basis to justify the legality of an action of that society without first justifying ownership. That is, there exist systems where there is no ownership, and they are not inherently bad, or wrong, as much as I do not want to live within them. As such, I'm forced to state a goal of the system, and which system I think is best at getting there while maximizing efficiency. My goal in this case would be a mixture of the least suffering most most happiness per person, while trying to minimize extreme suffering. I think our current mixture of socialism and capitalism is a decent choice for efficiently achieving this goal. I believe straying too far towards either libertarianism or communism provides unacceptable levels of either suffering or overall unhappiness. I'm open to this situation changing in the future, due to new systems being developed, old systems being tweaked, or reassessment through new realities enabled by technology. I don't think we're there yet. As such, I think "taxation is theft" is working at a level that completely misses the point. Theft is a construct of society, not a moral certitude, and if it works against society, and humanity, to consider taxation theft, then I don't care whether you think it is or isn't. It's irrelevant. I believe that's the most moral stance I can take, the one that helps the most people living now and in the future. You may believe something different, that's fine. I try to live by my beliefs, I only expect you to try to live by yours. > WOW, Just wow... > Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you... I wish I could say that at least you kept it classy, and didn't resort to pure condescension. But I can't.

X86BSD 11y ago

+1 And as I mentioned earlier if it's not voluntary there is no enforceable contract between the two parties. Might does not make right. You can pass all the laws you wish to state otherwise but it doesnt change the facts.

kbenson 11y ago

Taxation is an exchange of goods for services. Services you've received your entire life. If you want to reclassify it as theft, then every use of a public road by you is theft of services, and you and the government are just stealing from each other. It's the contract you were born under, or chose to accept if you immigrated. If you don't like it, you are allowed (encouraged even!) to get involved and try to change it, or you can shop around for a different location that has better terms, or no terms at all (good luck, you might find a place, but I doubt it would be a desirable place to live). That's the reality of the situation, rejecting it will only work for so long until it is forcible reasserted. It may not always be the case, but it's the case now.

the_ancient 11y ago
WOW, Just wow... The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you... Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you... Maybe one day you will see the light of liberty, but I doubt it The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face.. I will leave you with a few Links http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6 https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index The Philosophy of Liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ Have a nice evening
- kbenson 11y ago
  > The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face. That's what being born as a citizen is. The "contract" in question is not a legal construct, but a societal one. It's the same as your relationship to your parents. You both have obligation to each other, but that can be reassessed if one side does not held up. Being born into a contract is not inherently unfair, it's only unfair if the contract itself is unfair and does not allow for change. > http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ http://georgeoughttohelp.com/ I just watched the first video. It's laughably one sided, presents starting conditions to prime you for later arguments, and uses visuals that look to be eyes to specifically tailored to prime your response through emotion rather than rational thought. I am not impressed. > The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you It's relative, and I am, by nature, a relativist. For example, I do not believe ownership is an inherent right, but a societal construct, and as such when discussing something as large as changing that way in which our society functions at a core level, you can't use ownership as the basis to justify the legality of an action of that society without first justifying ownership. That is, there exist systems where there is no ownership, and they are not inherently bad, or wrong, as much as I do not want to live within them. As such, I'm forced to state a goal of the system, and which system I think is best at getting there while maximizing efficiency. My goal in this case would be a mixture of the least suffering most most happiness per person, while trying to minimize extreme suffering. I think our current mixture of socialism and capitalism is a decent choice for efficiently achieving this goal. I believe straying too far towards either libertarianism or communism provides unacceptable levels of either suffering or overall unhappiness. I'm open to this situation changing in the future, due to new systems being developed, old systems being tweaked, or reassessment through new realities enabled by technology. I don't think we're there yet. As such, I think "taxation is theft" is working at a level that completely misses the point. Theft is a construct of society, not a moral certitude, and if it works against society, and humanity, to consider taxation theft, then I don't care whether you think it is or isn't. It's irrelevant. I believe that's the most moral stance I can take, the one that helps the most people living now and in the future. You may believe something different, that's fine. I try to live by my beliefs, I only expect you to try to live by yours. > WOW, Just wow... > Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you... I wish I could say that at least you kept it classy, and didn't resort to pure condescension. But I can't.