5 ms·

I don't see what is so ideological about this idea. If someone threatens you with violence or locking you away in a cell without your consent for not paying the

by jjn2009 10y ago

I don't see what is so ideological about this idea. If someone threatens you with violence or locking you away in a cell without your consent for not paying them that is by definition theft. If I asked you if its okay for a citizen to do this you would obviously say no, now replace "citizen" with IRS swat team (yes these exist) and some how the answer should be that this is some how 100% okay?

intopieces 10y ago
>some how the answer should be that this is some how 100% okay? Yep. Because governments are instituted among men and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. There are clear mechanisms for relinquishing certain freedoms (i.e., the freedom to keep all your money) through representative government. If you don't like taxes, get 'em repealed through the way we repeal taxes. If you don't like the way the government collects taxes, we have a way to change that too.
- jjn2009 10y ago
  In theory that would all be fine but this magical contract that I signed at birth some how which gives the IRS the right to commit violence against me some how doesn't sound as appealing as you make it. When the three wolves vote to eat the sheep, the sheep is also 100% responsible because didn't you know? You signed this thing at birth that agreed to such a possible outcome!
  - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
    Well you decided to live and work where you do, not the government. You could have, and you still can, move to a different country where the laws are more favourable to your views.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    This magical contract is the Constitution of the United States. The benefits and responsibilities of citizenship were bestowed upon you at birth. You might want to blame your parents for that. You can, of course, renounce the benefits and obligations of citizenship at any time.
  - intopieces 10y ago
    Infants can't sign contracts, and we don't tax infants anyway because they don't meet the income requirements. Your comparison to wolves and sheep is not apt -- the "violence" of taxation is only as punishment for reaping the benefits of previous payers and not abiding by the rules the common voters agreed on. You are under no obligation to reap those benefits -- in fact, society is perfectly happy to give them to you for free (albeit minimally) in the form of welfare, and charities are satisfied with giving you free food and shelter should you find the system of commerce and taxation too burdensome. That you are not afforded the extended benefits gained by common taxation at your pleasure and rate without yourself contributing is not theft in the most basic sense; it's more like an obtuse mischaracterization. It makes an interesting civics thought experiment, but nothing more.
bobwaycott 10y ago
I can't help you see what is so ideological about the idea if you honestly can't see for yourself. Threatening someone with violence is not, by any stretch of the English language, theft by definition. Nor is theft, by definition, locking someone in a cell, without their consent, for not paying [something]. This is an ideological abuse of language, by which you're attempting to strike an equivalence among separate things that are not equal to further an agenda, and its associated ideological underpinnings, by way of distorting language. We have a government here in the US that is established by, and draws its authority from, the consent of the governed. We have established a federal, constitutional republic, through which we realize our collective will by way of our duly elected representatives. When we do not like the outcome, we ought to elect different representatives, or push for different agendas. There's a great many things our representatives do that I don't agree with, but I don't pick and choose which laws I am going to abide by. I especially denounce the childish, shortsighted, selfish, and wholly ideological rejection of the validity of paying one's fair share of taxes as an obligation of citizenship—especially when one chooses to continue enjoying the benefits of citizenship. Fidelity to the law is a virtue and obligation of citizenship[1], and cherry picking what laws one will faithfully follow shows a clear insincerity for participating in and pursuing a lawful and just society. [1]: With reasonable, defensible exceptions made for valid civil disobedience, of course. I have yet to encounter a single convincing argument for refusing to pay taxes that fits this exception—it's always ideological blustering.
- jjn2009 10y ago
  Okay so its just theft because when I get my check I get a receipt which tells me the amount of theft which occurred from each pay check. The violence part of this is important because without violence or some force which compels me to pay it, the payment is then voluntary. If I could stop paying it then it would not be theft. Until I can personally decide not to pay it is THEFT. They never personally asked for my consent for anything. As for citizenship and participation I don't see what so virtuous about submitting to the violence of the state and perceiving it as necessary to government when applied to taxes, I respect laws which do not infringe upon my own rights. I don't volunteer my money, when someone tells me they are going to force me to pay money by some means that is theft. It doesn't matter if its you or an entity which I supposedly in some contract with, a contract which I never signed

by jjn2009 10y ago

intopieces 10y ago

>some how the answer should be that this is some how 100% okay? Yep. Because governments are instituted among men and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. There are clear mechanisms for relinquishing certain freedoms (i.e., the freedom to keep all your money) through representative government. If you don't like taxes, get 'em repealed through the way we repeal taxes. If you don't like the way the government collects taxes, we have a way to change that too.

jjn2009 10y ago
In theory that would all be fine but this magical contract that I signed at birth some how which gives the IRS the right to commit violence against me some how doesn't sound as appealing as you make it. When the three wolves vote to eat the sheep, the sheep is also 100% responsible because didn't you know? You signed this thing at birth that agreed to such a possible outcome!
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
  Well you decided to live and work where you do, not the government. You could have, and you still can, move to a different country where the laws are more favourable to your views.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  This magical contract is the Constitution of the United States. The benefits and responsibilities of citizenship were bestowed upon you at birth. You might want to blame your parents for that. You can, of course, renounce the benefits and obligations of citizenship at any time.
- intopieces 10y ago
  Infants can't sign contracts, and we don't tax infants anyway because they don't meet the income requirements. Your comparison to wolves and sheep is not apt -- the "violence" of taxation is only as punishment for reaping the benefits of previous payers and not abiding by the rules the common voters agreed on. You are under no obligation to reap those benefits -- in fact, society is perfectly happy to give them to you for free (albeit minimally) in the form of welfare, and charities are satisfied with giving you free food and shelter should you find the system of commerce and taxation too burdensome. That you are not afforded the extended benefits gained by common taxation at your pleasure and rate without yourself contributing is not theft in the most basic sense; it's more like an obtuse mischaracterization. It makes an interesting civics thought experiment, but nothing more.

bobwaycott 10y ago

I can't help you see what is so ideological about the idea if you honestly can't see for yourself. Threatening someone with violence is not, by any stretch of the English language, theft by definition. Nor is theft, by definition, locking someone in a cell, without their consent, for not paying [something]. This is an ideological abuse of language, by which you're attempting to strike an equivalence among separate things that are not equal to further an agenda, and its associated ideological underpinnings, by way of distorting language. We have a government here in the US that is established by, and draws its authority from, the consent of the governed. We have established a federal, constitutional republic, through which we realize our collective will by way of our duly elected representatives. When we do not like the outcome, we ought to elect different representatives, or push for different agendas. There's a great many things our representatives do that I don't agree with, but I don't pick and choose which laws I am going to abide by. I especially denounce the childish, shortsighted, selfish, and wholly ideological rejection of the validity of paying one's fair share of taxes as an obligation of citizenship—especially when one chooses to continue enjoying the benefits of citizenship. Fidelity to the law is a virtue and obligation of citizenship[1], and cherry picking what laws one will faithfully follow shows a clear insincerity for participating in and pursuing a lawful and just society. [1]: With reasonable, defensible exceptions made for valid civil disobedience, of course. I have yet to encounter a single convincing argument for refusing to pay taxes that fits this exception—it's always ideological blustering.

jjn2009 10y ago
Okay so its just theft because when I get my check I get a receipt which tells me the amount of theft which occurred from each pay check. The violence part of this is important because without violence or some force which compels me to pay it, the payment is then voluntary. If I could stop paying it then it would not be theft. Until I can personally decide not to pay it is THEFT. They never personally asked for my consent for anything. As for citizenship and participation I don't see what so virtuous about submitting to the violence of the state and perceiving it as necessary to government when applied to taxes, I respect laws which do not infringe upon my own rights. I don't volunteer my money, when someone tells me they are going to force me to pay money by some means that is theft. It doesn't matter if its you or an entity which I supposedly in some contract with, a contract which I never signed