9 ms·

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

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
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Yeesh. Now you are just talking in circles. Including the word "theft" in every sentence does nothing to prove that taxes are theft. This is starting to sound like the kind of pointless argument where a person keeps saying the same word over and over again, as if that actually has convincing or explanatory power. It doesn't. I said nothing to suggest you or anyone else should submit to state violence. There is a serious difference between fidelity to the rule of law, the granting of a monopoly on lawful violence in the hands of a state to execute its laws, and submitting to the violence of a state. If you're going to label every action of the state in the pursuance of upholding and executing laws passed by the People's duly elected representatives as violence, we aren't likely to get anywhere. If you only respect laws that do not infringe upon your rights, that's awfully selfish and childish. Do you want the state and its laws to infringe only upon others rights, then? If not, are you suggesting the state should only enact and execute laws which infringe on no one's rights? I ask because the whole basis of societies, and the entities through which humanity governs those societies, is that everyone, to lesser or greater degrees, has their freedom curtailed. Now, at least within liberal, democratic states, the alleged goal is to define and protect rights as inviolable, whereas liberties and freedoms may be reasonably limited and/or infringed upon where necessary to carve out and protect the greatest possible liberty/freedom for all. If you think it's possible to have laws that do not infringe upon anyone's liberty/freedom, I'm really curious what kind of laws you envision could fall in this category. If you think taxes violate your defined and protected rights, I'm curious which rights enumerated in the Constitution are violated by taxes. Obviously, we don't want governments trampling the rights of its citizens. However, there is no legally defined or protected right to pay zero taxes in any liberal, democratic state I know of since they began forming centuries ago.
- intopieces 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. Theft is taking from someone that which they already posses. Not being given something is not the same as being stolen from. The money "taken" from your check was never yours; that the government discloses a particular amount (and calculates it as a percentage) is incidental. If you choose to with-hold your taxes that you'll owe later, that's something you agree to individually at your own discretion, of course. You signed up to be taxed when you took a job in the United States. The 13th Amendment abolished involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, so if you're being worked and taxed against your own volition, please consult your nearest civil rights attorney, because you've got a solid case. >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 Your particular ability to see the virtue in taxation has no bearing on the legal definition of theft. Nor does your particular feelings toward laws impart any special sovereignty in relation to them. >a contract which I never signed Every single transaction you make with the government, from sales tax to social security tax to Obamacare penalty, is the outcome of an individual agreement (a 'contract') you enter into with various parties. Again, if you so chose, you could live off of the auspices of charity and pay zero tax. Or, you could even work a little and receive negative tax! You don't like the system in place. That's clear. But false equivocation makes for a specious argument.

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

bobwaycott 10y ago
Yeesh. Now you are just talking in circles. Including the word "theft" in every sentence does nothing to prove that taxes are theft. This is starting to sound like the kind of pointless argument where a person keeps saying the same word over and over again, as if that actually has convincing or explanatory power. It doesn't. I said nothing to suggest you or anyone else should submit to state violence. There is a serious difference between fidelity to the rule of law, the granting of a monopoly on lawful violence in the hands of a state to execute its laws, and submitting to the violence of a state. If you're going to label every action of the state in the pursuance of upholding and executing laws passed by the People's duly elected representatives as violence, we aren't likely to get anywhere. If you only respect laws that do not infringe upon your rights, that's awfully selfish and childish. Do you want the state and its laws to infringe only upon others rights, then? If not, are you suggesting the state should only enact and execute laws which infringe on no one's rights? I ask because the whole basis of societies, and the entities through which humanity governs those societies, is that everyone, to lesser or greater degrees, has their freedom curtailed. Now, at least within liberal, democratic states, the alleged goal is to define and protect rights as inviolable, whereas liberties and freedoms may be reasonably limited and/or infringed upon where necessary to carve out and protect the greatest possible liberty/freedom for all. If you think it's possible to have laws that do not infringe upon anyone's liberty/freedom, I'm really curious what kind of laws you envision could fall in this category. If you think taxes violate your defined and protected rights, I'm curious which rights enumerated in the Constitution are violated by taxes. Obviously, we don't want governments trampling the rights of its citizens. However, there is no legally defined or protected right to pay zero taxes in any liberal, democratic state I know of since they began forming centuries ago.
intopieces 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. Theft is taking from someone that which they already posses. Not being given something is not the same as being stolen from. The money "taken" from your check was never yours; that the government discloses a particular amount (and calculates it as a percentage) is incidental. If you choose to with-hold your taxes that you'll owe later, that's something you agree to individually at your own discretion, of course. You signed up to be taxed when you took a job in the United States. The 13th Amendment abolished involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, so if you're being worked and taxed against your own volition, please consult your nearest civil rights attorney, because you've got a solid case. >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 Your particular ability to see the virtue in taxation has no bearing on the legal definition of theft. Nor does your particular feelings toward laws impart any special sovereignty in relation to them. >a contract which I never signed Every single transaction you make with the government, from sales tax to social security tax to Obamacare penalty, is the outcome of an individual agreement (a 'contract') you enter into with various parties. Again, if you so chose, you could live off of the auspices of charity and pay zero tax. Or, you could even work a little and receive negative tax! You don't like the system in place. That's clear. But false equivocation makes for a specious argument.