3 ms·

Taxation is only "theft"[1] in precisely the same way that any part of the constitution is enforced. So I guess i'm not sure what the point is. In the US, the

Taxation is only "theft"[1] in precisely the same way that any part of the constitution is enforced. So I guess i'm not sure what the point is. In the US, the government derives its rights from the consent of the governed (see the declaration of independence, which, while not an binding source of law, explains this quite well:P). Here, the governed chose to enact a constitution that allowed the government to take taxes. The government does so. If the governed wish to not be taxed, they have a way to do that too! Pass a constitutional amendment.

murbard2 10y ago
"In the US, the government derives its rights from the consent of the governed" Collective consent requires unanimity. If you don't have that to begin with, then you don't have consent to consitutional amendments or what have you. If you want to argue for government, argue on pragmatic grounds, social contract theory or "the consent of the governed" is a joke.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "Collective consent requires unanimity." Says who? There are many forms of collective consent and decision making. Your parents parents parents parents parents (or whatever) consented either by exercising rights in the document (adoption/ratification), voting for it, or heck, choosing to remain knowing what the rules would be. You get your chance to not consent by choosing to not remain if you like.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    Parents can't consent for their children. And claiming that you can leave is not a valid argument because it's not always true, and there's nowhere to go.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      In practical terms and matters, parents make binding choices for their minor children every day. Where are my kids going to sleep tonight? Where I [and my wife] decide. What are my kids going to eat tonight? ... You're right that it's not consent exactly, but I made a binding choice to have children and to raise them in America (and Massachusetts and Cambridge and in this house). I made that choice recognizing that that would subject them to the good and ill of those choices, including taxation, the federal and state laws, local ordinances, and whatever drafts, roof leaks, and other dangers this house might have. That they were not personally consulted and did not personally consent that we drive on the right side of the road, that we use the USD as our currency, that we use center-tapped 240VAC, 60 Hz single-phase as the residential electrical standard is irrelevant in practical terms.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Consent doesn't 51% of people get to decide for 100% of people what to do. Majority-rule does not make state action consensual. Your politics is shallow and inhuman.
    - tezza 10y ago
      That's a sub form of democracy called Majoritarianism. lots of decision making needs higher standards, often watered down later Conviction for Murder 12 unanimous peers - watered down to 11 of 12 in some places Constitutional changes - 2/3 majority required in many jurisdictions As a side note this is why the Brexit result was so devastating, the brexit side won by only a little however the support for being governed by the EU was only 48% .... this needed to be 66% or more for EU rule to be truly accepted
      - pitaj 10y ago
        Consent doesn't happen at anything but unanimous consent in a group. If you decide to vote, the decision to vote must be unanimous. There needs to be a consent on every individual level in order for consent to occur in the collective level. Otherwise a room of wolves can eat the sheep.
        sokoloff 10y ago
        Play that out a little bit and tell us how you get a functioning government [or collective society over 100K people] as a result. "I didn't agree to that parking fine; I park where I damn well please." "I didn't agree to not put rat poison on the food I sold." "I didn't agree that John and Jane Doe owned that house." "I didn't agree that we have a medical licensing board to determine qualifications for doctors/surgeons." "I initially agreed to pay for that, but I now revoke my consent and don't wish to be bound by that earlier consent. I did not agree to recognize your courts as valid and able to enforce that civil agreement."
        icebraining 10y ago
        That's not a rebuttal against the argument. If you have a chicken and call it a bull, and I say "that's not a bull, those have horns, tails, etc", saying "well, try getting eggs from that" doesn't prove that chickens are actually bulls.
  - murbard2 10y ago
    Everything you said applies to gang rape. Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals.
    - tscs37 10y ago
      >Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. A subjective and indefensible view point, as far as I'm concerned. >If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals. As far as "social contract theorists" are concerned their system is right/just within it's own bounds, just as yours is only right/just within it's own bounds. There is no moral gold standard just as there is no universally just government. The Social Contract works because it defines that a majority of people can give consent for others to participate in it. This is purely subjective and is only an operating principle if the Social Contract exists. Once you step out of the Social Contract, it no longer applies and nobody can give consent you into participating. Now let's step back for a minute. What you're attempting here is saying that under the moral framework A, the actions taken with justification moral framework B are unjust. This is not correct. It's similar to taking a mathematical system that lacks addition and then complain that another system with addition does not work correctly because it has addition. (Reverse lack/has if you want, it's irrelevant) The "social contract theorists" justify their actions under the social contract which allows them to give consent via majority instead of unanimity, while you want a system that defines the consent to said contract via unanimity. Both options are fine but you cannot simply say the other side is wrong. edit: I might also add that even you continue to utilize a social contract; the contract of consent via unanimity. Which means that everyone agrees to respect the consent of everyone else. This is not a objective right that you somehow magically have, it's something you say you have. That only works as long as everyone agrees but if one person says "I don't want everyone to respect my consent" your social contract violates itself.
em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
> "Here, the governed chose to enact a constitution that allowed the government to take taxes" No. A bunch of politicians composed of lawyers and privileged elites from the various states chose to enact a constitution did. > "If the governed wish to not be taxed, they have a way to do that too! Pass a constitutional amendment." If someone rejects the government's claim on their self and rejects the government's legitimacy, then no, they have no obligation to utilize the government's system of law making.
EdHominem 10y ago
The thing is, if taxation isn't theft then why shouldn't the government do as much of it as it wants? Why not just tax the people at 100%? I think we actually get to a proper statist view by seeing taxation as theft, thus an inherent badness, which is only justified when the people are represented properly and the government respects their needs. So I hear this language as a perfectly reasonable call to examine the balance and see if we're being heard and getting our needs met in exchange for the sacrifices in question.

murbard2 10y ago

"In the US, the government derives its rights from the consent of the governed" Collective consent requires unanimity. If you don't have that to begin with, then you don't have consent to consitutional amendments or what have you. If you want to argue for government, argue on pragmatic grounds, social contract theory or "the consent of the governed" is a joke.

DannyBee 10y ago
"Collective consent requires unanimity." Says who? There are many forms of collective consent and decision making. Your parents parents parents parents parents (or whatever) consented either by exercising rights in the document (adoption/ratification), voting for it, or heck, choosing to remain knowing what the rules would be. You get your chance to not consent by choosing to not remain if you like.
- pitaj 10y ago
  Parents can't consent for their children. And claiming that you can leave is not a valid argument because it's not always true, and there's nowhere to go.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    In practical terms and matters, parents make binding choices for their minor children every day. Where are my kids going to sleep tonight? Where I [and my wife] decide. What are my kids going to eat tonight? ... You're right that it's not consent exactly, but I made a binding choice to have children and to raise them in America (and Massachusetts and Cambridge and in this house). I made that choice recognizing that that would subject them to the good and ill of those choices, including taxation, the federal and state laws, local ordinances, and whatever drafts, roof leaks, and other dangers this house might have. That they were not personally consulted and did not personally consent that we drive on the right side of the road, that we use the USD as our currency, that we use center-tapped 240VAC, 60 Hz single-phase as the residential electrical standard is irrelevant in practical terms.
- aminok 10y ago
  Consent doesn't 51% of people get to decide for 100% of people what to do. Majority-rule does not make state action consensual. Your politics is shallow and inhuman.
  - tezza 10y ago
    That's a sub form of democracy called Majoritarianism. lots of decision making needs higher standards, often watered down later Conviction for Murder 12 unanimous peers - watered down to 11 of 12 in some places Constitutional changes - 2/3 majority required in many jurisdictions As a side note this is why the Brexit result was so devastating, the brexit side won by only a little however the support for being governed by the EU was only 48% .... this needed to be 66% or more for EU rule to be truly accepted
    - pitaj 10y ago
      Consent doesn't happen at anything but unanimous consent in a group. If you decide to vote, the decision to vote must be unanimous. There needs to be a consent on every individual level in order for consent to occur in the collective level. Otherwise a room of wolves can eat the sheep.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        Play that out a little bit and tell us how you get a functioning government [or collective society over 100K people] as a result. "I didn't agree to that parking fine; I park where I damn well please." "I didn't agree to not put rat poison on the food I sold." "I didn't agree that John and Jane Doe owned that house." "I didn't agree that we have a medical licensing board to determine qualifications for doctors/surgeons." "I initially agreed to pay for that, but I now revoke my consent and don't wish to be bound by that earlier consent. I did not agree to recognize your courts as valid and able to enforce that civil agreement."
        icebraining 10y ago
        That's not a rebuttal against the argument. If you have a chicken and call it a bull, and I say "that's not a bull, those have horns, tails, etc", saying "well, try getting eggs from that" doesn't prove that chickens are actually bulls.
- murbard2 10y ago
  Everything you said applies to gang rape. Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals.
  - tscs37 10y ago
    >Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. A subjective and indefensible view point, as far as I'm concerned. >If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals. As far as "social contract theorists" are concerned their system is right/just within it's own bounds, just as yours is only right/just within it's own bounds. There is no moral gold standard just as there is no universally just government. The Social Contract works because it defines that a majority of people can give consent for others to participate in it. This is purely subjective and is only an operating principle if the Social Contract exists. Once you step out of the Social Contract, it no longer applies and nobody can give consent you into participating. Now let's step back for a minute. What you're attempting here is saying that under the moral framework A, the actions taken with justification moral framework B are unjust. This is not correct. It's similar to taking a mathematical system that lacks addition and then complain that another system with addition does not work correctly because it has addition. (Reverse lack/has if you want, it's irrelevant) The "social contract theorists" justify their actions under the social contract which allows them to give consent via majority instead of unanimity, while you want a system that defines the consent to said contract via unanimity. Both options are fine but you cannot simply say the other side is wrong. edit: I might also add that even you continue to utilize a social contract; the contract of consent via unanimity. Which means that everyone agrees to respect the consent of everyone else. This is not a objective right that you somehow magically have, it's something you say you have. That only works as long as everyone agrees but if one person says "I don't want everyone to respect my consent" your social contract violates itself.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

> "Here, the governed chose to enact a constitution that allowed the government to take taxes" No. A bunch of politicians composed of lawyers and privileged elites from the various states chose to enact a constitution did. > "If the governed wish to not be taxed, they have a way to do that too! Pass a constitutional amendment." If someone rejects the government's claim on their self and rejects the government's legitimacy, then no, they have no obligation to utilize the government's system of law making.

EdHominem 10y ago

The thing is, if taxation isn't theft then why shouldn't the government do as much of it as it wants? Why not just tax the people at 100%? I think we actually get to a proper statist view by seeing taxation as theft, thus an inherent badness, which is only justified when the people are represented properly and the government respects their needs. So I hear this language as a perfectly reasonable call to examine the balance and see if we're being heard and getting our needs met in exchange for the sacrifices in question.