5 ms·

Amazon legally organizing their business so that they can avoid being forced (under threat of violence) to pay money to a state (that has proven it cannot respo

by nika 16y ago

Amazon legally organizing their business so that they can avoid being forced (under threat of violence) to pay money to a state (that has proven it cannot responsibly spend it anyway) is not theft. It is, actually, theft avoidance. Theft is when you use force, or the threat of force, to take from someone to whome the property rightfully belongs. Taxation is closer to theft than tax avoidance.

earl 16y ago
Characterizing paying taxes -- the result of the democratic process, etc -- as theft under threat of violence makes you a fucking idiot.
- nika 16y ago
  That wasn't a characterization, it was a statement of fact. That you need to characterize me as "a fucking idiot" reflects more on you than me. Please read this: http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - sorbus 16y ago
    It's not a statement of fact, because theft is "the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent."[1] Robbery, on the other hand, is "taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force and/or by putting the victim in fear." Based on your characterization, taxes are much more similar to robbery. However, taxes are not robbery, they're commerce ("the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information, or money between two or more entities"), because - in theory, at least - you're paying money to the government in exchange for useful things (roads, public services, enforced order, and so forth). If you think that the state can't responsibly spend it (I feel like the country as a whole spends money a lot less responsibly than the state of California, but yeah), then you have four options: replace the government, reform the government, leave the government, or complain. Continuing to use the things that the state is providing to you without paying for them as the state has found reasonable is stealing, just as it would be stealing if I went to a restaurant and didn't pay for my meal. Also, as an aside, I initially found it amusing that you (as a comparatively new user) were pointing a much older user at the welcome page; however, people must be reminded of the rules of discourse we operate under whenever they stray from them, despite how long they've been part of the community. Pointing him to the guidelines instead of the welcome page might have been slightly more appropriate, though. The rules there are much more concise, at least. [1] All quotes from wikipedia.
    - nika 16y ago
      Robbery is a fine term. However, taxes are not commerce because they do not involve consent. You reference the state deciding to provide services "at [prices] they deem reasonable". Would you go to a restaurant and let them decide what to feed you (if anything) and let them dictate the prices and consider that commerce? Maybe such a restaurant might be a sensation in New York, until the novelty wore off, but still the people who go to it are choosing to go to it, presumably knowing the risks. How can that be commerce where you don't get to choose to participate, don't get any say in prices, and may not feel you're getting any value out of the deal? That's not an exchange. There is a fifth option and it is perfectly moral: simply don't pay taxes. This is not stealing because you are not obligated to the terms of an agreement that you have not consented to. If I'm obligated to pay taxes, then you are obligated to pay me $100,000 for responding. Why? Because I said so. Think that is a pretty lame justification? You're right, and so it is with the state when they claim moral justification for demanding payment. The paltry "services" they provide generally don't benefit citizens (the police, for instance, spend their time defending the interests of the state, not the citizens)... they exist mostly as rationalizations for taking more money. EG: a state will levy a %1 tax to provide roads, a few years later, shift that money elsewhere, wait for the roads to go to hell and then say "we need to raise taxes in order to pay for the roads". They simply ignore that they already passed a tax for that purpose. Here's a hypothetical: I am born into a house on a block with four other houses. My parents were forced by a bully to pay "property taxes" because he said "youse gotta mighty fine house here. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it, say, a fire, or even just "hooligans" breaking you windows..." When they died they left the house to me. Meanwhile the Bully put up a streetlamp that shines right into my bedroom window so he and his friends can play soccor in the street at night... the light and noise keeps me up at night. Am I morally obligated to pay the bully protection money because he threatens my person or property with damage if I don't? I never signed a contract with the bully. Am I morally obligated to pay him because he "provides" a street lamp I do not want? The bully calls a vote of the other 3 houses on the block. They happen to be inhabited by the bullies friends. They all vote to raise the taxes on my house (but not theirs, of course.) Am I morally obligated to pay these increased taxes because there was an election (that I didn't participate in, but if I had, that wouldn't have meant anything, the election was rigged, as are all elections in the USA which prevent anyone but representatives of our one party government from running.) I submit further, that because my parents paid taxes (or I might have in the past) that I have the right to whatever benefit of that street lamp because it is a paltry compensation when compared to the taxes I (or they) were forced to pay. But even if it isn't, I didn't agree to the streetlamp and thus am not morally obligated to pay for it. When you see it on this level, only a few people, the morality, or rather, immorality of it is stark. It doesn't change by adding years of tradition and a lot more people being involved. To the bully's friends, I'm "a fucking idiot" because they profit from me paying taxes. They expect to benefit out of proportion to their costs. (The reality is generally the opposite of course, but they aren't educated in economics, and their impression of the economics industry is filled with nonsense put forth by so called "experts" hired by the bully.) They know it is wrong to extort money from me, so they can't make an articulate argument, but they can call me names and vote me down, while voting the bully up. You may genuinely believe that these "services" are valuable. In some cases I concede they have some value, but never close to their cost, and my personal perspective is that they have a negative net value on my life. Further, by providing them the government generally criminalizes any competition. It is illegal for anyone else to offer first class mail service. Do you think we're getting a great deal on our mail delivery in this monopoly situation? But even if you are right and they are valuable, the lack of consent undermines any possible morality of taxation. I did not consent to taxation, I do not consent to these services, and I did not even consent to the existence of this government. I have no problem dealing with corporations who deal with me on a consensual basis. Sometimes I've felt ripped off, but I've taken my business elsewhere. But I am continually amazed that people can see non-consentual relationships, backed up with the threat of violence as somehow "moral". I suspect that this is the purpose of government schools- they indoctrinate kids to believe government is somehow different and that the rules of morality don't apply to the actions of government. Certainly there wasn't a lot of critical thinking taught in the government schools I was forced to attend. (not much education either, so most of the education I've gotten that has economic value was self taught.) I actually pay taxes, and I have relocated my ass and my business to a jurisdiction that I find more favorable. My only point here is to try and get you to see the immorality of the situation and thus the error in the rationalization that you've been given. Not that I think it will change anything if I convince you.

by nika 16y ago

earl 16y ago

Characterizing paying taxes -- the result of the democratic process, etc -- as theft under threat of violence makes you a fucking idiot.

nika 16y ago
That wasn't a characterization, it was a statement of fact. That you need to characterize me as "a fucking idiot" reflects more on you than me. Please read this: http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- sorbus 16y ago
  It's not a statement of fact, because theft is "the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent."[1] Robbery, on the other hand, is "taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force and/or by putting the victim in fear." Based on your characterization, taxes are much more similar to robbery. However, taxes are not robbery, they're commerce ("the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information, or money between two or more entities"), because - in theory, at least - you're paying money to the government in exchange for useful things (roads, public services, enforced order, and so forth). If you think that the state can't responsibly spend it (I feel like the country as a whole spends money a lot less responsibly than the state of California, but yeah), then you have four options: replace the government, reform the government, leave the government, or complain. Continuing to use the things that the state is providing to you without paying for them as the state has found reasonable is stealing, just as it would be stealing if I went to a restaurant and didn't pay for my meal. Also, as an aside, I initially found it amusing that you (as a comparatively new user) were pointing a much older user at the welcome page; however, people must be reminded of the rules of discourse we operate under whenever they stray from them, despite how long they've been part of the community. Pointing him to the guidelines instead of the welcome page might have been slightly more appropriate, though. The rules there are much more concise, at least. [1] All quotes from wikipedia.
  - nika 16y ago
    Robbery is a fine term. However, taxes are not commerce because they do not involve consent. You reference the state deciding to provide services "at [prices] they deem reasonable". Would you go to a restaurant and let them decide what to feed you (if anything) and let them dictate the prices and consider that commerce? Maybe such a restaurant might be a sensation in New York, until the novelty wore off, but still the people who go to it are choosing to go to it, presumably knowing the risks. How can that be commerce where you don't get to choose to participate, don't get any say in prices, and may not feel you're getting any value out of the deal? That's not an exchange. There is a fifth option and it is perfectly moral: simply don't pay taxes. This is not stealing because you are not obligated to the terms of an agreement that you have not consented to. If I'm obligated to pay taxes, then you are obligated to pay me $100,000 for responding. Why? Because I said so. Think that is a pretty lame justification? You're right, and so it is with the state when they claim moral justification for demanding payment. The paltry "services" they provide generally don't benefit citizens (the police, for instance, spend their time defending the interests of the state, not the citizens)... they exist mostly as rationalizations for taking more money. EG: a state will levy a %1 tax to provide roads, a few years later, shift that money elsewhere, wait for the roads to go to hell and then say "we need to raise taxes in order to pay for the roads". They simply ignore that they already passed a tax for that purpose. Here's a hypothetical: I am born into a house on a block with four other houses. My parents were forced by a bully to pay "property taxes" because he said "youse gotta mighty fine house here. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it, say, a fire, or even just "hooligans" breaking you windows..." When they died they left the house to me. Meanwhile the Bully put up a streetlamp that shines right into my bedroom window so he and his friends can play soccor in the street at night... the light and noise keeps me up at night. Am I morally obligated to pay the bully protection money because he threatens my person or property with damage if I don't? I never signed a contract with the bully. Am I morally obligated to pay him because he "provides" a street lamp I do not want? The bully calls a vote of the other 3 houses on the block. They happen to be inhabited by the bullies friends. They all vote to raise the taxes on my house (but not theirs, of course.) Am I morally obligated to pay these increased taxes because there was an election (that I didn't participate in, but if I had, that wouldn't have meant anything, the election was rigged, as are all elections in the USA which prevent anyone but representatives of our one party government from running.) I submit further, that because my parents paid taxes (or I might have in the past) that I have the right to whatever benefit of that street lamp because it is a paltry compensation when compared to the taxes I (or they) were forced to pay. But even if it isn't, I didn't agree to the streetlamp and thus am not morally obligated to pay for it. When you see it on this level, only a few people, the morality, or rather, immorality of it is stark. It doesn't change by adding years of tradition and a lot more people being involved. To the bully's friends, I'm "a fucking idiot" because they profit from me paying taxes. They expect to benefit out of proportion to their costs. (The reality is generally the opposite of course, but they aren't educated in economics, and their impression of the economics industry is filled with nonsense put forth by so called "experts" hired by the bully.) They know it is wrong to extort money from me, so they can't make an articulate argument, but they can call me names and vote me down, while voting the bully up. You may genuinely believe that these "services" are valuable. In some cases I concede they have some value, but never close to their cost, and my personal perspective is that they have a negative net value on my life. Further, by providing them the government generally criminalizes any competition. It is illegal for anyone else to offer first class mail service. Do you think we're getting a great deal on our mail delivery in this monopoly situation? But even if you are right and they are valuable, the lack of consent undermines any possible morality of taxation. I did not consent to taxation, I do not consent to these services, and I did not even consent to the existence of this government. I have no problem dealing with corporations who deal with me on a consensual basis. Sometimes I've felt ripped off, but I've taken my business elsewhere. But I am continually amazed that people can see non-consentual relationships, backed up with the threat of violence as somehow "moral". I suspect that this is the purpose of government schools- they indoctrinate kids to believe government is somehow different and that the rules of morality don't apply to the actions of government. Certainly there wasn't a lot of critical thinking taught in the government schools I was forced to attend. (not much education either, so most of the education I've gotten that has economic value was self taught.) I actually pay taxes, and I have relocated my ass and my business to a jurisdiction that I find more favorable. My only point here is to try and get you to see the immorality of the situation and thus the error in the rationalization that you've been given. Not that I think it will change anything if I convince you.