5 ms·

> Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion. Our law creates both property rights and taxes. Taxes aren't theft because, by law, that money is actually

by Seenso 7y ago

> Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion. Our law creates both property rights and taxes. Taxes aren't theft because, by law, that money is actually the government's property. If you want individualistically overrule our law to make taxes theft, I might as well do the same to make your property mine.

read_if_gay_ 7y ago
The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning. You can change the law any way you want, but you're not changing the underlying laws of nature, and they allow you to make a case that taxes are theft. Whether that's actually true is then of course debatable and depends on a lot of variables, but saying that someone else's property should arbitrarily be yours immediately contradicts those fundamental laws.
- Seenso 7y ago
  > The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning. Nope, sorry. You might be on to something if you limited yourself to the "foreign relations" of a community, but we're talking about intracommunity relations here. If you're looking for laws of nature, socially obligatory sharing is far more fundamental and important than any primal notions of exclusivist private property and theft. Concepts like private property, theft, and taxation do have primitive antecedents, but you're guilty of anachronism if you think those antecedents make some modern ideological notion a kind of fundamental law.

by Seenso 7y ago

read_if_gay_ 7y ago

The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning. You can change the law any way you want, but you're not changing the underlying laws of nature, and they allow you to make a case that taxes are theft. Whether that's actually true is then of course debatable and depends on a lot of variables, but saying that someone else's property should arbitrarily be yours immediately contradicts those fundamental laws.

Seenso 7y ago
> The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning. Nope, sorry. You might be on to something if you limited yourself to the "foreign relations" of a community, but we're talking about intracommunity relations here. If you're looking for laws of nature, socially obligatory sharing is far more fundamental and important than any primal notions of exclusivist private property and theft. Concepts like private property, theft, and taxation do have primitive antecedents, but you're guilty of anachronism if you think those antecedents make some modern ideological notion a kind of fundamental law.