3 ms·

Politics is discussing when it is justified and appropriate to use violence. For enforcing laws, collecting taxes ect... All peaceful human interaction falls o

• Loughla 6y ago
  I legitimately do not understand defining collecting taxes as violence. That's like the third time I've seen this type of argument on HN. I don't get it. Can you please explain that to me?
  • jacobr1 6y ago
    Most tax collection is completed without violence in practical sense. But taxes are backed by the threat of violence. If you don't pay them, you can be charged with a crime and ultimately imprisoned. And if you try to resist imprisonment that is enforced with armed agents of the state who will use force to compel you. Taxes aren't voluntary. This is an old libertarian argument, which when taken to its narrow logical conclusion says all taxes are fundamentally theft and immoral. The primary counter-argument is to suggest that the property or wages being taxed aren't "fully" the possessions of the taxed individual or entity. If you are receiving wages in part because of the state apparatus, then the wages weren't fully yours to begin with. Various forms of social contract theory are used to justify taxes. The other main argument is probably more utilitarian. Your right to property only extends to the extent that it is socially valuable in comparison to other rights and responsibilities. Property is this model isn't a fundamental right, but one mechanism used in combinations with others to maximize human welfare.
    • throwaways885 6y ago
      I mean, I agree with you, but it's still not work appropriate discussion.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]