8 ms·

> very basic and banal fact that taxation is a valid mechanism that a society uses to sustain itself. Validity in this case is not a fact it is an opinion or v

> very basic and banal fact that taxation is a valid mechanism that a society uses to sustain itself. Validity in this case is not a fact it is an opinion or value judgment that implies that it is moral/ethical to use coercion to extract money from citizens. You may agree with this. You may not claim it as a fact. > taxation as a principle is not some sort of ludicrously unjust abomination Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity.

Apocryphon 6y ago
> it is an opinion or value judgment that implies that it is moral/ethical to use coercion to extract money from citizens. Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract. If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from. > Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity. And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing. Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems, but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture. Unless you are a believer in Modern Monetary Theory? Good of you to realize the possibilities of fiat currency.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract. Yeah, so is slavery. So is monarchism. So is marital rape. > If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from. I’ll identify myself as an anarchist for being opposed to violent coercion of resources if you will identify yourself as a criminal for being in support. Sound fair? > And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing. Norms of wearing clothing are not dictated by puritans but arise and are maintained by repeated intentional participation. > Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems, We do. In fact we invite you to explain how any tax is just. > but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture. Not at all, one may as well say that arguing that slavery is immoral is arguing against all of human society since agriculture.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    > Yeah, so is slavery. So is monarchism. So is marital rape. So is property. So is language. So is symbolic thought. > I’ll identify myself as an anarchist for being opposed to violent coercion of resources if you will identify yourself as a criminal for being in support. Sound fair? Anarchism is an existing ideology with many school of thoughts within it. You seem to be an anarcho-capitalist, to be precise. I, of course proudly admit to being a criminal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s) insofar living in modern society makes criminals of us all, yourself included, even under duress. > Norms of wearing clothing are not dictated by puritans but arise and are maintained by repeated intentional participation. As is tax law. > In fact we invite you to explain how any tax is just. Because it's cheaper to provide social programs than to deal with rolling peasant revolts. > Not at all, one may as well say that arguing that slavery is immoral is arguing against all of human society since agriculture. And indeed so. So are you then an anarcho-primitivist? Or anti-propertarian?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > So is property. So is language. So is symbolic thought. Language and symbolic thought are not opinions or value judgments. > I, of course proudly admit to being a criminal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s) insofar living in modern society makes criminals of us all, yourself included, even under duress. I’m not convinced that it is meaningful to make that assertion. But this is fine, I’m an anarchist because I oppose coercion and you’re a criminal for supporting it. > Because it's cheaper to provide social programs than to deal with rolling peasant revolts. And so that makes it moral to suppress peasants with unjust taxation regimes? > And indeed so. So are you then an anarcho-primitivist? Or anti-propertarian? I decline to identify as a proponent of any belief system because of the harmful epistemological consequences of group identity.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        > Language and symbolic thought are not opinions or value judgments. They are according to John Zerzan. > But this is fine, I’m an anarchist because I oppose coercion and you’re a criminal for supporting it. Anarchism, fwiw, is not meant to be a pejorative, but a reference to an actual ideological framework, albeit a radical one. One that has both left and right variants, including the aforementioned ancaps. > And so that makes it moral to suppress peasants with unjust taxation regimes? No, it's moral to provide people with food and shelter, health care and education, opportunities for social advancement, funded by surplus wealth generated by a society, in a manner deemed agreeable by societal consensus, so as to create a stable social order. A just tax regime would not be taxing peasants more than nobles nor burghers. > I decline to identify as a proponent of any belief system because of the harmful epistemological consequences of group identity. But by crowing "taxation is theft", you have clearly virtue-signalled yourself to be a libertarian.

Apocryphon 6y ago

> it is an opinion or value judgment that implies that it is moral/ethical to use coercion to extract money from citizens. Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract. If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from. > Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity. And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing. Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems, but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture. Unless you are a believer in Modern Monetary Theory? Good of you to realize the possibilities of fiat currency.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract. Yeah, so is slavery. So is monarchism. So is marital rape. > If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from. I’ll identify myself as an anarchist for being opposed to violent coercion of resources if you will identify yourself as a criminal for being in support. Sound fair? > And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing. Norms of wearing clothing are not dictated by puritans but arise and are maintained by repeated intentional participation. > Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems, We do. In fact we invite you to explain how any tax is just. > but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture. Not at all, one may as well say that arguing that slavery is immoral is arguing against all of human society since agriculture.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > Yeah, so is slavery. So is monarchism. So is marital rape. So is property. So is language. So is symbolic thought. > I’ll identify myself as an anarchist for being opposed to violent coercion of resources if you will identify yourself as a criminal for being in support. Sound fair? Anarchism is an existing ideology with many school of thoughts within it. You seem to be an anarcho-capitalist, to be precise. I, of course proudly admit to being a criminal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s) insofar living in modern society makes criminals of us all, yourself included, even under duress. > Norms of wearing clothing are not dictated by puritans but arise and are maintained by repeated intentional participation. As is tax law. > In fact we invite you to explain how any tax is just. Because it's cheaper to provide social programs than to deal with rolling peasant revolts. > Not at all, one may as well say that arguing that slavery is immoral is arguing against all of human society since agriculture. And indeed so. So are you then an anarcho-primitivist? Or anti-propertarian?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > So is property. So is language. So is symbolic thought. Language and symbolic thought are not opinions or value judgments. > I, of course proudly admit to being a criminal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s) insofar living in modern society makes criminals of us all, yourself included, even under duress. I’m not convinced that it is meaningful to make that assertion. But this is fine, I’m an anarchist because I oppose coercion and you’re a criminal for supporting it. > Because it's cheaper to provide social programs than to deal with rolling peasant revolts. And so that makes it moral to suppress peasants with unjust taxation regimes? > And indeed so. So are you then an anarcho-primitivist? Or anti-propertarian? I decline to identify as a proponent of any belief system because of the harmful epistemological consequences of group identity.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      > Language and symbolic thought are not opinions or value judgments. They are according to John Zerzan. > But this is fine, I’m an anarchist because I oppose coercion and you’re a criminal for supporting it. Anarchism, fwiw, is not meant to be a pejorative, but a reference to an actual ideological framework, albeit a radical one. One that has both left and right variants, including the aforementioned ancaps. > And so that makes it moral to suppress peasants with unjust taxation regimes? No, it's moral to provide people with food and shelter, health care and education, opportunities for social advancement, funded by surplus wealth generated by a society, in a manner deemed agreeable by societal consensus, so as to create a stable social order. A just tax regime would not be taxing peasants more than nobles nor burghers. > I decline to identify as a proponent of any belief system because of the harmful epistemological consequences of group identity. But by crowing "taxation is theft", you have clearly virtue-signalled yourself to be a libertarian.