4 ms·

> Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. S

• Apocryphon 6y ago
  > So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments. Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process. > Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion. Coercion schmoercion. > You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments. Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in. > And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife. Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept. > Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified. I'm no audiophile.
  • chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process. Good, then you’ll have no objection to me helping myself to your surplus. For “the good of society.” > Coercion schmoercion. Its interesting how people are often quite concerned with someone else’s perceived lack of things, but references to someone being a victim of violence are dismissed. > Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in. The fish didn’t try to justify his aquatic lifestyle by reference to moral philosophers. > Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept. My entire stance is that a moral wrong doesn’t become acceptable on the basis of someone asserting it as an integral component of some other thing. Theft/robbery doesn’t become ok because you believe it to be necessary or good for society, and rape doesn’ become ok because the victim is married to the perpetrator. > I'm no audiophile. Just deal with the arguments as presented rather than trying to link them back to some ideology as a convenient means of dismissal.
    • Apocryphon 6y ago
      > Good, then you’ll have no objection to me helping myself to your surplus. For “the good of society.” I don't evade taxes, so you're welcome to my surplus. > Its interesting how people are often quite concerned with someone else’s perceived lack of things, but references to someone being a victim of violence are dismissed. By all means, please expound upon the victims of violence caused by taxpaying in modern day America. Are you referring to those flag fringe-watching sovereign citizens and tax protesters still up in arms over the 16th amendment? Freemen of the land unjustly persecuted for courtroom creativity? Wesley Snipes? > The fish didn’t try to justify his aquatic lifestyle by reference to moral philosophers. Indeed, for the fish is far more wiser for not getting sucked into fruitless interminable debates with unyielding ideologues. > a moral wrong doesn’t become acceptable on the basis of someone asserting it as an integral component of some other thing Then you'll have to provide your alternative to taxation, and indeed your alternative to governments or societies, as those can't really exist beyond taxes, at least until we achieve a post-scarcity society. Incidentally, I should note that being against the principle of taxation not only precludes income taxes, but sales taxes and other consumption taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, tariffs, public tolls. Even if I was to suggest a revolutionarily different society- say a maximal Georgist world where the land value tax literally was the single tax levied to fund government and alleviate inequality- you would call it theft and thus NASA would continue to go unfunded. > Just deal with the arguments as presented rather than trying to link them back to some ideology as a convenient means of dismissal. "Taxation is theft" is a meme well-known to the internet, and this conversation we are having has been repeated over and over uncountable times. Neither of us represent original ideas. We are just rehashing the same unanswerable debate many men have had before us. To bring up technology into this discussion- memoization can be a way to expedite a solution.
      • chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I don't evade taxes, so you're welcome to my surplus. The taxes were already accounted for, my claim is on top of what you already contributed. > By all means, please expound upon the victims of violence caused by taxpaying in modern day America. Its all very simple, if you don’t give them what they want, they threaten you at first and then they come take what they want. > Are you referring to This isn’t helpful. > Then you'll have to provide your alternative to taxation, Its the same as my alternative to rape. Namely, abolition. > and indeed your alternative to governments or societies, as those can't really exist beyond taxes, at least until we achieve a post-scarcity society. I thought you were familiar with alternative viewpoints? When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? If your society is dependent on violence and coercion, then perhaps your society shouldn’t exist. > Incidentally, I should note that being against the principle of taxation not only precludes income taxes, but sales taxes and other consumption taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, tariffs, public tolls. Don’t stop there, I’m also opposed to bank robbery, grand theft auto, petty theft, burglary, larceny, fraud, theft by conversion, and rapine. You get a lot for your trouble when you give up aggressive violence. > you would call it theft and thus NASA would continue to go unfunded. I’m fine with NASA relying on voluntary sources of funding and ceasing to extort the working class. > "Taxation is theft" is a meme well-known to the internet, and this conversation we are having has been repeated over and over uncountable times. Neither of us represent original ideas. We are just rehashing the same unanswerable debate many men have had before us. If you think the debate is unanswerable then perhaps you would enjoy something else more. For my part, the only way to find an answer is to have the debate. Furthermore in my experience these debates tend to get derailed by people pattern-matching their interlocutor’s response to something they feel more comfortable responding to and in the process eliding nuanced arguments in favor of rehashing things that haven’t even been mentioned. Either “taxation is theft” or “taxation is not theft” (or some more compicated relation between ‘taxation’ and ‘theft’), but in no case does “‘taxation is theft’ is a libertarian idea” get use closer to a resolution. > memoization can be a way to expedite a solution. I’ll look, thanks.