4 ms·

Does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes and they should never use violence to coerce me? Does that mean I don’t need to pay rent, because so long as I’m not v

by User23 5y ago

Does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes and they should never use violence to coerce me? Does that mean I don’t need to pay rent, because so long as I’m not violent they can’t remove me? Edit: Y’all are evidently missing the point that passive resistance can require violent force to overcome. Ultimately the difference between a law and a polite suggestion is that the former is backed by the threat of whatever force is necessary to enforce it. Suppose I prefer not to be arrested and I don’t attack the police, I just don’t let them cuff me and take me away. Are they justified to overpower me, regardless how much force it takes to overcome my noncompliance?

coderintherye 5y ago
First of all, your first question is a strawman because local police, as being discussed here, are not the ones performing arrests in cases of tax evasion. Rather, federal authorities would be the ones handling tax evasion.
- LanceH 5y ago
  As soon as a warrant goes out from any source, local police are potentially conducting arrests.
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
You're conflating the academic definition of "violence" (e.g. "Nationstate monopoly on violence") with the colloquial and context-sensitive word "violence" ("That violent cop tased me for no reason.").
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
Yes, and yes.
II2II 5y ago
There is a difference between the use of force and the use of excessive force. When people talk about violence, they are usually referring to the latter. Then there is the question of when is the use of force appropriate. Failure to pay taxes or rent rarely involves the use of physical force. It would be used as a last resort, after other methods have failed. Likewise, the alleged failing to stop for a stop sign should not have led to a physical confrontation unless it was initiated by the person being ticketed. Even the refusal to comply with a police officer should not result in the immediate use of force. There are other ways to handle it.
belltaco 5y ago
>Does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes and they should never use violence to coerce me? If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. >Does that mean I don’t need to pay rent, because so long as I’m not violent they can’t remove me? Again, you're conflating leading or carrying you out as violence. If the police use the bare minimum necessary physical force to carry out their duty, I don't think that qualifies as violence.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  > If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. The key part here is "not resisting". The fact that it needs to be specified is in it self saying that there is a threat of violence. "You don't pay taxes, we will attempt to arrest you. If you don't comply we will, beat you up." All laws are eventually backed up with the threat of violence. If they weren't, you could literally just ignore them without recourse.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    No, because beating you up isn't a goal in itself to punish you for your crime. "Resisting arrest" or 'don't comply' are weasel terms. They can range from just refusing to walk or wear handcuffs, to running away to threatening to injure or kill the police or actually doing so. The beating up part normally happens only with trying to escape or threaten the police. And even in those cases, if they only use the minimum physical force necessary to take someone into custody, would you call that violence? If they don't know that, what's the incentive for anyone not to rob, not repay debts, murder and rape as they wish, and then just refuse arrest for the rest of their lives? What do you think the law and police should do in those cases?

by User23 5y ago

coderintherye 5y ago

First of all, your first question is a strawman because local police, as being discussed here, are not the ones performing arrests in cases of tax evasion. Rather, federal authorities would be the ones handling tax evasion.

LanceH 5y ago
As soon as a warrant goes out from any source, local police are potentially conducting arrests.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago

You're conflating the academic definition of "violence" (e.g. "Nationstate monopoly on violence") with the colloquial and context-sensitive word "violence" ("That violent cop tased me for no reason.").

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

Yes, and yes.

II2II 5y ago

There is a difference between the use of force and the use of excessive force. When people talk about violence, they are usually referring to the latter. Then there is the question of when is the use of force appropriate. Failure to pay taxes or rent rarely involves the use of physical force. It would be used as a last resort, after other methods have failed. Likewise, the alleged failing to stop for a stop sign should not have led to a physical confrontation unless it was initiated by the person being ticketed. Even the refusal to comply with a police officer should not result in the immediate use of force. There are other ways to handle it.

belltaco 5y ago

>Does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes and they should never use violence to coerce me? If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. >Does that mean I don’t need to pay rent, because so long as I’m not violent they can’t remove me? Again, you're conflating leading or carrying you out as violence. If the police use the bare minimum necessary physical force to carry out their duty, I don't think that qualifies as violence.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
> If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. The key part here is "not resisting". The fact that it needs to be specified is in it self saying that there is a threat of violence. "You don't pay taxes, we will attempt to arrest you. If you don't comply we will, beat you up." All laws are eventually backed up with the threat of violence. If they weren't, you could literally just ignore them without recourse.
- belltaco 5y ago
  No, because beating you up isn't a goal in itself to punish you for your crime. "Resisting arrest" or 'don't comply' are weasel terms. They can range from just refusing to walk or wear handcuffs, to running away to threatening to injure or kill the police or actually doing so. The beating up part normally happens only with trying to escape or threaten the police. And even in those cases, if they only use the minimum physical force necessary to take someone into custody, would you call that violence? If they don't know that, what's the incentive for anyone not to rob, not repay debts, murder and rape as they wish, and then just refuse arrest for the rest of their lives? What do you think the law and police should do in those cases?