4 ms·

And yet belittling still gets you no where. Sounds like you aren't interested in conversing with others and rather just want to garner votes from your tribe.

by pard68 4y ago

nemothekid 4y ago
If you found my comments belittling, then you should consider if you have a personal attachment to the idea that taxation is theft. If I thought 2+2=5, and someone called me out as wrong, I wouldn't take personal offense to it. If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership.
- pard68 4y ago
  Calling the op's serious opinion unilaterally "unserious" is belittling.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    There will never be a sufficiently nice enough way to call someone wrong on the internet.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  > If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership. I think this gives an interesting insight into the point of contention. It appears that one side views the money about to be taxed as their property whereas the other side views that money as something else. Is that a fair assessment? If someone views the money as their property and the act of taxation as the government seizing that property (especially if the government spends it unwisely), I can see a logical route to "taxation is theft." However, if someone views society as a group bound by a social contract with a shared responsibility to ensure nobody falls too far down the ladder lest they lose their ability to contribute to society, I can also see a logical path to "taxes are a shared responsibility for the maintenance of society." I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >Is that a fair assessment? Think about what you are saying when you say "my property". Owning something is not a natural law of the universe. If I go into your house and take your laptop how are you going to take it back? If I'm stronger than you, then tough shit. Or we have a war and if I win the war I take your stuff. Most people would call the police (the government) to sort it out, and the government will look at the law and decide who has rightful ownership. Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. >I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects. This is entirely different from the "taxation is theft" angle, but somehow "taxation is theft" only ever seems to apply when it's used for welfare and not for highway subsidies. It's strange that you are not "robbing peter to pay paul" when taxes are used to bomb russians. The government collects revenue and must decide on the most efficient way to spend that revenue. Many economists have hypothesized that giving money directly to people is better than social programs such as food stamps.
    - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
      > Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. That's an interesting perspective. But I can't help noticing that it runs contrary to the founding principles of many societies - namely that theft is inherently wrong and one of government's roles is to enforce property rights. The very concept of theft itself presupposes the existence of property. Ie: your rights exist outside of any government. A government's role can only serve to enforce or restrict those rights - they are not granted by government. But I can also see how a difference of opinion on this could lead people to draw very different opinions with regard to a wide variety of other matters. Putting aside the definition of what is property, if one considers money as a medium of exchange representing one's individual productivity, some might view taking someone's money without their consent as merely one-step removed from taking their time and labour without their consent.

And yet belittling still gets you no where. Sounds like you aren't interested in conversing with others and rather just want to garner votes from your tribe.

by pard68 4y ago

And yet belittling still gets you no where. Sounds like you aren't interested in conversing with others and rather just want to garner votes from your tribe.

nemothekid 4y ago

If you found my comments belittling, then you should consider if you have a personal attachment to the idea that taxation is theft. If I thought 2+2=5, and someone called me out as wrong, I wouldn't take personal offense to it. If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership.

pard68 4y ago
Calling the op's serious opinion unilaterally "unserious" is belittling.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  There will never be a sufficiently nice enough way to call someone wrong on the internet.
0xbadc0de5 4y ago
> If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership. I think this gives an interesting insight into the point of contention. It appears that one side views the money about to be taxed as their property whereas the other side views that money as something else. Is that a fair assessment? If someone views the money as their property and the act of taxation as the government seizing that property (especially if the government spends it unwisely), I can see a logical route to "taxation is theft." However, if someone views society as a group bound by a social contract with a shared responsibility to ensure nobody falls too far down the ladder lest they lose their ability to contribute to society, I can also see a logical path to "taxes are a shared responsibility for the maintenance of society." I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >Is that a fair assessment? Think about what you are saying when you say "my property". Owning something is not a natural law of the universe. If I go into your house and take your laptop how are you going to take it back? If I'm stronger than you, then tough shit. Or we have a war and if I win the war I take your stuff. Most people would call the police (the government) to sort it out, and the government will look at the law and decide who has rightful ownership. Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. >I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects. This is entirely different from the "taxation is theft" angle, but somehow "taxation is theft" only ever seems to apply when it's used for welfare and not for highway subsidies. It's strange that you are not "robbing peter to pay paul" when taxes are used to bomb russians. The government collects revenue and must decide on the most efficient way to spend that revenue. Many economists have hypothesized that giving money directly to people is better than social programs such as food stamps.
  - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
    > Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. That's an interesting perspective. But I can't help noticing that it runs contrary to the founding principles of many societies - namely that theft is inherently wrong and one of government's roles is to enforce property rights. The very concept of theft itself presupposes the existence of property. Ie: your rights exist outside of any government. A government's role can only serve to enforce or restrict those rights - they are not granted by government. But I can also see how a difference of opinion on this could lead people to draw very different opinions with regard to a wide variety of other matters. Putting aside the definition of what is property, if one considers money as a medium of exchange representing one's individual productivity, some might view taking someone's money without their consent as merely one-step removed from taking their time and labour without their consent.