5 ms·

That you might pay your taxes voluntarily is charming, but do you really think that if all enforcement behind tax collection is lost that most of the population

by lgbr 13y ago

That you might pay your taxes voluntarily is charming, but do you really think that if all enforcement behind tax collection is lost that most of the population will pay their taxes?

nknighthb 13y ago
Enforcement of laws does not require threat of violence except against those who threaten violence in response to enforcement. Wage garnishment, liens, and asset forfeiture are effective means of collecting sums owed without anybody pointing a gun. Even if you are arrested for tax evasion, violence will not be used unless you appear to pose a threat. All I hear when someone talks about how laws are enforced with guns is "I am civilized only so long as someone has the capacity to be more violent than I.". To me, this is madness.
- lgbr 13y ago
  Speaking for the US here, but I believe the same is true in most places. If I fail to pay my taxes and I sit at home completely non-violently, at some point, a man with a gun will come to my house and move me. If I ignore liens, my home will be foreclosed, and eventually the sheriff will forcibly remove me from the property. If I am subject to asset forfeiture and my cars, trucks, bulldozers, gold bars, or prized kittens are ever found, they will be forcibly taken from me. This is all done through the use of force by men who wield guns.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    You continue to equate the person possessing a gun with the gun being used against you. The gun isn't there to be used against you unless you're going to be violent. The gun is there because they can never be sure when someone might become violent.
    - snitko 13y ago
      A robber comes to you on the street with a gun in his pocket. He kindly suggests you hand him your wallet and that'd be the end of it, no violence is going to happen, he promises. He also points out that if you decide to fight back, he's probably gonna shoot you. So what we have here is a threat of violence. It may be not as awful as violence itself, but it's still immoral, don't you agree? And a robber is still a criminal because he takes away things you don't want to give him voluntarily.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Let's look at this carefully. According to the scenario you've outlined, the "robber" has asked for my wallet, and indicated that if I am violent towards him, he will respond with violence. It is not a crime for anyone to ask me for my wallet. Nor is it a crime for anyone to tell me they will shoot me if I attack them. It appears I can simply walk away. Neither crime nor violence will have occurred. A crime occurs when the robber threatens to shoot me unless I comply with demands he has no right to make. On the other hand, an IRS agent telling you to pay your taxes has every right to demand that you pay your taxes, and will never threaten to shoot you if you do not. He will threaten to shoot you if it looks like you're about to physically threaten him.
        snitko 13y ago
        You can put your theory into practice by walking into a bank with a gun (in states where it's legal) and kindly asking them to hand you a million dollars. It'd be interesting to see what happens next. But, more importantly, it seems to be that your point is that crime is not a crime as long as it appears to not be one. As long as a robber asks and I cooperate, it's not a crime. As long as IRS doesn't use force first, it's okay to steal things from me. I don't agree with that. What right on earth does anyone have to take away from me the money I honestly made? Who gave anyone this right? Why should I comply except for the reason that if I don't, they will make my life difficult and will still manage to take things away from me? I haven't stripped anyone off their money, I created value and sold it to people who were willing to buy. Explain to me: why does anyone have the right to take money from me?
    - lgbr 13y ago
      While a completely pacifist person would likely not face the gun, force is still applied, and the threat is still present. A person in their own home who fails to pay their taxes will be removed with as much force as the government needs to achieve compliance, whether that only needs a polite asking, handcuffs, handguns, machine guns, or rocket launchers.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        If you won't stop committing an illegal act, yes, they will eventually use some form of force to stop you. Guns will not be necessary unless you are actually threatening them with violence. That is my point. By indicating you expect guns to be used, you indicate that you expect to be violent. At that point, you have surrendered your right to not be subjected to violence.
        lgbr 13y ago
        So if you keep peacefully not paying your taxes, you will be subjected to violence, yes? A person grabbing you and throwing you out of your house is violence, is it not?
        nknighthb 13y ago
        Violence and force are not the same thing, no. Violence is force or the threat of force intended or likely to cause injury. They will not "throw" you. They will carry you.
  - GrinningFool 13y ago
    If you fail to pay taxes that you owe (and I have not heard you dispute owing them), then you are in violation of the law that you agree to when you remain in your country of residence. If you ignore liens, you have forfeited the right to live in that home by not paying your financial obligations. Your arguments imply that the men with guns are the cause of the use of force. In reality, the men with guns are the consequence for disobeying the rules of a civil society.

by lgbr 13y ago

That you might pay your taxes voluntarily is charming, but do you really think that if all enforcement behind tax collection is lost that most of the population will pay their taxes?

nknighthb 13y ago

Enforcement of laws does not require threat of violence except against those who threaten violence in response to enforcement. Wage garnishment, liens, and asset forfeiture are effective means of collecting sums owed without anybody pointing a gun. Even if you are arrested for tax evasion, violence will not be used unless you appear to pose a threat. All I hear when someone talks about how laws are enforced with guns is "I am civilized only so long as someone has the capacity to be more violent than I.". To me, this is madness.

lgbr 13y ago
Speaking for the US here, but I believe the same is true in most places. If I fail to pay my taxes and I sit at home completely non-violently, at some point, a man with a gun will come to my house and move me. If I ignore liens, my home will be foreclosed, and eventually the sheriff will forcibly remove me from the property. If I am subject to asset forfeiture and my cars, trucks, bulldozers, gold bars, or prized kittens are ever found, they will be forcibly taken from me. This is all done through the use of force by men who wield guns.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  You continue to equate the person possessing a gun with the gun being used against you. The gun isn't there to be used against you unless you're going to be violent. The gun is there because they can never be sure when someone might become violent.
  - snitko 13y ago
    A robber comes to you on the street with a gun in his pocket. He kindly suggests you hand him your wallet and that'd be the end of it, no violence is going to happen, he promises. He also points out that if you decide to fight back, he's probably gonna shoot you. So what we have here is a threat of violence. It may be not as awful as violence itself, but it's still immoral, don't you agree? And a robber is still a criminal because he takes away things you don't want to give him voluntarily.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Let's look at this carefully. According to the scenario you've outlined, the "robber" has asked for my wallet, and indicated that if I am violent towards him, he will respond with violence. It is not a crime for anyone to ask me for my wallet. Nor is it a crime for anyone to tell me they will shoot me if I attack them. It appears I can simply walk away. Neither crime nor violence will have occurred. A crime occurs when the robber threatens to shoot me unless I comply with demands he has no right to make. On the other hand, an IRS agent telling you to pay your taxes has every right to demand that you pay your taxes, and will never threaten to shoot you if you do not. He will threaten to shoot you if it looks like you're about to physically threaten him.
      - snitko 13y ago
        You can put your theory into practice by walking into a bank with a gun (in states where it's legal) and kindly asking them to hand you a million dollars. It'd be interesting to see what happens next. But, more importantly, it seems to be that your point is that crime is not a crime as long as it appears to not be one. As long as a robber asks and I cooperate, it's not a crime. As long as IRS doesn't use force first, it's okay to steal things from me. I don't agree with that. What right on earth does anyone have to take away from me the money I honestly made? Who gave anyone this right? Why should I comply except for the reason that if I don't, they will make my life difficult and will still manage to take things away from me? I haven't stripped anyone off their money, I created value and sold it to people who were willing to buy. Explain to me: why does anyone have the right to take money from me?
  - lgbr 13y ago
    While a completely pacifist person would likely not face the gun, force is still applied, and the threat is still present. A person in their own home who fails to pay their taxes will be removed with as much force as the government needs to achieve compliance, whether that only needs a polite asking, handcuffs, handguns, machine guns, or rocket launchers.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      If you won't stop committing an illegal act, yes, they will eventually use some form of force to stop you. Guns will not be necessary unless you are actually threatening them with violence. That is my point. By indicating you expect guns to be used, you indicate that you expect to be violent. At that point, you have surrendered your right to not be subjected to violence.
      - lgbr 13y ago
        So if you keep peacefully not paying your taxes, you will be subjected to violence, yes? A person grabbing you and throwing you out of your house is violence, is it not?
        nknighthb 13y ago
        Violence and force are not the same thing, no. Violence is force or the threat of force intended or likely to cause injury. They will not "throw" you. They will carry you.
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  If you fail to pay taxes that you owe (and I have not heard you dispute owing them), then you are in violation of the law that you agree to when you remain in your country of residence. If you ignore liens, you have forfeited the right to live in that home by not paying your financial obligations. Your arguments imply that the men with guns are the cause of the use of force. In reality, the men with guns are the consequence for disobeying the rules of a civil society.