5 ms·

Not equivalent to, but certainly shares similar characteristics through coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor.

by alexmat 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Living inside the state, you wouldn't have those fruits if it weren't for the state. Living outside of the state, tribute of fruits is the fee for belonging to the state. If someone were truly being forced to pay US taxes, they wouldn't be able to renounce their citizenship while living outside of the state. And inside the state, it's like complaining that your parents insist you buy your brother a present with your allowance, or better yet, the money you earned mowing the front lawn. The reason the US economy is so deep and liquid is because the US state is so powerful, and to stay powerful it needs to collect taxes.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > Living inside the state, you wouldn't have those fruits if it weren't for the state Nice theory but it's not even like you have a remote possibility to live outside of the State. Every country require you to BELONG to a State. You'd rather look back in History how people were actually able to survive and thrive before advanced State powers even existed. The Human Race was not born with a State and Government to direct themselves. This is all a very recent creation in History. Let's not invert the logic and pretend that without State we would have nothing. This is what Socialism wants you to believe.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Oh please. Spare us the shitty history lesson. The state has existed in human history for more than 10,000 years. The survival and thriving of the human race prior to the establishment of states is incomparable to the last 10,000 years--except to say that they evolved, survived, and propagated the species. They did not thrive. The human race was hardly shit before it began establishing states in order to organize, centralize, protect, expand, and make its way in the world. Before that? Humans were nothing. Ten thousand years of history does not qualify as a "recent creation in history" unless you're being really particular about establishing recent on a universal and geological time scale. Without the creation of states, humanity had and left little to nothing behind. It merely existed. You would not be here if it weren't for the creation of the state. This is not in any way, shape, or form what socialism would have anyone believe.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      I wonder if there is a libertarian-minded ant somewhere wanting to rebel against their oppressive colony. States are not unique to human beings.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        The irony is that the rebel ant needs the colony in order to be a rebel.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Ants are not oppressed by their colony. Read the book "Les fourmis" if you want to learn more about how the actually live.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Human history dates way back than 10 000 years ago. So, you are not proving anything with this kind of statement.
      - bobwaycott 13y ago
        Duh. Never said it didn't. I'm guessing you didn't actually read anything I wrote. The choosing of 10,000 years ago was to the earliest known establishment of a state. That was pretty obvious in my comment.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Families are states. Anarchy is fascism. Violence is government. Law is force. Peace is control.
bobwaycott 13y ago
Paying one's taxes as a citizen is not "coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor", nor does paying one's taxes as a citizen who receives the benefits of one's government in any way share similar characteristics with indentured servitude or slavery. Slavery was so much more than the "coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor". And indentured servitude is a far different thing--it was a practice to enslave someone for a set term after obligating them to a debt as a means to gain free labor. Neither of these things are in any way analogous to paying taxes. You do history, and those who suffered under these systems, a great injury by misappropriating them for ridiculous political statements.
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  If you ask me, "Are you willing to pay for generational theft, subsidies for the health insurance industry, and killing brown people on the other side of the planet?" I will probably say something like "No." It looks like an agreeable meaning of "coerce" is "to make (someone) do something by using force or threats." So if someone, or some group of people, convinces me to fund the causes listed above by means of threatening to kidnap or murder me (murder being reserved for those who resist kidnapping), it seems reasonable to say that I am coerced.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    You're only being coerced if you are also coerced to not commit murder, not drink and drive, not steal other people's things, not rob banks, not set fire to other people's things, etc. Calling paying legally authorized taxes coercion is abusing language to make a stupid political point. Calling tax-paying "generational theft" is the same thing. Besides, you're missing the point of the parent statement--comparing slavery and indentured servitude to the "coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor". That is, plainly speaking, total bullshit, and a misappropriation of slavery & indentured servitude for a stupid political point about not liking taxes.
    - anonymoushn 13y ago
      It's a bit rude to suppose that I want to commit murder, drink and drive, steal, rob banks, and set fire to things. Calling paying legally authorized taxes coercion is abusing language to make a stupid political point. Sorry, could you point out in what way the situation I described is not coercion? Are we to suppose that it is not coercion because it has been happening for a while, to a variety of people, despite the definition of the word not mentioning this? Calling tax-paying "generational theft" is the same thing. Social Security will not exist in its current form when I am 65. A variety of solutions could cause it to continue to exist in some form, like killing people when they reach the age of 80 (this probably would not be legal), paying out less, setting the cutoff age to be later, or just arbitrarily denying payouts to people completely at random (this would be legal - see Flemming v. Nestor), but most of the likely solutions to the problem result in people my age paying in a great deal more than we will ever receive.

Not equivalent to, but certainly shares similar characteristics through coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor.

by alexmat 13y ago

Not equivalent to, but certainly shares similar characteristics through coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor.

Living inside the state, you wouldn't have those fruits if it weren't for the state. Living outside of the state, tribute of fruits is the fee for belonging to the state. If someone were truly being forced to pay US taxes, they wouldn't be able to renounce their citizenship while living outside of the state. And inside the state, it's like complaining that your parents insist you buy your brother a present with your allowance, or better yet, the money you earned mowing the front lawn. The reason the US economy is so deep and liquid is because the US state is so powerful, and to stay powerful it needs to collect taxes.

ekianjo 13y ago
> Living inside the state, you wouldn't have those fruits if it weren't for the state Nice theory but it's not even like you have a remote possibility to live outside of the State. Every country require you to BELONG to a State. You'd rather look back in History how people were actually able to survive and thrive before advanced State powers even existed. The Human Race was not born with a State and Government to direct themselves. This is all a very recent creation in History. Let's not invert the logic and pretend that without State we would have nothing. This is what Socialism wants you to believe.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Oh please. Spare us the shitty history lesson. The state has existed in human history for more than 10,000 years. The survival and thriving of the human race prior to the establishment of states is incomparable to the last 10,000 years--except to say that they evolved, survived, and propagated the species. They did not thrive. The human race was hardly shit before it began establishing states in order to organize, centralize, protect, expand, and make its way in the world. Before that? Humans were nothing. Ten thousand years of history does not qualify as a "recent creation in history" unless you're being really particular about establishing recent on a universal and geological time scale. Without the creation of states, humanity had and left little to nothing behind. It merely existed. You would not be here if it weren't for the creation of the state. This is not in any way, shape, or form what socialism would have anyone believe.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    I wonder if there is a libertarian-minded ant somewhere wanting to rebel against their oppressive colony. States are not unique to human beings.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      The irony is that the rebel ant needs the colony in order to be a rebel.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Ants are not oppressed by their colony. Read the book "Les fourmis" if you want to learn more about how the actually live.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Human history dates way back than 10 000 years ago. So, you are not proving anything with this kind of statement.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      Duh. Never said it didn't. I'm guessing you didn't actually read anything I wrote. The choosing of 10,000 years ago was to the earliest known establishment of a state. That was pretty obvious in my comment.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Families are states. Anarchy is fascism. Violence is government. Law is force. Peace is control.

bobwaycott 13y ago

Paying one's taxes as a citizen is not "coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor", nor does paying one's taxes as a citizen who receives the benefits of one's government in any way share similar characteristics with indentured servitude or slavery. Slavery was so much more than the "coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor". And indentured servitude is a far different thing--it was a practice to enslave someone for a set term after obligating them to a debt as a means to gain free labor. Neither of these things are in any way analogous to paying taxes. You do history, and those who suffered under these systems, a great injury by misappropriating them for ridiculous political statements.

anonymoushn 13y ago
If you ask me, "Are you willing to pay for generational theft, subsidies for the health insurance industry, and killing brown people on the other side of the planet?" I will probably say something like "No." It looks like an agreeable meaning of "coerce" is "to make (someone) do something by using force or threats." So if someone, or some group of people, convinces me to fund the causes listed above by means of threatening to kidnap or murder me (murder being reserved for those who resist kidnapping), it seems reasonable to say that I am coerced.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  You're only being coerced if you are also coerced to not commit murder, not drink and drive, not steal other people's things, not rob banks, not set fire to other people's things, etc. Calling paying legally authorized taxes coercion is abusing language to make a stupid political point. Calling tax-paying "generational theft" is the same thing. Besides, you're missing the point of the parent statement--comparing slavery and indentured servitude to the "coerced surrender of the fruits of one's labor". That is, plainly speaking, total bullshit, and a misappropriation of slavery & indentured servitude for a stupid political point about not liking taxes.
  - anonymoushn 13y ago
    It's a bit rude to suppose that I want to commit murder, drink and drive, steal, rob banks, and set fire to things. Calling paying legally authorized taxes coercion is abusing language to make a stupid political point. Sorry, could you point out in what way the situation I described is not coercion? Are we to suppose that it is not coercion because it has been happening for a while, to a variety of people, despite the definition of the word not mentioning this? Calling tax-paying "generational theft" is the same thing. Social Security will not exist in its current form when I am 65. A variety of solutions could cause it to continue to exist in some form, like killing people when they reach the age of 80 (this probably would not be legal), paying out less, setting the cutoff age to be later, or just arbitrarily denying payouts to people completely at random (this would be legal - see Flemming v. Nestor), but most of the likely solutions to the problem result in people my age paying in a great deal more than we will ever receive.