Is taxation theft?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by PsYcHo »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:57 am According to the narrative you are talking about (the one spread by the CIA-funded Fake News Media) the DPRK is in no way a mob rule because it is a dictatorship led by Kim Jong-un who eats babies for breakfast (WITHOUT MILK!!!11111)
I thought I was the main drinker on this forum. ;) Are you drunk? And of course you eat babies without milk; they are already full of it. :twisted:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am He was not even a turd though. He was a wonderful human being and if he had won, the United States would prosper under his benevolent regime.
Dammit Zzzz. I thought we were actually having a decent debate about a real topic, but you just had to go back under that damn bridge. :cry:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am In that case, Libertarians ought to be inherently anti-capitalist, as it has violated other humans' rights throughout history and is doing so today. Especially their property rights as the money that rightfully belongs to the worker is being taken by the capitalist parasite.
Libertarians are for freedom to choose. How many people in the DPRK get to choose where they work? What happens if they make the little fat guy mad? (anti-aircraft guns/ wild dogs)

For fucks sake if you want to troll, go back a page or two and pretend to be that person again. It was both entertaining and informative, and actually put forth valid reasons for your "position". (And likely seemed more realistic that this latest post, which seems more like the older post...and it makes me dizzy. )
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am I am also not sure how stealing a car ought to incur the death penalty. It seems very extreme to me. Would there also be a death penalty for stepping on somebody else's front law (their property)?
A car is a large financial purchase, that provides someone with the ability to commute to a job. If someone takes another persons car, the person whose car was stolen can't commute to their job, and cannot provide for their family or themselves. Taking their car hurts them not just financially, but possibly in a way that leads to them or their family starving/ being forced onto the streets. I (and most Libertarians) are peaceful people who don't want to hurt anybody. We just want to be allowed to succeed or fail based on our own merits. But if someone tries to violate our personal space, we should be able to counteract with appropriate force.

If you step on my lawn, I'll tell you to please stop that. If you don't, I'll call you an asshole and go back inside. But if you try to steal my car, .357 magnum lead flying your way. :twisted:
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am In that case, Libertarians ought to be inherently anti-capitalist, as it has violated other humans' rights throughout history and is doing so today. Especially their property rights as the money that rightfully belongs to the worker is being taken by the capitalist parasite.
Libertarians are for freedom to choose. How many people in the DPRK get to choose where they work? What happens if they make the little fat guy mad? (anti-aircraft guns/ wild dogs)
You are parroting imperialist propaganda here, especially the bit about wild dogs which has already been shown to be fake news. Jang Song-thaek was not eaten by wild dogs. This claim originated from a Chinese satirist.

Jang Song-thaek was killed by being shot. He was also killed for a legitimate reason in that he was conspiring with the CIA in order to bring about regime change within the country. I personally think that he should have been given life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, however, you have already established that you support the death penalty for people who violate the N.A.P. which Jang Song-thaek most certainly did.

"How many people in the DPRK get to choose where they work?"

I assume that you are referring to the Songbun system, the system of ascribed status that supposedly exists within the DPRK. There is no evidence for such a system actually existing other than refugees from the DPRK who are most of the time pushed to give the most sensationalist accounts of how harsh life was in the country that they can. I have pointed out numerous examples of this on this forum, but if you would like more information about this then I am happy to deliver it to you.

It is safe to say that the DPRK, with a people-oriented socialist system centered around self-reliance, does allow people to choose where they work.

Regardless, pointing to the DPRK as an example of a socialist country where people do not get to choose where they work is a "Proof by example" fallacy as it ignores the socialist countries where people could choose where they worked and a "Red Herring" fallacy as it is diverting attention away from the fact that in every single capitalist country people do not have freedom to choose. This is because they are forced to either work in any of the places where the majority of the money which is rightfully theirs will be taken by capitalist parasites, or they will starve and die on the streets.

They have no more choice than you do between remaining in a country where you will be taxed, going to another country where you will be taxed, going to North Korea (which you know to be evil because the CIA-funded media told you so and therefore it must be true), going to jail for not paying your taxes, or killing yourself so that you don't have to pay any taxes.

If Libertarians believe that taxation is immoral because the money that rightfully ought to be yours is taken and you don't really have a choice in it, then they should believe the same for capitalism.
For fucks sake if you want to troll, go back a page or two and pretend to be that person again. It was both entertaining and informative, and actually put forth valid reasons for your "position". (And likely seemed more realistic that this latest post, which seems more like the older post...and it makes me dizzy. )
I am not the one who repeated an erroneous claim and used fallacies. I am sure that this was unintentional, I would be very surprised if this was actually intentional. However, if I was a troll, making erroneous claims and fallacies is exactly what I would be doing.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am I am also not sure how stealing a car ought to incur the death penalty. It seems very extreme to me. Would there also be a death penalty for stepping on somebody else's front law (their property)?
A car is a large financial purchase, that provides someone with the ability to commute to a job. If someone takes another persons car, the person whose car was stolen can't commute to their job, and cannot provide for their family or themselves. Taking their car hurts them not just financially, but possibly in a way that leads to them or their family starving/ being forced onto the streets. I (and most Libertarians) are peaceful people who don't want to hurt anybody. We just want to be allowed to succeed or fail based on our own merits. But if someone tries to violate our personal space, we should be able to counteract with appropriate force.

If you step on my lawn, I'll tell you to please stop that. If you don't, I'll call you an asshole and go back inside. But if you try to steal my car, .357 magnum lead flying your way. :twisted:
[/quote]

I understand now why the lawn would not be as serious as the car. However, I still do not see any reason for the death penalty to be incurred on somebody for stealing a car. This person could easily be rehabilitated to see the error of their ways. I agree that stealing the car is definitely immoral and the thief ought to go to prison, pay financial compensation, do community services, etc. However, the death penalty is an unnecessarily extreme measure to take.

As well as that, imagine somebody was mistaken for being a car thief and it was later found out that they were innocent. If that person was sent to prison, you can just free them and give them financial compensation. If that person was given the death penalty, then there is nothing you can do and you have just killed an innocent man for no reason.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by esquizofrenico »

I think the question of "is taxation theft" is very much like asking "is internalizing mentally ill people kidnapping". When you consider it just by principles it is obvious that the answer is yes, if someone tells you that he wants to be free so he can command Waterloo's battle, who are you to tell him he's not allowed?

Ultimately, I think that Governments tend to introduce a rational compass in the direction societies take that anarchist societies would lack and therefore bring to an objectively worst outcome for almost everybody. If keeping them implies sacrificing some individual freedoms, I don't see how it cannot be justified. We do that everyday, the only way we could do no undeserved damage to anyone is by stopping breathing. So I think Governmentalism is at least a philosophically defensible position.

Of course here comes the debate of whether or not Governments are really useful, which I do not think I'm prepared to take part into. In general I'm very sceptical of the idea that there is a "solution" for human existence.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by PsYcHo »

esquizofrenico wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:28 am Ultimately, I think that Governments tend to introduce a rational compass in the direction societies take that anarchist societies would lack and therefore bring to an objectively worst outcome for almost everybody. If keeping them implies sacrificing some individual freedoms, I don't see how it cannot be justified.
Governments sanctioned(s) and approved - Slavery/ Concentration Camps/ Internment Centers/ Murdering Indigenous People/ Theft (both imminent domain and confiscating private property involved in commission of a "crime" (drug use))/ Murder by the police/ Rape (if a drug dog "detects" drugs on your person but they cannot be found, you are subjected to either a body cavity search, or in some circumstances an invasive colonoscopy. https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/index.html)

I don't think the government is the one to side with in cases of morality.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by esquizofrenico »

Of course I agree that government should not determine your morality, after all I'm vegan, I have a strong disagreement with the goverment about what is aceptable. But the fact is that in many cases the majority does have great morals either. I very much agree with the two wolves and a sheep idea, but that is precisely why I am progovernment. One of the main purposes of the Government is to protect the rights of minorities, even ir majorities are against them. That is why a state needs a Constitution.
Of course, the state takes away some rights, but is to guarantee stability, at least un theory, I'm sure you could argue it brings no stability at all. or maybe you don't want stability and think that you'll be the one defending yourself against the majority should it ever come for you in a stateless system. In that case I praise your bravery, but think you are delusional. I think tour position is contradictory, on the one hand you reject that what the majority thinks is what's best, but at the same time want a system that would unleash it from one of it's leashes.

In politics I think no development has been made since Hobbes. If you take the power from the government someone will come to fill the hole.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by PsYcHo »

esquizofrenico wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:26 am If you take the power from the government someone will come to fill the hole.
Quite true. At this point in time, despite what you see on the evening news or on your facebook feed, the world in general is much safer than it has ever been. I think this is due to people actively trying to be more moral in everyday life.

If the majority of people are more inclined to morality, shouldn't the role of government decrease over time, instead on increasing?

I'm a realist, I know governments will be around, and sometimes they might do something good, but I think they should be much, much smaller. I should be able to sell homemade soy burgers in my front yard without permits, threats of fines, being inspected by a government agent, being subjected to labeling the caloric content of my soy burger and condiments, being limited to the size of beverage I can provide my customers, etc.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
inator
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:50 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by inator »

To answer the initial question, I'd say it doesn't matter too much. Owning land and what exists naturally in/on the land is technically just as much a form of theft as taxation. Let's say that owning land (and anything you haven't created yourself through labor), or exploiting and polluting the air and water and any other communal spaces/goods, is theft by the individual from the community, and that taxation is theft by the community from the individual. I'm not saying they cancel each other out perfectly and fairly, but it's a system that works for now and can still be improved pretty cost-effectively (without sacrificing personal security and freedoms too much). Can I think of better systems that make more sense? Yes. But I'd have to see them in action to make sure they work and I haven't overlooked a small but fatal detail.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by PsYcHo »

inator wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:02 am Owning land and what exists naturally in/on the land is technically just as much a form of theft as taxation.
I think that's a valid point, but should it be taken into consideration how much land one claims to own? For instance, a rich man having a thousand acres of land, vs. a modest person with a small home on a 1/4 acre lot.
inator wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:02 am taxation is theft by the community from the individual

Taken out of context, I know, but I'd still like to point out that you said it. :twisted:
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
inator
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:50 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by inator »

PsYcHo wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:12 pm I think that's a valid point, but should it be taken into consideration how much land one claims to own?
Yes, the amount and quality of the land (i.e. the demand for it).
PsYcHo wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:12 pmFor instance, a rich man having a thousand acres of land, vs. a modest person with a small home on a 1/4 acre lot.
Sure, but the taxes they pay are also different. Or should be in a well regulated system.
PsYcHo wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:12 pmTaken out of context, I know, but I'd still like to point out that you said it. :twisted:
Theft from thieves. :)
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Is taxation theft?

Post by PsYcHo »

inator wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:47 am
PsYcHo wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:12 pm I think that's a valid point, but should it be taken into consideration how much land one claims to own?
Yes, the amount and quality of the land (i.e. the demand for it).
PsYcHo wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:12 pmFor instance, a rich man having a thousand acres of land, vs. a modest person with a small home on a 1/4 acre lot.
Sure, but the taxes they pay are also different. Or should be in a well regulated system.
I assume you are someone who favors a socialized approach to land ownership. Interesting. (If I am wrong, please correct me, but I'm going forward based on this assumption.)

How should land ownership and taxes be ideally dealt with? (roughly, you don't have to get too specific right now. I promise not to go into a Libertarian rant if you don't go into a Socialist one. ;) )
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
Post Reply