The Obama Inaugural Address

Taxation is theft as well. Because the thief tells you about how he will spend your money on your behalf doesn't change the fact that it was taken under threat of punishment.

nawilins - I don;t understand this "taxes are theft mentality". Are you are saying that your continued residence in this country not voluntary?

You can avoid future taxes anytime - just leave - or just make no money. I know people who made money overseas and live off tax free bonds. what ever suits you. So our taxes are actually voluntary. They reflect the desire to stay here, work here, use our infrastructure, knowing full well how we run things here, and so you accept and pay the freight.

So when are you leaving? There are several others on this thread who are in despair. Maybe you can all leave and go somewhere else. We are getting tired of tolerating your whining here.

Why should I leave? Are you claiming that my home and my earnings do not belong to me, but are granted me by the benevolent State? The notion that one is "free" to leave in order to abstain from being robbed is founded on the false notion that the State has some rightful claim to all the land of the nation. Where did this right come from? If it exists, then every individual is a renter of the State. You seem to agree with this concept in your "our infrastructure" and "how we run things here" model of collectivism.

Because you can't "understand" the concept does not make it untrue. And the notion of "voluntary taxes" is an absurdity.

nawl

In this country the government's right, and duty, to tax is not derived from its "ownership" of the land. If the government has right and duty to tax then it is not theft. You are simply trying to construct a rationalization for your opposition to what the majority of your neighbors wish to do in areas we all agree are legitimate for joint action, and you view them as impositions rather that as collaborators In fact you cannot abide living the sane space as them so that why you should leave.

Do you think you own the infrastructure upon which you depend. So you deny the right of the people to decide how to govern themselves or do you think this is somehow preordained,

Then where does the "right" of taxation derive, Sky? From the collective? So if enough people agree to enslave the minority, then this becomes a "right"? Until you can justify how the State has a "right" to confiscate the property of individuals, then I stand by my assertion. The State has no more "right" to take property than the mob has the "right" to "protection" money.

I comes from the same place other rights do except that in this case it's derived from the core right of the people to form a government. Where does that right come from? Or do you deny that exists as well.

You still can't produce a compelling justification for this so-called "right" to tax. It cannot derive from our individual rights as we have no right to take from others against their will. The right to form a government does not create new "rights" that infringe on the rights inherent in the individual. It would be absurd to claim that man has the right to form a government in order to deprive him of his rights.

If you will answer at least one of my questions I can walk you through this. But I would rather not. You are not a serious person.

So says the person who cant support his argument. Uh huh.

Like I said your are not a serious person. You believe government has NO right to tax and therefore no right or means by which to exist except by unanimous consent. Who could argue with that wisdom? ,

And yet you cant provide any serious justification by which it has a right to take the property of others. Implying that taxation is an effective means to fund its existence does not change the fact that taxation is theft. Because you realize you cant defend your position, you are forced to end the discussion. Understandable.

Let's go back. Why do YOU think people have any rights at all? Depending on your answer i can possibly connect your worldview with one in which governments have legitimacy and go from there, but I may also need to know generally what the extent of these rights and their purpose. Or do you just think the world is inherently unfair in which case I would advise you to accept the way it is here, try to change it (good luck) or just leave. Otherwise you are just venting. As it is your position is unworkable and meaningless - thus not worth arguing.

My "worldview" is irrelevant. A logically reasoned argument is true regardless of who makes it. You don't have to know my reasoning to hold and defend your own propositions. From our discussion, you imply that taxation is not theft because a lot of people accept it and don't believe it is theft. My position is that regardless of what they believe, the taking of other's property, against their will, is theft. The fact that taxation makes government's job at fund raising easier is not a compelling argument.

We have had no "discussion". You may think it so but all we have had you repeating a sophomoric assertion and refusing to answer probes that seek clarification by understanding the premises upon which it is based and your view of how the world is actually put together that led you to accept them.

You have misunderstood. I am not saying that taxation is not theft because it is accepted. I merely say that at some level it is necessary and if controlled it is proper and just. It should be accepted. The only real issue how much, for what and who should pay. So I would say just because a few people like you view it as theft does make it theft. There are other reasons that justify taxation - none have to do with Govt owning land.

The reason your worldview is relevant is that you are laboring under several misapprehensions some of which seem to be derived from, or are nourished by, a basic hostility toward others, a naive sense of how income is earned and defined, among other things. Where do live by the way. And what do you or did you do for a living.

Your continued distractions of where I live and what I do are telling as they have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And your claim that I have some sort of "hostility " toward others is laughable. It is you that believe that the property of others must be taken against their will. Until you can give a compelling justification why forced confiscation of ones property becomes a moral good when done by the State, then I stand by my statement.

I asked the first question expressing an inability to understand the notion that taxation is theft. You answer saying it is taking property without their consent. That the definition of theft and does not say why you think taxation fits that definition.

Is 100% your ability to earn income come solely from your current and past efforts. Are those other contributors present and past compensated and how?
Does your ability to enjoy and keep your property depend party upon others - who are not otherwise compensated for their contribution
By living here using our infrastructure and institutions, participating in a political process you are not giving your consent to abide by are laws? Is citizenship free?

Syk, I don't understand you any more!

What has happened to you?

If, in the acquisition of your property, you used any common infrastructure such as public roads, a legal system to enforce contracts, currency, air protected against unfettered pollution, and so on, taxation is how you pay the freight. Taking advantage of common infrastructure necessary to acquire property and then refusing to help pay for it - that is theft.

"If, in the acquisition of your property, you used any common infrastructure such as public roads, a legal system to enforce contracts, currency, air protected against unfettered pollution, and so on, taxation is how you pay the freight. Taking advantage of common infrastructure necessary to acquire property and then refusing to help pay for it - that is theft".

Wandered, your argument doesn't address the issue as you never showed where the State was justified to tax in the first place. Because a thief plans to use his takings for the St. Jude's Hospital or to fund a school does not alter the fact that his means was through theft.

Sykocon, HOW is my definition not equivalent to taxation? Your argument of "voluntary taxation" was as absurd as taxation is not voluntary and never addresses the justification for the taxation in the first place. Neither does the argument that the State is "elected" by the masses. Many have this notion that when a monarch taxes, this is tyranny, but when our neighbors vote to confiscate our property, well that is just swell. Majorities have historically voted for all manners of atrocities. Because the majority says "yay" doesn't mean it is moral.

"By living here using our infrastructure and institutions, participating in a political process you are not giving your consent to abide by are laws? Is citizenship free?"

This is classic collectivist mentality. The perception that the system we live in is a totally planned design orchestrated by the State, instead of the reality that the majority of it is the result of voluntary collaboration between individuals. Because the State takes from us to give us "benefits" doesn't justify the taking to begin with and doesn't prove that such benefits wouldn't arise from private market processes.

"Wandered, your argument doesn't address the issue as you never showed where the State was justified to tax in the first place."

The infrastructure for you to acquire property predated your acquisition of it. How are you justified in using it without paying?

You still fail the argument, but the answer is that I do pay, as I am forced to pay under penalty of incarceration and further property theft. Now that you now that part, you still need to demonstrate how such taking is not theft. Until then, no one has provided any compelling reason why taxation is not theft.

If it's legit you must acquit

You have not demonstrated that the government's claims in any amount, assessed in any manner, are all illegitimate. To do so you must claim that govt itself is illegitimate in all forms and in any scope. But that's a different argument.

Forget about "taking" your property and income. It never was 100% yours free of any encumbrance or obligation in the first place.

I still say the only honest recourse for you is renounce your citizenship and move somewhere where the markets provide the things you need to pursue happiness. Otherwise are using and benefiting from the use of infrastructure and institutions financed by what you believe is stolen money.

PS- Nawlins. You are making an accusation of wrong doing. That makes you the prosecution and therefore the burden of proof is on you. But you keep asking us to disprove your assertion- an assertion which has no practical or theoretical proof but is simply how you feel about the matter, in affect a reflection of your worldview.

"Forget about "taking" your property and income. It never was 100% yours free of any encumbrance or obligation in the first place."

Really? And what percentage was never truly mine and by what reasoning?

"You are making an accusation of wrong doing."

Which I have repeatedly stated. Taking property involuntarily is theft.

"That makes you the prosecution and therefore the burden of proof is on you. But you keep asking us to disprove your assertion- an assertion which has no practical or theoretical proofbutis simply how you feel about the matter"

This is rich. I have stated why and do so above but you ignore this and claim I give no reasoning. The just powers of government are derived from the natural rights of men. They cannot grant it rights they themselves don't have. Men cannot steal from others and they cannot create systems to do it for them. The State is a gang of thieves writ large.

The amount I think is appropriate, if any, is a separate issue and a diversion and of no relevance here. You are simy unable to make your case. Doing a good job telling us how you feel about taxes though. . .

The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming, among other things, that your income was derived without any benefit what-so-ever from any government in any amount, or any manner.

Semantics again, feeling it is theft does not make so. But I guess you are SOL then if that how you view life

Would it be possible that the natural rights of man include the right to assess members of the community for the cost they impose on the community so as to prevent one member from infringing on another and using, damaging or impairing his property without compensation. or are you going to argue with that. Generally natural rights folks pick and chose those that suit them and ignore others as well as the interrelationships, +/- feedbacks, conflicts etc. among them. The express what they feel.

You are implying that natural law DOES allow for government and that it has some just powers. But you deny natural law includes any means of executing them. YOu are pretty vague because you are to busy ranting about your feelings that you been robbed. Too bad. YOU are SOL.

I tire of the constant dodges and dishonest claims of "telling how I feel". No one has offered any compelling argument that taxation is not theft, even though the issue was originally addressed as though the reasoning was self evident. Instead we get shocked inquiries over how the State can function if it doesn't take or distractions of all the things the State does with the money. Or the all to common "then leave" rhetoric. I stand by my position.

"Semantics again, feeling it is theft does not make so."

And feeling it is not theft does not make it so. Pretty easy to play your game.

"Would it be possible that the natural rights of man include the right to assess members of the community for the cost they impose on the community so as to prevent one member from infringing on another and using, damaging or impairing his property without compensation. or are you going to argue with that?"

No, there is no such right to deprive others of their property in order to protect their property as it is logically contradictory. If men will not freely pay for such services then such services are not highly valued.

Nawlins
You dork – I was playing YOUR game. And I have been playing with you all along, just for sport. I don’t really care what your “position” is. We’ve heard it all before. You can chase this line of thinking a long way and in the end all you end with is “maybe, sort of, in some instances …. but so what”

For a while there I thought I might tease some original justification out you but got nothing but assertion.

Nature has a habit of punishing erroneous designs and reconciling conflicting requirements and demands. That process produced governments where there were no governments and/or degraded living standard where there was no government. cont.

cont

Of course early governments morphed quickly into rent seeking entities- going well beyond a just tax. Again nature corrected and we have today a few governments that control rent seeking and predation in society and which do less and less of it themselves. So natural law is producing government – what we have here in the US is not a violation of natural law but the product of it and the best so far. You can participate in it or you can view govt as your enemy and continue to wallow in a perception that is an artifact of long past era.

Hahahahaha!!!! "Nature produces governments"!!! And governments "evolve" through "natural selection". That is rich. Your revisionism on the origin of States is absurd. But I guess that's just you emoting and telling us your "feelings".

"And I have been playing with you all along, just for sport."

Of course you have, champ. And I'm sure you were about to spring upon us the definitive justification for the "right" to tax and how taxation is not theft, but you were just waiting for the right moment, huh? Yeah, uh huh.

The mere fact that you used any common infrastructure to acquire property is the reason taxation is not theft. But you yearn to be one of those "takers" the GOP is always on about. The fact that society doesn't allow you to mooch is not a legitimate claim to victimhood.

Nope. There is no "definitive" anything. You are a hedgehog. Otherwise you would be an interesting guy but as it is you just another horse's b u t t.

PS - I don't know what your education is but believe or not there are some interesting tools out there for understand complex systems and processes. I suspect you lake the open mindedness to learn about them

Wandered - I like the way you think. But think also about how to accommodate malcontents like nawlins - they aren't going away.

Honestly, I'd much rather have them around than authoritarian social conservatives.

I concur. But they both have the tendency to act irrationally and double down when things don't fit their simplistic models. I read these posts to try to understand as many points of view as possible so I can come up with some kind of syntheses that will help me understand the future direction of the country. This is important to the way I earn my living. Right now this synthesis tells me this can't end well.

Radicalist?