Taxation is coerced contribution to state and federal revenues

>Taxation is coerced contribution to state and federal revenues.
>Coercion is force
>contribution is a payment
>Tax is a forced payment for services you may or may not use
>Theft is the taking of another person's property without permission
>Taxation is theft

Explain to me how it is morally right to force people to pay for things they don't want to pay for please.
>protip: you can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/OA-Mk4DndFY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

WHO CARES IF IT'S MORALLY RIGHT IT WORKS

ANCAPS are literal moral delinquents who want to live in a world of chaos because they think life is supposed to be fair.

government is an institution privetly owned by jews
if you want to withdraw your consent for taxation leave the state and revoke your contract (citizenship)

Breaking into my neighbor's house and stealing his TV also works. Does that mean I should do it?
There may be some cases in which, practically speaking, the benefit to society outweighs the moral aspect, but can you honestly argue that taxation is not morally wrong?

>Explain to me how it is morally right to force people to pay for things they don't want to pay for please.
Just because you don't agree with everything that taxes are spent on 100% doesn't mean that there aren't things you do depend on that depend on tax dollars. Prime example is the money that got dumped into making the communication channels we are using right now to communicate (looking past the gay-ass part where the public paid for it but private companies own them now, which absolutely shouldn't be/have happened; roads are a more neutral example).

if you don't get caught

The alternative is even more morally wrong and gives people the freedom to commit acts of violence.

An ANCAP country would dissolve into balkanized territories and destroy themselves.

Because this is the real world and actions that take from the few for the benefit of many are necessary for the health and stability of any and all societies in the modern age.

The lack of your particular moral code in these actions is an inevitable fact of life that prevents even more morally questionable scenarios from developing.

Don't like it? Don't participate.

>Explain to me how it is morally right to force people to pay for things they don't want to pay for please.

its part of living in a successful country you pay to keep it running

LEave if you don't like paying taxes

This.

According to natural law this is all true.

Taxation is slavery.

We are not free.

>Just because you don't agree with everything that taxes are spent on 100% doesn't mean that there aren't things you do depend on that depend on tax dollars.
I'm not arguing that at all. That doesn't make it right to take someone's money with the threat of a gun or a prison cell.
If you think both sides are wrong, then the obvious solution would be to maintain only the level of taxes needed to maintain the absolute minimum that a society needs and abolish all other taxes.
>Don't like it? Don't participate.
> (OP) (You)
>LEave if you don't like paying taxes
In a Neo-cameralistic world that would be a valid option but right now this is literally impossible.

>maintain the absolute minimum that a society needs

Define needs. What are the needs of a society?

>Socalist state pays my masters of science degree
>Expects me to pay 52% income tax, 25% VAT, 180% car registration tax, forced leftwing TV license, insane property taxes
>Apply for jobs in US
>Get a 5-year contract offer from Engineering firm
>Socialists won't get a cent

Thank you based capitalism

>but right now this is literally impossible.

Then you are stuck paying taxes, deal with it

It isn't theft no matter how much you claim it is,.

>I'm not arguing that at all. That doesn't make it right to take someone's money with the threat of a gun or a prison cell.
There should be land equivalent to international waters somewhere so people like you could go and live without govt intervention, but there isn't.

So that leaves you with one option: if you don't like the govt taking your money, don't use the govt's money. Find something else, like bartering, or some digital currency that hasn't been legally taxed yet.

It is the taking of the fruits of one's labor, how is that not theft?

Slavery in the sense most people think of it is 100% taxation on one's labor. I am currently being taxed about 35% on my labor, it is lesser slavery sure but it is still slavery.

Fucking leaf.

There is no objective morality, so it's not morally wrong either. All that matters is if it works.

There is objective reality you moral-relativist. Get a clue.

It's not.

Declare yourself independent from the oppression that is the state.

Move to an abandoned oil rig in international waters.

physics != morals, dipshit

Moral relativists need to be purged.

Explain to me how your society avoids mafia and gangs and just get the same thing but more violent and brutish and with no say in the matter.

Taxation is the fee it costs to promote a "stable" civilization that you pay to take part in. If it wasn't forced, no one would pay for firemen or police until they get fucked by a crime/fire. It's a necessary evil, but like all evils, it's taken advantage of.

If you live in a society and reap the benefits of living in said society, it is only honorable and just to in turn contribute to that societies services.

Admittedly modern taxation has no justification in america

>Moral relativists need to be purged.
Well, the great thing about moral relativism is that if you kill off enough people that you disagree with, the remaining folks will be more in line with whatever random ass things you find to be morally correct, sap-sucker.

>I have never read a book or indeed wikipedia page on philosophy in my life
In fairness it's probably hard when you're 15

All "authority" is, ultimately, backed by violent force. Government is no different than petty thugs.

Indirect taxation (income tax) is theft.

Direct tax (btw/vat/sales tax) is not. You are not forced to consume in high amounts, you can minimize if you choose. And essentials normally attract lower levels of direct tax.

Take example of a toll road. You are not forced to take that particular route, you can choose some alternative.

>pay no taxes

>damn, I really wish my country had public services
>damn, I really wish my country had modern, working transport infrastructure
>damn, I really wish my country had any money at all

>So that leaves you with one option: if you don't like the govt taking your money, don't use the govt's money. Find something else, like bartering, or some digital currency that hasn't been legally taxed yet.
Governments tend to make it illegal to not use their currency user

>We don't want civic utilities, police/military, roads, schools, community centers . . .
Then you wonder why communist countries are toilets.

The great thing about moral relativism is it gives you any excuse to commit any act you want on another human being, which is incredibly enticing for atheists and other moral delinquents.

This is why my neighbor booby traps his house

>Admittedly modern taxation has no justification in america
What are costs of running and upkeep?

>Indirect taxation (income tax) is theft.
If you had said property tax I would have agreed with you.

None of that made morality objective. It isn't, and you can't defend your position without appealing to something that doesn't eixst. That means your shit is wrong fag.

Grow up.

Define "works" without relying on normative judgements. Do it you faggots.

:^)

Food, water, shelter, protection

>Governments tend to make it illegal to not use their currency user
It's not the case in the US. Give one example.

??? I have no idea what you are even trying to convey. Are you retarded?

Generally the golden rule is a good one to live by. Societies where murder and theft are permissible wouldn't last very long.

>Society=government
No.

Private enterprise has provided all of those things cheaper and more efficiently than government ever has.
At the absolute bear minimum a Federal government would provide military defense and protection of property rights inalienable rights and contracts.

Anything else the state isn't acting in a legitimate manner for a free society.

>Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil-doers by taking “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood, and life for life.” My government requires the very reverse, and depends, for its own self-preservation, on the halter, the musket, and the sword, seasonably employed against its domestic and foreign enemies. Accordingly, the land is well furnished with gibbets, prisons, arsenals, train-bands, soldiers, and ships of war. In the maintenance and use of this expensive life-destroying apparatus, we can exemplify the virtues of forgiving our injurers, loving our enemies, blessing them that curse us, and doing good to those that hate us. For this reason, we have regular Christian chaplains to pray for us, and call down the smiles of God on our holy murders...

Gold.

You're a communist, congrats.

>Generally the golden rule is a good one to live by. Societies where murder and theft are permissible wouldn't last very long.

An ANCAP society does make murder and theft permissible as long as the victim can't properly defend themselves for whatever reason.

The system doesn't utterly collapse. Which any system without taxation or a monopoly on force will.

Those are the needs of an individual not a society.

Why should a person care about whether or not a given system collapses?

Trains have been privatised in the UK. They got worse.

Private police forces and defense organisations would be profit-oriented and would rely on a steady flow of crime.

Honestly, all Libertarians on this board are useful idiots for right wing authoritarians.

> humans are naturally a social animal
> therefore they must contribute to society at large or fuck off the lands that the state protects
I only wish your mother would have treated you as an individual when you were born and let you starve to death you antisocial fag.

Because few people want to die, and systems collapsing leads to this. Because it is in the vast majority of people's subjective interests not to be killed, and a collapsed society fundamentally fails to prevent that

This is why people who've never read the Bible shouldn't talk about Christian morality. They do stupid ass things like thing Christianity is anarchist and pacifist because they take one scripture out of context and ignore the entire Law of Moses and all the Letters of the Apostles.

>Jesus: "Often you can defuse a bad situation by morally shaming your assailant instead of fighting him."

>Retards: "Lets ignore the wider context of Hebrew morality, law, and philosophy, as well as all Jesus other statements, and instead think this means 'always act like a total cuck, even if you get killed for doing so' and despite God the Father [whom Jesus endorses] telling Moses numerous specific commands on good government and the proper treatment of murderers, thieves, and vagrants.

Gold what? I was looking for a country name, not an element.

>An ANCAP society does ... some other crap ...
You see, a society like that would fall apart because there isn't enough stability for it to grow into anything else. There is a reason why people don't just kill each other all the time, and that's because evolutionarily speaking we wouldn't be a successful species if we did.

Regardless, there is nothing that prevents you from killing someone else in our society today, just some nasty repercussions if you get caught.

Morality is subjective - that's your first mistake.

So lets ask and answer "why is it generally useful to have people pay for things they don't want to pay for."

This is also ignoring the idea that just because you don't want to pay for it - doesn't mean it's not useful to you. Example - The US military to its citizens, many of those citizens don't want to pay for the military.

There is also the societal stability a lot of government spending contributes to, from the treasury, to the justice department, to regulatory bodies.

If you aren't biased and cherry picking in your thought process, there are a lot of programs and government institutions that contribute to the country as a whole that allow even the individual who disagrees with all of it to be more productive than if none of it existed.

But your post is of course troll bait and I'm feeding your ego, so there is that.

You tried

>There is a reason why people don't just kill each other all the time, and that's because evolutionarily speaking we wouldn't be a successful species if we did.

The reason we don't is because the society we live in doesn't give us a whole lot of reasons to kill and steal when it's not necessary.

>Regardless, there is nothing that prevents you from killing someone else in our society today, just some nasty repercussions if you get caught.

And in an ANCAP society there is nothing preventing a private police company to disregard protecting people because they can't pay the security premiums. There's also nothing preventing people from creating huge armies to people.

I succeeded. You haven't established a shred of reason for objective moral values, which is necessary for the Muh Taxation is theft argument. Government merely has to satisfy basic might makes right principals, however, which can be easily done by satisfying a majority of the populations's subjective interest. My system doesn't have to be built on objective moral or any objective values, yours does.

great non-sequitur. later faggot

This is pretty true but it still is slavery.

>can't argue his own position
>runs away

Nice.

>Trains have been privatised in the UK. >They got worse
A state enforced monopoly is a state enforced monopoly even if they sell off the railroads.

One only has to look back to NYC before the city bought the subway system to understand just how fucking bad state ownership or state enforced private monopolies are
> Private police forces and defense organisations would be profit-oriented and would rely on a steady flow of crime.
Yes and?

Private police in cities like Detroit cost less than the city police for the citizens that pay for it and they provide services to those who can't for free. They have more coverage and success rate than the city PD as well.

Just think about that the city police are so fucking bad that locals are being forced to pay for them and are still willing to pay out of pocket for private police.

>Implying I believe in objective morality
What I'm saying is that you do. You're just too stupid to realise that what you essentially have is some shitty form of rule utilitarianism

This, I'm ok with direct tax but indirect was never intended in the USA and was enacted permanently in 1913, same year as the federal reserve...hmmm... really gets the noggin' joggin'.

This leaf gets it.

>Gold what? I was looking for a country name, not an element
You asked what currency our government has outlawed and gold is litteraly the oldest currency in human history.

The only legal tender in America is US or federal reserve notes. Bit coin only has survived due to it's extremely unique nature and people in Congress have been wanting to ban it as well>And in an ANCAP society there is nothing preventing a private police company to disregard protecting people because they can't pay the security premiums
Their entire reputation and business model does.
It isn't even like private police are a theoretical concept they exist and don't do this because they know it would only cost them.money

> There's also nothing preventing people from creating huge armies to people.
Oh so exactly like governments do right now

No, I really don't. My position has nothing to do with Utilitarianism and is based on basic might makes right principals. The best way to have the most might is to get the most people on board, and the best way to do that is to help a majority satisfy their subjective interests. At no point do I make any appeals to utilitarianism or moral objectivity. You have completely misread what I posted if you think that is the case.

Picture saved. Genius.

Income tax didn't need an amendment it was just put in place to absolutely solidify it.
The Constitution absolutely allowed for near unlimited taxation and the Hamiltonian crowd convinced the Jeffersonian crowd despite these criticisms of the Constitution allowing this that "we'll never abuse it". It was one of the worst mistakes in our history.
This fight is as old as this nation user and we should have never abandoned the articles of confederation. This is a yuge redpill on American history the whole Federal reserve deal is a tic-tac in comparison

youtu.be/OA-Mk4DndFY

>absolutely allowed
Allows*

Remember Obamacare only survived Constitutionally because of this fact I'm pointing out and that particular case is immensely damaging to American liberty in the long term as it has solidified in Constitutional case law that the government can force people to essentially do whatever they want so long as they portray the consequences of not complying as taxation

Do you even know how to reply to people?

>Their entire reputation and business model does.
>It isn't even like private police are a theoretical concept they exist and don't do this because they know it would only cost them.money

The reputation of a police service in a ANCAP society where you could be overrun by murderous reavers doesn't matter when you life is in potential danger.

>business model

Their business model relies on people paying for their service. If people can't pay for the service, they don't get the service, i.e they die.

>Oh so exactly like governments do right now

Except the government doesn't use this army to invade its own population.

Objective moral values exist because we are each individually RESPONSIBLE for our ACTIONS. Our actions can either be good or bad, this is objectively true in the sense you can either:

Murder or not murder
Steal or not steal
Coerce or not coerce
Lie or not lie

All of former are OBJECTIVELY bad and the former are OBJECTIVELY good because as a sovereign human being in control of your decisions you should choose to do good instead of bad.

The golden rule is objective morality.

Are you not claiming that the state ought to do what is in the subjective interest of most people under its rule? If that ought exists you're making an objective, normative statement

If you're not saying that I'm not sure you're saying anything at all, or at least would need to elaborate

Will watch. What specific part of the constitution allows for unlimited taxation?

>The reputation of a police service in a ANCAP society where you could be overrun by murderous reavers doesn't matter when you life is in potential danger.
The same can be said about government but unlike your hypothetical governments routinely do this more. The number 1 unnatural killer of man the last century has been democide.
>Their business model relies on people paying for their service. If people can't pay for the service, they don't get the service, i.e they die.
Then you haven't made even an attempt to look up the business model of private police that litteraly exist today.
They make their money from some people and provide free services to those who can't afford it because it makes them significantly more competitive to consumers and builds their reputation significantly.

Also this idea that "if police disappear you'll drop dead" is absurd. Individuals are more than capable of defending themselves from.direct attackers police role has always been cleanup and investigation of crimes not protection.
> Except the government doesn't use this army to invade its own population.
As I said earlier in this Post that's quite literally the number 1 cause of human on human death over the last 100years.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

The way it's written essentially allows for what I said and the founders on the Jeffersonian side made this criticism at the time the Constitution was being deliberated on. They were foolish to trust the empty words of Hamilton and co.

You are born without your own consent in a country. no consent = not a valid contract.

I guess because it is so vaguely stated?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

>general Welfare

Literally foreshadowing the welfare state.

Fug

Did I say ought? Did I make any ought statements? No, I didn't. You are reading into my post your own assumptions. If a state or leadership wants to survive, this is the best way to do that. There is no objective moral claim here.

>I guess because it is so vaguely stated
If you put it extremely simply the link I posted goes into more detail and the book they're discussing goes into great detail.
The commerce clause has also been massively expanded waaaaaaaaay beyond what it was meant to be as well.