Ancap faggots, refute this

How is taxation taking someone's money without contest, if you literally contest by being a citizen of a state that taxes its people.Think of it this way-by being a citizen you contest to whatever the laws are, and you don't pay taxes or anything similar until you can contest to it(adulthood).The "taxation is theft" argument can be only applied to countries like North Korea.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
africareview.com/news/Somalia-reintroduces-taxes-after-23-years/979180-2237214-150g3ur/
youtube.com/watch?v=Xcz-Oho0tlU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

ubij se

taxation prevents other people from stealing the rest of your shit while you sleep, you stupid faggot.

Taxation can be theft, but by definition it is not theft. I would say that European tax rates are just about theft yes.

i think you're agreeing with me basicly
why?because you subjectively decide it's theft after a certain rate?if you contest to it, it isn't forceably taken.

The argument only works if you think the government privately owns the entirety of the land making up the country, which is patently absurd.

once again, by being citizens all land-owners agreed to a certain amount of government control over the land.consent is there

If I give you an advice on-line should you be taxed for a gain?

And what if I lied?

"consent" ?

clarify
agreeing to something

for free?

never!

No, they didn't. The government historically took over the lands in its jurisdiction by force.

Think about it this way: if a mafia moves into town and starts ordering the shops to pay protection, are they not stealing from the shop owners because they consent to live under mafia rule by being in the neighborhood where the mafia operates? What if this goes on for several generations, until everyone just accepts it as a fact of life?

The mafia operation is illegitimate to begin with. The government is just a large mafia. Maybe you're okay with that, but it seems hard to deny that it's literally true.

I don't know just what in the fuck you're trying to convey with that shitty English, but I'll chime in with my thoughts.

Taxes have their place. Roads. Basic low level schools (what we have now). Public services like police and fire departments. Sure, I'm willing to pay taxes for this shit.

For Jamal and Taquisha to shit out 8 kids they can't afford or Juanita to skip across the border and get on dibsmedats is another story.

k i got it now, no, that's not a material gain.if i agreed to pay you for it, you could maybe be taxed for it(idk honestly would you be).
changing "historic wrongs" can go back to prehistoric times, so that's a crappy argument.also, if you decide to go to such an extreme in considering things, all people that claim their land were forceably taken under the juridistiction would need evidence.
that's why you need to get rid of non-whites.my country maybe a shithole, but at least it's white.

There is no consent, that is the problem. You cannot assume consent, that is wrong.

If all government programs were voluntary, and all of them had to be consented to by each adult citizen, it would not be theft. However they are not voluntary, and in addition you will be agressed against, and eventually put in a cage, for not complying.

Think of it this way:
How is rape wrong if being a female means you consent to having children?
By being an adult female you consent to what the laws are (reproduction is necessary for human survival). Therefore the "rape is wrong"-argument can only be applied to rape dungeons, not rapes in general.

>All these black and yellow animals
Is nature ancap?

ok, i already explained in the last post why we can take an assumption that certain state control over the land is legitimate, the state can put people when they turn 18 under a ultimatum to accept the rule of law and sign a paper as proof, and if they don't want to they can gtfo of the country.would that be fine?if it would, you're basicly using the fact government has better things to do to prove it has no legitimacy.

>that's why you need to get rid of non-whites
Tell me about it man. Gas the kikes, race war NOW!

It genuinely is.

Fun fact, humans in pre-civilized times were ALL ancaps (NAP not so much).

>changing "historic wrongs" can go back to prehistoric times, so that's a crappy argument

It's not historic, though. The government literally takes a portion of all the income you make, even though they have no claim over the land you live on or anything to do with your labor.

Are you saying mafias are consensual? If not, what separates them from a government?

>When the termites down the street leave some droppings on your part of the decaying tree stump so you spray their larvae with folic acid and collapse their underground breeding center because they violated the NAP

also, if anybody could prove land was forceably taken from them by the state, the state could just say "ok, here is your land back.now, do you consent to us having a small power over your land?no?ok, i guess we will have to build a wall around your property and not allow you to step foot into our property.it's our property, so we can do whatever we want.change your mind?thought so."
i'd prefer a civil war ending with usa splitting across state border lines, blacks being forced back to africa and jews into israel.but that works too if this isn't an option.

stop paying them you debt slaves

but by being a citizen after 18 you contest to it.if we really wanna go to extremes to prove you wrong, we can tell people when they turn 18 to sign the consent or gtfo the state territory.mafias aren't consensual since noone agreed legally to their demands and similar stuff.btw, in an ancap society they could, but a state prevents that.

>i'd prefer a civil war ending with usa splitting across state border lines, blacks being forced back to africa and jews into israel.but that works too if this isn't an option.
I'd honestly prefer it if we stayed together but actually observed our 10th Amendment - anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution is left up to the States. The Feds have grabbed far too much power in the past 100 years or so. Fucking kikes.

If you need a gun to accomplish something, it certainly isn't consensual. You will go to prison if you do not pay taxes, end of story because that is the simple reality. The only argument you're making is that people shouldn't look at it that way, not that it is not.

What's the definition of theft? Taking what doesn't belong to you without permission or against refusal right?

>consent by being
Wew lad

100% correct

All of these arguments ultimately boil down to .
Assuming that whatsoever collective force is the true owner of the land and the produce of all operations inside it, and that citizens are not true owners but merely caretakers.
I'm not anarchist, but taxation is theft. People are cucked anyway, there is no need to hide the true nature of government in our days, especially not on Sup Forums, behind bizarre theories according to which people always actually consent deep down to being under the yoke.

It is not morally justified to use violence or threat of violence to extract resources from other people.
That goes for me as an individual, robbing you, and it also goes for me and my friends robbing you. I would say it also applies to me and my friends robbing you, even after we signed a piece of paper saying it is lawful. Even with witnesses and signatures of many people.

What I am getting at is morality should be held higher than legality.

youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

However if you want to assume that ultimate state control over the land is legitimate (morally justified), then we truly are peons and have no say in the matter.

The problem with your ultimatum is there is no alternative, so it is a threat. Unless the anarchists want to move to Bir Tawil, there exists no place to gtfo to.
All land has been claimed.

that can work, but you will most likely remain a "world police"(which you can't be if you split into a lot of little countries), and also without a war it would be hard to get rid of jews and niggers, and my scenario makes sure there is a war.however, if you managed to find a way to make these 2 right and stay together, that would be equally good if not even better.
yeah, but you aren't forced to pay taxes.you just have to pay taxes if you decide to live in a country that has taxes.the reason you go to jail is because you didn't do something you agreed to do.also, "if you need" or "if you have to" is a typical sjw argument, it is just too subjective.

>but you will most likely remain a "world police"
I'm sick of that shit too. It isn't our job to police the world, but of course our power is used by the kikes to keep them wealthy at the expense of the world and the common citizen of this nation too.

you do realize ancapistan would deffinitely not be a society with high moral bar.the reason state exists is to enforce some kind of a moral bar(minimum wage and similar).also, in ancapistan all land would very quickly be claimed too.this isn't really a moral issue, if these taxes are used the "right" way.

I don't want to pay any taxes. which countries do you suggest?

if we are getting all tehnical, during the middle ages all land belonged to the state and villagers and all those cunts were just farming their land, same can be said for ancient times probably.so, only consent needed is the one from that state, and since modern day states are usually descendants of middle age states, it's the states that are owners.

somalia.

also, if the entire problem with ancapistan is that there is no land without taxes, fucking buy a island and declare it a state or find some unclaimed land or shit.

Let's not speculate about the moral standing of an imagined future society as a counter argument, thats no good.

How is using threat of violence to force employers to pay employees more than they're worth moral?

If you are not prepared to use any sort of moral, how will you determine the taxes are used the "right" way?

I will give you this though,
If taxes were specific and voluntary, meaning you checkbox out what you will have, that would be a thing I could accept as morally good, example:


school: x% of my income
higher learning: x%
science and research: x%
asylum centers: x%
healthcare: x%
pension: x%
....
so on. that would be acceptable to me at least, and it would also give enormous power to the tax cattle, which I would think is a good thing in a democracy.

This would of course have negative impacts on those choosing to pay low taxes or no taxes if they suddenly for instance needed healthcare, it would be expensive. If they saved nothing for pension they would have nothing and so on. But in my view it would be much more just and moral.

well you're right, I do contest federal and state income taxes, despite being a citizen. I do not consent to them however because the federal government is meant to do three things:

-military & law
-infrastructure and private enterprise regulation
-money (and even that has been outsourced for literal centuries)

Everything else is fluff, and frankly I don't see the need for it. Welfare's horseshit. Emergency services are infra.

Here's how rediculous it is:

you work and lose 1/3 of your check to state and federal income tax.
of that 2/3, you lose more to own a house and or car, more to any investments you accrue for retirement, and more when you die.
of that, you are taxed when you spend money, taxed when you lose money, and taxed when you otherwise gain money.
If that wasn't enough, you're after-the-fact taxed again once a year.

I think at best we could have a hybridized model for taxes where the IRS audits gov't entities near-solely, and tax businesses and people a flat 12.5%, give or take for what more is needed.

If we run a deficit, we cut programs. If we run a surplus, 1/2 goes to the debt(or equity if we ever decide to go that route), 1/2 goes back to the people. The feds get half of each state's taxes, and the states get the other half.

Ta fucking da.

>but I'm not an ancap faggot, they're nowhere near as bad as your commie ass, and at least their system would and has worked (e.g. Catalina).

africareview.com/news/Somalia-reintroduces-taxes-after-23-years/979180-2237214-150g3ur/

dangit im three years late

my shotgun and dog prevent people from stealing the rest of my shit while i sleep you stupid faggot

>You were walking through the Bronx and got robbed?
>Well mate you basically CONSENTED to get robbed the moment you set foot in that neighborhood

all land is under a government or another, thats what I tried to explain earlier.
Where the is government there is threat of violence, theft.

Carolyn and John Ryan have no problem taking the 'gibs' for their 8 children too.

Tyrone's kids will atleast become a profitable member of society through the prison system

but you do have a choice.if you don't want to be part of a community that does all those things, you just go to a community that suits you better.or find a place where you can go live in the woods or whatever, if you don't want to live in a community.Also, in an ancap society, would it be moral for a kid not to go to school, since he can't afford it.Moral is subjective to some degree, and some communities view moral different than you.If you can't live in a society with such comprehension of moral, you can go elsewhere.
i'm not saying taxing is perfect as it is, and if your government is doing something against state laws i agree with you, but this is a discussion about basic principles.
i guess, you'll have to create your own ancap paradise, it seems somalians for some reason aren't happy with their one.
but there is no law in bronx that allows robberies and if they tried to create one they wouldn't have legal basis for it.
pretty sure you can find some island or some shit somewhere and get one of many governments to sell it to you and give you soveiregnity. in an ancap world the same thing could(and would most likely) occur btw.

>also, phoneposting from now on, the serbian flag with a different id is me.

How about this you dont have to pay taxes but you may not use anything public taxes fund or purchase anything and should you commit a crime you will be jailed at your expence if you cant pay you dont eat.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xcz-Oho0tlU

Problem with this is that people are retards who would think "GREAT NO MORE TAXES" and die within 10 years.

Robbery by the state, even if it is codified by law and has a legal basis, is still robbery.

Im no ancap, and I can understand some minimal contribution for peacekeeping and national defense, but it is retarded that I have private health insurance and still get robbed to pay for socialized medicine that is shit and I am not going to use anyways. It is retarded that I have a private retirement plan but still have to pay for social security, which is abysmal

I can agree to some extent, but if you consent to it, it's not robbery.

>Carolyn and John Ryan have no problem taking the 'gibs' for their 8 children too.
Right, which is why it's a retarded system. What's your point?

>Tyrone's kids will atleast become a profitable member of society through the prison system
Profitable to whom, exactly? The private prison corporations? Wow, really great! Love that I'm subsidizing that too!

Think your points over a bit and try again, dumb fuck.

If you truly think it is morally right to force others to give their money to programs they are firmly against, no amount of words will change you. And this thread is futile.

If it is moral for a kid to go to school depends on a lot of things. such as the quality of the school service, the needs of the family of the kid, the need of the community, the ambitions of the kid, the wishes of the kid, his talents, and so on. It might be better if he showed great skill in farmwork that he simply became a farmer instead of nuclear scientist. If he's a dimwit, he won't make it to be a nuclear scientist regardless and will have wasted a lot of resources and his time.

I'm not buying the you can just create your own island kingdom and be recognized by a state argument. For that I would need ridiculous amounts of money which I don't have. If I had 50mil USD I wouldn't be here fucking around believe me.

It's late I'm gonna sleep, it was a good chat.
Sleep well mr. Serbia

All these issues would arise in an ancap society too, just more extreme.Also, that farmer kid should still get basic education.I think schools should work towards:
1.Increasing IQ
2.Helping understand law, politics and economy
Current schooling is shit pretty much everywhere, I agree, but I think we should change it instead abolish it.Glad this thread was actually civil and actually we discussed without deflecting, it's a rare occurance.Good night to you too, this is my last post.

>taxation is not theft because you can just move to the moon

Most people aren't consenting. They have a gun pointed at their head and do it out of fear, not personal choice.

If I go to the tax man and say
>I'd rather keep all my money
Instead of just being denied public services you get thrown in jail.

Seems like thats a solution not a problem. Let them die.

This discussion is pointless. Regardless if you consent or not, regardless of what you think of it, if it's justified or an aggression, if you get caught tax evading you will be confronted with increasingly degrees of force until you make reparations or it leads to your dead and so will anyone who helps you. You may argue that having to give part of everything you produce in your life under the threat of lethal violence is not theft and there's nothing wrong with it, that I just happened to be born in this place and may not be able to pool resources to move somewhere else and that I there I have to accept this unilateral aggression. And you are right, libertarians shouldn't cry taxation is theft, they should make it so that they can protect themselves / move away from it. But then again you notice that that wouldn't be possible because (((THEY))), which are also the ones on the receiving end of the tax, would not allow for their slaves to have freedom and thus making obvious the shakes around the neck of everyone else living in the pig pens called the state.