Is taxation theft?

Is taxation theft?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/fasTSY-dB-s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If it's involuntary, yes.

No. The state owns the airspace you live under.

Pay up, faggot.

Yes.

>muh social contract
which I didn't sign

Yes, along with private property and rent.

The flag and platform you are attempting to raise was common in the 1750s-1770s by American colonist to britain. They saw the tea taxes, stamp taxes, and numerous other taxes, and saw that nothing they say had any effect on Britain, and basically got flipped off every time they attempted to write a letter protesting it. The cry of no taxation without representation is one of the building blocks of the USA, not no taxation. Nice try user.

Yes and no - when you are forced to pay and threatened if not, it is theft


On a voluntary basis as it should be, it is not

Next time, vote the guy that will abolish taxation

this desu

Yes absolutely, the social contract theory, even if you could tacitly consent to being taxed just by existing in society, is still untenable. The idea that there must exist an authoritarian government to keep men out of a state of nature falls apart with the function of time. If man was left alone in the state of nature long enough, a barbarian tribe would amass a monopoly of violence and conquer another effectively creating an autocracy. I see no difference from the authoritarian government Hobbes called for in his social contract theory and the barbarian conquerors in the state of nature. The only true "society" or "civilization" is a voluntary one; a voluntary association of non-aggressors.

...

Yes

if you use the roads you gotta pay for them faggett

I'm fine with tax I get that it helps with a lot in society. What pisses me off specifically is property tax. I shouldn't have to keep paying those fucking kikes after I pay off my estate. Thieving bastards

You are choosing to live under the state. You've entered into a voluntary contract.

If you wanted to you could go and live in the woods and pay no taxes whatsoever. You choose not to do this. Fucking dickless faggots.

>if you live on an island, and i come to your island and steal money from you and use that money to build a bridge to the mainland, and you use the bridge, you have to keep letting me steal money from you

Really.... makes.... you.... think....

see
You have no argument

I deny the states arbitrary claim to the earth at our feet

>Sup Forums
>goes outside
good one

Are one-line writing prompt one-posts legitimate content?

Some taxation is theft, income tax is slavery.

No, it's called a social contract. An-caps and libertarians don't seem to understand this basic concept.

Income tax is voluntary, everyone knows that by now. There is literally no reason to pay taxes in 2017. If you even knew what it was going towards... not rebuilding the country or infrastructure!

I have made an agreement with a company to work in exchange for payment. The government intercepts a portion of my payment after it leaves my employer's hands before it reaches my hands. How is this not theft?

Try to keep your money and you'll soon find out.

Its not theft. You dont wanna pay? Tough shit I hope the police, firemen, and ambulance never comes to you when some immigrant breaks in and fucks you up.

This is the dumbest post I have ever read on Sup Forums.

>Yes absolutely, the social contract theory, even if you could tacitly consent to being taxed just by existing in society, is still untenable.
The fact that you are not currently in prison shows that you have consented to be ruled over. If you rejected this rule then you would commit crime. Remember that social contract theory is a DESCRIPTIVE theory, not a NORMATIVE one. It attempts to explain why humans live in a society at all. Hobbes correctly identified that the reason people agree to submit to a state, and forego some of their "natural rights" (everything you are physically capable of doing - including killing another person), in exchange for the protection of other natural rights (such as your right to live without being killed).

>I see no difference from the authoritarian government Hobbes called for in his social contract theory and the barbarian conquerors in the state of nature.
The state of nature is that before "civil society". So the barbarian tribe would be within "the state of nature". The difference is that barbarian conquerors don't qualify as civil society.

However, it's important to note that even a barbarian society relies upon a social contract! People agree to be ruled over, in exchange for certain protections. As I said, social contract theory is a descriptive theory of why humans engage in a society (actually, I would argue, it applies to ALL animals that live in social groups, not just humans).

>The only true "society" or "civilization" is a voluntary one; a voluntary association of non-aggressors.
Get your head out of your ass and stop dreaming of ridiculous utopian fantasies. "Non-aggressors" - holy fuck lol. So if a business aggressively expands into a new marketplace, should the people of that business be killed for violating the NAP?

Seriously, that's how fucking dumb you are. "Aggression" takes many forms and humans are aggressive every single day.

Is that george washington? He looks cute

see

By living in a society in which it is voluntary to leave then you agree to it's contract. Furthermore, if you vote or benefit from any of the institutions created or helped by the society, then you agree to it's contract.

I personally believe that in order to be a citizen (even if you are born into the country) you need to pass a constitution test and then sign saying that you agree with it.

Killing another person is not within your natural rights. You don't understand natural law.

The monarchy/autocracy/democracy(tyranny of majority) is no more civilized than the barbarian society

>So if a business aggressively expands into a new marketplace, should the people of that business be killed for violating the NAP?

If all you have is bad-faith semantics to attempt to strawman, I suggest you take a break from posting

No it's Thomas Hobbes, the greatest philosopher of all time.

I've got an argument faggot. You don't. Read: Yet you agree to live under it. If you didn't then you would be out committing crime, doing what you liked. Why aren't you doing that? Because you're a faggot, and you have tacitly agreed to be governed by the state.

I think they're the best threads. Nobody reads a long OP. Short and snappy encourages the best discussion.

You've got it in one.

Because you have agreed to live under the state. You could choose to live by yourself in the woods if you wanted - and pay no tax.

Think of the countless places on the planet where you could build a shelter, hunt for food, and sustain yourself. The Mongolian steppe. The jungles of Brazil. Africa. Siberia. Rural Hungary. I dunno, wherever the fuck you want.

You COULD do this. You are physically capable of doing it. But you have CHOSEN not to. You have CHOSEN to live in a civil society, with a government ruling over it, because it offers you securities that you enjoy!

By the way, I don't agree completely with the Social Contract theory of a necessary authoritarian government. But I do believe that rights come from society and protected (or made official) by governments.

No, it is your part of the social contract between country and resident. You're free to move so it isn't involuntary either.

Is theft taxation?

If a robber breaks into your home and holds a gun to your head and tells you to give him your money and you comply, no you didnt consent to a voluntary exchange of money, your money was stolen from you by aggressive force

youtu.be/fasTSY-dB-s

Government has no claim to private property thus they cannot set the terms of use of such property

>If you wanted to you could go and live in the woods and pay no taxes whatsoever

how did you get my sekrit plans?

youtu.be/fasTSY-dB-s

Does anybody here remember when you signed this so called "social contract"?
I surely don't.

>Killing another person is not within your natural rights. You don't understand natural law.
Yes it is, and you don't understand the distinction between natural rights and natural law, which are completely different things you fucking idiot.

"Natural law" - a phrase used by moral absolutists to refer to an objective standard of morality; one that usually involves the precept "killing is bad". "Natural rights" - a phrase used by Hobbes to denote everything that a man is physically capable of doing, regardless of whether those actions are moral or not.

>The monarchy/autocracy/democracy(tyranny of majority) is no more civilized than the barbarian society
It has less violence, as Hobbes points out. That's the distinction.

>If all you have is bad-faith semantics to attempt to strawman
No it's not, and you have refused to engage with my point because you are too intellectually incapable of doing so. Sad!

Look at picture related, from the OED, which defines aggression as "feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront", but also merely "forcefulness".

How do you envision a society existing where there is no aggression whatsoever? What will you do when somebody is aggressive? Kill them? You will live in utter barbarism, the kind which you apparently so vehemently oppose! Top zozzle!

You sign it with every day you spend in this country. I'm sure there is a country out there that's right for you, you just have to go find it.

The fact that you even have property is because the State protects it. That alone has value, and it needs to be paid for.

Your anarchist libertarian commune writ large would be a perfect target for someone to invade and conquer.

It's the entrance fee for civilization.

This dumb nigger asks on the intraneters which couldn't exist without taxation

...

Bong 1 : 0 Amerilard
Good shit.

>the distinction between natural rights and natural law, which are completely different things you fucking idiot.
wrong

>"Natural rights" - a phrase used by Hobbes to denote everything that a man is physically capable of doing, regardless of whether those actions are moral or not.
And natural rights as defined by Locke, the true whigs, the levellers of the english revolution, and all the classical liberals meant those rights that man possesses according to the natural law

>It has less violence, as Hobbes points out. That's the distinction.
So a society with a more cucked population is your standard of civility?

>Look at picture related, from the OED, which defines aggression as "feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront", but also merely "forcefulness".
Another strawman

depends.
usually no. Try being a small business before you cry about taxes.

>Your anarchist libertarian commune writ large would be a perfect target for someone to invade and conquer.

Your temporary caretaker of government has no incentive to conquer our commune. For what? Reelection? A voluntary commune would have every incentive to protect the value of their private property and persons and would devote every resource possible to protect it. Your socialist leader would only look at the short-run benefits and back off since he's bound to be a Keynsian cuck

No, you're using infrastructure build by the government and you're under protection of laws that are placed by a government, you're given opportunities to grow because the government can make the enviroment favourable for it.

No, it's strong armed robbery.

You've got it. But even just living within the law is compliance to the social contract. The law IS the social contract, CODIFIED into statues.

Believing that the social contract theory/model accurately describes why humans live in a civil society doesn't commit you to authoritarianism. Two different things entirely. Locke talked about the social contract, but he was a liberal (in the classical sense).

This

Yes it is a contract. I am a free agent and make my own choices in that situation - I can agree to his contract and give him the money, or I could take my chances in trying to attack him.

Stop being a faggot. Stop whinging. You are a free agent. You have autonomy. You engage in contracts/understandings with other humans, and your relationship to the state is just that.

You are too dickless to go and live off-grid, in a way that would actually be separated from the state, because the reality is that you are DEPENDENT on the state - because you are LAZY. You are too much of a DICKLESS FAGGOT to follow through on your grandiose ideas of abandoning the state.

>aggressive force
Once again, your head is so far up your own ass that you ACTUALLY THINK that you can remove aggressive force from humans. Guess what, you can't.

If you don't plan to do that, then you have agreed to live under the authority of the government. You COULD do that, if you wanted to. There are plenty of places on this Earth where you can go and live, and where a national government is very unlikely to find you.

That choice is open to you. And you haven't taken it.

This is just like putting clothes on in the morning. You think of wearing clothes as "default" because it is such a habit to you. But wearing clothes is still, ultimately, a choice. And you make that choice because you have made your own cost/benefit analysis of whether wearing clothes is beneficial to you or not.

You are doing it right now, by not breaking laws.

This.

This as well.

And this too. A man could go and live in the woods if he wanted to. Sustain himself off the land. Humans have done it for hundreds of thousands of years - and they still do it all over the world.

Just like putting on clothes, or getting a job - these things seem like "default", if you have been raised to do them. But they are choices. You are a free agent.

Thanks man. I did a philosophy degree (yes, absolutely useless, I know), and Hobbes was my favourite guy. I've only read bits of Leviathan, not the whole thing. Great book though.

One of the only people I've ever read where I thought "shit, this nigga thinks exactly like I do".

It can be.

Do you like having a military that prevents your homeland from being stolen and your family from being raped by foreign invaders? Or roads? Or hospitals? Or scientific research?

It can definitely go overboard, but generally speaking, no - taxation is not theft.

Only if it is taxation without representation.

Philosophy majors are always either a massive fag spewing "taxation is theft" and "Kant was wrong but I won't explain why" or an actual guy willing to argue.

Props to you bong. And I don't think it's useless, the only people that complain that philosophy studies are a failure, are failed students or failer philosophers.

>wrong
You haven't read Hobbes then, because that's how he defines natural rights. If you want to try and make an argument, though, then you are perfectly welcome to make one.

>And natural rights as defined by Locke, the true whigs, the levellers of the english revolution, and all the classical liberals meant those rights that man possesses according to the natural law
Good for him. Hobbes' conception is the one that I'm using for my argument though. So Locke's conception is entirely irrelevant here.

If you want to make an argument that uses Locke's conception then, again, you're perfectly welcome to do so.

>So a society with a more cucked population is your standard of civility?
You're the biggest cuck of all. The reason I know this is because you are too dickless to go out and live in this "free" way that you dream of.

Human social groups will ALWAYS consist of those at the top and those at the bottom. It will ALWAYS feature cucks. Hierarchy is a defining feature of human social groups, just like it is for many other animals' social groups too.

>Another strawman
A dictionary definition is a strawman? Is this really the level of intelligence that I'm working with here?

Commie, commie; traitor to our country

>You're the biggest cuck of all. The reason I know this is because you are too dickless to go out and live in this "free" way that you dream of.

OOOOHHHHHHH!

[/thread]

Good posts.

Thanks mang. Many are pretentious cunts yes. I probably am myself.

Anyway, the strength of someone's argument is of course what matters, no matter who they are.

It's payment for the privilege of the protection of a state's laws.

/thread