>If 1 person steals from another, it's theft.
>If 100 people steal from another, it's still theft.
>If 10 million people steal from another, it's no longer theft?
>If the 10 million people vote to take somebody else's stuff, is it fair because the victim "got a say"?
How is this in any way justified and not immoral?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
megaliths.org
vice.com
twitter.com
Adam Kokesh, please go.
SAGE
agreed- spread the good word
that doesn't answer the question, though. Isn't taxation theft, and therefore immoral?
who give fuck me money me need. without who build airport road and welfare shut the fuck
doesn't work on solipsists though, they do not believe in right and wrong
Theft is not immoral when the strong take it from the weak.
If people collectively consent to pay taxes; then the authority empowered by that consent has a duty to ensure that the taxpayers are meeting their obligations.
Then I suppose a nigger stealing your purse is morally justified, kraut
...
>collectively consent
what the heck does that mean? if enough people gang up and decide to do abuse a victim, it then counts as consent? can you also rape somebody and get away with it if enough people agree with you? I mean I don't recall ever voluntarily signing an agreement to pay taxes. I am forced to do so by the government.
Are you one of those people who suggest simply being born puts you under a social contract in which you have no say one way or another? Do you not see how this goes against the whole concept of consent?
Nigger, you just don't get it yet, do you? Lolbertarianism is a pipe dream, delusional utopian Jewish made scam.
it depends. If they spend the taxed money on common benefit (police, firefighter, military, roads, bridges...) then its ok. when they give it to parasites (who never did nor will work) then it is theft. Of course all the money spend has to be proven that it was spend efficiently for best value/price.
welfare/not taxes is theft.
Privatize wildfires now!
You still didn't answer the question. Is it theft or not?
But I didn't consent to taxation. It can be ok in a pragmatic sense, but in a moral sense it isn't
#notall.
Not all taxes are theft. Some of the tax money are spent on things that dont serve the interest of the taxed. that portion is theft.
see
in elementary school people (parents) voted on common expenses, then we all had to pay money in. The rich parents said yes, lets buy everything to the kids, our family is like "is it really necessary?" but were voted down and pay up. Is this how you feel?
It can be. Or alternatively, it can be fee for service in protection private property. To appreciate what I'm saying you must first ask yourself, "how commie am I?" So? Does a free helicopter sound appealing?
>Guy breaks into your basement and forces you to give him your pc
>Government builds roads using money taken from the same people who use the roads
>Literally the same thing
What do you think that the Constitution was about? It gave Congress the power to levy taxes.
If you don't like; go somewhere where Congress has no jurisdiction and renounce your American citizenship(assuming that you're American).
You got a social security number? You file a form 1040?
Taxation is theft when it is directed against ordinary working class and middle class people with salaries.
Taxation is redistribution when it is aimed landlords, bankers, corporate executives, and oligarchs who have perverted the legal system into a system of theft against the common man.
>getting into an argument over semantics
By living in a society, you consent to abide by their rules, laws, regulations and taxes. If you don't like it, you can leave. No one is forcing you to stay.
It may be theft, it may not. That's a stupid philosophical debate that solves absolutely nothing. I used to give a shit like you. I used to be a faggoty libertarian like you. Then i looked at the white genocide happening, and i realized i don't give a shit about "muh taxes" or money in general when my people risk being eradicated from the face of the Earth.
Get your fucking priorities straight and stop arguing over semantics.
that is why libertarianism is so futile.
ironically enough, privatization would solve wildfires. all you have to do is privatize the forests.
if somebody owns a forest, then he'll do his best to make sure it doesn't burn down. A logger for example would lose a precious resource of all his trees burned down. Wildfires are only an issue because they mostly happen in public land, which just like all things government sucks at administrating.
I think people should choose to pay for taxes. Those who choose not to should have no right to use roads or any public facilities. You walk everywhere and if you need to piss you do it on the side walk like the animal you are. Easy.
Thorn in our sides. I feel sympathy for them, as most alt-righters were at one time Lolbertarians. But still, i get a headache just listening to them.
If a guy robs you at gunpoint but then gives the money to charity, is it no longer robbery? Is stealing from the rich to give to the poor no longer theft, because those poor guys really need it? If a guy breaks into your house and steals your furniture, but leaves behind a pair of shoes, is it no longer theft because he gave you got something in return? Saying theft no longer qualifies as so depending on what the forfeited goods are used for doesn't stack up. You still don't have consent, which is the key part.
totes 4got there were no road builders before gov!
It's a contractual arrangement; you file a form 1040, you have volunteered to pay the income tax and the job of the IRS is to ensure that you don't dodge your commitments.
Excessive taxation is evil.
no moral solipsism is however
fpbp
...
Yup, taxes are theft.
There literally wasn't you intellectual dead end.
>inb4 trampling grass is building a road
>inb4 horses are road builders.
fucking retards go back to plebbit.
There weren't interstates and most rural retards didn't have electricity until FDR used federal programs to give it to them.
does being born qualify as consent? if a cell-phone company automatically signs you up for a lifelong contract without asking, but gives you the option of paying a $10,000 op-out fee, is it consensual? like you said, you can always opt-out later, right? and it gives you a service, whether you want it or not.
you are giving special treatment to the government here. in no other case could these scenarios count as fair and just, but government for some reason gets a free ride and have people defending it. whether or not it's a good deal is irrelevant -- all definitions still put it out as a criminal and immoral act.
What is and is not theft is defined by the legal authority, i.e. the state.
Wow. Um, I don't usually say this, but you should really try reading a history book someday.
Better, but still stupid. Presumably there was some good resource-based reason why the rural areas weren't electrified. Instead of shifting resources to make everywhere equal, we should have retained our resources in their most productive configuration to maximize the capital base for future economic growth.
its not justified and is immoral
You aren't understanding because you're a moralfag. Morality isn't real. Law is real. Theft is a legal term and it is declared criminal by law. It is not "immoral," because morality is a fiction.
Morality is the fruit and foundation of trade. In the long-term, it is profitable to be moral. Thus we see the most civilized nations are the most capitalistic, and vice versa.
I am trying to explain how the system works, as I understand it; not justify it. Income tax, in America, is voluntary, in that you volunteer to pay it; and the IRS ensures that this voluntary tax is paid. It wouldn't be Constitutional otherwise.
megaliths.org
have a gander at some roads that put academias modern timeline in the dumpster, if we were just monkeys then, where were the govs that built these roads?! those monkeys had heavy carts
does the government decide morals? so if it's illegal it is also immoral, and vice-versa? religion, personal convictions, common sense, and personal philosophy mean nothing, and right or wrong is purely decided government officials and the court system?
that's an awfully bleak philosophy to follow. Even on this board, I find most people have their own higher set of principles which doesn't rely upon figures out authority. For example, is feminism correct and moral because it is pushed by the government? most would disagree.
Since certain services such as police, fire fighters, EMTs, and public education require trained individuals why not allow tax-payers to decide where their money goes?
Instead of politicians doling it out to their family foundation for "humanitarian aid" John Q Public could do his taxes every year, see how much is owed on federal and state level, then decide which programs get how much of the total amount of taxes owed.
Say you make $50,000, end up owing $12,000 to the federal gubbamin. Instead of just sending them a check (like we currently do) I propose every tax payer be granted the agency to determine where that money goes.
Hippies get to fund the EPA
Warhawks get to fund the Military
Autists get to fund the Library of Congress
Perhaps you should google the definition of a government and then tell me at what point in history has anyone made a road without direction from said government, whether tribal leader or democratic president. You disgrace to AnCap.
>avoiding imprisonment or worse is voluntary
>whatever entity builds roads is defined as the government
>therefore, in an ancap society without government, there would be no roads
>QED
I feel like we've reached some sort anti-ancap road building meme singularity here.
No, morality is a meaningless term. Law facilitates trade. And law defines what is and is not theft.
It's not theft when done properly.
If a county board is doing a good job they'll be awarding snow-plowing/school bus/trash collection contracts to the company that offers the services at the lowest price. If that company underbids and the county board gets burnt they'll have to suck it up and wait for the next vote or hold an emergency session to offer another contract to a more competent business.
In some cases it is a bigger cost saving to the tax power to have a municipality provide a service.
The idea that people working a 9-5 will go out and buy a bunch of tar at Home Depot to pave their pot-hole ridden road has never made much sense to me. When electing public officials you are essentially hiring somebody for a job to make sure shit is getting paved and maintained, trash is getting collected, and the local school isn't falling apart.
Turning that into a publicity contest though would be a shitstorm
good idea but people are retarded and won't know who else is putting their money where and who needs it most
Isn't that how the system works already?
>thinking it's possible to not have a government
are you actually retarded?
even in shitty ideologies were the primary idea is to have no government you always have some power hungry cunts enforcing not having a government. You're a delusional retard if you think that's not what will happen.
>does the government decide morals?
No. Morals aren't real. Government decides law, which is real. Law is a system of threats of violence against anyone within the domain of the authority who breaks the laws set forth by the authority. An action cannot be moral or immoral. But it can be legal or illegal. The problem comes from people abstracting the concept of law and then pretending it is a universal moral system.
Why do Ancaps and Lolbergs refuse to understand how the concept of credit based currency?
Taxation is as voluntary as any other capitalist contract. Taxation is as voluntary as insurance.
The government has no resources but has to perform public services like border security and running courts to resolve property disputes.
So how does it get the resources without without drafting by force?
By doing on a credit basis and creating a market based system for those credits.
The central government authorizes the printing of an IOU credit that always the holder of the notes/currency to surrender those IOUs come tax day rather than have give us real resource on that day like the prior feudal economy did with physical harvests which is logistical nightmare for advanced economy.
As a result of this deal, private contractors and the people voluntarily exchange real goods and services to the government for those IOU credits directly with government and via subcontractors.
The result is a public sector which everyone benefits from via courts, common army, and other public goods.
At the ends of year, the government sends out a invoice or tax bill like every other business, except to everyone because everyone benefits from public goods.
As result, everyone accept working for the IOUs i.e. common currency through the market to get enough of those IOU so that they don't have to surrender real and services to the government directly and by force because they owe a certain amount for the benefit of public goods they receive.
There is no force involved here...it is a simple loan for credit, contract for services, redemption of credits contract. Many Many private business do the same with various forms of firm shares and credits.
I unironically want to read your (you or the other AnCaps) explanations about roads without a government.
ever been on a fuckin toll road sunny?
employers would build roads for their employees, and business would build roads for customers to access. it's not difficult to understand, and has happened in the past.
build a road, charge a fee for use- BAM no governement needed but money was still exchanged- only this time by consent and not force
If you had a kid and wanted to see that they were educated here are your options assuming you make $55K a year at a job that requires you to be there from 8A-6P with a 40 minute commute.
Hard mode: Single Parent
1) Home school; will you be able to stay up and focus to make sure your kid is getting night schooled in between your time at the office?
2) Hire a tutor: Tutor costs $40K a year. Lives with you, provides their own meals and transportation, is willing to look after your kid. This leaves you with $15K a year to buy clothing, gas, housing, food, and an internet connection to post on a mongolian watercolor board.
3) You get 8 neighbors together, each has a kid or two of their own, and you all chip in $5K to hire the same tutor from scenario 2. The tutor is fine with looking after that many kids and agrees to work for $40K/year to tutor 10 children. You just saved $35,000 dollars.
>Taxation is as voluntary as any other capitalist contract. Taxation is as voluntary as insurance.
Did I provide the government with permission to take my money? No, so its not voluntary.
Take your doublethink somewhere else.
It doesnt matter what the money is spent on, if theyre taken against a persons will - it is by defenition theft. There is no way to argue against this, you can try, but youre retarded and wrong.
In representative democracies like much of the industrialized world "the people" make up the government and decide who represents them and has executive power. Therefore citizenry decide moral laws via proxy.
Taxation is part of the social contract you dullard.
If you don't agree with the taxes levied against you, leave the country.
Do you have a job or own land? Then you consented to pay taxes.
sorry that sounded hostile, when you wanted an unironic explanation. my bad
Why don't you just fight off the tax collectors then, ancap boy?
...that or suddenly the CIA would make Snookie their spokeswoman.
In all honesty though I find that if you provide people with responsibility the majority of them take it seriously and do some research into the subject.
Of course the trolls would pump bilions into the post office or some shit.
States have legitimacy to acquire money in so far as they are the institutions that represents and protects the whole
Dude, can you read you provide the government with permission when agreed to use the currency within the "jurisdiction therefore." If you don't like then move...love or leave it.
b-but who is to argue against such a well put together ideology
How is government justified while it is literalky mafia, literally an enslavement system ?!
It is literally neither of those things.
And yes, I do think the government can shoot you if you don't pay your taxes. You deserve to be shot if you're that much of a fag.
No it is not. You are like a nigger trying to say he has the right to re-use store coupons rather than hand them to the cashier....
how is that anything alike
You disgusting tax loving commie, its because of thralls like you that society is so fucked. You sicken me.
The coupon belongs to the store.
Money belongs to the government. They let us borrow it. We have to give some of it back from time to time. That is the deal. If you don't like it you are free to leave.
that's not forced at all.... where is your "i
the federal reserve is not apart of the government... have you have read about it??
By living in the country you tacitly agree to be shot if you're a big enough burden to the state.
You can leave if you don't like it, thereby it's not slavery.
Neat, leave.
and obama stole the most!
>governments can only collect taxes towards the purposes the individuals agree to put the money towards
>suddenly a true and personally accountable democracy is born
>suddenly all kike activity is gassed
>liberals suddenly cannot spend other people's money, and if they want to feed porchapes they have to pay for it themselves
>if people don't want to pay for roads, there won't be roads
>people get what they pay for and pay for what they use
Oy vey annudah shoah. You have no say in what your taxes are used for, goyim, now hand it over. What do you mean you don't want to pay 10,000 dollars for nigger gibs? OYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Disgusting slave mentality. Government cuck. Have you no dignity left in you, wretched miserable peon of a man.
Hey dude, your'e free to start your own country with a barter economy if you'd like.
You can trade gold for an island and live with likeminded ancap retards.
You wouldnt shoot anyone, its clear by your slave mentality. Youre a tax loving subserviant beta.
>money belongs to the government
so at birth i consented to be shot if burdensome? and where shall i go exactly that is free of this method of theft? i do like to believe in the continual evolution of humanity- both physically and mentally, so hopefully our race will get there somedayi'm comin
>taxed when earning income
>taxed when spending income
>Tax on property
>estate taxed on death
>inflation
>quantitative easing
When did you realize that you are being sucked dry to help non-white retards live life? The fact that no one opposes any of this shit in main stream politics is telling.
One day people will look back on this shit with horror.
not even in the US. gotta love the retards that can't read though
>implying police/soldiers/gangbangers/serial killers etc don't pay taxes
I don't even get why you're so upset, you obviously don't have a job.
Yep, your parents drove on a road paid for by tax payers. The hospital likely recieves subsidies from tax payers. From birth, and before birth you owe the state. That's the reality of it.
But since you're not a slave, you're free to start your own ancap country. No one is stopping you but yourself. Just make sure you don't get in our way after you leave, or we'll shoot you.
>You can leave if you don't like it, thereby it's not slavery.
is coercion not theft now? if you are given a bad choice at gunpoint, is it now justified because you technically have a choice to opt out? No, it's still immoral.
Anyway, if you guys have trouble following the text arguments, I suggest you watch the video I made in the OP instead. It summarizes the arguments concisely and approachably.
thats why I say lower government spending 99%
You're not being held at gun point you drama queen.
If you had a good sum of precious metals you could trade that and start your own nation. You're also free to move anywhere you'd like to join their community.
Since you have not done so, you follow our laws and taxes are part of that contract.
yes i shall laugh as i feel the force bleed as millions are torn from life, it tickles my sense of righteousness, even from my cozy remote island getaway.
The only enslavement I see is performed by wage earners who don't live off the grid.
so i could start my own nation on land, as long as that land isn't already claimed by a gov... solid and enduring master plan, luckily there is more land outside of the ice wall
How have all the previous AnCap societies turned out?
I wouldn't say it "belongs" to the government, but the treasury backs bills and bonds.