You have 60 seconds to explain why taxation isn't theft

You have 60 seconds to explain why taxation isn't theft.

Other urls found in this thread:

goonsaloon.pro/intj/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Theft is a social construct.

/thread

And?

Theft implies it belonged to you in the first place. Taxes belong to the government by definition.
>Murray (((Rothbard)))

>yours property now mine because i says so
>no tribute... taxation

>hurr durr social contract
>Roadz
>Skewls

I would have been happy to pay taxes in this country like 60 years ago, but not today. Today I get absolutely nothing for my taxes.

>gets absolutely and completely rectally BTFO to the degree where his anus is the size of the fucking holland tunnel
>on the terms upon which he insisted when he made his bullshit thread
>still fucking equivocates and evades

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. Even dogs understand theft on a primal level. Try taking food from a dog that's eating.

To say that theft is a social construct is to say that man is sub-dog. Piss off, you fucking retard.

10/10, choke on sage, bitch.

>because I says so
And? You're just mad because you can't persuade enough people to view their government as illegitimate. Not because it's inefficient. Not because it's corrupt. Not because it's treasonous. But because it does the one thing governments have done almost without exception: levy taxes. Cry moar fag.

It literally is, the real thing that needs to be explained is why think that anarchism is anything but a transitional stage from one monopolized political entity to another.

>referring to a pet to illustrate self-ownership
you are literally to retarded to live

the biggest flaw i see in Murray's argument is that private defense agencies wouldnt become the state. but ultimately i'm less concerned with the implementation details than i am the moral/political philosophy arguments.

You can't even explain why my argument is bad. Go drool somewhere else.

>naturalistic fallacy
>instinct is superior to reason
Happy, retard?

So subhuman instincts can ensure property rights while human reason attempts to strip these property rights? You are insane. It has nothing to do with instinct being superior to reason, but you are making a poor argument that is attempting to frame it that way.

Instinct is a mirror for reason, and we use reason to comprehend instinct. You don't use reason to overthrow and usurp instinct with false ideologies. Fucking commies. Your damned kind never changes. Last (You) from me.

Seriously let's look at your retarded "argument" again. The dog thinks you're stealing his food. Who bought the food? Who gave him the food? Who owns him? Your argument doesn't even support your point on the face of it.

>Instinct is a mirror for reason
Okay I was kinda trolling you before, but now I know you're retarded. You don't even understand the arguments you're making.

Because you are getting something in return.

Easy.

>gives you shit you didnt want and didnt ask for
>demands money
>throw you in a cage after you balk

because unless you were raised in the jungle you benefit from a society created with taxes and it is your moral obligation to contribute to your society by paying taxes

Let me ask you, is it moral to make your child do chores? Don't try to make this an analogy for government. Answer the question. I'm curious how autistic you are exactly.

If you want to have property, you have to have taxation. In one form or another.

Sure, but I also believe that parents have a degree of ownership over their children that governments do not have over their citizens.

Dirty jap range banned you from Sup Forums? Come to goonsaloon.pro where we don't ban anyone. dYrBkgWv

Property taxes are theft or atleast the should be charged by road frontage and maybe a flat rate for schools and other government stuff and not the (((market price))).

Okay. So you accept varying degrees of ownership. It's not all or nothing. My shoe is mine in a different way than my wife or my child or my father; my nation is mine in another way also. This relationship, I will agree, has been betrayed, but you want to be practical. Maybe angels live in an anarchy (they don't) but perhaps for us government is the best way of maximizing freedom. Again, a much different government than we have currently.

>but ultimately i'm less concerned with the implementation details than i am the moral/political philosophy arguments.

Ok.

Nobody can argue that taking something from someone, irregardless of who or what is doing it, is technically unethical. But there are a number of things to look at:

Ethics is a human consideration, there is no such thing as ethics without a person to conceptually perceive it. The Universe has no ethics system. The only thing that it acts upon is force. Nature is an extension of that. If one star can attract another smaller star and begin sucking matter from the smaller star, then it simply does. In the same way if some animal is capable of taking energy (in the form of food) from another animal or plant, then it does, simply because it can. The strong survive and the weak die. Humans are apart of and utterly reliant on that system in virtually every way. The state exists because it has the power to enforce itself and enforces itself because it can. If one state falls, the element of anarchy that follows is merely a stage where different power players compete with one another violently until one of them reaches sufficient mass to create a monopoly on that violence. In that sense it is inevitable that there be a state when human density reaches a certain point (in the world today that is literally everywhere where there is human habitation). As such there will always be a state, and a state will do whatever it wants to do and is capable of doing, which means there will always be taxation.

Tempering your ethical concerns to fit with reality is crucial or you're wasting your time. And those realities are: violence governs all authority, and wherever there are humans, there will always be some group of them attempting to assert it's authority over others. And what we learn from game theory is that groups beat individuals. It's all just arguing with inevitability.

>violence governs all authority
I'm not convinced. White people have a sense of justice which I believe is a greater truth. Materialism is literally useless. Stay away.

You have 60 seconds to say how using public roads and utilities without paying taxes isn’t theft.

Dirty jap range banned you from Sup Forums? Come to goonsaloon.pro/intj/ where we don't ban anyone. SaNluspI

It's an agreement to uphold a certain standard for everyone. You pay for roads you don't drive on because it's a sacrifice for living in a civilized world. Pretty low taxation in Papua New Guinea

>Maybe angels live in an anarchy (they don't) but perhaps for us government is the best way of maximizing freedom.
This statement is a massive contradiction in terms. Likely I would say it is angels who are only capable to living under government. Because isn't it these same "unangel" like people who are taking office? Exactly why is it that you believe people are so evil that they can't live in anarchy, but somehow you believe that these same people are capable of hold political power? And somehow it is only when with such terrible people hold power over other. Is when we can maximize our freedom?

>the element of anarchy that follows is merely a stage where different power players compete with one another violently until one of them reaches sufficient mass to create a monopoly on that violence.
Why would they fight when cooperation is more profitable. Also, why would it be in these people's interest in the first place to fight, it's a waste of their money and it put's a target on their back. Would it make sense just to waste resources for a political power one isn't even likely to see?

>This statement is a massive contradiction in terms
How so? Angels would be the only beings able to live together in a completely cooperative society. You don't believe that, but I do. Also, I wasn't arguing that people are able to hold political power without being corrupted by it. I merely stated a different government than we have now would give us greater freedom, which I think is obvious.

>Why would they fight when cooperation is more profitable.
Why would they compete when a monopoly is more stable?

>You can't even explain why my argument is bad
Because dogs don't actually understand property they just take what they think they can get.

Because society wouldn't work without taxation.

>I merely stated a different government than we have now would give us greater freedom
Exactly what kind of government is this that you're romanticizing about?

Taxation is theft. You also can't avoid it because of how power structures work. The most powerful thieves will always rise to the top and use their force to steal, the best you can do is allow for the biggest thief to be equally scared of you and you task them to performing public services with their stolen money or else you'll kill them and replace them with a different thief.

The reason can't establish a monopoly is because there is competition.

>listening to a jew
It's not theft cause theft requires intent to permanently deprive. What are tax returns, NEETbux, wages from jobs, etc.?

>you're romanticizing about?
I'm doing what now? You're the motherfucker living in a fantasy world of unproven ideals, not me.
>The reason can't establish a monopoly is because there is competition.
The world would not follow your abstract ideals, mate.

>Also, why would it be in these people's interest in the first place to fight,
Because whoever has all the chips has all the power for themselves and humans are greedy shits. Its the ultimate high risk, high reward, someone will always be willing to make that bet and eventually one of them will win even if if cost tens of thousands of failures.

>I'm doing what now? You're the motherfucker living in a fantasy world of unproven ideals, not me.
Way to answer my question. "Hurr durr, you're doing the same thing as me"

>The world would not follow your abstract ideals, mate.
Apparently, economics is fantasy now.

>your romanticizing government if you think world peace is impossible
>muh economics
I'm sorry, user, but you have autism.

>cost tens of thousands of failures.
Oh yeah, really worth it at that point. Also, what makes you think these same people can last after so many loses?

I used to be libertarian about taxes. Now I would be more than willing to pay taxes in a white ethnostate, as long as everyone of working age is required to pay.

You're making the mistake of assuming that a society lives in a bubble and that competition can exist inside that bubble perpetually. Ultimately, societies and cultures are also in competition- this is what anarcho-capitalists completely ignore, and it makes you look like communists who propose foolish, unrealistic scenarios that never existed. The anarchos must acknowledge that competition isn't limited to individuals or their ideas, because ideologies also compete. Claiming that 1 type of competition is ok(economic competition of individuals) but that all others, whether social, ideological, national, genetic etc are not, is foolish and at least borderline hypocritical.

It's necessary for the common good

Change dog for wolf and reread the post if you are such a brainlet.

>Anarchy is world peace
Well that let's me now who I'm dealing with. Also, stunning contribution to the conversation. Really making some valid points there.

Is it murder if it's a commie?

The government taxing the money prints the money.
>Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
If you don't like Caesar's tax, then create your own currency and convince other people to use it. Or try to build some community where people do what's needed without needing to be given pieces of paper.
But if you operate in the economy Caesar is responsible for managing, then pay your fucking taxes. -God.

>I would have been happy to pay taxes in this country like 60 years ago, but not today. Today I get absolutely nothing for my taxes.
Then run for office or abolish your government dummy.

>Claiming that 1 type of competition
No one have claimed such a thing. Also, this let's me know how far you actually look into the topic. That fact that you can say ancap don't recognize culture competition is utterly clear you having done your research. For are we not for freedom of association? That being, we recognize that different groups will form, with different ideals and structures.

But you don't actually address anyone's point. You just reassert your own and ignore this whole thread full of counterpoints. Coercion is immoral, but necessary. I actually think you're doing freedom a greater disservice than the user with a Nazi flag, because at least he attempts to approach the world on its own terms. In other words: you have autism.

Dogs are social animals you dumbass. Dogs have concepts.

Because like all laws, taxation is something the whole of society agrees on. That's like saying any law that exists is an infringement upon freedom. It's antifa nonsense

Because they're organic you Mongoloid. Even if you killed everyone that tries to make a state, in ten years you'd find someone trying it.

The will to exert power and dominate is human nature.

>taxation isn't theft.

Because we elect the politicians who write tax laws.

Stop living in you librarian fantasy world.

>Coercion is immoral, but necessary
Necessary for what? Maybe now you can explain your benevolent government.

Necessary in the sense that it is inevitable. Like the leaf said, human nature has it's own logic. I am not arguing ethics here, so I don't know why I would have to explain the benevolence of my preferred government, if I even believed such a thing. I'm sorry you can't understand, user. Again, you have to believe me, you have the 'tism.

>in ten years you'd find someone trying it.
and the people will do it again, like you said.
>The will to exert power and dominate is human nature.
And no one like to be dominated

Yeah, groups form and then fight. This happened in somalia, there was no government then different gangs battled and destroyed the country. If the natives didn't fight then an outside force would have entered the nation to pillage and rape.

Being so completely and unequivocally unable to explain why theft being a social construct is an argument that you evade and obfuscate this much

>You have 60 seconds to explain why taxation isn't theft.
Are you dumb? Taxes are used by society to provide public goods - roads, police, military, firemen, parks, etc.

The Founders originally ran Washington DC on tariffs and import duties.
That's why the fight over Fort Sumter which began the US Civil War.
Taking Charleston harbor was a threat to the Federal government's operating budget.

The Founders didn't originally intend for the DC government to be run on an oppressive tax on the people.

> I am not arguing ethics here
Nor am I.
>I don't know why I would have to explain the benevolence of my preferred government, if I even believed such a thing.
So I can explain to you the flaws in your argument.
>you have the 'tism.
I have autism, because I fail to comprehend something you didn't explain?

>And no one like to be dominated
True, but people generally bear a great deal of it before revolting, and then it's never an abstract ideal they are fighting for. That comes after. The things that stir one's hearts are not lofty ideals, but the affection of your neighbors, the pride of your home, the symbols that represent your people, the song that moves you, etc. No one ever rebelled after reading Human Action.

It's not theft because it's a voluntary exchange.

Taxes are the cost you pay for using the men with guns hold. It is what funds the defense of their land and what incentivizes people to hold it in the first place.
It's not theft because law does not exist before a legal system is established, by these warriors who become the sovereigns. It is not possible for a sovereign to steal from you because theft is a something he penalizes to make his domain more productive, not a slur the weaponless can use to stop him from exercising his power.

>So I can explain to you the flaws in your argument.
My preferred government is natural law on a Martian colony with a static population of roughly 120 people. Whenever it gets too large a male breaks off with a contingent of females. Happy now that I'm playing your game, autismo?

using the land*

>People become emotional before they revolt.
No shit.

You didn't even state a type of government if anything you just stated anarchy. That being, all you say is that some community has it's own laws which is "natural law". This could easily occur with in some christian community. Free of the state.

Well, I thought I should explain. Also, I didn't say they become emotional incidentally, I mean they revolt BECAUSE of the things they are attached to. Most modern young men are attached to nothing. That is the problem, not economic efficiency and alodial property--in fact, these are the things that are incidental to most people.
>this could easily occur in some scenario which I just pull out of my ass
Your entire argument.

Theft is a legal term defined by the state. It has no meaning prior to a state of law.

>Well, I thought I should explain. Also, I didn't say they become emotional incidentally, I mean they revolt BECAUSE of the things they are attached to. Most modern young men are attached to nothing. That is the problem, not economic efficiency and alodial property--in fact, these are the things that are incidental to most people.
You're stating the obvious. I'm aware of this facts.
>Your entire argument.
I guess is it hard to imagine how such an scenario would go down without having any former knowledge of the functional ability behind such an society.

Here, since you hardly know anything about government other than what you saw off a couple of memes. How about I answer you questions about anarchy.

You volunteer to participate in our economy when you attribute value to money by earning or spending it. It is a contract. You have consented.

Don't want to owe taxes? Don't use money. It's that simple. You don't own the thing that makes money valuable--our society does. Want to participate in the exchange? Do so by our rules.

>How about I answer you questions about anarchy.
Sounds fun.
Define: property, aggression, and rights.
Why do others deserve the rights you claim for yourself?
How do you justify participating in a society that infringes those rights?

it is and idgaf as long as it's the rich being taxed
politicians can extort the rich for us and they can keep their corrupt little cut of it.
at the end of they day, it means more money in my bank account

it is, but it goes to the community and not paying it is a pain in the ass
So if you have a sense of community you'll have motivation to pay it, and are you willing to go to prison for paying for protection from fires, felons, and foreign foes

Property: The legitimate use and exclusion of a thing.
Aggression: the initiation of force onto an unwilling party.
Rights: (which one only exist in a negative context) are nothing more than claims of personal autonomy. Meaning they're things you're allowed to do, rather than things you are allowed to. Example are
You have to right to speech, you don't have a right to a platform.
You have a right to sleep, you don't have the right to someone else's bed.
You have right to eat, you don't have the right to someone else's food.

>Why do others deserve the rights you claim for yourself?
I don't think it's a matter of deserving rights, you have them regardless.
>How do you justify participating in a society that infringes those rights?
You mean like now? Also, I don't get what you're asking? Are you talking about punishment for those who violate property rights?

>It is a contract
People don't take oaths of citizenship. The terms were not presented when I "attributed value to money". The only possible justification for taxes is that you have a duty to pay them, which means you are not free. I know this probably triggered all your conditioning, but there it is... the mother of all redpills. I don't see it as a matter of right and wrong, because I don't think we can ever be totally free in such a large society. IMHO democracy is a huge mistake though, because false ideas are so popular, among other reasons.

reminder that the range ban is a goon plot
>buy botnet access
>spam Sup Forums with cuck porn
>use range bans to advertise

>Property: The legitimate use and exclusion of a thing.
Can property belong to a collective?
>Aggression: the initiation of force onto an unwilling party.
What constitutes force? When does it become disturbing the peace?
>You have to right to speech, you don't have a right to a platform
Is there ever a scenario where you would favor free speech over property rights?
>You have a right to sleep
Wow, never heard that one before. Do I have a duty to let you sleep? What if I like bright lights and incredibly loud music?
>You have right to eat
I think you mean the right to pursue eating.
>rights you have them regardless
How do you know?
>I don't get what you're asking?
I will assume that you work and that you pay taxes. You know paying taxes is a condition of employment. If the tax itself is immoral, how do you justify your employment? You are wittingly propagating the very system you are against. That is to say you are against the system because it is immoral, not merely because it is efficient, correct?

>because it is inefficient
oops

yea, it started like that

the thing is, its in many ways necesary, even if you get rid of the gibs
and not only that, proper tax spending can reactivate an economy

so, be it theft, so what?

>proper tax spending can reactivate an economy
Not even necessary with fiat currency. Worse than taxes IMO.

yea i agree
but keep it simple

most people in pol dont understand what fiat money really implies

they may think its bad, but they dont know why

>Can property belong to a collective?
Yes property can belong to group
>What constitutes force? When does it become disturbing the peace?
We they someone violates property.
>Is there ever a scenario where you would favor free speech over property rights?
No
>Wow, never heard that one before. Do I have a duty to let you sleep? What if I like bright lights and incredibly loud music?
I wouldn't say you had an obligation, but such music is a violation of property since the sound waves are entering my building.
>I think you mean the right to pursue eating.
correct
>How do you know?
Because no else can have "your" rights but yourself. The same way someone can't be you or have your identity.
>That is to say you are against the system because it is immoral, not merely because it is efficient, correct?
It's both immoral and inefficient. Government doesn't even work properly. The products it produces is so poor everyone's complains about it. The government can't even hold a balance budget more less run a nation at the expense of it's citizens wallets.

In some cases taxation is theft but why do you think that leftism is going to make it any better you commie

>violates
Yes, but how is this determined? You're just restating your premise.
>Because no else can have "your" rights but yourself
So it's just a priori "you have rights" then? It must be tied to your experience somehow. Then, how do you know I am experiencing reality the same as you are? For instance, why does a plant or a horse not have rights--or do they? Existence isn't enough, clearly.
>It's both immoral and inefficient.
You enable it too, and you have a choice: pay, prison, fight, or evade. I'm assuming you pay. Is this justified in your mind?

>Yes, but how is this determined? You're just restating your premise.
If it violates the authority of the property owner.
>So it's just a priori "you have rights" then? It must be tied to your experience somehow. Then, how do you know I am experiencing reality the same as you are? For instance, why does a plant or a horse not have rights--or do they? Existence isn't enough, clearly.
No, this is what I mean when I stated that no else can hold your rights but yourself. It's the fact that no one else can own your autonomy they can only restrict is. The same way you can't "make" someone poor, you can only stop their prosperity. Therefore, you own yourself.
>pay, prison, fight, or evade.
One this doesn't even justify the government's authority. Second these chooses just boil down to "pay me or I'll hurt you"

I only need 5

Social
Contract

Consent is nothing

>If it violates the authority of the property owner.
According to whom? I expect you to do more than spout ancap dogma, but it appears that is all you can do.
>It's the fact that no one else can own your autonomy
>Therefore, you own yourself.
Whoa buddy, not quite! Your subjective experience of making choices is a fact. How do you get from a fact to a moral condition? Is/ought fallacy.
>One this doesn't even justify the government's authority.
That's not what I asked. Are you justified in your choice to pay or not, knowing ahead of time that it is a condition of employment? Metaphorically, what would you say about a person who knows he'll be robbed--the exact time and place--and does it anyway. Does that sound like a sane choice? Or is it more likely that however much you like to talk about freedom on rebbit, that you don't actually believe you are free, and that it doesn't actually bother you all that much at the end of the day?

>"pay me or I'll hurt you"
Here's a better way of putting it that is a little more abstract and easy to follow. You are accosted by a robber who tells you "Give me your wallet so I can buy these bombs and kill your neighbors, otherwise I will kill you too (I'll take the money anyway so you're not saving your neighbors). This also assumes your neighbors have equal rights to yours; you have said nothing to the contrary. So what is the moral choice? This is essentially what the government is doing according to you, and you choose to give him your wallet. Do you believe this is justified, given all your options?