Prove me wrong

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XNICz9CZOgw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

We need to repeal the 16th Amendment, shut down the IRS and end the FED ASAP.

I can't because the statement "taxation is theft" is an extreme oversimplification of a complicated issue.

You are more than welcome to not pay taxes, but then you must not live in the United States. It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand. Paying taxes is an agreement between you and the government that you will be a citizen of this nation and be protected by its military and make use of its public institutions in return for paying duties on goods and services and giving a portion of your income to the government to fund all of the above.

Like I said, if you don't like it, leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

Are you retarded? The 16th Amendment was put into the Constitution at the same time that the FED was instated. These two things are unconstitutional.

>Prove me wrong
You are wrong. End of story

Taxes have existed for a long time before personal income tax, and OP's retarded memepicture said to prove that taxation isn't theft, not that personal income tax isn't.

Also, if it's in the Constitution, it's literally impossible for it to be legal because the Constitution is *THE* law of the land.

Don't worry about it goy. Sure, your income is taxed, your sales are taxed, your property is taxed, your retirement is taxed, and your your estate is taxed when you die. But, that's just how things are. It's perfectly normal to be taxed 5 times in a row for the same income.

youtube.com/watch?v=XNICz9CZOgw

AAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Muh roads! Muh bridges! Who will pay?

yes and?


call it theft
its necesary for the survival of the state
even gibs are necesary for the survival of the state

and if the state collapses other will take its place

We're talking about Federal tax not state tax.

It's not necessary for the state when members of congress have a slush fund to pay their lawsuits with taxpayer money. FUck off kike.

It's not theft although it shares some similarities. It does involve coercion, all government does. The question always is freedom vs preferable outcomes. I'm a fascist, NatSoc, so I'm not so big on the "freedom" to do anything that is not in the interest of the people. I recognize individual rights to the extent that they create a better society but not beyond that.

well
then cut the taxes provoque the collapse of a relativably acountable state and risk the rise of a full autoritarian one

Taxation is the price you pay for not to go to jail for tax evasion.

>relatively accountable
Fuck off Jew

You didn't build that.
>neither did you build this (You)

Read the OP. Where does it say "Federal"? Oh....it doesn't?

What's the difference murder and homicide?
Think of theft as "unjustifiable taxation"

Although i used to laugh at people who said this, living in Scotland were the government plans to increase tax rates to 60% sometime in the future is beginning to change my mind. I don't mind paying taxes as long as the rate doesn't exceed 45%.

Are you fucking retarded? Who the fuck gave you ownership of this land called America?

More like a mafia racket. You could NOT pay your taxes, but then you are a criminal. And you by yourself could not defeat the united goblinos of america when they come to repossess all your private property.

Now you are supposed to be conditioned to never question this system thanks to the state sponsored education. But in a court of law, good luck trying to beat any tax evasion case with an argument like "taxation is theft".

I personally agree it is, but in United Goys of America such a statement is meaningless in the face of overwhelming power. They are parasites, but parasites that you as an individual could never hope to defeat.
redpill
Be nice user, he is a good goy. But he is right, we should go fuck off to antarctica, oh wait. Maybe the international seas, oh wait. Never mind they control everything

You're doing it wrong.
Here's how you fuck a statist on taxes-

>How come the government can't fund itself using legitimate business practices, aka the selling of goods or services, like every legitimate working man and company in the country does? Why resort to organized crime tactics, and why are organized crime syndicated bad if they carry out the same actions as the state?

Sit back and watch em try to bullshit their way out of the answer and possibly threaten you directly or passively with violence like the niggers they are.

Yup. ALL taxation is theft.

I can't user, you're absolutely right.

...

...

>How come the government can't fund itself using legitimate business practices, aka the selling of goods or services, like every legitimate working man and company in the country does?
States provide the services of protection and community through its monopoly of force, and in return for being a citizen and receiving such services, taxes are used as payment for services rendered, as well as being required to follow the laws it issues.
Of course, income taxes are a relatively new concept, in which taxes were originally applied through taxation on specific goods or imports, however by the fact that through the implicit social contract one makes with the government, you are subject to whatever taxations the government applies to your person.
You are free to explicitly nullify this contract, but you'd be required to renounce your citizenship and all benefits from it, which includes living on the land that it lays claim to without their permission.

See, I told you they'd bullshit-
Why can't the government fund this shit legitimately? You didn't answer the question, you simply said what amounts to, literally -
>it's alright when the thug steals my wallet! He bought me a hamburger with it and gave me a ride home and a box of band-aids for my trouble!
Hell why stop there?
>it's okay when Ms.Cuckoo lays an egg in my wife's nest! she's giving me the chance to be a father!

You fag. This is why you suffer and die.

>dude the social contract is a bullshit answer because I say so
>ur just a cuck
Wow... so this is the power... of libertarian argumentation...

Explain as to why the social contract is "bullshit"
Let me lay out the concept of taxation point by point, and you can stop me where it's "bullshit"
>you are a citizen of a state
>as a citizen, you are expected to follow the laws of a state
>in return, the state, at a minimum, protects you from external threats via the military, and internal threats by the police
>you are also allowed to live on the land it claims and is able to back up by force
>it may or may not provide other services that you may or may not use, such as public roads, being able to choose who leads the state, or public education
>one of the laws of a particular state is that it is allowed to place a fee on specific goods and imports in ordered to be sold on its market
>another law of that particular state is that it is allowed to place a fee on your income as payment for services rendered
>you are free to no longer be a citizen, and thereby not have to follow its laws such as taxation, through the process of immigration, but you then lose the previously aforementioned benefits of being a citizen

The reason they cannot play fair is because they would be usurped in a truly free market. They would be found to be unnecessary, the middle man who takes his cut so to speak would be ousted. Why would anyone give up absolute power, the throne, just to come down a few levels under the guise of fairness? This hierarchy is called the apex predator, government established themselves at the top and to this day, remain unchallenged.


Essentially it is a scam, and new lives are brought in under the guise of the unspoken social contract because what alternative would they have? They made a bluff, and not a single soul would call it in. But that is the price of apathy.

And this is why smart motherfuckers bow out, very quietly, and let the state fuck the proles.
Be an outlaw, regain your soul.

>Explain as to why the social contract is "bullshit"
Because I don't need it, nor did I sign for anything.
A contract REQUIRES a signature, that is an agreement. Merely existing in a system is not an agreement. A binding agreement can only be given under a party's own volition without the threat of force.
You don't get to tell people that by merely existing on land their family has owned for generations that they've signed some "social" contract, nor do you get to point a gun at someone or pose such a threat and pretend you are acting in a just manner. Not if you don't wanna be called a thieving nigger.

Government always asks for gibs. WE NEED MORE MONEY FO OUR PROGRAMS! Look what happened after the government FAILED to protect students in Florida. MO MONEY! WE NEED MORE! As if more money would have magically fixed their incompetence and sociopathy.

You are your own enemy, little shit.

Yes, the state is a middle man.
There is the market of which goods, services, labour, etc are sold. There are businesses wishing to sell goods and services and purchase labor. The state owns this market and keeps order and safety through a monopoly on force. The state charges businesses to access the market.
However, getting rid of the state means that the order and safety provided are gone, and in which we have warlords and businesses warring with each other for total control of the market, on the fact it provides them the most profit to do so. Also as well, various factions can just as easily form their own
force monopolies on the fragments of the unprotected market, which means that the state is still a middle man.
However, anybody who has total control of the market is the state through its monopoly on force. A for-profit business could invaribly become the state, however on the fact it is a business that owns the market through a monopoly on force means this is no longer a "free market", including the fact that a business has no rational reason to cut its own profits for the sake of libertarian philosophy, as well that if it were to relinquish its total control then its back to square one. A non-profit entity could become the state, as it is normally, however by the fact it has to fund itself will impose fees on businesses to access the market it has total control over. It could also do so through other means such as conquest and looting, however, these have very diminishing returns, and its expansion inevitably means more costs to pay off. It could also own its own businesses in the market, however by the nature of running these for profit will use its total control to give precedence to these companies, and therefore is also not a "free market"

>implying the constitution isn't just a social contract
>implying the social contract doesn't override the constitution

What is the social contract, specifically?
SPECIFICALLY.

Thomas Jefferson didn't think so

>here's a point by point, go ahead and tell me where its wrong
>he instead chooses to attack the abstract
Wew

>A contract REQUIRES a signature, that is an agreement
This would be the case, if it werent for the fact you can opt out at anytime whatsoever through immigration. By the fact you are choosing not to, you are consenting to the consequences of staying there and remaining apart of an implicit agreement. If you wake up in a room you didn't want to be in, you didn't consent for that; but if you stay in room while the door is wide open to leave, you are consenting to stay in the room.
>You don't get to tell people that by merely existing on land their family has owned for generations that they've signed some "social" contract, nor do you get to point a gun at someone or pose such a threat and pretend you are acting in a just manner.
Their family's land could have been around before the state, however once the state came, claimed the land, and enforced said claim, that land belongs to the state with ownership rights transferred to the family on the grounds they act as lawful citizens. By the fact the state owns the land and provides stipulations for living there, the family can just as much choose to live somewhere else. And if you're going to talk about how the family didn't "consent" to their land being now owned by the state, ownership and consent are inverse to each other in the first place, and ownership is entirely based upon one's ability to defend their ownership.
You can call me a nigger all you want. The fact of the matter is that you consent to be a citizen by choosing not to leave, even if you didn't initially consent to be a citizen. By remaining a citizen, you consent to be taxed as the laws of that country stipulate.

>the fact you can opt out at anytime whatsoever through immigration.
Yes. Picking up from everything you ever knew from the land of your birth and traveling a thousand miles with all your possessions is an easy way to opt out of a contract you never signed to avoid being extorted for money at threatened gunpoint so some psychopathic turbo-kikes have the funding they need to subvert humanity and kill people for their own pleasure.

Tell me more about how it's okay that psychopaths use dumbasses in uniform to threaten me with violence to extort the fruits of my labor and/or time so they can provide the top defense for themselves because they make millions of people irate at their bullshit and are afraid of being killed for their obvious faggotry, because "roads" and "healthcare" and "defense".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

BTW, how does Wikipedia survive without taxes?

Did I say it was fair or kind?
No. But its not theft, because there is an opt out.
The only thing you said for this thread was to prove that taxation isn't theft, and I've done it.
Now you're trying to make some sort of argument about whether taxing people or opting out of society is morally wrong or unfair, which coming from a libertarian/ancap is hilariously hypocritical, and is some massive ass goalpost shifting.

Property is a concept derived from animal territorialism. Man only replaced violent confrontation with society arbitration as a way to claim ownership, therefore property belongs to society first through the right of might and belongs to the person second as a concession to keep order and minimise conflict. Taxation is within the rights of a society to garantee that property are being explored to their fullest, but tax payers money are invariably miss used because there is no known system to protect public money from theft without creating a burocracy that consumes a lot of resources while being inefficient at anything but hindering growth.

I never signed any fucking agreement asshole

>But its not theft, because there is an opt out.
And getting mugged by a nigger isn't theft, because there's an opt out.

You really wanna keep up the goal post relocation, or will you just admit that forcibly taking money from someone is theft? Theft isn't a subjective idea. It is objective. Taking a possessed item from the owner by force, either by burglary(breaking into or illegitimately accessing the item or a container in question) or robbery(using a threat of violence to extort the item or access to the item in question).

You acknowledge it may be unfair or unkind, thus you understand that it is not on the up and up.

Consent isn't a coherent enough concept to be applied to taxation without further discussion.

When you are employed, you enter a number of deductions on your tax forms. If you choose the right number, no taxes are removed. However, if you follow the correct negotiation procedure, you can voluntarily give up some of your money such that you are virtually guaranteed to owe no money to the government.

If you give up any money at that point, you are consenting to be taxed. You can change that number at any time.

If you choose not to give up any money, you are beholden to the consequences of that choice. The fact that you have a choice means that you are not being "stolen" from, in the most asinine possible definition.

That's actually very normal, if by normal you mean "typical of governments throughout history".

The prole says "Profit is theft. It was my labor that created the product that my boss sold." And the boss says "It is my company and I have the right to manage it as I see fit"

The subject says "Taxation is theft. It was my work that created the value that the wealth that the king demanded." And the king says "It is my realm and I have the right to manage it as I see fit"

It IS theft, but people will use mental gymnastics to suggest otherwise until the end of civilization.

I can't you are correct

the truth is simple and unassuming. only narcissists and sex perverts overcomplicate things with jargon and filibusters.

>if i compare it to being mugged by a nigger, that makes it a good argument!!!
Except there is no opt out to being mugged. You are giving him your money either way, and if you think 'opting out' is running away, that is something he isn't going to allow anyway
You can either follow the laws of the state, which include taxation, or you can 'opt out' and leave the state, which the state will allow you to do.

>if something is unfair or unkind, its not on the up and up
Rockefeller undercut his prices to force his competitors out of business. Chinese corporations will provide fraudulent or poorly made products then liquidate and reassemble under new associations to avoid prosecution. What about the dad fired from his job because a robot is more cost-effective and can no longer feed his family with a skillset that's been automated?
Capitalism is neither a fair nor kind system either, yet I dont see you saying its not on the 'up and up', so get the fuck out of here with that shit

How?

They take your money ey at the point if a gun and impose their rules on you for the trouble.

fpbp

>muh social contract
>Setting aside the historical problem of whether such a social contract ever took place, it should be evident that the social contract, whether it be the Hobbesian surrender of all one's rights, the Lockean surrender of the right of selfdefense, or any other, was a mere promise of future behavior (future will) and in no way surrendered title to alienable property. Certainly no past promise can bind later generations, let alone the actual maker of the promise.
>As Rousseau states, "Even if a man can alienate himself, he cannot alienate his children. They are born free, their liberty belongs to them, and no one but themselves has a right to dispose of it . . . for to alienate another's liberty is contrary to the natural order, and is an abuse of the father's rights."
>In any and all historical cases, "free society" did not "confer" any monopoly of coercion on the State; there has never been any form of voluntary "social contract." In all historical cases, the State has seized, by the use of aggressive violence and conquest, such a monopoly of violence in society. And further, what the State has is not so much a monopoly of "coercion" as of aggressive (as well as defensive) violence, and that monopoly is established and maintained by systematically employing two particular forms of aggressive violence: taxation for the acquisition of State income, and the compulsory outlawry of competing agencies of defensive violence within the State's acquired territorial area. Therefore, since liberty requires the elimination of aggressive violence in society (while maintaining defensive violence against possible invaders), the State is not, and can never be, justified as a defender of liberty. For the State lives by its very existence on the twofold and pervasive employment of aggressive violence against the very liberty and property of individuals that it is supposed to be defending.

>Taxation is theft

Correct.

Abolish the FED, end the IRS

Its not that complicated. When someone takes something that's yours against you will its theft, when the government doesnt it...? It's still theft. Nothing is different.

B-But MUH ROADS! MUH ROADS!!

Taxes aren't theft because... LOOK OVER THERE
>runs away

I just want some honesty and logic. At least you give that up like a proper man.

>if i compare it to being mugged by a nigger, that makes it a good argument!!!
But it does. You acting like it does not, does not change the logic behind the argument.

>Rockefeller undercut his prices to force his competitors out of business.
Rockefeller, as in John D, was a hero to western civilization.
I know it's easy to shit on him because "MUH NOPOLY!" and whatnot, but making global energy transport dirt-cheap allowed for society to advance and win out against some nasty problems in the early 20th. There were problems, but those were worked out because it was economically good to do so.

>What about the dad fired from his job because a robot is more cost-effective and can no longer feed his family with a skillset that's been automated?
What's stopping him from going into business for himself? Thousands of people locally have businesses and earn ends meet. The greatest thing sucking away at their small businesses is the IRS and taxes, with the EPA, DOT, and other GIBS-MEDAT degree holders trying to take a slice. Why did he limit himself to a simple job that a machine can do?

Ever seen the show, Handmade America?

if taxation is theft then you should be for a 0 tax rate and if you're for a 0 tax rate how the fuck do government employees get paid? how the fuck do you even have government? taxation is theft implies no government. you need taxes for there to be a government

>>implying the constitution isn't just a social contract

>implying taxes aren't a social contract

Half your argument proposes itself on the assumption that a "free society" is apart of the argument. The social contract is applied through the monopoly of force of the state onto people it considers its citizens. This has already been made. The only argument this makes is that the monopoly of force means that society isn't "free", when society has never been free even if the immediate aftermath of the American or French Revolutions
Secondly, the argument of the later generations can be answered by the fact that if they do not want to consent to a social contract, they can leave when they have the autonomy to. They were given their citizenship by nature of being born into the nation the state is made of. Much like how a child is born into a family and granted the benefits of being apart of a family, such as living on the land owned by a family, a child born into the state is granted citizenship and the benefits of being a citizen, such as living on the land owned by the state

>Rockefeller, as in John D, was a hero to western civilization.
>I know it's easy to shit on him because "MUH NOPOLY!" and whatnot, but making global energy transport dirt-cheap allowed for society to advance and win out against some nasty problems in the early 20th. There were problems, but those were worked out because it was economically good to do so.
I never said anything about whether they were heroes or not. What he did would still be unfair and unkind in an objective sense, but as you said he was a hero of capitalism, so thus you understand that capitalism is not on the up and up. The point is that libertarians have no right to talk of what is 'fair' or 'moral' when they advocate for a system that is objectively neither

>But it does.
I literally just explained as to why the analogy doesnt work, and therefore not make it a good argument.

I you pay it, so it is not /the end

Beautiful breasts

Never thought I'd agree with a sandnigger

What if you don't actually have a government?
There are entire regions in my shithole country where you won't ever see a policeman or any type of service.

Yet people living in these areas pay taxes (mostly indirectly, but still)

Johnny Boy Rockefeller never put a gun to people's head demanding they buy Standard Oil.

What about voluntary tax?

You're not arguing with me. Why would I prove you wrong?

>muh roads.

So you agree that the "social contract", assuming one exists, is one that people are coerced into?
Why even bother calling social contract theory a contract at all, if it bears no relation to the standards that we set out for literally any other contract in society?

Its a contract because even though its coerced, its a quid pro quo relationship that also includes a voluntary opt out, though its label of 'contract' is a semantics issue at best

You can't really call leveraging the labor of the unborn theft. I mean, there's nothing left to steal. It's just fraud.

If we have to pay taxes because of a social contract, and you agree that the social contract is the product of coercion, how exactly are taxes not the product of coercion, i.e. theft...?

>protected by its military
I don't care about pawns used for money. No one died for me. I'll take my own freedom.

>make use of its public institutions
I'm not interested in your institutions

If I kill you for trying to arrest me for tax evasion (neither of which I'm going to do, this is hypothetically speaking) I'm basically my own country and military doing the same thing you're doing. There's no fucking difference. War is just control. Money is fake. I'll take anarchy. (meaning without rulers nor without rules).

That's not really a tax but rather a donation or a gift.

There is one idea that all government programs would be set up by gofundme style programs where people pledge what they would like and if they get enough pledges to meet the goal it gets funded. ie people could donate to make public schools funded through voluntary donations of concerned citizens.

Because you can opt out through immigration
And you don't pay taxes because of the social contract, its that taxation happens to be a law of the government, and the social contract is the following of laws in exchange for protection and being able to live on the land

>hey let's build a road
>okay
>but I need some cash to pay our guys can I tax you?
>NO
>none of you?
>NO
>like literally, if even one person has enough money...
>NO
>well fuck guess we can't build a road then
>unless...

The absolute state of ancap right now.

Tax is the price one pays to participate in what is essentially an agreement providing for the common defense.

If a government cannot provide for the common defense, what the fuck good is it?

veil of ignorance

The US government literally has a special tax for people that try to renounce their citizenship. How is this not coercion--where is the opt-out?

Kill yourself you piece of shit commie

Look all I really want them to do is do business legitimately.
The US government has the US military.
Every state has a state national guard.
They control all the things necessary to maintain a mercenary force.

Why don't we charge the EU, say, $1T a year for defense? What are they gonna do, say no and lose our muscle?
Hell, Florida(my current state) could have the Guard charge some of the islands a nominal fee for defense or policing. Bring money into the state legitimately rather than having sales tax every fucking where.

Hell, states have lottery systems, so why not state-run casinos as a business?