Taxation IS theft

taxation IS theft
just try to prove me wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
youtube.com/watch?v=wbZuBDJVHEI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Anything I could say would literally not be an argument

So call a cop, sissy boy.

not an argument.

thanks for playing.

I agree.

Here goyim purchase this land from me but wait if you dont pay a fee on it yearly I will take it from you and give it to someone else.

Not sure how anyone can defend that especially since that tax then goes to feed starving niggers who arent even part of your ethnicity.

Libertardians believe this.

not an argument

Why use coercion when voluntary interaction benefits both sides or at least one side?

Taxation without representation is theft.

There, I fixed it for you.
So long as you're getting something back from taxes, it's not theft. It's paying into the pot for basic services. IE, garbage/infrastructure/police/fire/medical/social security/etc.

Not an argument if you don't pay taxes you're stealing from people who are. Drive on my roads and dont pay by taxes get shot faggot

I don't need to play an argument with somebody without an argument.

>So long as you're getting something back from taxes, it's not theft.
If someone steals your wallet, then gives you a few bucks from it, it's still theft.

Theft is a definable action by society. As a result, if the society deems that taxation is in the best interests of the majority of people then it isn't theft.

They charge my 15 dollars a month for garbage, infrastructure is crumbling, I pay 60 dollars a month for my insurance, and social benefits? Get a 401k bum.

Police and fire are the only things that make sense and they tax my pay checks for that.

Argument is: Taxation is the coerced extraction of wealth from an individual. Theft by definition. Now fuck off you portuguese-indian rape baby.

it is when it doesnt benefit invidual of that country he/she pays tax for

things you use together, need together are only ones that you could use tax on to make the process easier. without nationalism, there is no real restriction on what is and what is not taxed

army is always needed to defend the land. it isnt simply by having arms but also have people willing to defend the land and his own people

Government will NEVER give you back the same as you would have taken, first because of embezzlement and how 70% of all tax revenue is lost in "overhead costs", second by how since there's no competition with government they always give you the minimum quality service.

I'm in agreement

If it were theft it would be illegal, because theft is a crime.

This is true. Clearly showing that the system is buggered, and in need of repair.

I'm merely pointing out what it's supposed to be. How it's supposed to work.

Coercion has proven to be more reliable, and always benefits at least one side.

Define theft

If you don't want to pay taxation, go to the jungle, It's simple, Manuel.

They're fundamentally different concepts in a democratic society, if you can't understand that you're fucking retarded.

Because I used the phrase, "taxation without representation is theft" I decided to google where that phrase came from.
Here is the result.

Taxation without representation is tyranny definition. A slogan of the Revolutionary War and the years before. The colonists were not allowed to choose representatives to parliament in London, which passed the laws under which they were taxed.

And to use a popular meme that seems to be going around, Really makes ya think, eh?

Wtf. We are being robbed by 80 percent of what we make and you still defend it?

okay then, will you revoke your protection by the government, and any health inspections, because those aren't free?

Show me how to live without taxation and I will not defend it, maybe you have a magical solution.

Yes. Only provide those services to those that pay for it. If you don't pay into the system you don't benefit from it, at the same time you don't have to worry about the state sending men with guns to your house to haul you off to prison.

Yes Goyim, the State is the enemy. The Free market will always take care of you and be your friend. Nothing bad will come of private enterprise replacing governments.

It's an exchange of services. If you aren't interested in the services you can leave the country.

Can't drive off with the car and claim the loan is theft.

> Slavery isn't immoral because the master feeds and houses you in the pig shed.

are you talking of an homogeneous country or a multicultural shithole?

You can't prove a negative

States have a monopoly on the world, becoming stateless renders you unable to interact with other people because of the state you cant escape it besides on the high seas.

I don't think you understand how taxes work....

Learn how economy works

But with taxes, everybody pays for the system, it would be a clusterfuck and chaos without taxes.

...

You willingly live in the state, therefore you must pay what they demand.

sure it's theft Shithead™, but there has NEVER been ANY civilization with government that has NOT used it to finance their administration.

That includes all your conservitard memes like Reagan, all Bushes, and Gary "23% Sales Tax" Johnson

It absolutely is theft if you define it that way.

Thanks Rothbard.

Taxations not theft. I understand that governments are not a perfect system, but would you really rather not have them?

Sure, taxes should exist just in another capacity without the threat of violence.

pay your taxes, shits important. Civilization takes an epic fuck load of money to function.

Then don't pay them.
Thoreau didn't, and he got thrown in jail but accepted it.
Of course, by not paying taxes you should also revoke your privilege to drive on public roads, go to state parks, receive benefits of any kind (that includes NEETbuxs, faggots), or participate in elections.

Think of it as a membership fee and move on with life.

But what defines what society finds acceptable? Is it majority rules?

Idiot. This happens all the time and has happened countless times in history. The replacement for lands without government is organized crime and militias extorting people for protection money with mass rape and looting done by those same militias. How you have formed an opinion without looking at examples is crazy to me. It's dumb as shit man.

Not an argument

If I want to avoid being taxed what happens? I got to prison? What if I don't want to go to prison? I am forcefully imprisoned? What if I resist? I am killed?

No, definitely not theft.

It's not what is ''acceptable'', you retard. It's what is needed: Roads, Police, Sewerage, etc.

The tension between the state and the market is thicker than a double milkshake. They need to fuck already.

2016. now with minimal waste. lol

You'll find that not amount of historical example will snap them out of their special snowflake induced libertarian buttrage.

These people need to experience a real breakdown of law and order in order to appreciate it.

You only pay taxes on money made via US currency. Go get rich with a different banknote

You can't think of a single reason why taxation is different from theft? You're retarded,

Where did I say any of that? I'm talking about taxes.

Yes, and the alternative to taxes to the state is protection money to a militia or armed group.

With no law to prevent it from raping and pillaging.

So the fact the whole transaction happens at gunpoint doesn't matter? So if a guy comes up to me, points a gun at me then forces me to buy his bus pass for $200 and I use that to get home because he also took my car keys, it's okay because I got some benefit from the $200 that was taken from me?

A fucking leaf indeed.

I never said anything about abolishing the state. Fact of the matter is the "state" will exist in one form or another I just believe that taxes shouldn't have the threat of violence attached to them otherwise you're no better than the rapist militias or armed groups.

Well that is what democracy is? But it's also a rational approach. If the minority get their way, well then everything is fucked isn't it?

>Taxation without representation is theft.
No, taxation with representation is also theft.

>would you really rather not have them?
False dichotomy

>Sure, taxes should exist just in another capacity without the threat of violence.
Contradictory

The government is organized crime disguised as a benevolent institution.

You can go to prison for trying to make your own currency. And they actively destroy your wealth by printing more of it in the accumulated pool and call it Keynesian economics.

>the state is not a militia or armed group

>I just believe that taxes shouldn't have the threat of violence attached to them otherwise you're no better than the rapist militias or armed groups.
Taxation without the threat of violence is not taxation. You know you can write a check to the government any day, they would love donations, funny how socialists never do that. They actually try to get the most tax deductions possible.

You can't have a state with voluntary taxes. Too many people will simply opt out. You just wouldn't have enough money to do anything.

trust me, you don't want to see a world with low,no taxation.

>arguing with libertardians.

Morality trumps the will of the majority - if two men are in a room with a woman and the vote on whether the woman should fuck both the guys, and both the guys vote yes and the girl votes no, majority rule dictates the men are within their rights to rape the woman, despite it being obviously morally wrong.

It is not the same in a western liberal democracy, and you'd know that if you did any research into this.

It is, the alternative is worse.

Your image accurately describes how I felt reading your post.

Something is only theft if it's against the law. Taxation isn't against the law. The state controls the definition of both. Might makes right, and the US Govt is pretty damn mighty. Therefore, get fucked, faggot.

No it isn't. At the very least, you have to pay to live somewhere nice, you owe the local government money for being allowed to live in a pleasant area with low crime, and you must give back to keep it that way.

Ok, let's act under the temporary belief that you are right and taxation is theft. That means that ANY "coercion" in regards to capital changing hands is by definition, theft. Therefore the market must be abolished, as it is reliant on coercion to function.

Morality is relative to the beholder. A hundred different people from a hundred different places in the world would have different moral views on that scenario.

Refute it.

everybodys got to get their cut. been that way forever. lol

youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

>it was too difficult last time so I just gave up to ad homs

>argument from ignorance
>appeal to fear

>Therefore the market must be abolished, as it is reliant on coercion to function.
The market is inherently non-coercive, the state coerces the market.

>Morality is relative to the beholder.
>There are no objective standards to address moral imperatives
>Sadness is happiness, fear is confidence

>The market is inherently non-coercive

lol.

Someone requires a task to be done. They hire someone to do the task. The labourer has the choice between accepting the job or starving. That is a free market acting irrelevant of the state. It is coercive. "Do this job you hate or starve" is a coercive statement.

sure buddy, you will be wishing you paid your minor penance to the I don't want to see shit all fucked up gods.

>the market is inherently non-coercive

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>Coercion has proven to be more reliable
According to what? Common sense alone will tell you that voluntary cooperation is more sustainable over time. There's no incentive to continue producing resources if there is an obvious pattern of them getting stolen with no benefits in return.

user do me a favor and look up videos of stateless areas of the world.

taxation isn't theft...
it's robbery.

If you don't pay taxes then you should be banned from using public infrastructure. Because you haven't paid into it, you are literally trespassing on public property you didn't pay for.

In fact, you shouldn't even be using the Internet. All national Internet physical infrastructures like IXPs and phone lines were developed, and still maintained by the state and therefore public property.

So you're essentially a free loader. You reap the benefits yet you don't pay into it.

Yessss, good GoY, the state is your friend

haha silly libertarians hahaha

He has the choice to die. No coercion occurs. The person offering the job (presumably) didn't force him to starve.

You don't understand words.

You use roads, electricity, running water, trash disposal, EMS, and the military that defends your right to shit post. These are all paid for by taxes and you would not have them without taxes.

On the other hand you also pay for niggers welfare, child support to baby factories, Medicare and social security that you may never use yourself.

Everything comes with a price

I'm wrong, and that's why you're so incredibly angry, huh? Because it's normal for an "adult" to get angry at things that aren't true, right?

Please, you're such a child. Excuses, rationalizations, and a healthy dose of hi-jacking my words to change to your own narrative. If you weren't such a pathetic retard, you might be able to come up with your own argument.

As it is ; it's clear that you're proud of your ignorance and utterly devoid of critical thinking or empathy beyond the typical pretentious tripe that fools like yourself pretend to make you superior to others. So partaking in any "conversation" with you is an utter waste of time. You won't change even when the truth is presented to you because you're operating on the idea that everything is the way you believe it to be and only the way you believe it to be, and thus nothing wrong or bad is occurring in the world, and nothing needs to be changed from the top-down. It's all just the bottom-up for you.

Your delusions fuel your ego and your ego fuels your delusions. Nothing left to be done but let you exist in your futile loop of stupidity and arrogance.

Ta-ta.

Yeah I agree. I'm not against taxation of the money I earn. Only property taxes.

Once I purchased the property it should just be mine. If they wanted to tax it they should do it when I am purchasing the house and land and that should be the only time like everything else.

>know there are taxes in country
>choose to continue living there
>choose to preform taxable behaviors
>cry about it when you are taxed
>b-but doing something about it on my own would be hard!
>but i'd totally be a successful billionaire in a cutthroat free market like my hero john galt no-homo.

Libertardians are worse then Communists.

Libertarianism helps the jews and international market elements the most. You're the jew puppet.

Do you really believe as an a priori that coercion does not exist in markets?

It's great I pay my taxes and some truck comes by every friday to pick up my trash. Get a heart attack? I just call 911 and people come and rush me to the hospital, what a country!

> you would not have them without taxes.

Are you literally retarded?

...

>Someone requires a task to be done. They hire someone to do the task. The labourer has the choice between accepting the job or starving. That is a free market acting irrelevant of the state. It is coercive. "Do this job you hate or starve" is a coercive statement.
You are attributing false cause. You're conflating the market's non-coercion with the requirement to work in order to survive to which the latter is the better alternative.

>appeal to fear

>non argument

>Correlation is causation

According to that logic, the state free loads off the people it coerces to fund its infrastructure, therefore the state is the actual free loader.

>Everything comes with a price therefore you should be forced to pay for a good you might not want

>choosing a better alternative under a poor economic context means you agree with the economic context you are subjugated to.

>no evidence or justifications

>non argument

Your "argument" is based on a rhetorical fallacy.

That which was conceived with no thought requires to response.

>claim supposition A
>laugh
>non argument
>you're fallacious!!!

He's right, you almost certainly would not. You may scream muh business and free market fairy, but all business is just a client and end product of state infrastructure.

McDonalds and Walmart won't build your roads, bridges, water supply and airports just out of the kindness of their hearts. They won't build trans-continental railroads as there's not profit in it. The space programmes? Lol no profit. Eliminating cancer and aids? Lol no profit.

And by profit, i mean long term sustainable business models

youtube.com/watch?v=wbZuBDJVHEI

dead dog by your mailbox(happen to me) gone in an hour. ect. ect . ect