Taxation Is Theft

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Walter Block wrote a book on privatizing roads and highways, I assume he has ideas on how to privatize other much needs things like police and fire services.

Care to share Block's view on those subjects Dan, or are you just another Libertarian who complains but doesn't have viable solutions to the things you complain about?

I'm not really interested in his views,

He's the leader of your cult, you should be.

but all of those things can be done more efficiently if funded voluntarily and handled privately.

We'll see about that.

1. Roads
The government already hires private contractors to actually build the roads.

Competitive bidding, sounds like sound economic sense to me.

The middle man can be cut out and people can voluntarily fund roads.

Too funny. I can hear it now: "You can contribute to the building and maintenance of the roads that you travel on, but it isn't required."

You're ignorant of human nature Dan.

Businesses also have a vested interest in having roads so that they can ship product, allow customers and employees to get to their business, etc.

Which would be passed onto the customer with higher prices.

This roads argument is the worst argument for a monstrous bureaucratic nightmare of government with a 90% tax.

So far you've suggested that roads should be funded voluntarily, and then you said that businesses should fund them (which would be passed onto the customer). So you have a combination of voluntary payment for roads and non voluntary. You can't have both.

2. Police
If the only laws we had were the necessary laws prohibiting violence and theft, this would be simple to solve. Communities could voluntarily fund the hire of a private security firm like many private entities do.

I'm sure that Mr. Big Bucks just loves the thought of owning his own police force. How about courts/judges and penal institutions?

If the company were not providing a good service, they could be fired and replaced by a better firm. It also probably wouldn't be difficult to get the citizens of a community to volunteer to help keep their communities safe, if we had the well armed citizenry that we were intended to by the founders, which government prohibits.

You living in the past Dan (we aint living in Sheriff Andy Taylor's Mayberry no more). Law Enforcement is a profession. Officers go through highly extensive training which is costly.

3. Fire fighters
Many fire companies are all volunteer already. They all could be, or they could be voluntarily funded.

In small towns it's done. How about larger cities? I know I'd rather have a trained professional at the fire station ready to respond to my burning house than have Joe Bob at the fillin station answering his pager and responding after he finished pulling the transmission from a 67 Chevy.

These solutions would make every service much more efficient. If it were funded by voluntary contributions,

There you go with that voluntary dream of yours again.

there would be much less waste because there would be a limited budget.

The waste doesn't from taxation.

As it stands, government has an unlimited budget because they can just raise taxes, borrow, or print money. The public debt will never come under control.

People should then vote in responsible stewards of government. Why reinvent the wheel if it aint broken and just needs some fine tuning?

The fact is that YOU think it is okay to steal from others to fund what YOU want. If your ideas are so great, why do they have to be mandatory? Shouldn't people be rushing to support your causes? Would you not contribute to any worthy cause if government didn't have a gun to your head?

Reality check Dan: You're the nutcase anarchist here, not people who want responsible government.

The fact is, your system of government run services funded by extortion has failed miserably. The debt incurred is insurmountable, and your institutions are ALWAYS in debt no matter how much money they bring in. They are entirely inefficient and can only be defended by childish emotional pleas.

Your system of government doesn't exist, and never has. It's just something you Libertarians talk about when you're sitting together passing the bong around.

 

[Daniel1769]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Walter Block wrote a book on privatizing roads and highways, I assume he has ideas on how to privatize other much needs things like police and fire services.

Care to share Block's view on those subjects Dan, or are you just another Libertarian who complains but doesn't have viable solutions to the things you complain about?



He's the leader of your cult, you should be.



We'll see about that.



Competitive bidding, sounds like sound economic sense to me.



Too funny. I can hear it now: "You can contribute to the building and maintenance of the roads that you travel on, but it isn't required."

You're ignorant of human nature Dan.



Which would be passed onto the customer with higher prices.



So far you've suggested that roads should be funded voluntarily, and then you said that businesses should fund them (which would be passed onto the customer). So you have a combination of voluntary payment for roads and non voluntary. You can't have both.




I'm sure that Mr. Big Bucks just loves the thought of owning his own police force. How about courts/judges and penal institutions?




You living in the past Dan (we aint living in Sheriff Andy Taylor's Mayberry no more). Law Enforcement is a profession. Officers go through highly extensive training which is costly.



In small towns it's done. How about larger cities? I know I'd rather have a trained professional at the fire station ready to respond to my burning house than have Joe Bob at the fillin station answering his pager and responding after he finished pulling the transmission from a 67 Chevy.



There you go with that voluntary dream of yours again.



The waste doesn't from taxation.



People should then vote in responsible stewards of government. Why reinvent the wheel if it aint broken and just needs some fine tuning?



Reality check Dan: You're the nutcase anarchist here, not people who want responsible government.



Your system of government doesn't exist, and never has. It's just something you Libertarians talk about when you're sitting together passing the bong around.

You're defending a system that is $20 Trillion in debt at the federal level, not including the trillions of debt the states and local governments have. This is after these governments tax people nearly all of their income, when you count the inflation and debt burden which are taxes also. You're defending a system that cannot seem to avoid tens of trillions of dollars in debt no matter how much they tax or how much money they print. Your system is dead already, it just hasn't fallen over yet. Your side has already put the world into debt slavery, and it's only a matter of time until you won't be able to tax, print or borrow another dollar because you've sucked it all down and there's none left. There will come a time where the debt and inflation will no longer be sustainable and your subsidized economic bubbles can no longer be propped up by your over-printed fiat currency. It's happened to other countries, and it will eventually happen here. And sooner rather than later it will happen globally. This level of world wide debt is unprecedented, and yet you argue for more. Your side isn't really even worth debating. You should just be sitting in class learning because your ideology has failed so miserably that your incessant apologizing for it shows your lack intelligence. Good day.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You're defending a system that is $20 Trillion in debt at the federal level, not including the trillions of debt the states and local governments have.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with taxation. Vote in good God-fearing men who are socially and fiscally responsible. Easier said than done in this day and age, but don't blame it on God's institution of civil government, blame it on people who elect these officials.

 

[Daniel1769]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with taxation. Vote in good God-fearing men who are socially and fiscally responsible. Easier said than done in this day and age, but don't blame it on God's institution of civil government, blame it on people who elect these officials.

Vote in God fearing men? Show me this "voting" in scripture. Your "voting" thing is garbage. Democracy is garbage. It is not Biblical. It was brought into this country by a bunch of atheists and freemasons like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Vote in God fearing men? Show me this "voting" in scripture. Your "voting" thing is garbage. Democracy is garbage. It is not Biblical. It was brought into this country by a bunch of atheists and freemasons like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.

You Libertarians really are a hoot. You stand for everything that God is against, yet have the audacity to talk about the Bible.

BTW: How soon you forget.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...llowed-To-Do&p=4878143&viewfull=1#post4878143

 

[Clete]

But the lack of consent is okay when government does it?

What are you talking about?

Do you object to having the rule of law?

Do you object to having a military?

Do you object to having infrastructure?

I'm not responding to another word you say unless and until you give a straight answer to the following question...

Are you an anarchist? Yes or No

 

[Town Heretic]

So if I come to your house and mow your lawns and wash your car without your permission, and then I just help myself to whatever money you have lying around, it's not theft because you received a service?

That would be you violating the law at just about every turn. Laws, the collective will and operating principles of a nation I'm not required to be a part of and the costs and obligations of which are easily understandable going in, from neighborhood to state to nation.

 

[Crucible]

From Romans 13:

Romans 13:1-7 13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.........6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Titus 3:1 Remind your people to obey the government and its officers, and always to be obedient and ready for any honest work.

You better get back in the kitchen, then :rotfl:

The Bible doesn't actually teach one to be mindlessly subservient to authorities.
It teaches not to stir trouble in vainglory.

Stop spouting the same thing every time when there is something YOU don't think should change, you hypocrite :wave2:

 

[Daniel1769]

That would be you violating the law at just about every turn. Laws, the collective will and operating principles of a nation I'm not required to be a part of and the costs and obligations of which are easily understandable going in, from neighborhood to state to nation.

Well, what if I write down on a piece of paper that I can mow your lawn without your permission then just help myself to your money? I'll get some of my buddies to sign it. How is that different from the Constitution? The question is, how did bureaucrats get the right to decide what we need and how it should be provided, and then to just help themselves to as much of our income as they want to pay for it, if we don't have the right to do such things? How did certain people get rights delegated to them from people who don't have those rights as individuals? What I'm trying to get across is that if it's theft if I take your money without permission, it's theft when anyone else does it as well.

 

[Daniel1769]

What are you talking about?

Do you object to having the rule of law?

Do you object to having a military?

Do you object to having infrastructure?

I'm not responding to another word you say unless and until you give a straight answer to the following question...

Are you an anarchist? Yes or No

Because one objects to others being forced to pay for something doesn't imply lack of support for the thing being funded. I'm not opposed to you owning a Cadillac, but I don't think someone else should be forced, at gun point, to pay for it. I'm not opposed to infrastructure. I'm opposed to people being forced to pay for it. Some people don' even own cars, yet are forced to pay for roads. And under our system, people in Maine can be taxed to pave a road a Mississippi. That's not right. Not only that, but government pays a much higher price for infrastructure projects than the private sector does because they have an unlimited budget. Government management of infrastructure is entirely inefficient and wasteful.

The only laws we need are laws against violence and theft, which would include property damage and breach of contract. These laws could be enforced at an entirely local level by volunteer or voluntary funding. A well armed citizenry, as the founders intended, would reduce crime drastically also.

As for the military, I agree with the the intent of the founders. As any second amendment supporter knows, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Merriam Webster define MILITIA as
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

The American Heritage Dictionary in the English Language defines MILITIA as
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
n.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

So the Constitution says a militia, not a full time military, is necessary for the security of a free state. I agree with this sentiment. And further, if one does support a full time paid military, then fund it voluntarily. Taking money without permission is stealing, no matter how noble you believe your cause to be.

What you're doing is not explaining why taxation is not theft, but trying to convince me that your intentions are good. With this logic, I can rob you if I give some of the money to charity, keeping some as my payment for myself as the administrator of the transfer of your money to a noble cause. It doesn't make sense because it is not a logical position. It rests on emotion only.

 

[Daniel1769]

You Libertarians really are a hoot. You stand for everything that God is against, yet have the audacity to talk about the Bible.

BTW: How soon you forget.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...llowed-To-Do&p=4878143&viewfull=1#post4878143

So you can't show me voting in the Bible. So you can't prove your garbage assertion that God ordained voting. Noted.

 

[Stripe]

Taxation is not theft.

Overtaxation is. However, the government should be in control, so there is no Earthly law against overtaxation.

The problems start when you make it a democracy and the people think they are in control.

Democracy is the problem.

 

[Daniel1769]

Taxation is not theft.

Overtaxation is. However, the government should be in control, so there is no Earthly law against overtaxation.

The problems start when you make it a democracy and the people think they are in control.

Democracy is the problem.

So "overtaxation" is theft but taxation itself isn't? Where is the arbitrary line drawn between taxation and "overtaxation?" What's the magic number?

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, what if I write down on a piece of paper that I can mow your lawn without your permission then just help myself to your money? I'll get some of my buddies to sign it.

The inherent false note in your attempt at parallel is the reduction of right to a two party disagreement and the arbitrary attachment of value and obligation by one compelling the other, unequally empowering within a context that never begins to rise to the actual premise and function of law.

How is that different from the Constitution?

Let's begin with the fundamental distinction founded in right and our equality relating. That fundamental equality is what protects us from arbitrary actions, like your hypothetical neighbor. You aren't empowered to do more or less than I am, and you are as equally obligated as I am. Taxes are neither arbitrary nor theft. They're the grease on the rails of a republic that provides necessary protections from inherent dangers that accompany any social order.

The question is, how did bureaucrats get the right to decide what we need and how it should be provided, and then to just help themselves to as much of our income as they want to pay for it, if we don't have the right to do such things?

You ignore the fact that those bureaucrats answer to us and that we are empowered by that same Constitution to alter what offends, within the respect of right.

How did certain people get rights delegated to them from people who don't have those rights as individuals?

You have the right to run for office, but you'll find you don't have actual, additional rights, only the obligation to safeguard the actual rights of others as best you can while maintaining the context that safeguards all of them.

What I'm trying to get across is that if it's theft if I take your money without permission, it's theft when anyone else does it as well.

You aren't starting at "Go". Theft is a dramatic word, but it's defined by the law, not by your impression of what's fair. The law is the binding glue of a compact you aren't forced to participate in. A thief will never say, "Give me all your money or go someplace where you don't have to." A thief will never say, "Give what a good many people have determined is the minimal we need to make this thing work. And if you and enough people think it's a bad idea you can change what I ask for." Among other possible objections.

Taxes are the obligation owed for benefits derived and access to full participation in a social compact you are at no point mandated to accept, unless you want those benefits. If you want them but you don't want to pay for them they you're more accurately approaching the ethical, working definition of thievery.

 

[Daniel1769]

The inherent false note in your attempt at parallel is the reduction of right to a two party disagreement and the arbitrary attachment of value and obligation by one compelling the other, unequally empowering within a context that never begins to rise to the actual premise and function of law.


Let's begin with the fundamental distinction founded in right and our equality relating. That fundamental equality is what protects us from arbitrary actions, like your hypothetical neighbor. You aren't empowered to do more or less than I am, and you are as equally obligated as I am. Taxes are neither arbitrary nor theft. They're the grease on the rails of a republic that provides necessary protections from inherent dangers that accompany any social order.


You ignore the fact that those bureaucrats answer to us and that we are empowered by that same Constitution to alter what offends, within the respect of right.


You have the right to run for office, but you'll find you don't have actual, additional rights, only the obligation to safeguard the actual rights of others as best you can while maintaining the context that safeguards all of them.


You aren't starting at "Go". Theft is a dramatic word, but it's defined by the law, not by your impression of what's fair. The law is the binding glue of a compact you aren't forced to participate in. A thief will never say, "Give me all your money or go someplace where you don't have to." A thief will never say, "Give what a good many people have determined is the minimal we need to make this thing work. And if you and enough people think it's a bad idea you can change what I ask for." Among other possible objections.

Taxes are the obligation owed for benefits derived and access to full participation in a social compact you are at no point mandated to accept, unless you want those benefits. If you want them but you don't want to pay for them they you're more accurately approaching the ethical, working definition of thievery.

You've shown no difference between my hypothetical attempt to sign my own laws, and the ones the government hands down except that you accept those from the government. But you're argument that the politicians "answer to us" is most troubling. Are you incapable of seeing that there is a group of people that writes down threats, and if you don't comply, they send men with guns to lock you in a cage. You can wait for 2 or 4 years and vote them out, but you've not undone the damage already done, and your new politicians have the ability to continue the cycle. They don't answer to you at all. Never mind that many laws aren't even written by elected representatives. The DEA, FDA, EPA, IRS, and their state level counterparts write new laws and regulations all the time with a vote by no one. If you can't see that there is a difference between you, and people ruling over you that use violence to force your compliance with laws, most of which have nothing to do with protecting anyone, then you're willfully ignorant or just stupid.

You keep going back to this notion that people somehow owe money for services they didn't request. You've not explained how it's different from me sneaking into your garage, washing your car, and taking your money. Your argument is not logical or moral. It's circular. "Government can decide what services to provide and what to charge, but you can't...because government says they can." Why do they get to make the decision? "Because they're the government." But why is it different if I do the same thing? "Because they're government." Government, apparently, has the right because they say they do.

You have a warped view of liberty where men are not endowed by their Creator with rights, but have them only if a bureaucrat writes down on a piece of paper that they have them. You need to learn self ownership, and realize that there are ways to finance things without stealing.

 

[Daniel1769]

Further, what country do you live in where taxes are used to provide public services? I live in America where taxes are used to support people that won't work, to invade countries without declaration of war, to prop up foreign dictators, and to line the pockets of politicians and their friends. Where is this just nation where you reside?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So you can't show me voting in the Bible. So you can't prove your garbage assertion that God ordained voting. Noted.

God ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of man. Voting is the best way for people to be represented in a nation.

"Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes..."

"Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers..."

Sounds like voting to me.

 

[rexlunae]

Taking money from one person, with the threat of violence, and giving it to another is theft. Demanding money at the penalty of prison or worse, is extortion. Even if you were to rob someone, yet mow their lawn for them and claim your theft was payment for the service you provided, it would still be robbery. If you and a few of your friends voted to give a mutual friend the right to steal from someone else, it would still be theft. If you picketed someone's pocket and gave the money to charity, it is still stealing.

Taxation, therefore, is theft and extortion.

Two questions:

1. Do you believe that there should be a government?

and

2. If yes, how do you believe that government should be funded?

 

[ok doser]

So you consider is "successful" that the government has created an insurmountable debt and is ALWAYS broke no matter how much money they bring in?

we have bridges, military, interstate highways


show a country that successfully provides those things through privatization

 

[Town Heretic]

You've shown no difference between my hypothetical attempt to sign my own laws, and the ones the government hands down except that you accept those from the government.

Sure I did, beginning with the error of inequity. In your attempt you give yourself supreme authority to act as you wish and give me the obligation of accepting it. In our compact the individual parties stand equally in right and obligation, with the state empowered to protect both the right and to balance that right between parties.

And that's before we get to the particular. Taxation is no different from any other obligation to government. You can as readily call law of any sort a forced coercion or intrusion into liberty. Fundamentally, you're using taxes, but your real argument has to be for anarchy and against government of any sort. Else it's like the old joke:

Man (to an attractive woman): Would you sleep with a stranger for a million dollars?
Woman: Yes.
Man: Here's five dollars, let's go.
Woman: Five dollars? What do you think I am?
Man: We've established that. We're just haggling over price.

Once you accept the necessity of government to establish and protect social order you're just haggling over how much.

But you're argument that the politicians "answer to us" is most troubling.

Not if you understand the process. That's what elections are, if we use them.

Are you incapable of seeing that there is a group of people that writes down threats, and if you don't comply, they send men with guns to lock you in a cage.

I'm capable of distinguishing argument from dramatic rhetoric. Dial down the latter and all you're saying is that if you violate the compact there are penalties. You can describe being stopped for drunk driving as the state sending an armed man to imprison you for exercising personal liberty (without regard for anyone else's) but it doesn't have inherent traction. Context is important.

You can wait for 2 or 4 years and vote them out, but you've not undone the damage already done, and your new politicians have the ability to continue the cycle.

I'm sorry that you're offended by the fact that ocean liners don't stop or turn on a dime. That's the reality. You want to steer them, it's a process.

They don't answer to you at all.

Rather, they answer to us. You want everyone to answer to you. That's anarchy. It won't work.

Never mind that many laws aren't even written by elected representatives. The DEA, FDA, EPA, IRS, and their state level counterparts write new laws and regulations all the time with a vote by no one. If you can't see that there is a difference between you, and people ruling over you that use violence to force your compliance with laws, most of which have nothing to do with protecting anyone, then you're willfully ignorant or just stupid.

Since I'm demonstrably neither, I'll step over your attempt to continue the personal/dramatic and say that those agencies answer to the officials we empower to create and manage agencies aimed at facilitating the safe operation of commerce, public education, etc.

You keep going back to this notion that people somehow owe money for services they didn't request.

No, I note that when you take a benefit you incur a cost.

You've not explained how it's different from me sneaking into your garage, washing your car, and taking your money.

I absolutely have, from the inequality at law to the capricious nature of the act. Sneaking is just another difference, given laws are public, open and subject to scrutiny within the realm of right. The only thing that's truly parallel in your attempt is that money has been transferred and in your case under objection.

Your argument is not logical or moral.

My position is entirely logical. If you want to see the show, buy a ticket. If you don't, leave the theater. No one will stop you.

"Government can decide what services to provide and what to charge, but you can't...because government says they can."

Rather, government is an operation of "us" not me and "we" empower it to function in protecting and providing what it must, from protection to services "we" deem justified.

Why do they get to make the decision?

Because "we" elect them to do that, recognizing there are things we must do collectively to protect the fabric of social order and that there are other things "we" have decided enhance that compact, beyond the absolutely necessary. And if "we" change "our" minds "we" can change the offending practice. But I can't and you can't, individually. That way lies anarchy, instability and disfunction.

You have a warped view of liberty where men are not endowed by their Creator with rights, but have them only if a bureaucrat writes down on a piece of paper that they have them.

Complete nonsense, supra.

You need to learn self ownership, and realize that there are ways to finance things without stealing

You need to recognize that We the people aren't abdicating ownership, we're safeguarding the right to it, within the necessary balancing of the operation of right against competing interests.