Taxation Is Theft

[Town Heretic]

Is a 99.99% tax rate theft? I'd like to know if you draw an arbitrary line or if you just are willing to pay any tax rate. And if 99.99% is okay, what about 100%? Is there any consistency in your logic or are you going to start giving some arbitrary limits?

First, you've yet to illustrate an inconsistency in any of my logic, so the question is doubly skewed, with the other being the communist end point contrary to anything remotely in play.

I gave you a nudge on the point you're partially invoking in the "old joke" part of my earlier responses. Because if you aren't against government you might as well ask yourself the questions you set out above and in answering them recognize your real difference is, as I noted then, degree instead of principle.

Here's the answer anyway: at no point are taxes theft. Calling them that is sensational and irrational. How high or low tax rates should be is the proper subject of argument, as is what they fund. But theft is something else, an operation of law with particulars that aren't applicable in a reasoned and reasonable difference over the particular things we believe government should and shouldn't involve itself in and the extent we are willing to fund it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not so, they formed a government based on Judeo-Christian doctrine, heavily influenced by the Bible.

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

I've said it a thousand times JR: Uninformed Christians are the reason our nation has become the moral cesspool that it's become.

Educate yourself JR.

Again, you completely miss my point. I'm not talking about what kind of government the founding fathers designed. I'm talking about the kind of government that God wants us to be under. When God gave the Law to Moses, he put in it how a monarchy should be run, meaning that monarchy is the form of government that God wants.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Daniel1769]

Again, you completely miss my point. I'm not talking about what kind of government the founding fathers designed. I'm talking about the kind of government that God wants us to be under. When God gave the Law to Moses, he put in it how a monarchy should be run, meaning that monarchy is the form of government that God wants.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Don't bother. I've been banging my head against the wall with this guy for days.

 

[Clete]

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.

I think that people who are going to debate things on a text based web forum ought to have to actually read the posts and respond to what has actually been said.

You're a waste of my time. I am not about to repeat nearly everything I've said because you want to pretend like I haven't crushed your position into dust with the plainest reason imaginable.

 

[ok doser]

I think that people who are going to debate things on a text based web forum ought to have to actually read the posts and respond to what has actually been said.

You're a waste of my time. I am not about to repeat nearly everything I've said because you want to pretend like I haven't crushed your position into dust with the plainest reason imaginable.

I always figger when a guy like this refuses to address a particular point, it's 'cause he can't


and that means you win! :roses:


(I wonder whatever happened to emarie?)

 

[Daniel1769]

First, you've yet to illustrate an inconsistency in any of my logic, so the question is doubly skewed, with the other being the communist end point contrary to anything remotely in play.

I gave you a nudge on the point you're partially invoking in the "old joke" part of my earlier responses. Because if you aren't against government you might as well ask yourself the questions you set out above and in answering them recognize your real difference is, as I noted then, degree instead of principle.

Here's the answer anyway: at no point are taxes theft. Calling them that is sensational and irrational. How high or low tax rates should be is the proper subject of argument, as is what they fund. But theft is something else, an operation of law with particulars that aren't applicable in a reasoned and reasonable difference over the particular things we believe government should and shouldn't involve itself in and the extent we are willing to fund it.

If you've read any of my other posts, I've stated that I believe a small, local, voluntarily funded "government" is okay as recourse for violence or theft. Period. Violence and theft infringe on the liberties of others. If a law exists which does not prohibit violence or theft where there is a clear victim, then it is unjust. If such laws were the only that existed, there would be little need for much law enforcement. Self defense would start with individuals and communities. An armed citizenry that looks out for each other is the best defense against crime. Any police activity should be simply being vigilant and watching out for violence and theft and intervening, or arresting someone who has committed violence or theft. This can all be done by volunteer work or volunteer funding.

No group should be able to get together, have their buddies vote for them, and use this as justification to decide which services are necessary for society and collect funds by extortion.

"Theft" may not be the best word to use in reference. "Extortion" would be better.

America has shown that it can collect money voluntarily for noble causes. America is the most generous nation on earth, and would have more money to give to causes they supported if government didn't extort it in the form of taxation and inflation.

Such system as I described is imperfect. It is not I who am claiming to have a perfect system. It is you that is claiming that, out of the lot of sinful and untrustworthy people, you can find some angels that will do what is best for society. To boot, you seem to think that "voting" legitimizes it. Because some uninformed and dishonest people write down their support does not legitimize it. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner isn't fair. You have this world in which people are dishonest, corrupt, and inept, and therefore need to elect a portion of these corrupt, dishonest, inept people to run society. If people aren't fit to run their own lives, how can you select some of them to run the lives of everyone else?

Government has shown over, and over for milenia that it cannot be trusted. And America is no different. Regardless of how much money they tax and print, government is always in debt. $20 Trillion in debt at the federal level, and trillions more at the state and local level. Why on earth should we trust anyone who is $20 Trillion in debt, and STILL running budget deficits, to handle any more of our hard earned dollars?

 

[Daniel1769]

I think that people who are going to debate things on a text based web forum ought to have to actually read the posts and respond to what has actually been said.

You're a waste of my time. I am not about to repeat nearly everything I've said because you want to pretend like I haven't crushed your position into dust with the plainest reason imaginable.

You haven't crushed anything to dust. You believe in stealing money at gun point. Period. Be gone, statist. I've heard your stupid arguments a million times. "Hurr durr muh roads and muh troops hurr durr, need anuther 20 trillion dolllars, hurr durr." Good day.

 

[Daniel1769]

we have bridges, military, interstate highways


show a country that successfully provides those things through privatization

Show one that does it successfully by government. Hint: Being $20 Trillion dollars in debt doesn't count as a success.

 

[ok doser]

Show one that does it successfully by government.

us


we have successful bridges (they don't usually fall down)

we have created a successful highway system (you can usually get where you're going)

we have a successful military





now show me a country that does it better through privatization and without debt

 

[Daniel1769]

us


we have successful bridges (they don't usually fall down)

we have created a successful highway system (you can usually get where you're going)

we have a successful military





now show me a country that does it better through privatization

If you have to go $20 Trillion in debt to do it, it isn't a success. Are you mentally handicapped? Having a debt so massive that it is impossible to pay it off is not a success.

"I won a stuffed animal in a carnival game. I had to borrow a million dollars to do it, but boy am I successful at winning stuffed animals in carnival games."

 

[ok doser]

If you have to go $20 Trillion in debt to do it, it isn't a success.

sure it is - we have successfully created roads, bridges and a military

we may not have created a successful economic system, but so far it hasn't collapsed

and we're not talking about economic systems, we're talking about roads, bridges and the military


successful roads
successful bridges
successful military

like ours




now show an example of a country doing roads, bridges and militaries better through privatization

 

[Daniel1769]

sure it is - we have successfully created roads, bridges and a military

we may not have created a successful economic system, but so far it hasn't collapsed

and we're not talking about economic systems, we're talking about roads, bridges and the military


successful roads
successful bridges
successful military

like ours




now show an example of a country doing roads, bridges and militaries better through privatization

Your idea of successful is idiotic. "it hasn't collapsed yet" is a success? If a business were in massive debt and losing money by the second, it wouldn't be a successful business just because it hasn't collapsed yet.

You're saying government is successful because it has an unlimited budget. You don't say? An entity that has no limit on the amount of money it can't spend is able to buy things? Really? Your argument is beyond idiotic, so I'm done responding to you.

You must have no income because you're in junior high school.

 

[ok doser]

No?

no example of a country doing roads, bridges and militaries better through privatization?


not surprised


cya later loser! :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

If you've read any of my other posts, I've stated that I believe a small, local, voluntarily funded "government" is okay as recourse for violence or theft.

Then the only difference between you and most people is degree and you'll have to convince the majority or learn to live with it if you mean to live among them.

Period. Violence and theft infringe on the liberties of others. If a law exists which does not prohibit violence or theft where there is a clear victim, then it is unjust.

I'm sure you believe that, but it isn't inherently, objectively, demonstrably true. It's simply true within a context and by a lens you've decided to prefer. Again, you'll have to win souls or accept that life won't accommodate your ideas.

No group should be able to get together, have their buddies vote for them, and use this as justification to decide which services are necessary for society and collect funds by extortion.

It isn't extortion for the same reason it wasn't theft. Or, the guy who wants less government than you can point that same finger at you.

It is you that is claiming that, out of the lot of sinful and untrustworthy people, you can find some angels that will do what is best for society.

No, which is why you'll say it, but never note my saying it with, you know, a quote of me saying that. lain:

To boot, you seem to think that "voting" legitimizes it.

I recognize the process. And it's a good one. Better than the alternative history has handed us.

Because some uninformed and dishonest people write down their support does not legitimize it.

Just as you calling them that doesn't make them anything of the sort or your supposition reasonable.

You have this world in which people are dishonest, corrupt, and inept, and therefore need to elect a portion of these corrupt, dishonest, inept people to run society. If people aren't fit to run their own lives, how can you select some of them to run the lives of everyone else?

Rather, most people, whatever their nature, understand self interest and that self interest is served by having rights which are served by protecting them, etc. Self interest can be a public angel, when it's wedded with the understanding that what is good for my neighbor is likewise good for me and what harms him without recourse threatens my happiness.

You needn't be a saint to propound or support a system that protects them.

Government has shown over, and over for milenia that it cannot be trusted.

I'm not confusing our government with every government. That's a muddled context. And ours has shown me that while it gets all sorts of things preposterously wrong, it does the best job I've seen along that historical line at protecting my rights and it's shown that over time it grows out of some bad habits. Like us, it's imperfect.

 

[Crucible]

The global debt count is 200 trillion dollars, so 20 trillion isn't the worst shape a country with 319 million people could be in. While it's an important issue, it's not something one needs to constantly exaggerate either. The only way out of the debt is to make America better, it's as simple as that. Liberals do not want to do that, they want to dissolve the country into globalism- so no matter what conservatives do, they can always expect the Left to slander every fraction of a millimeter the Right moves

 

[quip]

That would be voluntary funding. That is how things should be funded. There are towns where citizens are fixing pot hole because the government isn't, even though those taxes allegedly pay for roads. Charities raise billions of dollars every year, so voluntary funding is very possible. Most government supporters don't want voluntaryism because they know people aren't going to pitch in to pay politicians six figures and to give their friends big contracts and for all of the other waste. If you want to get rid of waste, make funding voluntary. If it's not funded voluntarily, it's funded by theft and extortion.

Seems you're not opposed to taxes per se but rather the way they're distributed. What's to keep large scale volunteerism from being (or perhaps currently is) subjected to similar cronyism and corruption?

 

[Daniel1769]

Seems you're not opposed to taxes per se but rather the way they're distributed. What's to keep large scale volunteerism from being (or perhaps currently is) subjected to similar cronyism and corruption?

If it's corrupt, people can stop volunteering their money. When tax money is used for cronyism, you just have to keep paying.

 

[ok doser]

There are towns where citizens are fixing pot hole ...

with what?


shovels full of dirt?

 

[rocketman]

with what?


shovels full of dirt?

Mix it with used motor oil and you get asphalt right?

 

[Daniel1769]

The global debt count is 200 trillion dollars, so 20 trillion isn't the worst shape a country with 319 million people could be in. While it's an important issue, it's not something one needs to constantly exaggerate either. The only way out of the debt is to make America better, it's as simple as that. Liberals do not want to do that, they want to dissolve the country into globalism- so no matter what conservatives do, they can always expect the Left to slander every fraction of a millimeter the Right moves

If the global debt is $200 Trillion, that means America represents 10% of the world's debt. America makes up about 4.44% of the world population.

4.44% of the world population makes up 10% of the world debt. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's not that bad.

Are you joking or trying to be serious?