The slavery in taxation

hungrystudent · 22-01-2011 2:57pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

We understand that slavery is the theft of 100% of another's produce. If we are born onto a slave plantation we are given food and shelter by the slave owner not because he has a soft spot for his slaves but because he needs them to be productive to reap their output.

So the question is at what percentage is the consistent theft of another's property not considered slavery? Is it 80% , 50% or 1%?

It is understood that if were mugged in the street and the mugger made of with 1% of what you owned like a wallet it is a once off theft. But if this mugger was part of a gang and followed you around and mugged you of 1% every week would this be a type of slavery to the mugger?

You could of course try to run away but the threat would always remain. You could also try to kill the mugger but this would most likely end with your death as this would been seen as attack on the gang.

This is the same situation you are born into living under an immoral government and just like the slaves born to the plantation providing them with housing and food does not disqualify the original and consistent theft of their output and freedoms.

Slavery can equal as much as 1% or 100% taxation the amount is irrelevant because slavery is being under constant threat of violence for not complying with your masters.

You are using the same method that the people who make up conspiracy theories use.You base your argument on incomplete definitions.Saying slavery is theft of a slaves output. But it is not, slavery is owning the slave,he is your asset and all his production is yours to begin with.I pay tax voluntarily because I want to live in a society and the tax I pay was mine to begin with.It is the same as all the 'money is debt' crap theories you read that end up proving the Rothchilds have enslaved you.

simplistic2 · 22-01-2011 4:00pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

I pay tax voluntarily

"I voluntarily paid the mugger"... of course you did.

simplistic2 · 22-01-2011 4:09pm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This is where the entire taxation as slavery thing falls apart - the government is elected and has therefore permission to levy and disburse funds from the public as it sees fit.

The government( a group of individuals) is elected (assume coercive control) and has therefore permission to levy (threaten) and disburse (steal) funds from the public (another group of individuals).

The entire taxation is slavery falls apart, Why? because a group of individuals assume coercive control and has therefore permission to threaten and steal funds from another group of individuals.

simplistic2 · 22-01-2011 4:10pm

pagancornflake wrote: »

Democratic society.

hahaha wow

hungrystudent · 22-01-2011 4:49pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

"I voluntarily paid the mugger"... of course you did.

Ho hum.Theft and mugging dont imply any element of consent by your reasoning, fair enough ,suppose it's a matter of perception really.Although, if you are right, because you dont consent and I do, that means you probably are a slave.Good luck with that.
Did you ever wonder that tax in some form or another has been with us for thousands and thousands of years?, And in all those years, all those revolutions and popular uprisings big and small, governments didn't come to your conclusion and not use taxation after they took over? Who would you charge for street lights?
You must be a particularly smart individual and I am honored to have the opportunity to catch the pearls of wisdom that fall from your lips.

simplistic2 · 22-01-2011 7:06pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

Ho hum.Theft and mugging dont imply any element of consent by your reasoning, fair enough ,suppose it's a matter of perception really.Although, if you are right, because you dont consent and I do, that means you probably are a slave.Good luck with that.

It would be a different issue if you were able to individually contract with a government; for instance I believe you have every right to sell yourself into slavery to any group of bandits, since you do own your body. So you could merrily go on your way to the government offices and sign a contract that says "I agree to allow the government to tax and regulate my life in whatever way they see fit in return for whatever they can give me". Of course presented like this it seems like an utterly ridiculous exchange and anybody that actually signed up for that would be seen as a mad man.

But your not able to sign up individually and by supporting and sanctioning the actions of the government you are condoning crimes against those who do not wish to be subjugated by the group of bandits. You are a third party to the crimes committed by the state because you enable them. Thats the problem.

hungrystudent wrote: »

Did you ever wonder that tax in some form or another has been with us for thousands and thousands of years?, And in all those years, all those revolutions and popular uprisings big and small, governments didn't come to your conclusion and not use taxation after they took over? Who would you charge for street lights?
You must be a particularly smart individual and I am honored to have the opportunity to catch the pearls of wisdom that fall from your lips.

The whole point of taxation in its inception was to allow a small group of people to live parasitically off the productive peasants by threating them with violence. For example when the Normans came to conquer Ireland they simply killed of the the aristocracy so that they could rule over the peasants and turn them into "Tax farms".

The question of how the lights will be paid for is insignificant compared to the question of whether it is right or wrong to steal from someone to pay for the running of lights?

hungrystudent · 22-01-2011 7:21pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

It would be a different issue if you were able to individually contract with a government; for instance I believe you have every right to sell yourself into slavery to any group of bandits, since you do own your body. So you could merrily go on your way to the government offices and sign a contract that says "I agree to allow the government to tax and regulate my life in whatever way they see fit in return for whatever they can give me". Of course presented like this it seems like an utterly ridiculous exchange and anybody that actually signed up for that would be seen as a mad man.

But your not able to sign up individually and by supporting and sanctioning the actions of the government you are condoning crimes against those who do not wish to be subjugated by the group of bandits. You are a third party to the crimes committed by the state because you enable them. Thats the problem.

The whole point of taxation in its inception was to allow a small group of people to live parasitically off the productive peasants by threating them with violence. For example when the Normans came to conquer Ireland they simply killed of the the aristocracy so that they could rule over the peasants and turn them into "Tax farms".

The question of how the lights will be paid for is insignificant compared to the question of whether it is right or wrong to steal from someone to pay for the running of lights?

You are making some bold assumptions simplistic, to talk of tax in its "inception".Tax, like most other institutions, evolved from everyday human behaviour.The move towards any kind of division of labour requires the idea of sharing for the common good.Just like banking evolved from the need to save surplus in summer.Of course I may be wrong but it makes more sense than your conclusion.Have a look at the Magna Carta.Have a look at who it was that forced a King to sign it.Why would these rich powerful men insist on representation before they would pay tax and not abolish it? Because they knew it was necessary, but wanted to ensure the Kings of the future couldn't spend it anyway they felt like, ie it was everybodies money.
And as I asked before..what if I don't want to pay for the street lights? Do I just not have to?
You would sell yourself? I thought all libertarians cared about was life, liberty and property.If you sold yourself you would become property, so all the rules concerning your liberty would be in direct conflict with the laws of property.Human rights wont help you because if you give them to one type of property, you have to give them to others..free the pigs!
What would you charge someone who stole your slave with? kidnapping or theft?

simplistic2 · 22-01-2011 8:57pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

You are making some bold assumptions simplistic, to talk of tax in its "inception".Tax, like most other institutions, evolved from everyday human behaviour.The move towards any kind of division of labour requires the idea of sharing for the common good.Just like banking evolved from the need to save surplus in summer.Of course I may be wrong but it makes more sense than your conclusion.Have a look at the Magna Carta.Have a look at who it was that forced a King to sign it.Why would these rich powerful men insist on representation before they would pay tax and not abolish it? Because they knew it was necessary, but wanted to ensure the Kings of the future couldn't spend it anyway they felt like, ie it was everybodies money.

Bold assumptions haha I like that!:D The move toward the division of labor was purely from self interested parties realising that concentrating on a specific trade or skill will provide them with a surplus of produce and enable them to trade for others surpluses.

The ruling classes realised that if they specialised in violence and domination they could live without working by stealing some of the laborers surplus. So really do you think we need Brian Cowen to make our light blubs run? These people are heavily invested in making you think otherwise.

hungrystudent wrote: »

And as I asked before..what if I don't want to pay for the street lights? Do I just not have to?

In a free society there is only private property, meaning that the roads will be private too, so like now when you travel on a road you pay a toll and that would cover it.

hungrystudent wrote: »

You would sell yourself? I thought all libertarians cared about was life, liberty and property.If you sold yourself you would become property, so all the rules concerning your liberty would be in direct conflict with the laws of property.Human rights wont help you because if you give them to one type of property, you have to give them to others..free the pigs!
What would you charge someone who stole your slave with? kidnapping or theft?

Since you are the rightful owner of your body you can do as you wish with it.
If you want to commit euthanasia then that is also a loss of liberty and it doest contradict the self - ownership axiom once all the action are by your choice. The question for you still remains , do you think it is right or wrong to force people to comply with your beliefs?

If somebody stole my slave I would be very angry and also very sad:(. I would consider it to be theft but they are essentially the same crime because kidnapping is the theft of a person.

hungrystudent · 22-01-2011 10:01pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Bold assumptions haha I like that!:D The move toward the division of labor was purely from self interested parties realising that concentrating on a specific trade or skill will provide them with a surplus of produce and enable them to trade for others surpluses.

The ruling classes realised that if they specialised in violence and domination they could live without working by stealing some of the laborers surplus. So really do you think we need Brian Cowen to make our light blubs run? These people are heavily invested in making you think otherwise.

In a free society there is only private property, meaning that the roads will be private too, so like now when you travel on a road you pay a toll and that would cover it.

Since you are the rightful owner of your body you can do as you wish with it.
If you want to commit euthanasia then that is also a loss of liberty and it doest contradict the self - ownership axiom once all the action are by your choice. The question for you still remains , do you think it is right or wrong to force people to comply with your beliefs?

If somebody stole my slave I would be very angry and also very sad:(. I would consider it to be theft but they are essentially the same crime because kidnapping is the theft of a person.

No simplistic, again you presume to know to much.It is just as fair to go back further with regards the division of labour to you hunt ,I'll gather.Nothing to do with surplus which often wasn't available and people starved.It was some days you dont catch anything,its not about trade, it's communal living as the best means of survival.But as we will never know the answer to that one we might as well agree to differ.
When you say the ruling classes "realised", do you mean everywhere all at once? Yours is a horse before the cart argument, if the ruling class hadn't already specialised in violence and domination, then how did they become the ruling class? ruling kind of implies a dominant actor.
Road tolls?.Still doesn't suggest a workable business model for street lights, but you cant deny they are dead handy.
As for owning yourself.Well that whole concept throws up so many absurdities and flights of fancy that it doesn't even warrant discussion.I am sure that is why alot of libertarians back away from it or leave it out of their system altogether.
As for the last question forcing people to comply with your beliefs?That is the democratic paradox isn't it simplistic2.But I think that it is a trade off people are prepared to make after weighing up the pros and cons.Also I would tend to think more of forcing people to comply to the general will of the population.I read a theory (some time ago, so I cant remember who) that suggests in an election we are not stating our opinion on an issue, we are stating our opinion on what the general will is.If we have voted for the losing proposition, it is not that we dont disagree with it,we still disagree, it is just that we were wrong about what the general will is, and as democrats we are happy to comply with the general will (which we helped clarify by voting).
Makes sense to me, democracy alows you to participate in influencing the general will as well.

simplistic2 · 22-01-2011 11:24pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

No simplistic, again you presume to know to much.It is just as fair to go back further with regards the division of labour to you hunt ,I'll gather.Nothing to do with surplus which often wasn't available and people starved.It was some days you dont catch anything,its not about trade, it's communal living as the best means of survival.But as we will never know the answer to that one we might as well agree to differ.
When you say the ruling classes "realised", do you mean everywhere all at once? Yours is a horse before the cart argument, if the ruling class hadn't already specialised in violence and domination, then how did they become the ruling class? ruling kind of implies a dominant actor.
Road tolls?.Still doesn't suggest a workable business model for street lights, but you cant deny they are dead handy.

Ah your right I suppose on the communal living.

I actually know very little you see this is one of my only threads:(. I barely have the knowledge to defend this argument.

Ok, you know what I mean when I refer to the ruling class, the actors that became the most violent and dominant became them...

hungrystudent wrote: »

As for owning yourself.Well that whole concept throws up so many absurdities and flights of fancy that it doesn't even warrant discussion.I am sure that is why alot of libertarians back away from it or leave it out of their system altogether.

My understanding is that by exercising control over your body you are self asserting ownership over your own body. If you don't own your body how can you possibly sell it?

I'd be interested in your reasoning of how it throws up absurdities?

hungrystudent wrote: »

As for the last question forcing people to comply with your beliefs?That is the democratic paradox isn't it simplistic2.But I think that it is a trade off people are prepared to make after weighing up the pros and cons.Also I would tend to think more of forcing people to comply to the general will of the population.I read a theory (some time ago, so I cant remember who) that suggests in an election we are not stating our opinion on an issue, we are stating our opinion on what the general will is.If we have voted for the losing proposition, it is not that we dont disagree with it,we still do, it is just that we were wrong about what the general will is, and as democrats we are happy to comply with the general will (which we helped clarify by voting).
Makes sense to me, democracy alows you to participate in influencing the general will as well.

Thats fine to weigh up the pros and cons and accept it as a trade off. Its not fine to weigh up an idea and then force it on people that don't agree with it.

But if you really believe that its ok then you should have no problem with me enforcing the same arbitrary rules that I make up in my head on you, so ill be around later to take your car because well my general will is that we live under a cartocracy and you owe me a car.

hungrystudent · 22-01-2011 11:57pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ah your right I suppose on the communal living. I actually know very little you see this is one of my only threads:(. I barely have the knowledge to defend this argument.

Ok, you know what I mean when I refer to the ruling class, the actors that became the most violent and dominant became them...

My understanding is that by exercising control over your body you are self asserting ownership over your own body. If you don't own your body how can you possibly sell it?

I'd be interested in your reasoning of how it throws up absurdities?

Thats fine to weigh up the pros and cons and accept it as a trade off. Its not fine to weigh up an idea and then force it on people that don't agree with it.

But if you really believe that its ok then you should have no problem with me enforcing the same arbitrary rules that I make up in my head on you, so ill be around later to take your car because well my general will is that we live under a cartocracy and you owe me a car.

Self ownership is a strange concept.What does it even mean, to own something? It means that you have a legal claim to it at least. It means that if someone wants to take it from you, you can go to court and defend it.One of the absurdities you asked for.How would you like to be an asset being fought over in a divorce case or company bankruptcy?Does the spark of humanity in you not make you different than furniture or a car, or a term in a contract to be fought over by slavering lawyers?What of the children of slaves, to whom do they belong? Why cant we have baby farms, their parents can sign their slavery acceptance form cant they? How can the children own themselves if the slavery of their parents means the owner can steal 100% of their (the parents) produce, as you claim.When FW Hayek called his book "The Road to Serfdom", he meant it as a warning,not a guide.
Just out of curiosity, you are claiming that you own yourself so you can consent to slavery.In the OP you claim that taxation is slavery..so what is it you have consented to? At least the whiff of the absurd would you say?
By the general will, I mean the consensus of the whole population.I think you would agree that the general consensus in Ireland today would be that it is not OK for you to come over and take my car.

simplistic2 · 23-01-2011 5:50pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

Self ownership is a strange concept.What does it even mean, to own something? It means that you have a legal claim to it at least. It means that if someone wants to take it from you, you can go to court and defend it.One of the absurdities you asked for.

Maybe the problem is in the definition. The way I see it is that by exercising voluntary control over your body by typing these words you are exercising control, self -ownership. Meaning that you are the owner of your actions. Denying ownership of your actions raises obvious contradictions. I don't see why you have to have a legal claim to your body to own it?

Slaves are not actually owned. They are in an involuntary situation of consistent theft. If slaves are "owned" then to own is the same as stealing. If I sell myself to somebody , I am actually selling a contract to the ownership of the produce of my actions. It is voluntary so it is not slavery.

hungrystudent wrote: »

How would you like to be an asset being fought over in a divorce case or company bankruptcy?Does the spark of humanity in you not make you different than furniture or a car, or a term in a contract to be fought over by slavering lawyers?What of the children of slaves, to whom do they belong? Why cant we have baby farms, their parents can sign their slavery acceptance form cant they? How can the children own themselves if the slavery of their parents means the owner can steal 100% of their (the parents) produce, as you claim.

"Baby farms" Hahaha. Who cares? they are lifeboat scenarios that will never happen, such desperate arguments...

hungrystudent wrote: »

When FW Hayek called his book "The Road to Serfdom", he meant it as a warning,not a guide.
Just out of curiosity, you are claiming that you own yourself so you can consent to slavery.In the OP you claim that taxation is slavery..so what is it you have consented to? At least the whiff of the absurd would you say?
By the general will, I mean the consensus of the whole population.I think you would agree that the general consensus in Ireland today would be that it is not OK for you to come over and take my car.

No I made an error, I mean that you can't voluntarily enter slavery. Once its voluntary its not slavery , its an exchange of value.

Slavery is consistent theft of the products of peoples labor - "taxation" for short.

The general religious consenus in Ireland is Catholic, in the bible it is stated that it is just to kill non- believers , so can I go on a killing spree at my local atheist meet up group? Statism is just another religion.

hungrystudent · 24-01-2011 12:13pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Maybe the problem is in the definition. The way I see it is that by exercising voluntary control over your body by typing these words you are exercising control, self -ownership. Meaning that you are the owner of your actions. Denying ownership of your actions raises obvious contradictions. I don't see why you have to have a legal claim to your body to own it?

Slaves are not actually owned. They are in an involuntary situation of consistent theft. If slaves are "owned" then to own is the same as stealing. If I sell myself to somebody , I am actually selling a contract to the ownership of the produce of my actions. It is voluntary so it is not slavery.

"Baby farms" Hahaha. Who cares? they are lifeboat scenarios that will never happen, such desperate arguments...

No I made an error, I mean that you can't voluntarily enter slavery. Once its voluntary its not slavery , its an exchange of value.

Slavery is consistent theft of the products of peoples labor - "taxation" for short.

The general religious consenus in Ireland is Catholic, in the bible it is stated that it is just to kill non- believers , so can I go on a killing spree at my local atheist meet up group? Statism is just another religion.

Dear oh dear simplistic2, you are all over the place here.You need to say what it is you are against.If you think government is a bad thind just say so and we can talk about that.Trying to prove it with weird examples like taxation is slavery wont work.
What your looking for with your tax as slavery definition is a solution to one of societies oldest issues.Google "the free rider problem".That is why I keep banging on about street lights.It is the best example of the free rider problem I can think of.If you can come up with the answer to that, which doesn't involve taxation or some private subsidy then you may have a point.Not easy though, how do you get the homeless guy,sitting under the street light reading his paper to pay his share of the power bill? And of course you also have to think about what happens if you do come up with a solution.How are you going to stop the guy who hasn't paid from using the street light?

RussellTuring · 24-01-2011 4:56pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

Dear oh dear simplistic2, you are all over the place here.You need to say what it is you are against.If you think government is a bad thind just say so and we can talk about that.Trying to prove it with weird examples like taxation is slavery wont work.
What your looking for with your tax as slavery definition is a solution to one of societies oldest issues.Google "the free rider problem".That is why I keep banging on about street lights.It is the best example of the free rider problem I can think of.If you can come up with the answer to that, which doesn't involve taxation or some private subsidy then you may have a point.Not easy though, how do you get the homeless guy,sitting under the street light reading his paper to pay his share of the power bill? And of course you also have to think about what happens if you do come up with a solution.How are you going to stop the guy who hasn't paid from using the street light?

Does this homeless man pay his share of the power bill at the moment?

oscarBravo · 24-01-2011 5:25pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

In a free society there is only private property, meaning that the roads will be private too, so like now when you travel on a road you pay a toll and that would cover it.

I can see it now: coin-operated pedestrian crossings and tollbooths on footpaths. Wonderful.

simplistic2 · 25-01-2011 5:56pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

Dear oh dear simplistic2, you are all over the place here.You need to say what it is you are against.If you think government is a bad thind just say so and we can talk about that.Trying to prove it with weird examples like taxation is slavery wont work.
What your looking for with your tax as slavery definition is a solution to one of societies oldest issues.Google "the free rider problem".That is why I keep banging on about street lights.It is the best example of the free rider problem I can think of.If you can come up with the answer to that, which doesn't involve taxation or some private subsidy then you may have a point.Not easy though, how do you get the homeless guy,sitting under the street light reading his paper to pay his share of the power bill? And of course you also have to think about what happens if you do come up with a solution.How are you going to stop the guy who hasn't paid from using the street light?

Well, how do you stop any guy from sitting in your garden on your property?

simplistic2 · 25-01-2011 6:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see it now: coin-operated pedestrian crossings and tollbooths on footpaths. Wonderful.

The difference there is that your voluntarily reaching into your own pocket to insert to coin. Now your irrational belief is that you rather a politician to reach in for you, that should be kept as a personal life choice since its a little creepy.

oscarBravo · 27-01-2011 10:46am

simplistic2 wrote: »

Well, how do you stop any guy from sitting in your garden on your property?

You invoke trespass laws, and have him removed by the authorities whose job it is to enforce those laws.

How do you stop someone benefiting from street lights he's not paying for?

simplistic2 wrote: »

The difference there is that your voluntarily reaching into your own pocket to insert to coin. Now your irrational belief is that you rather a politician to reach in for you, that should be kept as a personal life choice since its a little creepy.

It's a little scary that you actually seem to believe that a coin-operated pedestrian crossing is a better idea than a pedestrian crossing paid for through taxation.

I've seen some blind adherence to political philosophies in my time, but rarely to the point of accepting complete and utter farcical absurdities rather than compromising even an iota on your dogma.

Liberalbrehon · 27-01-2011 1:04pm

This all comes back to land ownership. If land was free, then we wouldn't be in debt as much. Most of the speculation, i.e. 99% was about the land. You were buying location. The costs of the building were usually, 1/3 of the cost of the house you bought. We wouldn't be in as much debt if land was free.

How would that work? Well there is a plot of land. Anyone that wants it pays a nominal sum to go into a lottery to win it, so they can lease it for 100 years or until they die and their spouse dies. Then it goes back into lottery.

All the market economy is based on the ownership of land and eventually the sea as well. In lieu of above happening, then the current system will continue to push up rents, costs and keep landowners wealthy and the rest of us in debt. We have to take out large mortgages to buy houses to force us to work.

simplistic2 · 28-01-2011 1:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You invoke trespass laws, and have him removed by the authorities whose job it is to enforce those laws.

How do you stop someone benefiting from street lights he's not paying for?

Why would you stop someone from benefiting from the glow of a light?

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a little scary that you actually seem to believe that a coin-operated pedestrian crossing is a better idea than a pedestrian crossing paid for through taxation.

I've seen some blind adherence to political philosophies in my time, but rarely to the point of accepting complete and utter farcical absurdities rather than compromising even an iota on your dogma.

:DThis is great, really great! Am I the one bringing up farcical situations? No you are, coin operated pedestrian crossing...wow. Just try and think for a second before coming out with stuff like that. So your an evil capitalist and you buy up Grafton street and install coin -operated pedestrian crossings, where do you think consumers are going to shop? Anywhere but Grafton street.

Look you have to take yourself out of the statist mind set to be able to understand this and I know its hard. But in a free society governments can't force absurd vanity projects for their own sake onto the population. So absurd and uneconomical ideas are limited to the amount of demand there is for them. The government has the ability to float over these laws because they use coercion and theft to achieve their aims, unlike the businessman who must use voluntary means to achieve success; therefore limiting him to providing useful goods and services to his customers.

hungrystudent · 30-01-2011 11:27am

simplistic2 wrote: »

Why would you stop someone from benefiting from the glow of a light?

Exactly, why?.If everyone benefits from public goods, what is wrong with sharing the cost through taxation?
In your world where everything is privately owned and paid for there can be no free riders.If there are, canny business people such as yourself wont invest in that business, why should they risk their precious, self affirming money on a business model where they give their product away for free to some?

SuperInfinity · 01-02-2011 3:06am

hungrystudent wrote: »

Exactly, why?.If everyone benefits from public goods, what is wrong with sharing the cost through taxation?
In your world where everything is privately owned and paid for there can be no free riders.If there are, canny business people such as yourself wont invest in that business, why should they risk their precious, self affirming money on a business model where they give their product away for free to some?

1) To keep a traffic light running long enough for one person is only ~0.0000001 of a cent.

2) It doesn't matter if they put it there, that doesn't mean you should pay for it. Suppose I put a mat in the middle of Patrick's street tomorrow and people walk across it, does that mean I should get to charge them for it? I can claim they are benefitting from the mat without them being able to prove they're not. I didn't ASK them to put traffic lights there that stop traffic at certain times, they just put them there and I happened to want to use the road. If anything they should pay US for putting them there. Why are they so arrogant as to think they know what we want?

3) The same with pavements and roads... I hate roads and all modern advancement (seriously). I hate all the pollution. But I have to walk across them to get somewhere. The idea that I should have to PAY for something that is an impediment and a harrassment of me and of the planet is really twisted.

4) The government does not own public property. It can make policies and laws on public property (and in fact any property depending on circumstances). But it's not the owner.

Can you imagine if Toyota sent you a new car tomorrow, parked it in your driveway and said you would be billed on it whether you used it or not? Would you be happy with that? Or what if a book sellers decided to send you a list of books they thought you would like, and sent you the bill for them? And it's really a "nanny" attitude that some people have towards the state, they almost WANT to be told what to do and told what they need.

The government in modern times is really a big company trying to satisfy their customer while at the same time making as much money as they can. They shouldn't be allowed to "forcibly" sell you stuff that you not only don't want or need, but actually hurt and destroy you and the planet.

hungrystudent · 01-02-2011 1:22pm

SuperInfinity wrote: »

1) To keep a traffic light running long enough for one person is only ~0.0000001 of a cent.

2) It doesn't matter if they put it there, that doesn't mean you should pay for it. Suppose I put a mat in the middle of Patrick's street tomorrow and people walk across it, does that mean I should get to charge them for it? I can claim they are benefitting from the mat without them being able to prove they're not. I didn't ASK them to put traffic lights there that stop traffic at certain times, they just put them there and I happened to want to use the road. If anything they should pay US for putting them there. Why are they so arrogant as to think they know what we want?

3) The same with pavements and roads... I hate roads and all modern advancement (seriously). I hate all the pollution. But I have to walk across them to get somewhere. The idea that I should have to PAY for something that is an impediment and a harrassment of me and of the planet is really twisted.

4) The government does not own public property. It can make policies and laws on public property (and in fact any property depending on circumstances). But it's not the owner.

Can you imagine if Toyota sent you a new car tomorrow, parked it in your driveway and said you would be billed on it whether you used it or not? Would you be happy with that? Or what if a book sellers decided to send you a list of books they thought you would like, and sent you the bill for them? And it's really a "nanny" attitude that some people have towards the state, they almost WANT to be told what to do and told what they need.

The government in modern times is really a big company trying to satisfy their customer while at the same time making as much money as they can. They shouldn't be allowed to "forcibly" sell you stuff that you not only don't want or need, but actually hurt and destroy you and the planet.

Hello Superinfinity, you appear to be as blinded by ideology as simplistic2, and as a result unable to think outside your self created box.Try to think beyond the example of a simple street light.How does your childish analysis apply to other public goods..national defence for example.Do you deny that it benefits everyone equally?Is it free? Do we only defend those able to pay?
Yourself and simplistic make the mistake of thinking tax only has one purpose, it has many.Some may be right or wrong..progressive rather than regressive,childrens shoes or rich mens yatchs'.These are the real issues.

simplistic2 · 01-02-2011 9:21pm

hungrystudent wrote: »

Hello Superinfinity, you appear to be as blinded by ideology as simplistic2, and as a result unable to think outside your self created box.

Projection?:D Sounds more like your defending a box some else put you in!All hail Democracy!

hungrystudent wrote: »

Try to think beyond the example of a simple street light.How does your childish analysis apply to other public goods..national defence for example.

There are no nations, the imaginary line is similar to the "self created box" you are referring to. There is no such thing as a nation so there is no such thing as national defence. The claim is made that defence is needed to protect property. I agree, it is. Individuals operating under the guise of "government" do not protect your property - they steal it. They violate property rights in order to protect property rights. Or in other words the government needs to rape you to protect your virginity!

hungrystudent wrote: »

Do you deny that it benefits everyone equally?Is it free? Do we only defend those able to pay?

Who is "WE"? Speak for yourself, if you want to pay to protect others then get your check book out and pay for it.

hungrystudent wrote: »

Yourself and simplistic make the mistake of thinking tax only has one purpose, it has many.Some may be right or wrong..progressive rather than regressive,childrens shoes or rich mens yatchs'.These are the real issues.

Tax has one primary function, to keep those with the power in power. The other secondary functions are just bribes to the general population to foster the die hard belief that "nanny" government is the only one who knows how to hand out the lollipops.

hungrystudent · 02-02-2011 4:29am

simplistic2 wrote: »

Projection? Sounds more like your defending a box some else put you in!All hail Democracy!

There are no nations, the imaginary line is similar to the "self created box" you are referring to. There is no such thing as a nation so there is no such thing as national defence. The claim is made that defence is needed to protect property. I agree, it is. Individuals operating under the guise of "government" do not protect your property - they steal it. They violate property rights in order to protect property rights. Or in other words the government needs to rape you to protect your virginity!

Who is "WE"? Speak for yourself, if you want to pay to protect others then get your check book out and pay for it.

Tax has one primary function, to keep those with the power in power. The other secondary functions are just bribes to the general population to foster the die hard belief that "nanny" government is the only one who knows how to hand out the lollipops.

I suppose that you might have a bit of a point there simplistic.The difference a bit of life experience makes though, is that if you present a coherent argument to me I will change my mind.I don't hold to any particular ideology yet, so I am not forced to make deluded, a priori statements like "there are no nations" "tax has one primary function..blah blah".If you tried to test your theories by looking at how the world actually works you might learn something.
I never said national defence was about protecting property.I haven't decided yet whether private property is a good thing or a bad thing, so I couldn't base any argument on it.I was talking about protecting people.I bet if you went down to your local army barracks and asked an ordinary private if he thought he shouldn't defend children ect. who cant pay, you will see what I mean about testing your ideas in the real world.

Here's a little Kant for you.

"We men know very little a priori, and have our senses to thank for nearly all our knowledge. Through experience we know only appearances ..., but not the modum noumenon ..., not things as they are in themselves.... God knows all things as they are in themselves a priori and immediately through an intuitive understanding.... If we were to flatter ourselves so much as to claim that we know the modum noumenon, then we would have to be in community with God so as to participate immediately in the divine ideas.To expect this in the present life is the business of mystics and theosophists."

Which one are you, mystic or theosophist?

Either way you are a dogmatist, and as with all dogmatists before you, you are a tiresome bore.I'll leave this pointless exercise now, but thanks for a convivial exchange of views.

simplistic2 · 03-02-2011 3:49pm

I feel very confused and I sense you are angry, are you needing me to back up my claims with more evidence?

oscarBravo · 03-02-2011 5:59pm

If you could adduce some evidence for your claim that nations don't exist, that would be nice.

simplistic2 · 03-02-2011 8:53pm

A dragon does not exist outside the mind, it is a concept. It cannot be found in objective reality and therefore does not exist.

Similarly a nation does not exist outside the mind, it is also a concept. Im not saying concepts aren't needed or useful for the human species at all. I think a problem arises when people get confused between reality and concepts.

If people had a better understanding of between the two, then people would see objects for what they are and not the man made concepts laid over them. For instance people would be able to see through the concept of government for what it really is. Knowing that there is no such thing as a government because it is a concept you can see under the veil of propaganda. What you see is a group of individuals stealing from other groups of individuals.

oscarBravo · 04-02-2011 12:00am

simplistic2 wrote: »

A dragon does not exist outside the mind, it is a concept. It cannot be found in objective reality and therefore does not exist.

Similarly a nation does not exist outside the mind, it is also a concept. Im not saying concepts aren't needed or useful for the human species at all. I think a problem arises when people get confused between reality and concepts.

By the same token, "property rights" don't exist, other than as a concept. It's a concept you seem keen to believe in - what makes it a more valid concept than that of a nation or a community?

If people had a better understanding of between the two, then people would see objects for what they are and not the man made concepts laid over them. For instance people would be able to see through the concept of government for what it really is. Knowing that there is no such thing as a government because it is a concept you can see under the veil of propaganda. What you see is a group of individuals stealing from other groups of individuals.

No, that's what you see.

pagancornflake · 05-02-2011 2:43am

simplistic2 wrote: »

hahaha wow

Sterling intellectual content. Anything to say about the rest of the post?

simplistic2 · 05-02-2011 12:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

By the same token, "property rights" don't exist, other than as a concept. It's a concept you seem keen to believe in - what makes it a more valid concept than that of a nation or a community? No, that's what you see.

Property rights justify the defence of your property. Nations attempt to justify the theft of your property.

Property rights can also be universally exercised by all individuals without breaching others rights. The act of creating a nation is an act of violence and cannot be exercised without breaching property rights.

oscarBravo · 05-02-2011 12:33pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Property rights justify the defence of your property. Nations attempt to justify the theft of your property.

Property rights can also be universally exercised by all individuals without breaching others rights. The act of creating a nation is an act of violence and cannot be exercised without breaching property rights.

All very well as far as it goes, but you're arguing from your conclusion.

simplistic2 · 05-02-2011 2:04pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

All very well as far as it goes, but you're arguing from your conclusion.

Ok I'll break it down.

Premise 1. Theft is the forceful removal of another persons property.

Premise 2. The act of taxing is the forceful removal of another persons property.

Sub conclusion. Therefore taxation is theft.

Premise 3. Slavery is the consistent theft of another persons property.

Premise 4. Taxation is consistent.

Conclusion. Taxation is a type of slavery.

oscarBravo · 05-02-2011 10:10pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ok I'll break it down.

Premise 1. Theft is the forceful removal of another persons property.

Premise 2. The act of taxing is the forceful removal of another persons property.

That's the argument from your conclusion. I reject that premise. I accept the concepts of "community" and "government", and accept that I would rather live in a society where people are required to sacrifice some of their property to ensure the basic welfare of all than one where the fate of the least fortunate in society is left to the whim of those who may or may not choose to patronise them.

Premise 3. Slavery is the consistent theft of another persons property.

I reject that premise as self-serving for your argument. Slavery is the ownership of a human being. You can reframe it to suit your end, but that's the very definition of arguing from your conclusion.

simplistic2 · 06-02-2011 8:12pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the argument from your conclusion. I reject that premise. I accept the concepts of "community" and "government", and accept that I would rather live in a society where people are required to sacrifice some of their property to ensure the basic welfare of all than one where the fate of the least fortunate in society is left to the whim of those who may or may not choose to patronise them.

Ok so my argument still stands since you have merely claimed that you accept concepts and not refuted any of the premises.

Many people accept the concept of god but it doesn't mean god is real.
If an earthquake happens and I prove that it was the movement of the plates that caused it scientifically , accepting that god did it does not disprove it.

I have proven taxation to be theft, you claiming that you would rather live in a society that uses taxation does not disprove taxation as theft. You are simply claiming that you would like to live in a society that views theft that is legitimate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I reject that premise as self-serving for your argument. Slavery is the ownership of a human being. You can reframe it to suit your end, but that's the very definition of arguing from your conclusion.

Slavery is not ownership. If slavery is defined as ownership I can steal from people and then claim that I own what I have stolen. The humans that were kept as slaves were not owned because ownership is the right to control property. You do not have a right to control humans. If you did; the slaves also have a right to control their master. This leads to a massive logical contradiction since you cannot be a slave and a slave owner at the same time.

Slavery is being subjected to the choices of violence, submission or "if you don't like it leave". The slave can take a beating (the citizen can resist taxes), the slave can submit(can pay his taxes) , the slave can run( the citizen can "try" to leave ).

To avoid the disgusting reality of their slavery, slaves would self delude into thinking that they should sacrifice themselves for the good of the rest of the slaves.

oscarBravo · 06-02-2011 10:51pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ok so my argument still stands since you have merely claimed that you accept concepts and not refuted any of the premises.

Your argument stands if one accepts your premises. Your premises are derived from your conclusion. I reject the premises. I could substitute my own, but it's like arguing with a creationist.

You have rejected the concepts of society, community and nation. You're entitled to formulate an argument based on rejecting those concepts, but that's no different from a proponent of intelligent design who formulates an argument based on rejecting the idea that complex arrangements can happen by chance.

Societies, communities and nations exist - not in the physical sense that you can measure and weigh them, but in the sense that they have a measurable effect on the world. Your rejection of their existence won't stop them existing, any more than the ID proponent's rejection of the existence of evolution proves that there is a god.

I have proven taxation to be theft...

You have proven no such thing. You have created a set of axioms that, conveniently, support your argument.

Slavery is not ownership.

Has it never occurred to you that if you have to carefully hand-craft definitions of words to suit your argument, that your argument can't be a very robust one?

simplistic2 · 09-02-2011 2:28pm

In a debate you refute arguments, however you are saying "I reject your arguments" meaning you are unable to refute them.

oscarBravo · 09-02-2011 3:25pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

In a debate you refute arguments, however you are saying "I reject your arguments" meaning you are unable to refute them.

I'm not rejecting your arguments; I'm rejecting the artificial premises on which they are constructed.

If I start a mathematical proof with "assume a spherical chicken of uniform density", it doesn't matter what my conclusion is - it's probably not a valid one.

simplistic2 · 09-02-2011 5:31pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not rejecting your arguments; I'm rejecting the artificial premises on which they are constructed.

If I start a mathematical proof with "assume a spherical chicken of uniform density", it doesn't matter what my conclusion is - it's probably not a valid one.

There is no difference, now your are rejecting the premise, not refuting it.

The slavery in taxation

Comments