Quote :

"My plan is only slightly more whimsical than yours"

whimsical as it was, there were still two people posting "exactly" right behind him as a response.

Quote :

"How about we debate whether it is right for you to forcefully steal from others in order to provide these things? I say absolutely not"

notice how it's "you" Boone. you're the one stealing money out of his pocket.

3/9/2010 4:55:42 PM

Quote :

"nobody is being forced at gunpoint. if you have to make shit like this up to drive your argument home, you've lost."

Oh really? What do you think happens if you don't pay your taxes?

Quote :

"What you're describing applies to any form of taxation. There's no point in arguing if you're against all forms of taxation."

So the fact that it applies to any form of taxation means that it's ok? Way to sidestep the issue. Yes, taxation by definition is taking money through force. Another word for this is extortion. I am against taxation for the same reason I am against extortion. However, I don't want to see taxation disappear overnight. I want to gradually work toward a more voluntary society.

Quote :

"notice how it's "you" Boone. you're the one stealing money out of his pocket."

Whether it is "you" directly or collectively makes little difference.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Reason : -]

3/9/2010 4:58:36 PM

Quote :

"People do not die in the streets because they can't afford hospitals"

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Quote :

"Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health."

3/9/2010 4:59:17 PM

Quote :

"Oh really? What do you think happens if you don't pay your taxes?"

they sure as hell don't hold a gun to your head until you write the check.



[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 5:00:15 PM

Haha, they don't use guns to arrest people?

The guns are how they force compliance. Without them, people would be free to resist paying. With guns, people are forced to pay. If they don't pay, they're arrested. If they resist arrest, they're shot. So in the end, they enforce taxation using guns, no?

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ^]

3/9/2010 5:03:32 PM

Quote :

"Haha, they don't use guns to arrest people"

only when the situation calls for it...are you seriously asking that question? sure if you go all waco texas on some cops the guns are gonna come out. often, they don't.
being arrested for not paying taxes is a little different then being forced at gunpoint to pay your taxes...as you said. in one case, you simply go to jail. in the other, you're shot in the head. you will not get shot in the head unless you do some crazy shit...see below

Quote :

"So in the end, they enforce taxation using guns, no? "

no. in your crazy scenario (again see below) you get shot in the head for resisting arrest (and obviously threatening an officers life), not for not paying your taxes.

man i don't know about you people, but this conversation is a little unnerving. the only people i hear calling all taxation stealing and extortion usually end up in the news for doing crazy shit. sorry i don't hang out with crazies, or peek my head into this cesspool of a section very often, but that's who i associate with that kind of talk.i 'm out, you kids have fun. don't do anything crazy please.



[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 5:07:37 PM

Quote :

"really. you profess to know the aims of millions of people? that's pretty amazing man, how do you do that? "

Not at all, its simply a matter of human nature. To want something for nothing, or very little.

Would you be more likely to make a make a purchase if it was 80% off? Sure. Esp if the faceless "collective" covered the rest. WOuld you be less likely to accept the 80% if it came from your family or friend? I would say yes again. You are more likely to do without when you see someone else covering the rest of your share, then "govt" or "they". So we have politicians promising the majority something, at the expense of the minority.


You have to love the 45,000 deaths a year because of lack of insurance. Insurance must be a new organ located near the ass of which that figure was pulled.

If you dont pay your taxes, they will take what you do have. And yes, at gun point if needed. Synapse, there are plenty of police standoffs with people who only crimes have been not paying there taxes.

3/9/2010 5:09:48 PM

^^

Quote :

" **mostly rational discussion** **more mostly rational discussion** synapse: "OH YEAH? WELL YOU'RE A TERRORIST!" (paraphrased)"

3/9/2010 5:13:25 PM

Since this thread ended up becoming a discussion related to taxes, I thought this would be appropriate.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1&p=1

Quote :

"Let’s examine a typical day in the life of an average middle-class American and try to identify some of the ways that government improves that person’s life during that 24-hour period. 6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio and listen for a few minutes to the news before getting up. But you can listen to your favorite station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system. It ensures, for example, that radio stations do not overlap and that stations signals are not interfered with by the numerous other devices – cell phones, satellite television, wireless computers, etc. – whose signals crowd our nation’s airwaves. 6:35 a.m. Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma. But as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws that reduce the air pollution that would otherwise greatly worsen your condition. 6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink. But in fact you count on your city water department to constantly monitor the quality of your water and to immediately take measures to correct any potential problems with this vital resource. 6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed – a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was licensed by your state government to ensure his competence and your safety. 6:45 a.m. You sit down to breakfast with your family. You are having eggs – a food that brings with it the possibility of salmonella poisoning, a serious food-borne illness affecting tens of thousands of Americans every year. But the chance of you getting sick from these eggs has now been greatly reduced by a recently passed series of strict federal rules that apply to egg producers. 7:00 a.m. You go into your newly renovated bathroom – one of a number of amenities that you enjoy in your house. But the fact that you can even own your own house is something made possible by government. Think about this: “ownership” and “private property” are not things that exist in nature. These are legal constructs: things created by laws that are passed and enforced by government. You couldn’t even buy your home without a system of commercial laws concerning contracts and a government that ensures that sales contracts are enforced. So the fact that you live in your own home is, in part, a benefit of government and the rule of law. 7:01 a.m. Government also helps you own your house in more than the legal sense. On a more practical level, the federal government actually gives you money every year to help pay for your house. It’s called a mortgage interest tax deduction and it is one of the larger benefit programs run by the federal government – amounting to over $60 billion dollars a year. You can also deduct any real estate taxes you pay. These largely overlooked subsidy programs have enabled millions of people to buy their first home or to move up to a larger home than they could afford otherwise. 7:02 a.m. Back in the bathroom. You use the toilet and flush it. Your local government then takes care of transporting this waste, treating it, and disposing of it in an environmentally responsible manner – all without a second thought by you. 7:20 a.m. As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check the weather on your TV. All these weather forecasts are made possible by information gathered and analyzed by the National Weather Service, a government agency. Everyday, on your behalf, it takes in 190,000 weather observations from surface stations, 2,700 from ships, 115,000 from aircraft, 18,000 for buoys, 250,000 from balloons, and 140 million from satellites – all just to help you plan what to wear and make sure you don’t get stuck in a snow storm. And oh yes, this agency may save your life with its hurricane and tornado warnings. 7:30 a.m. Before you leave home, you take your pills to control your high blood pressure. But how do you know that this medicine is safe or effective? Without the testing required by the Food and Drug Administration, you wouldn’t. And without the vigilance of the FDA, you could easily fall victim to unscrupulous marketers of unsafe and worthless medicines. 7:45 a.m. You put a couple of letters in your mailbox. For less than the price of a cup of coffee, a government employee will come to your house, pick up the letters, and have them delivered in a few days to someone on the other side of the country. A pretty good deal. 7:50 a.m. You and your child walk across the lawn to your car and arrive without getting dog poop on your shoes. A small but welcome achievement that is made possible now by a local law that requires people to clean up after their pets. Also, the reason your neighborhood is not plagued by stray cats and dogs is that your local Animal Control officer is on the job dealing with this constant problem."

3/9/2010 5:31:38 PM

Quote :

"7:52 a.m. You help your young child into your car and you pull out of your driveway. You have now entered an experience that is improved by government in almost more ways that you can count. Driving your car is inherently dangerous. But it is made immensely safer by government laws and regulations, such as those mandating child safety seats and the use of seat belts – rules that have saved tens of thousands of lives. Driving down the street is also made much safer by a local government that enforces traffic laws and discourages people from driving too fast or driving drunk. Most state governments also minimize your risk of being run into by someone driving on bald tires or with faulty breaks by requiring regular inspections of all vehicles. And state drivers license examinations ensure that all drivers are at least minimally competent and can actually see the road. In addition, if you are hit by another car, the potentially disastrous costs of an accident are covered because the government requires that all drivers to have auto insurance. In fact, without this extensive network of government laws and regulations covering automobiles and driving, it would be foolish for us to ever venture out on the road. 8:15 a.m. You drop your child off at day-care. It took a long search to find a good program and it is an expensive one, but it is worth it so you can feel confident that your child is in a safe, nurturing, and stimulating environment while you are at work. One of the reasons you can afford this program is the $3,000 child care tax credit you get from the federal government every year. Equally important, your child benefits from the fact that most state governments now enforce day-care requirements for group size, ratios of children per staff member, teacher training, nutrition, health, safety, and space requirements. 8:35 a.m. Your trip on the freeway is much safer due to federal restrictions on the number of hours that truck drivers can operate their vehicles without resting. Thousands of people die every year from truck-related traffic accidents, but it would be much worse without these regulations that keep sleepy truck drivers off the road. 8:55 a.m. You arrive at work and take the elevator. You just assume that the elevator is safe; and it is, thanks in part to the annual elevator inspections conducted by your state government. It is probably nothing you will appreciate until the next time the elevator breaks down with you inside, and that makes you think a bit more about the reliability of elevators. 9:00 a.m. While at work, your rights and wellbeing are constantly protected by a wide-ranging network of federal and state laws. The Occupation Safety and Health Act works to protect you from unsafe and unhealthy work conditions. Federal law protects you from workplace discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability. State laws may also require your employer to purchase worker’s compensation insurance so that you are covered in case you are injured on the job Noon. For lunch you have your usual sandwich and microwaveable cup of soup. But why did you choose that particular soup? Perhaps because it was low in salt and fat. But how do you know that? Because the government requires all food packaging to have a truthful and easily readable panel on the label that supplies you with the nutritional information necessary to make a good choice. Food companies tell you what they want you to know about their products, but the Food and Drug Administration’s labeling requirements tell you what you need to know to eat in a healthy way. How do you know the lettuce in your sandwich is not laced with unhealthy doses of pesticides? Because the Department of Agriculture has developed and is enforcing uniform standards for pesticide residue on raw foods. Microwave ovens are potentially very dangerous machines, but you can use this one with confidence because of detailed government regulations that limit the maximum amount of radiation leakage and mandate two different safety interlocks that prevent its operation with the door ajar or open. 12:45 p.m. After lunch, you walk to a nearby ATM and get some cash out of your account – and your money is actually there. That wasn't always true during the economic depression of the 1930s when many banks failed. But your money is safe -- as it was during the recent financial and banking crisis -- because the government guarantees your deposits. In addition, those pieces of paper you put in your wallet are only worth something thanks to the federal government. Our monetary system is entirely a government creation, and the value of money is only maintained because the government regulates the money supply and protects it from counterfeiters. Quite an important service really. 1:00 p.m. Back at work you hear rumors about a new downsizing plan being talked about by management – a fairly typical occurrence in these days of heightened national and international corporate competition. You know your job is one that could be lost, but you also know that you will be eligible for state-mandated unemployment insurance should that happen. This is just another way that government helps you to cope with the economic risks and uncertainties of a modern economy. 3:00 p.m. On a break, you call your elderly mother in the hospital to check on how she is recovering from her broken hip. Thanks to Medicare, her medical expenses are covered and she does not have to worry about this becoming a financial disaster for her. Thanks to the federal Family and Medical Leave act, you will also have the right to take several days off to tend to your mother when she comes home from the hospital."

3/9/2010 5:32:29 PM

Quote :

"3:10 p.m. You call to arrange for a physical therapist to work with your mother when she comes out of the hospital, and again this is paid for by Medicare. And you can be reasonably confident that she will get good therapy because your state Department of Health has a program of examining and licensing these therapists in order to ensure the quality of their work. 5:00 p.m. You leave work—thanks to the government-mandated 40-hour workweek. Labor Department regulations prevent your company from making you work past 5:00 unless it pays you overtime. 5:15 p.m. You stop at a local gas station to fill up. The very fact that this oil company offers this gas to you for sale is dependent on the existence of certain government laws. This company would not do business in your town without a legal system that assures them that you will pay for any gas you pump into your car. This economic exchange – like buying your house – would not be taking place without a system of statutory and common law that protects private property and regulates sales transactions. This simple sale is covered by Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code – dozens of pages of laws that regulate every phase of a transaction for the sale of goods and provide remedies for problems that may arise. 5:15 p.m. You pump 15 gallons of 87 octane gas into your car and pay for it. But how do you know that you really got 15 gallons, and not 14½? And that the gas was actually 87 octane? This is only ensured by the presence of that little sticker on the gas pump that shows that a worker from your city’s Division of Weights and Measures has inspected the pump and the gas. These public employees make sure that you get what you pay for – from a pound of sliced turkey breast to a carat of diamond – by constantly testing and inspecting all commercial meters and scales, and by verifying the accuracy of checkout scanners. This is a crucial service, since more than half of the income of the average family is used to purchase necessities bought by weight or measure or scanned at a checkout station. 5:15 p.m. How do you know the price you are paying for this gasoline is a fair and competitive one? In many states, the Department of Attorney General has been responsible for finding and prosecuting cases of price manipulation and price fixing by oil companies and distributors. 5:30 p.m. As you drive home, you notice the tree-lined streets and the nice houses in your neighborhood – generally a pretty good place to live. Thanks again to government. Without zoning rules, you might have an auto body shop or a fast-food outlet move in next door. Or worse yet, a fertilizer plant or a toxic waste site. But there are no noxious smells in the air, no excessive and dangerous traffic on your street – thanks to your government. Pleasant and livable neighborhoods are only possible with extensive government planning and zoning regulation. 5:35 p.m. As you approach your house, you see your child coming down the sidewalk. The government-provided sidewalk. The sidewalk that allows your child to walk to the neighbor’s house down the street to play with a friend without the risk of being hit by a car. 5:45 p.m. You go for a jog in your local public park. 6:30 p.m. You take your family out for dinner at a local pizza restaurant. You enjoy a good meal and no one gets sick from E. coli or other food-borne illnesses. This is in large part because your local government conducts regular inspections of all food establishments to protect the health of customers. 7:30 p.m. Back at your house. You settle in for a quiet evening at home – one that is undisturbed by those annoying telemarketers calling you up to try to sell you something. This is because you have signed up with a state or federal no-call registry – a government service now enjoyed by over 60 million Americans. 8:00 p.m. You do a quick check of your e-mail – just one of the many services you enjoy over the internet everyday. We all tend to think of the internet as the product of those talented and imaginative entrepreneurs in the high-tech companies. But the internet actually began with government programs that created ARPANET and later NSFNET, early computer networking systems that developed the software and networking infrastructure that form the foundations of today’s internet. The government also helped to fund research that led to web browsers like Internet Explorer and search engines like Google. 11:00 p.m. You go to bed. During your sleep, you are protected by a smoke detector that your city requires to be installed in every residence. Maybe you would have bought one of these yourself, but this law helps to ensure that everyone is protected from the dangers of fire. 4:00 a.m. You are asleep in your comfy bed. Unlike that time you stayed in a small inn in Costa Rica, where you were woken up regularly at 4 in the morning by the roosters crowing in the neighborhood. By law, no one can keep roosters in your neighborhood and so you remain in blissful slumber. "

All I've got to say, is thank god for rooster crowing laws. Always good to end an argument on a strong note.

3/9/2010 5:33:16 PM

^which of those things did the govt create?

Im sure this is a popular email with some groups. LOL

3/9/2010 5:37:51 PM

Quote :

" 5:00 p.m. You leave work—thanks to the government-mandated 40-hour workweek. Labor Department regulations prevent your company from making you work past 5:00 unless it pays you overtime."

Right......

3/9/2010 5:42:21 PM

yet here I am at 6:44pm, probably another half hour here, and not a dime more money than if I left sooner.

Thanks gubment

3/9/2010 6:39:49 PM

Yeah, but my guess is you weren't hired to post on the wolfweb with the frequency you do.

3/9/2010 6:41:22 PM

The gubment says its ok.

Hired to do exams, dilating takes time. Usually have some lag between workups. Get no shows. Im waiting for the staff to leave now, so I can put in their times to do payroll. Thanks for your interest.

Yet you post 7.4 a day, and I 3.7.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2010 6:48:04 PM

I post 0.0 per day during the work hours.

3/9/2010 6:56:41 PM

Historically, or just currently?

Quote :

"Yet you post 7.4 a day, and I 3.7."

love the logic there. Just because he posts more than you he must post while he's at work

3/9/2010 9:14:08 PM

sorry, I was assuming he didnt have a job. My bad grumpy

3/10/2010 12:01:57 AM

Supplanter, where's the one from the 19th century where the average middle class American wakes up to find his slave ran away and was returned, dead, by government slave catchers. Or the one from the 20th century where two people were killed during a police raid in New York City to seize illegal pinball machines. Or the one from the 21st century where the subject is awoken at 2am to find drug enforcement agents kicking down his door and shooting both his dog and a family member, only to find no drugs, and all on the word of a crack-head informant. Thanks government! Sorry we ever doubted you!

3/10/2010 12:20:49 AM

Look. The argument seems to be here that there is some sort of alternative where culture is not governed by a "Big Man" force. Outside of situations of remote populations, I don't see how this is possible.

Say we abolish all taxes, which means we're abolishing the government since it has no resources to do anything. Then what?

Well, then there is nothing to prevent your neighbor from taking your stuff. Now maybe your closest neighbor doesn't believe in taking your stuff or you are a stronger actor than them. However, in our world of limited resources and complete self-help, "Big Men" will emerge. They are the neighbors who are a) ruthless, and b) able to garner power and support. For a short time you might be able to shotgun deter your smaller neighbors from taking your stuff, but eventually some of the stronger "Big Men" with their posse of 100 will either A) demand tribute from you or B) just take your stuff. Unless you think you have the stuff to be a gang lord, you are going to be in bad shape.

Now, I'm not saying our tax level is ideal, or that our government isn't too large, but when you start talking about a world where there aren't coercive payments you are either living in the jungle, living as a gang lord, or living in a fantasy land.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2010 12:25:31 AM

The thing is, aside from one or two of the crazy ones (who are pretty much just the opposite end of people like GoldenViper) no one is actually arguing for the end of all taxes. Most people realize that some form of government and some form of taxation is necessary. The dispute is how much.

3/10/2010 7:39:32 AM

Quote :

"The thing is, aside from one or two of the crazy ones (who are pretty much just the opposite end of people like GoldenViper) no one is actually arguing for the end of all taxes."

I'm seeing arguments against higher taxes would apply equally to all taxes from way more than one or two people ITT.

3/10/2010 7:45:16 AM

Quote :

"The thing is, aside from one or two of the crazy ones (who are pretty much just the opposite end of people like GoldenViper) no one is actually arguing for the end of all taxes. Most people realize that some form of government and some form of taxation is necessary. The dispute is how much. "

yeah it's way more than one or two crazies in this thread...which is why I ducked out.

I welcome the type of discussion you're talking about. If you read over some of my posts I've been asking/hoping it would take place...instead all the ignorant crazy talk that we've been subjected to thus far.

3/10/2010 9:23:01 AM

Quote :

"I'm seeing arguments against higher taxes would apply equally to all taxes from way more than one or two people ITT."

And yet you still have not refuted these arguments.

Quote :

"Now, I'm not saying our tax level is ideal, or that our government isn't too large, but when you start talking about a world where there aren't coercive payments you are either living in the jungle, living as a gang lord, or living in a fantasy land."

Wrong. It is feasible to work toward a civilized society based entirely on voluntary exchange. The problem is that it is so far removed from how our society currently operates that people have a tough time imagining it, and so immediately jump to, "OMG that's impossible, you must be crazy!" instead of taking some time to consider it.

Additionally, even if it is impossible to abolish all taxes, if we see taxes for what they are (immoral), then shouldn't our goal at least be to bring them to the most minimal level possible? Your argument seems to be that even though taxes are immoral, they are inevitable, so we might as well just have a lot of them as opposed to a little. My argument is simply, all taxation is immoral, so we should work to eliminate as much as possible and see where that leads us. I think it would take us a lot further than most people realize.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM. Reason : -]

3/10/2010 9:48:28 AM

I don't think "taxes are immoral" is a given.

Is Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor immoral? When taxes are used for the good of society are they immoral?

3/10/2010 10:00:23 AM

Quote :

"Is Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor immoral? When taxes are used for the good of society are they immoral?"

This is the crux of the issue. I say yes to both questions. I think it is pretty clear that forcing people to act against their will is wrong, no matter what the end result is. Humans are autonomous beings who have the right to act in their best judgment and do not have the right to direct the actions of others without their consent.

Now, Robin Hood taking back from the king what the king stole from the citizens in the first place (as he did in the Disney version) is a different matter.

3/10/2010 10:05:10 AM

Quote :

"Wrong. It is feasible to work toward a civilized society based entirely on voluntary exchange."

No, it really isn't. And since I have the entirety of the human experience backing my opinion, I think the onus is on you to explain your stance.

Quote :

"My argument is simply, all taxation is immoral, so we should work to eliminate as much as possible and see where that leads us."

And this argument is ridiculous. Our government is a social contract. Taxation is part of that contract.

Quote :

"Is Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor immoral? When taxes are used for the good of society are they immoral?"

Robin Hood is not an apt metaphor. He took without permission. The government has our (collective) permission.

3/10/2010 10:13:16 AM

Quote :

"The government has our (collective) permission."

Not good enough. Slavery was also legal under this government once. That doesn't make it right. Just because something is legal does not make it just.

3/10/2010 10:15:00 AM

Under what moral code are you operating?

Governments must exist. Governments must tax.

The above statements accurately describe the human experience thus far, and you've yet to provide any argument for how this might change. Your dream of stateless, voluntary exchange is every bit as far fetched as a communist's dream of stateless, voluntary collectivism.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 10:29:34 AM

Quote :

"When taxes are used for the good of society are they immoral?"

Yes they are still immoral. If we're walking along the street and come upon a homeless man suffering in the street. And I pull out a gun and tell you to give him $50.. is that moral?

Because taxation is immoral, we should make sure our politicians take as little as possible for only those things that protect individual life, liberty and property.

3/10/2010 10:35:28 AM

^^I think that a stateless society is possible, but it's not worth getting into here. You keep talking like it must be all or nothing, while I clearly have stated that my intention is to merely recognize that taxation is wrong and therefore we should work toward abolishing as much as possible. If we get to a certain point and see no way to go any further without society collapsing, then we can stop. But that is certainly a long way from where we are presently.

Quote :

"Additionally, even if it is impossible to abolish all taxes, if we see taxes for what they are (immoral), then shouldn't our goal at least be to bring them to the most minimal level possible? Your argument seems to be that even though taxes are immoral, they are inevitable, so we might as well just have a lot of them as opposed to a little. My argument is simply, all taxation is immoral, so we should work to eliminate as much as possible and see where that leads us. I think it would take us a lot further than most people realize."

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ^]

3/10/2010 10:38:16 AM

^^Do you all really not get this?

Your opinion that taxation is immoral is not the given that you believe it to be. You must justify this stance, and you must do so with better arguments than lame robbery metaphors.

Quote :

"You keep talking like it must be all or nothing"

How is our current tax code an "all" scenario?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 10:38:44 AM

Quote :

"Yes they are still immoral. If we're walking along the street and come upon a homeless man suffering in the street. And I pull out a gun and tell you to give him $50.. is that moral?"

i love how these crazies act like all their tax money goes to entitlements: most prominently to homeless bums, baby factory mothers, and lazy crackheads who refuse to get a real job.

3/10/2010 10:44:24 AM

^^ I was referring to you implying that we must cut all taxes or no taxes. I would just say we should cut as much as possible.

The stance of taxation being immoral has been justified several times already on this thread, and you have yet to address them adequately.


^ Does it make a difference where it goes? The method of acquisition is the important part. Taking by force is wrong no matter what happens after that.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ^]

3/10/2010 10:46:18 AM

Quote :

"I would just say we should cut as much as possible."

So would everyone else in the entire world. The question is-- how much is possible while still maintaining our ideal government.

Quote :

"The stance of taxation being immoral has been justified several times already on this thread, and you have yet to address them adequately."

Here's the closest thing to an argument that I can find:

Quote :

"Exchange can only happen in one of two ways, voluntarily or forcefully (coercion). The first is moral, the second is immoral. Taxation is the second."

To which I'll say that this view is overly simplistic. Taxation is not coercion. Our nation is founded on popular sovereignty. Taxation is no more coercive than my mortgage.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 10:52:32 AM

Here's another one:

Quote :

"I think it is pretty clear that forcing people to act against their will is wrong, no matter what the end result is. Humans are autonomous beings who have the right to act in their best judgment and do not have the right to direct the actions of others without their consent."

As I said before, something being legal does not make it just. You will need to justify the right of a collective entity to forcefully take money from people without their consent without falling back on "it's the law so it's justified". You voluntarily agreed to your mortgage. No one forced you to sign that contract.

3/10/2010 11:00:33 AM

Quote :

"Your opinion that taxation is immoral is not the given that you believe it to be. You must justify this stance, and you must do so with better arguments than lame robbery metaphors."

Exactly, it is an opinion. It cannot be scientifically proven that exterminating (insert minority here) is a bad thing. You must argue it on the grounds of moral opinion (murder is wrong, for example).

Well, that only leaves metaphors of how the world could work. I give you two worlds, and you say which fits your opinion of morally preferable. Fine, taxation.

World A: the government needs money for police, it gets that money by levying a tax on the citizens and uses prisons and guns to get the citizenry to provide the needed resources.

World B: the government needs money for police, the citizenry recognizes the moral need for police and citizenry donate their time and resources to getting the government what it needs (volunteer policemen, donated brand new equipment from the manufacturers, and donated money for everything else.

Well, if World A and World B have identically effective police forces, which world would you prefer? It seems to me B would be better. This is because, yes, taxation is wrong, but so is living without a police force. As such, if we could have a police force without taxation then we should. But, if we cannot have a police force without taxation, then we should have taxation. Government by its very nature is a negative sum game, we are trying to minimize the wrong, and that involves trading off one wrong (taxation) against another (lack of government police protection). If this is not the case, and taxation is inherently good, then any level of taxation would be good, even 110%. But even you do not believe this, because you too hold the morally opinion that taxation is wrong, you just phrase it differently: taxation without need is wrong, I guess.

Quote :

"And this argument is ridiculous. Our government is a social contract. Taxation is part of that contract."

I signed no such contract. Neither did my parents. You are begging the question: to have a contract I must agree with it, so no force is necessary. The fact that force is necessary and you have no proof that I ever agreed to your contract, then we must not have a contract after-all.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/10/2010 11:03:39 AM

Quote :

"I think it is pretty clear that forcing people to act against their will is wrong, no matter what the end result is. Humans are autonomous beings who have the right to act in their best judgment and do not have the right to direct the actions of others without their consent."

Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. I'm sorry that a democracy of 300 million people doesn't perfectly align with your political philosophy.

Quote :

"World B: the government needs money for police, the citizenry recognizes the moral need for police and citizenry donate their time and resources to getting the government what it needs (volunteer policemen, donated brand new equipment from the manufacturers, and donated money for everything else. "

I prefer World C: Martian Unicorns fly to Earth, and implement Unicorn Justice.

3/10/2010 11:08:42 AM

Quote :

"Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. I'm sorry that a democracy of 300 million people doesn't perfectly align with your political philosophy. "

So again, you fall back on justifying the morality of the law merely by the fact that it is law. So if slavery were still legal, that would be justified also?

3/10/2010 11:10:49 AM

^^ Really? So you have never heard of a volunteer fire department? My home town has one. I have even been to a small town with a volunteer sheriff. He used his own truck and equipment, and his uniform was from his previous employer (another sheriffs department). So world B is not that far fetched, seeing as examples already exist in the world we live in.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ^]

3/10/2010 11:13:05 AM

Quote :

"So if slavery were still legal, that would be justified also?"

To compare taxation to slavery is ridiculous. Think of all the ways in which slavery is different from taxation, and you'll have your answer.



^Do volunteer fire departments buy their six-figure fire engines from donations?

And if there were to be a murder in the volunteer sheriff's jurisdiction (and I'm certain its a sprawling metropolis), how many seconds would he wait before calling the SBI?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 11:22:47 AM

I'm not comparing slavery to taxation, although there are some similarities.

I'm merely pointing out that laws can be immoral. So stating that taxation is justified simply because it is a law is not a valid argument.

3/10/2010 11:27:40 AM

It's a law that has been passed via a democratic process, that acknowledges due process and the rights of man.

Given that, taxation is not coercion. Slavery clearly was.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 11:30:26 AM

Quote :

"that acknowledges due process and the rights of man."

Except the point I am making is that it violates our rights. We have a right to not have money taken from us by force.

3/10/2010 11:33:16 AM

Quote :

"by force"

I realize that your whole argument depends on this assumption, but it is ridiculous. Taxation is not coercion. We are collectively empowered to change taxation every two years.

3/10/2010 11:35:59 AM

Oh I see, so you're saying as long as slaves have a chance to vote then slavery would be justified. Since they "are collectively empowered to change [slavery] every two years".

Again, legality decided by a majority is not justification for infringing on the rights of others. The action is either moral or immoral, just or unjust. Whether it is legal is irrelevant.

3/10/2010 11:41:22 AM

Why does there seem to be this belief that by saying taxation is immoral that means that we can't have taxation? No one would dispute that killing someone is immoral, but similarly no one* would dispute that people have a right to self defense, up to and including the use of deadly force. That doesn't change the fact that killing people is immoral, it merely acknowledges the reality that an immoral act is sometimes necessary. Similarly, war is immoral, yet we explicitly grant our government the authority to declare war.

Taxation is immoral simply because it allows two people to decide what to do with the fruits of a third person's labor. That it is immoral says nothing about whether or not it is ever necessary.

3/10/2010 1:26:24 PM

Except killing someone in self defense is NOT immoral. Killing a person is not an objectively immoral act.

I would not feel guilty for killing someone that was attempting to kill myself or my family. Nor would I feel like I had committed a necessary, immoral act.

Nothing is objectively immoral anyway, since morality is inherently subjective. But this is something we're probably going to have to concede as opinion at any rate.

3/10/2010 1:45:05 PM

Defense is not immoral. We have the right to protect ourselves against aggression.

If it is agreed that an action is immoral, we should strive to do away with that action as much as possible. Taxation and government are often referred to as a necessary evil. Whether they are truly necessary is debatable, but if they are in fact evil (which I think is clear), should we not limit them as much as possible? We should constantly be attempting to scale back the scope of the state and the amount of taxation until it is determined that we can do so no longer and still be able to protect the society. The end goal should be a completely voluntary society free of all (legalized) coercion. Whether we actually ever achieve that or not, that should be what we shoot for. So we should examine each law and determine whether society can exist without it. If so, we should eliminate it.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : legalized]

3/10/2010 1:48:13 PM