Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
I have problems with either train of thought (and reducing the state to law enforcement would lead to massive problems as well) but let's concentrate on "taxation is theft": It DOES go directly to the place it was supposed to go, the government! As someone else has posted before you are in effect paying the government for all the things I listed of that it does for you, infrastructure, law enforcement and the like. Taxation is part of the social contract necessary to allow any kind of nonanarchistic system to work. And of course you have no direct control over where your money goes to, that would be a) insanely complex given that millions of people would have to micromanage the country, b) it would lead to disaster because now you can't efficiently send the money to these projects anymore (if no one except the poor wants to pay for wellfare you will have millions of starving and desperate people at your hands for example). The last part is more important than you might think: it would make the government unable to do it's job. It just wouldn't work, as much as you would like it too. And now for the most obvious argument: Theft is legally defined. Taxes are not legally defined as theft. Therefore taxes are not theft (otherwise a bunch of other things could be redefined as "theft" as well).
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
So now your are advocating that we make use of these services and not pay for them? So in effect steal them from the Service Provider, until he sends his goons rounds to force you to pay up?
How is that different to what we have at the moment with the exception of our current goons not coming round with baseball bats breaking your arms and legs for not paying your dues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
For your first point, the officers that you hire can not take over what you own. That is theft, which is a violation of the law. If these officers resist the owner's word, force may be initiated upon them by the owner or by an entity the owner may hire. There will not be a shortage of police, why?, because the demand for police will cause their to be enough police to meet the demand, it's economics.
Who says that you actually "own" the property? Property rights are a purely arbitrary set of agreements enforced by a government. If I declare your property claims invalid then you are the thief and I have every right to use the public property. If you try to interfere, I obviously have the right to shoot you dead.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Pfft...The money I pay to buy a headphone from the local Best Buy goes toward a clamshell packaging that I hate to open, flyers and ads that stuffs up my real life and online mailbox, and sales staff that are little better than mannequins. Obviously Best Buy is stealing from me.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Pfft...The money I pay to buy a headphone from the local Best Buy goes toward a clamshell packaging that I hate to open, flyers and ads that stuffs up my real life and online mailbox, and sales staff that are little better than mannequins. Obviously Best Buy is stealing from me.
tbh considering their prices they're basically stealing from you. Amazon usually has much better prices for the same stuff.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Pfft...The money I pay to buy a headphone from the local Best Buy goes toward a clamshell packaging that I hate to open, flyers and ads that stuffs up my real life and online mailbox, and sales staff that are little better than mannequins. Obviously Best Buy is stealing from me.
tbh considering their prices they're basically stealing from you. Amazon usually has much better prices for the same stuff.
They're not so bad when their stuff is on sale. Otherwise, yeah.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Pfft...The money I pay to buy a headphone from the local Best Buy goes toward a clamshell packaging that I hate to open, flyers and ads that stuffs up my real life and online mailbox, and sales staff that are little better than mannequins. Obviously Best Buy is stealing from me.
tbh considering their prices they're basically stealing from you. Amazon usually has much better prices for the same stuff.
They're not so bad when their stuff is on sale. Otherwise, yeah.
For electronics? Depends on the electronics. Had to deal with fake or... not quite as described stuff since Amazon changed how their ordering/shipping process worked.
You'd leave the private sector and free marcet economy with all the power in the world and laws would be pretty much made by those who have the necessary means to build their own army/security force (i.e. people and companies who are already rich) thus leading into some sort of dictatorial plutocraty.
It sounds like you might need a socialist redistribution of wealth for a Libertarian ideal state to work... And I doubt that redistribution fits in with the Libertarian ideals.
For your first point, the officers that you hire can not take over what you own. That is theft, which is a violation of the law. If these officers resist the owner's word, force may be initiated upon them by the owner or by an entity the owner may hire. There will not be a shortage of police, why?, because the demand for police will cause their to be enough police to meet the demand, it's economics.
So let me understand you, you’re saying that people can’t violate the law? So all the murder, theft, violence, etc, that happens on a daily basis doesn’t actually happen, because it’s against the law? That seems to be what you’re saying. I’m explaining the massive corruption that would ensue by entrusting the management of infrastructure to the private market, and you’re saying that won’t happen because it’s against the law.
People are concerned with the practicality of regulation and the methods of enforcement (police, the courts, etc), and all you are saying in rebuttal is that these things are of no concern as long as there is a law written on a piece of paper somewhere.
Or alternatively, that it is no indication of a less efficient society if we have to employ unlimited numbers of police and private security forces just in order to get from our homes to our places of work. Not compelling.
Your second example of possible failure of libertarian society is not limited to libertarian societies, your example can happen anywhere the world where there is a river. This action described in your example would be punished in a libertarian society just as it would in any other society.
Except in a libertarian society, we are relying on individuals to privately carry this out, rather than the public administration to do so. Nowhere did I say that these problems are created by Libertarianism, just that Libertarianism is very bad at dealing with them. And again, you’re saying that the bare fact of there being problems means that there will be solutions.
Your fourth example has a person that decides to break a previously agreed upon contract by increasing the price of his labor. The customers have the right not to pay what they didnt agree upon.
Actually, they have the common law right to insist on performance, or an injunction, incidental damages, or any other remedy available at law. But if someone hikes the prices on a toll road, I have to stay home instead of going to work, and Libertarianism doesn’t magically teleport me to my office. Point being, the fact of there being some solution to these issues at law pays no acknowledgment to how efficient those solutions actually are. You’re the one here with the burden to prove your case that the private sector is best able to solve market inefficiencies, but all you’re doing is stating very circularly that the issues will be solved due simply to the fact that they’re perceived.
Can you explain with any specificity how those solutions would be more efficient than the ones we currently have? Or state a historical example of how they are? No, you can’t, because every ounce of evidence weighs against you on that.
Your fifth example could be avoided if the person had set up an insurance plan, had chosen a medical centre that allowed payment overtime, or by the genorosity of a centre to do the operation for a lower cost. Also not everything is perfect in a libertarian society, there will be deaths.
So now, you’re holding out insurance claims adjusters as these infallible saints of the free market? Absent regulations from the New Deal to Dodd-Frank, which every Libertarian says were a bad idea, Insurance Companies would be nothing more than Ponzi schemes, where everyone pays a small fee upfront, then the minute anything actually becomes due, the ownership vanishes like a thief in the night.
In a Libertarian society, you could either have insurance firms, or you could have limited liability, credit, passive investment, and everything that actually makes the free markets liquid. You couldn’t have both. So now, you are arguing for the repeal of the financial system in favor of everyone hoarding gold in their cellars.
And generosity? Ok, how great of you to offer that there will be generous people under a Libertarian system that will look at all the inane failures of their government to act, then step up and do the right thing anyway. Except, how about you analyze those incentives for generosity? If you believe in markets, certainly you can do that. In Libertarianism, you are relying on the undiluted altruism of medical practitioners to grant free services to nearly everyone in need of them. In a regulated economic system, you are giving the medical field government subsidies, recourse in court, and most importantly, an economic system that actually holds private insurance companies accountable.
Taxation is the government taking your money with force in order to use it to their desire. How is this not theft?
Ok, example. Let’s say that WOTC announces the release of a new card game, and you pre-order it because you liked Magic enough to buy it instead of all of the other TCG’s available. Now the card game comes out, and it sucks. Theft?
Or let’s say that Wizards says that it’s kept records of all the people who’ve bought Magic products, and announces that they’re going to give out free packs of their new game apportioned among those who bought Magic products (whether they like it or not). The new game sucks. Theft?
Or how about this new card game is something that you go out and collect physically in the streets, sort of like Pokemon, such that no individual can really be excluded from it, and the costs of printing and distributing the cards have to be borne equally by everyone in the form of increased tournament entry fees, packs, etc, for Magic. And on top of that, you never actually bought any Magic, but your parents did who came before you. You just get to play the new game, if you want. Theft?
Ok, I hope it's clear that paying for something that you can't get behind 100% isn't theft, simply because you don't like the outcome. But now instead of a game of cards, substitute in something that is so critical and fundamental to everyone (participation in society) that no one would ever knowingly refuse it, and would be impossible to deprive someone of even at their request. Now, you have the agreement between government and its citizens. It doesn’t require your consent, approval, or even awareness of how it is benefiting you. But it does offer you the opportunity for input and participation. And, you do have to pay taxes for it to exist. Not theft. Not even close. The thief can always decide not to rob you, but the government (thankfully) can’t decide to repudiate its commitment to you. Why should you be allowed to repudiate your commitment to it?
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Would rather people had the option to not pay their taxes and decide **** it I don't care about larger society? Do you know what would happen then? Rich people would stop paying taxes, and the inequality that is already a major issue in society today would become even worse.
It's not theft, it's the cost of living in a modern society. People can renounce their citizenship and go live in the wilds and not pay any taxes. That is an option you have. People who are not doing this right now have made a decision to do so and paying taxes is one of the consequences of that decision.
Morally, tax is not theft.
Legally, obviously, tax is not theft.
In what sense is tax theft?
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
That's not an appropriate comparison. Someone would have to sneak into your garage and exchange a medium amount of cash for a greater total value of a car which you previously were part of negotiations to purchase. Since, you know, you have a say in your government!!! Tax is theft arguments can never make it past that statement, they always forget that you have a voice at the table when the taxes are set.
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
Does the bag of cash also provide goods and services required for my society to function?
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
I guess I'll take the bait.
Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
So by taking the item, without asking, regardless of any items left and their value the answer to your question would be yes. Even if you left $1 million dollars for a Little Tyke's Cozy Coupe, that would be considered a form of theft.
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
I guess I'll take the bait.
Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
So by taking the item, without asking, regardless of any items left and their value the answer to your question would be yes. Even if you left $1 million dollars for a Little Tyke's Cozy Coupe, that would be considered a form of theft.
Actually, I don’t believe so. I think I remember reading about a case like this actually (too lazy to research citation). Someone stole a bike or something, left money, then the bike got reported stolen, so on. At trial, the defense attorney produces evidence of the money being left, prosecution objects that the evidence was not relevant, judge sustains, and jury convicts. On appeal, the court ruled that the evidence was relevant to show “mens rea” of defendant (criminal intent), and overturns conviction.
It was a very old case, could have been picked from any number of cases to show the general principle that basically everything is “relevant evidence” for the defense in a criminal case, whether on “mens rea”, impeachment of witnesses, etc. Also to show that for every criminal case, the jury can acquit whenever they feel like the defendant didn’t intend to do anything wrong (not to be confused with not knowing that what you did was wrong).
And in fact, the reverse is also true, where a defendant can be convicted of “attempt” regardless of actually having carried out any harmful act. That is, at least as long as there exists enough physical evidence of criminal intent that allows a court to conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant intended a crime, and took some action in furtherance of that crime.
In all other cases where someone absconds with property, or otherwise interferes with property, there is the civil law remedy in tort for “trespass to chattel”. You sue someone for taking your stuff, no police or handcuffs involved.
Really, there is a moral/ethical component to actions classified as “crimes”. No moral wrongdoing, no crime. And so theft being a widely recognized crime, I find that it’s exactly the intent of those who might characterize taxation as a crime to conflate it with the worst kind of immoral actions. Then disingenuously, they back into the dictionary definition of theft, devoid of any moral character, when they’re asked to justify what they said.
TL;DR – No way taxation is theft, because the government doesn’t intend to act immorally by collecting taxes.
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
I guess I'll take the bait.
Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
So by taking the item, without asking, regardless of any items left and their value the answer to your question would be yes. Even if you left $1 million dollars for a Little Tyke's Cozy Coupe, that would be considered a form of theft.
Actually, I don’t believe so. I think I remember reading about a case like this actually (too lazy to research citation). Someone stole a bike or something, left money, then the bike got reported stolen, so on. At trial, the defense attorney produces evidence of the money being left, prosecution objects that the evidence was not relevant, judge sustains, and jury convicts. On appeal, the court ruled that the evidence was relevant to show “mens rea” of defendant (criminal intent), and overturns conviction.
It was a very old case, could have been picked from any number of cases to show the general principle that basically everything is “relevant evidence” for the defense in a criminal case, whether on “mens rea”, impeachment of witnesses, etc. Also to show that for every criminal case, the jury can acquit whenever they feel like the defendant didn’t intend to do anything wrong (not to be confused with not knowing that what you did was wrong).
And in fact, the reverse is also true, where a defendant can be convicted of “attempt” regardless of actually having carried out any harmful act. That is, at least as long as there exists enough physical evidence of criminal intent that allows a court to conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant intended a crime, and took some action in furtherance of that crime.
In all other cases where someone absconds with property, or otherwise interferes with property, there is the civil law remedy in tort for “trespass to chattel”. You sue someone for taking your stuff, no police or handcuffs involved.
Really, there is a moral/ethical component to actions classified as “crimes”. No moral wrongdoing, no crime. And so theft being a widely recognized crime, I find that it’s exactly the intent of those who might characterize taxation as a crime to conflate it with the worst kind of immoral actions. Then disingenuously, they back into the dictionary definition of theft, devoid of any moral character, when they’re asked to justify what they said.
TL;DR – No way taxation is theft, because the government doesn’t intend to act immorally by collecting taxes.
That doesn't seem like a solid base to say the answer to the question would be no. The conviction might have been overturned because there was no "hurt" party. If it were a bike that had sentimental value, or could not be duplicated, I don't think the law would throw it out. If you feel less lazy, I am curious to hear about this, as I am just speculating at this point.
To be fair to the question, I knew it was a bait question and the response: "Well, if it is stealing if you leave something monetarily higher than what you took, than the taxes are theft, even if they are used for a greater good. CHECKMATE". Ignoring the fact that if taxes were optional, the government would have a lot less money (as most can imagine what happens next), I might make the constitutional argument that taxes are a condition for living in the United States, as in most countries. Your freedom, and pursuit of happiness (ability to own land) can be taken away if you do not pay your fair sure.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
I guess I'll take the bait.
Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
So by taking the item, without asking, regardless of any items left and their value the answer to your question would be yes. Even if you left $1 million dollars for a Little Tyke's Cozy Coupe, that would be considered a form of theft.
Actually, I don’t believe so. I think I remember reading about a case like this actually (too lazy to research citation). Someone stole a bike or something, left money, then the bike got reported stolen, so on. At trial, the defense attorney produces evidence of the money being left, prosecution objects that the evidence was not relevant, judge sustains, and jury convicts. On appeal, the court ruled that the evidence was relevant to show “mens rea” of defendant (criminal intent), and overturns conviction.
It was a very old case, could have been picked from any number of cases to show the general principle that basically everything is “relevant evidence” for the defense in a criminal case, whether on “mens rea”, impeachment of witnesses, etc. Also to show that for every criminal case, the jury can acquit whenever they feel like the defendant didn’t intend to do anything wrong (not to be confused with not knowing that what you did was wrong).
And in fact, the reverse is also true, where a defendant can be convicted of “attempt” regardless of actually having carried out any harmful act. That is, at least as long as there exists enough physical evidence of criminal intent that allows a court to conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant intended a crime, and took some action in furtherance of that crime.
In all other cases where someone absconds with property, or otherwise interferes with property, there is the civil law remedy in tort for “trespass to chattel”. You sue someone for taking your stuff, no police or handcuffs involved.
Really, there is a moral/ethical component to actions classified as “crimes”. No moral wrongdoing, no crime. And so theft being a widely recognized crime, I find that it’s exactly the intent of those who might characterize taxation as a crime to conflate it with the worst kind of immoral actions. Then disingenuously, they back into the dictionary definition of theft, devoid of any moral character, when they’re asked to justify what they said.
TL;DR – No way taxation is theft, because the government doesn’t intend to act immorally by collecting taxes.
That doesn't seem like a solid base to say the answer to the question would be no. The conviction might have been overturned because there was no "hurt" party. If it were a bike that had sentimental value, or could not be duplicated, I don't think the law would throw it out. If you feel less lazy, I am curious to hear about this, as I am just speculating at this point.
To be fair to the question, I knew it was a bait question and the response: "Well, if it is stealing if you leave something monetarily higher than what you took, than the taxes are theft, even if they are used for a greater good. CHECKMATE". Ignoring the fact that if taxes were optional, the government would have a lot less money (as most can imagine what happens next), I might make the constitutional argument that taxes are a condition for living in the United States, as in most countries. Your freedom, and pursuit of happiness (ability to own land) can be taken away if you do not pay your fair sure.
With modern monetary theory, there's the idea that money is valuable in part because it is taxed. If you live in the US, you have to pay taxes in US currency, maintaining a baseline level of demand for the US dollar.
Libertarian -
Proposing the reduction/elimination of the State: Somewhat sane and intelligible.
Proposing the elimination of government (collectivism): Unintelligible.
As my friend keeps expounding to me, there really isn't such a thing as a state of nature; it's an ivory tower term that doesn't refer to what has ever existed in Human society.
Jusstice' last post (last 2 posts, really) are beautiful, but let me rejoin. On what basis would a conversion to libertarian policy be argued? As azmod says, the principles on which a shallow libertarian creed might be promoted demand some intelligibility of the morals of a collective. If you want to have your rights and person protected, you have to admit the arguments of others for their version of rights and personhood (moral agency) into the room. Creating a schema (for morality) that's satisfiable and persistent is exactly what we're up to in the great complex of government, at least in popular sovereignties with universal suffrage.
Libertarian proposals have never seemed like anything approaching intelligent, unless they're diluted to just some form of conservatism.
What interests me is how separation of powers fits into radical reconceptions of authority. I could argue that Montesquieu's labour binds us to conform to only political economies which avoid the power inequities and excesses there argued against. In the practical plutocracy of the (insane) naive form of libertarianism, say, you could charge that the effective powers of that unregulated society are corrupt and perversely mingled, or whatever the stock phrase was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
War is the natural state of mankind, it is far easier to be immoral and take from another. This rejects the non aggression principal as the inherent nature of mankind is deceptive.
Tax is taken from the individual to benefit the whole, where there are set norms and expectations in place through institutions.
Theft is taken from an individual through force and unscrupulous means often for the benefit of an individual or a thin sliver of a group.
Tax is justified through the collective benefit by everyone being taxed to provide for the benefits they consume.
Theft has no mechanisms in place. There is no authority, there is no trust built. No rules of engagement. It's complete anarchy.
Theft is selfishness.
Tax is authoritarian.
Thus far in human society to maintain an advanced post industrial society, it requires authoritarianism and taxes. Simply stated it cannot be done, because of the cost benefit analysis in people being to employ resources outside of basic survival. Freedom is created through negative and positive freedoms. Cost benefit analysis.
Taxing is the easiest way to ensure protection of the group, and malcontents are locked away and property taken. That is the glory of authoritarianism, and why individuals get steam rolled.
With that said, we can take into context a social contract, but we know that is nothing more philosophical justification. People are just lazy and want to be left alone to do as they please without working too hard. That's why people tolerate taxes and why they won't go away any time soon. Because the work to have a taxless society isn't able to come to fruition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
As a student of economic anthropology and philosophy, a few points.
- There is a distinction between property and possession (though currently in western culture that distinction is less clear.)
- Our general views on reality are bound by our exposures to local philosophies and thoughts of current day. Saying War is the natural state of man sounds right because it appears to be at least the natural state of western man (though it doesn't really on close inspection.)
Historically war has been more a political function that closely followed the rise of the marketplace (a government creation arguably.) Market and taxes actually were likely creations of the state more than anything.
Modern economic tales say it went barter then Money, but historically its been shown its goes Money then barter. Generally a Gift or other community structure is converted to a market from war question. Troops are paid in gold, and the conquered lands are told to pay taxes with gold. That forces a need of the conqured terrorities to aquire gold, and allows the troops to purchase crops/water..ect needed to maintain occupation or continue further conquests away from limited supply lines.
Libertarianism is attempt to see if markets and such can work in a post conquered world where War,and even governments may have limited use.. War is not the natural state of man. War is more of a secular religion that arguably has limited uses at the macro level currently (except as a form of state stimulas , as it always has been, to keep arms and banks in profits.) Quagmires are sought.
Libertarianism is a reformist philosophy in current functionality, since it argues not for true philosophical freedom, but freedom that can be obtained in a post-conquered earth. Removing State derived mechanisms, except for the economic ones (markets, capitalism, debt.) It also wants government to have all its force (law, mechnisms for enforcement..ect.) Obviously there are still some views that still see money or markets as a creation or will of 'the people', which I see has a bit dreamy. Perhaps its a more of a historical tale to make us believe we can take charge of government creations and see if they can be now created amoung individuals.
Wells Fargo is a perfect example of a market regulating itself for the better... oh wait.... nope, nope, it just proves that markets cheat the system, keep it secret for years and only regulation and government intervention keeps these organizations honest in the long run since individuals don't have recourse.
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?
Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
Good one. What is the non-governmental, forceless alternative? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya while we ask Wells Fargo very nicely to stop doing mean things?
Good one. What is the non-governmental, forceless alternative? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya while we ask Wells Fargo very nicely to stop doing mean things?
Tiax, what's it going to take for you to realize that it's only when the government stops interfering with business that monopolies will stop forming? Does a little thing called the Industrial Revolution ring a bell? I guess you didn't pay attention in US History, so let me edumacate you. The government didn't interfere, no anti-trust laws, and we basically had unchecked capitalism, and there were ZERO monopolies! Why? Because the invisible hand took care of it! You didn't need anti-monopoly laws against things like oil or railroads, the invisible hand took care of it! You didn't need laws, for example, regulating the meat industry for health safety, the invisible hand took care of it! Because guess what? Free market and lack of government interference would remove these kinds of problems, and government interference does nothing to remedy them!
... Wait. Wait. No. That's the opposite of true, isn't it? Oh man, I'm embarrassed.
So now your are advocating that we make use of these services and not pay for them? So in effect steal them from the Service Provider, until he sends his goons rounds to force you to pay up?
How is that different to what we have at the moment with the exception of our current goons not coming round with baseball bats breaking your arms and legs for not paying your dues.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Who says that you actually "own" the property? Property rights are a purely arbitrary set of agreements enforced by a government. If I declare your property claims invalid then you are the thief and I have every right to use the public property. If you try to interfere, I obviously have the right to shoot you dead.
Pfft...The money I pay to buy a headphone from the local Best Buy goes toward a clamshell packaging that I hate to open, flyers and ads that stuffs up my real life and online mailbox, and sales staff that are little better than mannequins. Obviously Best Buy is stealing from me.
tbh considering their prices they're basically stealing from you. Amazon usually has much better prices for the same stuff.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
They're not so bad when their stuff is on sale. Otherwise, yeah.
For electronics? Depends on the electronics. Had to deal with fake or... not quite as described stuff since Amazon changed how their ordering/shipping process worked.
It sounds like you might need a socialist redistribution of wealth for a Libertarian ideal state to work... And I doubt that redistribution fits in with the Libertarian ideals.
So let me understand you, you’re saying that people can’t violate the law? So all the murder, theft, violence, etc, that happens on a daily basis doesn’t actually happen, because it’s against the law? That seems to be what you’re saying. I’m explaining the massive corruption that would ensue by entrusting the management of infrastructure to the private market, and you’re saying that won’t happen because it’s against the law.
People are concerned with the practicality of regulation and the methods of enforcement (police, the courts, etc), and all you are saying in rebuttal is that these things are of no concern as long as there is a law written on a piece of paper somewhere.
Or alternatively, that it is no indication of a less efficient society if we have to employ unlimited numbers of police and private security forces just in order to get from our homes to our places of work. Not compelling.
Except in a libertarian society, we are relying on individuals to privately carry this out, rather than the public administration to do so. Nowhere did I say that these problems are created by Libertarianism, just that Libertarianism is very bad at dealing with them. And again, you’re saying that the bare fact of there being problems means that there will be solutions.
Actually, they have the common law right to insist on performance, or an injunction, incidental damages, or any other remedy available at law. But if someone hikes the prices on a toll road, I have to stay home instead of going to work, and Libertarianism doesn’t magically teleport me to my office. Point being, the fact of there being some solution to these issues at law pays no acknowledgment to how efficient those solutions actually are. You’re the one here with the burden to prove your case that the private sector is best able to solve market inefficiencies, but all you’re doing is stating very circularly that the issues will be solved due simply to the fact that they’re perceived.
Can you explain with any specificity how those solutions would be more efficient than the ones we currently have? Or state a historical example of how they are? No, you can’t, because every ounce of evidence weighs against you on that.
So now, you’re holding out insurance claims adjusters as these infallible saints of the free market? Absent regulations from the New Deal to Dodd-Frank, which every Libertarian says were a bad idea, Insurance Companies would be nothing more than Ponzi schemes, where everyone pays a small fee upfront, then the minute anything actually becomes due, the ownership vanishes like a thief in the night.
In a Libertarian society, you could either have insurance firms, or you could have limited liability, credit, passive investment, and everything that actually makes the free markets liquid. You couldn’t have both. So now, you are arguing for the repeal of the financial system in favor of everyone hoarding gold in their cellars.
And generosity? Ok, how great of you to offer that there will be generous people under a Libertarian system that will look at all the inane failures of their government to act, then step up and do the right thing anyway. Except, how about you analyze those incentives for generosity? If you believe in markets, certainly you can do that. In Libertarianism, you are relying on the undiluted altruism of medical practitioners to grant free services to nearly everyone in need of them. In a regulated economic system, you are giving the medical field government subsidies, recourse in court, and most importantly, an economic system that actually holds private insurance companies accountable.
Ok, example. Let’s say that WOTC announces the release of a new card game, and you pre-order it because you liked Magic enough to buy it instead of all of the other TCG’s available. Now the card game comes out, and it sucks. Theft?
Or let’s say that Wizards says that it’s kept records of all the people who’ve bought Magic products, and announces that they’re going to give out free packs of their new game apportioned among those who bought Magic products (whether they like it or not). The new game sucks. Theft?
Or how about this new card game is something that you go out and collect physically in the streets, sort of like Pokemon, such that no individual can really be excluded from it, and the costs of printing and distributing the cards have to be borne equally by everyone in the form of increased tournament entry fees, packs, etc, for Magic. And on top of that, you never actually bought any Magic, but your parents did who came before you. You just get to play the new game, if you want. Theft?
Ok, I hope it's clear that paying for something that you can't get behind 100% isn't theft, simply because you don't like the outcome. But now instead of a game of cards, substitute in something that is so critical and fundamental to everyone (participation in society) that no one would ever knowingly refuse it, and would be impossible to deprive someone of even at their request. Now, you have the agreement between government and its citizens. It doesn’t require your consent, approval, or even awareness of how it is benefiting you. But it does offer you the opportunity for input and participation. And, you do have to pay taxes for it to exist. Not theft. Not even close. The thief can always decide not to rob you, but the government (thankfully) can’t decide to repudiate its commitment to you. Why should you be allowed to repudiate your commitment to it?
Would rather people had the option to not pay their taxes and decide **** it I don't care about larger society? Do you know what would happen then? Rich people would stop paying taxes, and the inequality that is already a major issue in society today would become even worse.
It's not theft, it's the cost of living in a modern society. People can renounce their citizenship and go live in the wilds and not pay any taxes. That is an option you have. People who are not doing this right now have made a decision to do so and paying taxes is one of the consequences of that decision.
Morally, tax is not theft.
Legally, obviously, tax is not theft.
In what sense is tax theft?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
Does the bag of cash also provide goods and services required for my society to function?
I guess I'll take the bait.
So by taking the item, without asking, regardless of any items left and their value the answer to your question would be yes. Even if you left $1 million dollars for a Little Tyke's Cozy Coupe, that would be considered a form of theft.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Actually, I don’t believe so. I think I remember reading about a case like this actually (too lazy to research citation). Someone stole a bike or something, left money, then the bike got reported stolen, so on. At trial, the defense attorney produces evidence of the money being left, prosecution objects that the evidence was not relevant, judge sustains, and jury convicts. On appeal, the court ruled that the evidence was relevant to show “mens rea” of defendant (criminal intent), and overturns conviction.
It was a very old case, could have been picked from any number of cases to show the general principle that basically everything is “relevant evidence” for the defense in a criminal case, whether on “mens rea”, impeachment of witnesses, etc. Also to show that for every criminal case, the jury can acquit whenever they feel like the defendant didn’t intend to do anything wrong (not to be confused with not knowing that what you did was wrong).
And in fact, the reverse is also true, where a defendant can be convicted of “attempt” regardless of actually having carried out any harmful act. That is, at least as long as there exists enough physical evidence of criminal intent that allows a court to conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant intended a crime, and took some action in furtherance of that crime.
In all other cases where someone absconds with property, or otherwise interferes with property, there is the civil law remedy in tort for “trespass to chattel”. You sue someone for taking your stuff, no police or handcuffs involved.
Really, there is a moral/ethical component to actions classified as “crimes”. No moral wrongdoing, no crime. And so theft being a widely recognized crime, I find that it’s exactly the intent of those who might characterize taxation as a crime to conflate it with the worst kind of immoral actions. Then disingenuously, they back into the dictionary definition of theft, devoid of any moral character, when they’re asked to justify what they said.
TL;DR – No way taxation is theft, because the government doesn’t intend to act immorally by collecting taxes.
That doesn't seem like a solid base to say the answer to the question would be no. The conviction might have been overturned because there was no "hurt" party. If it were a bike that had sentimental value, or could not be duplicated, I don't think the law would throw it out. If you feel less lazy, I am curious to hear about this, as I am just speculating at this point.
To be fair to the question, I knew it was a bait question and the response: "Well, if it is stealing if you leave something monetarily higher than what you took, than the taxes are theft, even if they are used for a greater good. CHECKMATE". Ignoring the fact that if taxes were optional, the government would have a lot less money (as most can imagine what happens next), I might make the constitutional argument that taxes are a condition for living in the United States, as in most countries. Your freedom, and pursuit of happiness (ability to own land) can be taken away if you do not pay your fair sure.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
With modern monetary theory, there's the idea that money is valuable in part because it is taxed. If you live in the US, you have to pay taxes in US currency, maintaining a baseline level of demand for the US dollar.
Proposing the reduction/elimination of the State: Somewhat sane and intelligible.
Proposing the elimination of government (collectivism): Unintelligible.
As my friend keeps expounding to me, there really isn't such a thing as a state of nature; it's an ivory tower term that doesn't refer to what has ever existed in Human society.
Jusstice' last post (last 2 posts, really) are beautiful, but let me rejoin. On what basis would a conversion to libertarian policy be argued? As azmod says, the principles on which a shallow libertarian creed might be promoted demand some intelligibility of the morals of a collective. If you want to have your rights and person protected, you have to admit the arguments of others for their version of rights and personhood (moral agency) into the room. Creating a schema (for morality) that's satisfiable and persistent is exactly what we're up to in the great complex of government, at least in popular sovereignties with universal suffrage.
Libertarian proposals have never seemed like anything approaching intelligent, unless they're diluted to just some form of conservatism.
What interests me is how separation of powers fits into radical reconceptions of authority. I could argue that Montesquieu's labour binds us to conform to only political economies which avoid the power inequities and excesses there argued against. In the practical plutocracy of the (insane) naive form of libertarianism, say, you could charge that the effective powers of that unregulated society are corrupt and perversely mingled, or whatever the stock phrase was.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
War is the natural state of mankind, it is far easier to be immoral and take from another. This rejects the non aggression principal as the inherent nature of mankind is deceptive.
Tax is taken from the individual to benefit the whole, where there are set norms and expectations in place through institutions.
Theft is taken from an individual through force and unscrupulous means often for the benefit of an individual or a thin sliver of a group.
Tax is justified through the collective benefit by everyone being taxed to provide for the benefits they consume.
Theft has no mechanisms in place. There is no authority, there is no trust built. No rules of engagement. It's complete anarchy.
Theft is selfishness.
Tax is authoritarian.
Thus far in human society to maintain an advanced post industrial society, it requires authoritarianism and taxes. Simply stated it cannot be done, because of the cost benefit analysis in people being to employ resources outside of basic survival. Freedom is created through negative and positive freedoms. Cost benefit analysis.
Taxing is the easiest way to ensure protection of the group, and malcontents are locked away and property taken. That is the glory of authoritarianism, and why individuals get steam rolled.
With that said, we can take into context a social contract, but we know that is nothing more philosophical justification. People are just lazy and want to be left alone to do as they please without working too hard. That's why people tolerate taxes and why they won't go away any time soon. Because the work to have a taxless society isn't able to come to fruition.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
- There is a distinction between property and possession (though currently in western culture that distinction is less clear.)
- Our general views on reality are bound by our exposures to local philosophies and thoughts of current day. Saying War is the natural state of man sounds right because it appears to be at least the natural state of western man (though it doesn't really on close inspection.)
Historically war has been more a political function that closely followed the rise of the marketplace (a government creation arguably.) Market and taxes actually were likely creations of the state more than anything.
Modern economic tales say it went barter then Money, but historically its been shown its goes Money then barter. Generally a Gift or other community structure is converted to a market from war question. Troops are paid in gold, and the conquered lands are told to pay taxes with gold. That forces a need of the conqured terrorities to aquire gold, and allows the troops to purchase crops/water..ect needed to maintain occupation or continue further conquests away from limited supply lines.
Libertarianism is attempt to see if markets and such can work in a post conquered world where War,and even governments may have limited use.. War is not the natural state of man. War is more of a secular religion that arguably has limited uses at the macro level currently (except as a form of state stimulas , as it always has been, to keep arms and banks in profits.) Quagmires are sought.
Libertarianism is a reformist philosophy in current functionality, since it argues not for true philosophical freedom, but freedom that can be obtained in a post-conquered earth. Removing State derived mechanisms, except for the economic ones (markets, capitalism, debt.) It also wants government to have all its force (law, mechnisms for enforcement..ect.) Obviously there are still some views that still see money or markets as a creation or will of 'the people', which I see has a bit dreamy. Perhaps its a more of a historical tale to make us believe we can take charge of government creations and see if they can be now created amoung individuals.
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?
Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
Good one. What is the non-governmental, forceless alternative? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya while we ask Wells Fargo very nicely to stop doing mean things?
... Wait. Wait. No. That's the opposite of true, isn't it? Oh man, I'm embarrassed.