So, I watched your robo-video. And the question remains.
Do you owe nothing to the society of which you are a part? Do you owe nothing to pay for the services you use on a daily basis?
You could argue that these services could be provided in a different way, and some of those different ways may have merit, while others do not.
However, that does not change the fact on how they are provided today. They are provided by the Club of the United States, and you are a default member of that club until you choose not to be.
Therefore as a member of that club, why are you so uncomfortable paying dues to that club?
What I owe to society is to not violate the individuals which make up that society. "Taxation" violates them, so by supporting it, I I would be supporting violating them. This would be wrong of me. There is nothing I want bad enough to believe it's OK to rob others to pay for it.
I have no problem with paying for what I use. I do have a BIG problem with not being allowed to choose among competing providers, and being forced to support a "provider" who uses the violence of government to collect the fees from me and others who may not want (or use) those services. That is wrong.
If a mugger promises to use some of the money he takes from you at gunpoint to feed an orphan, does that make his theft right? No. Besides, he takes a cut and denies the orphan some of the money.
The United States is not a club. I am surrounded by many clubs. None of them force me to be a member because of where my house sits, and forcibly extract "dues" from me. Clubs can overlap and compete. Governments, being criminal gangs, usually object to that civilized behavior. And, I would object to being an unwilling member of any club which used my membership fees to molest other people, supposedly on my behalf.
Government is unmitigated evil. There's simply no excuse for it. Your arguments in favor of it sound exactly like arguments made in favor of chattel slavery in the mid-1800s. Pathetic.
Indeed we loose freedom drop by drop. It all starts with: “yeah, taxation is not theft”. Then it will end up with slavery. I live in a country where the government owns the gold, the water, the sky, even the people. The government is so big that it is difficult to tell the difference between state and government.
Yes, we should prioritize individual freedoms. But, by definition, a society is asking every citizen to give up some level of individual freedom for the society to function. Specifically, we put limits on an individual's freedom that may hinder another individual's freedom. Eg We've agreed as a society that I can't be so loud and so drunk in public that I disturb others.
We then require a system to enforce compliance and some way to fund that system.
When I decide to express individual freedoms by screaming naked and drunk down the street, you are within your right to limit that freedom by calling the police.
And I think your final points flirt with hyperbole.
I understand your a very caring person and want to maximize individual freedom. I agree we should always strive to that whenever possible.
It is not hyperbole..., In my country people who make profit are punished if they don’t pay “rent” to the government, after all it owns everything. It is like a medieval monarchy. Concerning freedom just see what USA were and what it bacame, drop by drop citizens were loosing their freedom. All problems you raised are solved by vanishing public property. If I want to scream naked at my property who can say I can’t? Now tell me this, was government created to defend private property in the first place? Why it can’t ask for our contribution to such a defense? What’s wrong with voluntarism? Freedom doesn’t mean omnipotence, its limit is someone’s property.
"When I decide to express individual freedoms by screaming naked and drunk down the street, you are within your right to limit that freedom by calling the police."
Why? Who are you violating? "Offense" isn't the same as being violated. But by calling the police I am lending a pretense of legitimacy to a gang financed by theft committed against the people they also violate in other ways. This is actually damaging life, liberty, and property.
Everything anyone does can "disturb" someone. That's why I follow the notion that if someone's life, liberty, or property hasn't been damaged, it is none of my business.
I would agree that a consumption tax may a better than an income tax.
However, income tax is not theft. You are part of Club USA and are paying dues to that club. You are free to leave Club USA and go join another club somewhere else, if you'd like. You are completely free to do that. There may be dues at that club too, though.
And you do have say in the matter of where your tax dollars go through our representational democracy. Is it perfect? No. Would a pure-democracy be better? Maybe. But, you had a delegated say in where your taxes go.
I just find fault with this victim mentality that is being presented. It just seems like such a forced perspective.
If United States are such a great club, then why force people to pay? If the government is not supported by voluntary action then the common citizens should have the power to stop its actions. For instance the people should have the power to say no to the income tax. Otherwise it is theft. By the way I live in a socialist country, I’m not American. But I agree with the founding fathers of USA: no government is legitimated without consenting... I am afraid that the definition of theft is taking property with no consent.
People are free to say no and can leave the country. They can remove their citizenship and try their hands at a different country.
I don't know where this expectation is coming from that you can be part of a society and not contribute to it. And yes, if you decide that you do not want to contribute to it, the rest of society will have an issue with that. They will put in rules and process to ensure everyone that lives in the society contributes to it.
In America's case, our constitution gives the government the ability to levy taxes. If an individual doesn't like it, they are free to work towards changing the laws and potentially the constitution, or they are free to leave to a different government.
You said everything, “contribute”! I want to contribute to my community, I am happy to..., however if payment is mandatory it is not a contribution at all. That’s exactly my point, I want to contribute to society... Maybe my English is poor, up to my knowledge contributing means freedom, right?
So, out of curiosity...
Do you feel citizens within a society need to pay into that society to cover the common good?
Put another way, are the taxes that pay for your military theft? Those that pay for your roads? Your firefighters?
If it isn't funded voluntarily, it is theft.
Hahahaha! Move to Somalia!
Yep. You can always tell when a statist knows they have nothing more to add when they grasp at that one. LOL.
So, I watched your robo-video. And the question remains.
Do you owe nothing to the society of which you are a part? Do you owe nothing to pay for the services you use on a daily basis?
You could argue that these services could be provided in a different way, and some of those different ways may have merit, while others do not.
However, that does not change the fact on how they are provided today. They are provided by the Club of the United States, and you are a default member of that club until you choose not to be.
Therefore as a member of that club, why are you so uncomfortable paying dues to that club?
What I owe to society is to not violate the individuals which make up that society. "Taxation" violates them, so by supporting it, I I would be supporting violating them. This would be wrong of me. There is nothing I want bad enough to believe it's OK to rob others to pay for it.
I have no problem with paying for what I use. I do have a BIG problem with not being allowed to choose among competing providers, and being forced to support a "provider" who uses the violence of government to collect the fees from me and others who may not want (or use) those services. That is wrong.
If a mugger promises to use some of the money he takes from you at gunpoint to feed an orphan, does that make his theft right? No. Besides, he takes a cut and denies the orphan some of the money.
The United States is not a club. I am surrounded by many clubs. None of them force me to be a member because of where my house sits, and forcibly extract "dues" from me. Clubs can overlap and compete. Governments, being criminal gangs, usually object to that civilized behavior. And, I would object to being an unwilling member of any club which used my membership fees to molest other people, supposedly on my behalf.
Government is unmitigated evil. There's simply no excuse for it. Your arguments in favor of it sound exactly like arguments made in favor of chattel slavery in the mid-1800s. Pathetic.
Indeed we loose freedom drop by drop. It all starts with: “yeah, taxation is not theft”. Then it will end up with slavery. I live in a country where the government owns the gold, the water, the sky, even the people. The government is so big that it is difficult to tell the difference between state and government.
I think your first premise doesn't hold up.
Yes, we should prioritize individual freedoms. But, by definition, a society is asking every citizen to give up some level of individual freedom for the society to function. Specifically, we put limits on an individual's freedom that may hinder another individual's freedom. Eg We've agreed as a society that I can't be so loud and so drunk in public that I disturb others.
We then require a system to enforce compliance and some way to fund that system.
When I decide to express individual freedoms by screaming naked and drunk down the street, you are within your right to limit that freedom by calling the police.
And I think your final points flirt with hyperbole.
I understand your a very caring person and want to maximize individual freedom. I agree we should always strive to that whenever possible.
Anyway, have a wonderful memorial weekend!
It is not hyperbole..., In my country people who make profit are punished if they don’t pay “rent” to the government, after all it owns everything. It is like a medieval monarchy. Concerning freedom just see what USA were and what it bacame, drop by drop citizens were loosing their freedom. All problems you raised are solved by vanishing public property. If I want to scream naked at my property who can say I can’t? Now tell me this, was government created to defend private property in the first place? Why it can’t ask for our contribution to such a defense? What’s wrong with voluntarism? Freedom doesn’t mean omnipotence, its limit is someone’s property.
"When I decide to express individual freedoms by screaming naked and drunk down the street, you are within your right to limit that freedom by calling the police."
Why? Who are you violating? "Offense" isn't the same as being violated. But by calling the police I am lending a pretense of legitimacy to a gang financed by theft committed against the people they also violate in other ways. This is actually damaging life, liberty, and property.
Everything anyone does can "disturb" someone. That's why I follow the notion that if someone's life, liberty, or property hasn't been damaged, it is none of my business.
The income tax specifically is theft.
This tax is automatically deducted from your paycheck with the taxpayer having no say in the matter, or where that money is allocated.
This tax did not even exist until 1913 and somehow our country flourished before then (see industrial revolution).
I personally am fine with other taxes like sales tax or tariffs - as long as they serve national interests.
A consumption tax would be ideal, to tax those based on what they use day to day.
Posted using Partiko Android
I would agree that a consumption tax may a better than an income tax.
However, income tax is not theft. You are part of Club USA and are paying dues to that club. You are free to leave Club USA and go join another club somewhere else, if you'd like. You are completely free to do that. There may be dues at that club too, though.
And you do have say in the matter of where your tax dollars go through our representational democracy. Is it perfect? No. Would a pure-democracy be better? Maybe. But, you had a delegated say in where your taxes go.
I just find fault with this victim mentality that is being presented. It just seems like such a forced perspective.
If United States are such a great club, then why force people to pay? If the government is not supported by voluntary action then the common citizens should have the power to stop its actions. For instance the people should have the power to say no to the income tax. Otherwise it is theft. By the way I live in a socialist country, I’m not American. But I agree with the founding fathers of USA: no government is legitimated without consenting... I am afraid that the definition of theft is taking property with no consent.
People are free to say no and can leave the country. They can remove their citizenship and try their hands at a different country.
I don't know where this expectation is coming from that you can be part of a society and not contribute to it. And yes, if you decide that you do not want to contribute to it, the rest of society will have an issue with that. They will put in rules and process to ensure everyone that lives in the society contributes to it.
In America's case, our constitution gives the government the ability to levy taxes. If an individual doesn't like it, they are free to work towards changing the laws and potentially the constitution, or they are free to leave to a different government.
You said everything, “contribute”! I want to contribute to my community, I am happy to..., however if payment is mandatory it is not a contribution at all. That’s exactly my point, I want to contribute to society... Maybe my English is poor, up to my knowledge contributing means freedom, right?
the post is amazing