Taxation = Violence

...and so those who support taxation (theft) by the government (the monopoly of the initiation of violence) are, by definition, condoning aggressive force.

Agree or disagree? What are your initial emotional responses to the above truth?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
...and so those who support taxation (theft) by the government (the monopoly of the initiation of violence) are, by definition, condoning aggressive force.

Agree or disagree? What are your initial emotional responses to the above truth?

I don't have much of an emotional response. Aside from a sense of general bemusement. But I get that from most threads I see on ATS.

Taxes are part of a contract between the voters and government. The government provides services for the population it governs, and they in turn pay for this via taxes. The costs are distributed among the population, thus minimizing individual cost, while the benefit is distributed among the whole of the governed, even those who for whatever reason aren't obligated to pay taxes. Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

The less you pay in, the less you get out. And the less impact taxpayers have, the less incentive for the elected officials to give a damn about the people.

Heeey arent you the same walking fox who called me out repeatedly and aggressively in a previous thread, and when I responded in kind you magically disappeared into the depths of internet anonymity? Riiight the very same.

Taxes are part of a contract between the voters and government.

A 'contract' is defined as a written or verbal agreement that is voluntarily agreed upon by two or more consenting parties. Since I never consented to this 'contract' you speak of, we shall have to redefine the definition of a 'contract' to include non consentual parties! OOoo what fun, Ive always wanted a loophole around that whole voluntary agreement thing, its just so bothersome to get someones agreement when the deal im imposing, err, offering, isnt to their liking!

Since we both accept that a contract can be imposed by one party upon another without the latters consent, I 'social contract' you to give me half your income! Fair and square, right?

The government provides services for the population it governs, and they in turn pay for this via taxes.

Excellent! I run a small contracting firm, so I will provide my services to you, on my terms, and if you dont want my product, well...too bad! If you dont like the color of your roof, I'll allow you to vote...or something. Maybe I'll get around to providing the services I 'contracted' you to accept...or maybe not, who knows. Either way, youre paying for it, and if you dont like it, well, I might just have to send a friendly 'tax' collector around to extract what you owe me, via the 'social contract' ive justly imposed upon you!

The costs are distributed among the population, thus minimizing individual cost, while the benefit is distributed among the whole of the governed, even those who for whatever reason aren't obligated to pay taxes

Oooo how convenient for you that your rich neighbors also have submitted to my 'contract'! If youre a little low on scratch, Ill just send my well armed 'collectors' to their houses to gather the necessary funds to pay for the roof that you didnt select? And hey, if you dont like it, you can always move right.

. Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

Of course! And if I outlaw and competing roofing companies, and you need a roof to well, survive, if you complain that you didnt want my services, well, I'll simply declare that since youve used the roof to live under, that ive provided, that you owe me any sum I want for the privilege of huddling under it! And youll thanks me for my benevolence, too, since you accepted the contract and all.

The less you pay in, the less you get out. And the less impact taxpayers have, the less incentive for the elected officials to give a damn about the people.

Oh dont worry, everyone will pay in one form or another! Be it through ever degraded service and continually skyrocketing costs, or devaluation of your currency that I made you agree to use, everyone will pay. After all, they accepted the contract I forced upon them. They OWE ME!

reply to post by Neo_Serf


I would say yes and no. Yes taxation without representation is bad, but no taxes are necessary for this country to run (fudge federal-think even local government.....someone has to pay for roads etc.) The government would get no where on donations (but then we wouldn't be in debt!)

I don't think there should be any taxes on wages or the like what so ever, but sales tax is fine. At least with sales tax we have the choice to not buy the crap, or well just avoid taxes and buy online!

How has working equated to a sales tax? Then there are property taxes which are the worst. How many people have lost home because they owned them but couldn't pay their yearly rent to the government. Gah.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

Since road infrastructure is paid for via gas taxes, people who ride bicycles or walk are thieving the government, according to your logic.

Fox, once upon a time, government budgets were balanced, our money was sound, the streets were safe, and taxes imposed by all levels of government took less than 10% of our income.

Today we give more money to the taxman than we spend on food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. Compare this to the plight of medieval serfs. They only had to give the lord of the manor one-third of their output and they were considered slaves. The average American family head will be forced to do twenty years' labor to pay taxes in his or her lifetime. So what does that make us?

Remember, the rhetoric of the Founders of this country was directed at a "tyrant" who taxed his subjects at a rate of about three percent. Today, we in "the land of the free" are taxed at about 50 percent when you add federal, state, and local taxes. That isn't a "society", but a mob held together by institutionalized gang violence.

To answer the OP, the government has proven it is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It has not proven to be good at much else.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
...and so those who support taxation (theft) by the government (the monopoly of the initiation of violence) are, by definition, condoning aggressive force.

Agree or disagree? What are your initial emotional responses to the above truth?

They are condoning violence because they are essentially saying pay us or else! The public would only get violence in return for using the same tactics they use on us.

It is all bs. A better way to do it would be to have no taxes, let people donate to the community freely with recommended amounts, and make it very public knowledge. That way we could all stone the person who doesn't contribute, take all of their money, and donate it because they were an ass in life.

Clever definition of the core of taxation is "theft in self-defense".

Of course, in modern society taxes often pay for many things, not just basic necessities, but that stems from utilitarian ideologies which I have no problem with.

Originally posted by Maslo
Clever definition of the core of taxation is "theft in self-defense".

Of course, in modern society taxes often pay for many things, not just basic necessities, but that stems from utilitarian ideologies which I have no problem with.

Oh yes, I understand what it pays for, but if wages and donations/taxes were public we would be motivated to donate a lot more to the community. Any employer would be double motivated. We all use things within our community and giving power back to choice is very important to society. I grantee it wouldn't be a failure. We would all be self-empowered by it, and we would help those in need more easily. No?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Heeey arent you the same walking fox who called me out repeatedly and aggressively in a previous thread, and when I responded in kind you magically disappeared into the depths of internet anonymity? Riiight the very same.

Quite possibly. Working doubles can have that effect, after all. Was there something specific you wanted addressed? You'll have to remind me, I haven't been on ATS since, like, Monday.

A 'contract' is defined as a written or verbal agreement that is voluntarily agreed upon by two or more consenting parties. Since I never consented to this 'contract' you speak of, we shall have to redefine the definition of a 'contract' to include non consentual parties! OOoo what fun, Ive always wanted a loophole around that whole voluntary agreement thing, its just so bothersome to get someones agreement when the deal im imposing, err, offering, isnt to their liking!

Since we both accept that a contract can be imposed by one party upon another without the latters consent, I 'social contract' you to give me half your income! Fair and square, right?

Actually you're consenting to it right now. you are within the borders of the United States of America, and are claiming citizenship and all the benefits that entails. You enjoy the use of roads, postal services, are entitled to numerous programmed should you feel you need them, enjoy numerous consumer and employment protections, and are the direct beneficiary of subsidies to the companies that make the products you buy.

It is 100% within your power to opt out of this contract. Any time you like. The easiest option is to find another nation that offers what you feel is a better contract. or perhaps one of the handful of nations that offer no such contract (Western Sahara, for instance). Option two, slightly more onerous, is to remove yourself from all the aforementioned services. This basically amounts to living as a migratory hunter-gatherer, but hey, it worked for our species for most of your existence, you should do fine.

if neither of these options appeal to you, well, that really is your problem; you have the options, you can take them or not.

The government provides services for the population it governs, and they in turn pay for this via taxes.

Excellent! I run a small contracting firm, so I will provide my services to you, on my terms, and if you dont want my product, well...too bad! If you dont like the color of your roof, I'll allow you to vote...or something. Maybe I'll get around to providing the services I 'contracted' you to accept...or maybe not, who knows. Either way, youre paying for it, and if you dont like it, well, I might just have to send a friendly 'tax' collector around to extract what you owe me, via the 'social contract' ive justly imposed upon you!

Followed by me #canning you and assuming control of your company, to install a CEO with a better attitude. Welcome to the democratic system, buddy, better luck next cycle.

The costs are distributed among the population, thus minimizing individual cost, while the benefit is distributed among the whole of the governed, even those who for whatever reason aren't obligated to pay taxes

Oooo how convenient for you that your rich neighbors also have submitted to my 'contract'! If youre a little low on scratch, Ill just send my well armed 'collectors' to their houses to gather the necessary funds to pay for the roof that you didnt select? And hey, if you dont like it, you can always move right.

Yes, I can always move. So can they. So can you. Stop flapping your ass-cheeks and go, if you dislike it so much. As for my rich neighbors, they are beneficiaries of this system as much - moreso, actually - than I am. Even if we swallow the myth that all wealthy people are that way because of hard work (you have to be pretty gullible to buy that, honestly) then they're still defined as wealthy because they have a larger portion of a government-backed resource than others around them. Ever heard the adage, "you have to spend money to make money?"

. Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

Of course! And if I outlaw and competing roofing companies, and you need a roof to well, survive, if you complain that you didnt want my services, well, I'll simply declare that since youve used the roof to live under, that ive provided, that you owe me any sum I want for the privilege of huddling under it! And youll thanks me for my benevolence, too, since you accepted the contract and all.

Of course as I have pointed out, it's possible to seek competing contracts or even avoid them altogether. The trouble comes with freeloaders like yourself, who want all the benefits but none of the cost.

The less you pay in, the less you get out. And the less impact taxpayers have, the less incentive for the elected officials to give a damn about the people.

Oh dont worry, everyone will pay in one form or another! Be it through ever degraded service and continually skyrocketing costs, or devaluation of your currency that I made you agree to use, everyone will pay. After all, they accepted the contract I forced upon them. They OWE ME!

Uhm... you do know that both the degrading service and skyrocketing costs are a direct result of the anti-tax idiots in Washington and the idiot cultists who keep electing them, right?

Since you seem like the sort of man who might set a record in the category of "not getting it," allow me to explain.

1) The role of government, in any state, any era, any culture, is to provide some sort of service for the governed. In a democratic government such as our own, the ideal is to provide service to all members of the governed.

2) of course, providing services does cost money; no such thing as a free lunch, and all. To provide services to the the populace, the government must collect taxes. The cost of these services are thus subsidized among the whole of the populace. Again in the democratic ideal, this works fine, as the services are there for whoever needs them.

We covered these two points already. Let's see what happens when we add your own brand of "deep-dee-dee!" to it.

3) some members of hte populace, extremely butthurt that poor people are eating, demand an end to taxes. Through a combination of flawed populist propaganda and an inattentive public, they somehow get what they want. Taxes are cut.

4) The diminished revenue mandates that cuts be made in the funding of the services provided. Since the people in need of these services doesn't diminish with revenue (even Bill Gates needs a road now and then) and the services must still be open to all, quality diminishes.

5) if you have ever worked in any business that didn't involve the phrase "and would you like a hot apple pie?" you would know that diminished quality actually causes an increase in prices. if the Department of transportation has the cut back and use a lower-grade asphalt, orwhatever, then all that happens is the road needs to be repaired again, sooner; which results in a net increase in cost. Add to this the fact that the population is not stable but is in fact growing, adding a greater burden to the structure, and you're going to see prices shoot up.

All because some moron wearing a teabag on their head thought it was unfair that Wall Street traders pay taxes.

It is all bs. A better way to do it would be to have no taxes, let people donate to the community freely with recommended amounts, and make it very public knowledge. That way we could all stone the person who doesn't contribute, take all of their money, and donate it because they were an ass in life.

Heck yes bro. Voluntarism all the way.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by adraves

 

So your solution to the gross, terrible violence of paying your dues as a citizen of a nation... is to murder people with rocks and take their stuff if they don't live up to your momentary standards.

A conservative, ladies and gentlemen. Too bad more of them aren't gay.

No my solution is to totally rethink the way we pay taxes and the way people think about those taxes.

If we made taxes all charity based with public knowledge, we would motivate our own selves to pay....if not you are not contributing to the society.

Rich people are already getting tax breaks....do you see everyone resorting to violence? Peer pressure is the answer and it is a bitch.

All I am saying is that it is another step in transparency. We need a transparent world. The government has an intimate relationship with all of us-and the government right now is a cheating, lying whore.

Quite possibly. Working doubles can have that effect, after all. Was there something specific you wanted addressed? You'll have to remind me, I haven't been on ATS since, like, Monday.

Ya, you were the one on a certain CO2 related thread who attempted to throw his non existent weight around in an overly obnoxious fashion, was summarily dismantled, and conspicuously never returned...

The very same!

Actually you're consenting to it right now. you are within the borders of the United States of America

ASSumption #1 - Im actually a resident of the tax farm commonly known as Canada~

, and are claiming citizenship and all the benefits that entails.

I claim nothing.

You enjoy the use of roads, postal services, are entitled to numerous programmed should you feel you need them,

ASSumption #2 - That I enjoy any of these things. Endless rush hour construction, unnecessary and ridiculously overpriced mail, and a looong and ever increasing waiting line for medical care to see indifferent doctors is what you claim I enjoy.

Even if these 'services' were hyper efficient and effective (which they most certainly are not) I wouldnt care, as I dont give a damn what my money is used for *after* it has been stolen from me, in the same way that Im not ok with being mugged if the mugger is using my stolen loot to pay for his kids daycare.

Morality is destroyed in the act of theft. I dont care what happens after the initial violation.

enjoy numerous consumer and employment protections, and are the direct beneficiary of subsidies to the companies that make the products you buy.

Hahhaah he actually thinks subsidies (bribes) benefit the consumer! Way to display your complete and total lack of economic knowledge. *giggle*

Ask the 3rd world how much they love our farm subsidies hahah~

It is 100% within your power to opt out of this contract. Any time you like. The easiest option is to find another nation that offers what you feel is a better contract. or perhaps one of the handful of nations that offer no such contract (Western Sahara, for instance). Option two, slightly more onerous, is to remove yourself from all the aforementioned services. This basically amounts to living as a migratory hunter-gatherer, but hey, it worked for our species for most of your existence, you should do fine

.

Comply or die. Gotcha.

if neither of these options appeal to you, well, that really is your problem; you have the options, you can take them or not.

Your advocacy of infinite violence against myself and everyone else is indeed my problem. Your sickening sycophantic love affair with power and control is most assuredly problematic to myself and anyone else who possess ever a shred of human decency..

Followed by me #canning you and assuming control of your company, to install a CEO with a better attitude. Welcome to the democratic system, buddy, better luck next cycle.

Right. Except you would have absolutely zero incentive to provide me with maximum value for my coerced dollar. Violent monopolies tend to not be the most responsive to the people they rule over.

Yes, I can always move. So can they. So can you. Stop flapping your ass-cheeks and go, if you dislike it so much. As for my rich neighbors, they are beneficiaries of this system as much - moreso, actually - than I am. Even if we swallow the myth that all wealthy people are that way because of hard work (you have to be pretty gullible to buy that, honestly) then they're still defined as wealthy because they have a larger portion of a government-backed resource than others around them. Ever heard the adage, "you have to spend money to make money?"

HMMM so might not the obvious solution be to remove said 'government backed resources' and thus government itself? I know a statist bigot such as yourself could never conceive of a world without unlimited monopolized violence, but maybe you could pretend for a second to not have a stockholm syndrome like love affair with you masters?

What a funny, willing little pawn you are.

. Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

Right and if a slave accepts water from his master, that slave owes his master for the price of digging the well.

I have no other option to get around and live my life because i need roads to do so. The government allows no competition in this, and many other areas. This ensures ever degrading service, as this is an intrinsic consequence of a violent monopoly. (violence that you seem to just love and cheerlead in a most grotesque and pathetic manner.)

Of course as I have pointed out, it's possible to seek competing contracts or even avoid them altogether. The trouble comes with freeloaders like yourself, who want all the benefits but none of the cost.

Violence prevents me from choosing an alternate system! The gun that you praise blocks me from making any of my own decisions! Just cuz you love the taste of leather boots does not mean we all must be as degraded and corrupt as you are!

Id go on but I can see theres no point in pretending this is a civil discussion. Clearly you advocate violence against me for my beliefs, and for that I hold you in the utmost contempt. Your sickening subjugation to the evil status quo is nothing short of abhorrent, and the self assured tone you unashamedly flaunt, along with the gun you hide behind, literally chills me to my core as I behold a true enemy of everything I hold to be good and virtuous.

You sir, are a sickening little man, and I wish upon you all the consequences you justly deserve for your fawning at the foot of unjust and murderous power. *spit*

Apologies to all besides the slithering fox for losing my cool. Stand by the above, but certainly I should vent in a more controlled manner.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


yeah, that can't hurt. This site really need more restraint. As much of a douche as they seem, they still are trying to communicate something.....

Originally posted by adraves
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

yeah, that can't hurt. This site really need more restraint. As much of a douche as they seem, they still are trying to communicate something.....

Foxs communication is clear - say what you want but he has the guns. Since this attitude is basically the root of all that is evil in this insane world, (and is responsible for the megadeath of the modern world) youll have to forgive me if i get a little rattled in the face of his overt aggression.

Originally posted by adraves

Originally posted by Maslo
Clever definition of the core of taxation is "theft in self-defense".

Of course, in modern society taxes often pay for many things, not just basic necessities, but that stems from utilitarian ideologies which I have no problem with.

Oh yes, I understand what it pays for, but if wages and donations/taxes were public we would be motivated to donate a lot more to the community. Any employer would be double motivated. We all use things within our community and giving power back to choice is very important to society. I grantee it wouldn't be a failure. We would all be self-empowered by it, and we would help those in need more easily. No?

Its not that simple. How do you guarantee that voluntary donations would be raising enough, and also do so predictably enough to enable longterm planning? Income from taxes is easily predictable.
Making donations public if the one who donates wants it is possible even now. Making the names of those who dont donate known - dont think it would be enough to solve the problem, altrough it may help with motivation. And making all incomes public? What if I dont want to show others my income?

Taxation is violence. But why is violence considered bad? Violence is just a tool. Tools are not universally good or bad. Its considered bad because very often using it leads to bad consequences, or worse than the possible alternatives. Then it should not be allowed. But sometimes it may lead to good consequences, or better than the possible alternatives, and then I see nothing wrong with using it.
If the system with taxation leads to higher wellbeing of most people than any possible and realistic alternative, then its simply the best choice.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Quite possibly. Working doubles can have that effect, after all. Was there something specific you wanted addressed? You'll have to remind me, I haven't been on ATS since, like, Monday.

Ya, you were the one on a certain CO2 related thread who attempted to throw his non existent weight around in an overly obnoxious fashion, was summarily dismantled, and conspicuously never returned...

Hmmm. Link it to me, will ya? 'Cause my non-presence does not translate into "dismantling."

Actually you're consenting to it right now. you are within the borders of the United States of America

ASSumption #1 - Im actually a resident of the tax farm commonly known as Canada~

Whatever. The principle is the same in any nation you go to.

, and are claiming citizenship and all the benefits that entails.

I claim nothing.

I'm afraid you do. You live in Canada, right? That means you claim residence in Canada. Which makes you subject to Canadian Law. if you participate in the myriad systems of Canada, you are claiming part of Canadian society, and are subject to the costs as well as the benefits. if you participate in Canadian politics, then you are certainly a citizen of Canada, and are held to all the responsibilities of that state as well as the benefits.

You enjoy the use of roads, postal services, are entitled to numerous programmed should you feel you need them,

ASSumption #2 - That I enjoy any of these things. Endless rush hour construction, unnecessary and ridiculously overpriced mail, and a looong and ever increasing waiting line for medical care to see indifferent doctors is what you claim I enjoy.

But you clearly do use the roads. You clearly do use the Canadian health care system. I guess it's another assumption, but i imagine you enjoy the current position more than if you were to have no roads, and no recourse for medical needs that your current financial position could not cover. Regardless of if you love it or hate it, you use it. That means that you are obligated to pay into the services you are utilizing.

Even if these 'services' were hyper efficient and effective (which they most certainly are not) I wouldnt care, as I dont give a damn what my money is used for *after* it has been stolen from me, in the same way that Im not ok with being mugged if the mugger is using my stolen loot to pay for his kids daycare.

Except it's not being stolen from you. In fact judging from the fact that you are the one using the roads and medical system (and doubtless, many other resources provided to you by Canada) but you don't want to pay taxes, YOU are the thief. YOU are the mugger. You wish to steal the money of your countrymen, by having them pay your way without contributing yourself.

Morality is destroyed in the act of theft. I dont care what happens after the initial violation.

I would suggest you take a few ethics classes, but they are undoubtedly funded in part by tax dollars, so I guess that's a no-go. Given this is your belief, you are a participant - and sorry, you're clearly a willing participant in what you consider to be a brutal and immoral system. As pointed out, you have options that you choose to not engage in. Where is your moral high ground here?

enjoy numerous consumer and employment protections, and are the direct beneficiary of subsidies to the companies that make the products you buy.

Hahhaah he actually thinks subsidies (bribes) benefit the consumer! Way to display your complete and total lack of economic knowledge. *giggle*

Actually they do. Prices in fact would be higher without these subsidies. When we're talking about mandatory resources like petroleum and food, that does make a difference. Especially if you're in a nation like, oh, Canada, that has widely-spaced population centers and an unfortunate inability to affordably produce enough food to supply its own population (don't feel bad; Australia has the same problems)

Ask the 3rd world how much they love our farm subsidies hahah~

Already have. I didn't say the subsidies were good for everyone - in fact i don't even see subsidies as being anything "good," for the very fact found in the third world. In another thread I explained how our farm subsidies are responsible for the collapse of Mexican agriculture and the inevitable tide of migrants moving north.

My point on subsidies is that you, as a Canadian customer, do actually gain benefit from them due to lowered costs. It's not a moral judgement, just a factual one. In the same way that you and I are both benefiting from the genocidal wars in central Africa, wars caused by warlords seeking control of rare-earth element resources necessary for the conmputer industry. it doesn't make those warlords "good guys" by any shot, it just means that we're benefitting from their actions. Understand?

It is 100% within your power to opt out of this contract. Any time you like. The easiest option is to find another nation that offers what you feel is a better contract. or perhaps one of the handful of nations that offer no such contract (Western Sahara, for instance). Option two, slightly more onerous, is to remove yourself from all the aforementioned services. This basically amounts to living as a migratory hunter-gatherer, but hey, it worked for our species for most of your existence, you should do fine

.

Comply or die. Gotcha.

Clearly you din't get it. No one's telling you to die. People live in Western Sahara. Hell, there are people in your own nation who are still functionally hunter-gatherers, living fully off subsistence. One can live just fine in these sort of conditions. However, it's hardly the high-tech, well-connected, secure and sheltered existence you now lead. You would probably be uncomfortable compared to your current status. But! You wouldn't have to worry about congested roads (you can just walk through a traffic jam, after all) nor those impersonal doctors (what's more personal than do-it-yourself surgery, anyway?)

You seem to be operating under the illusion that you could still have the society you live in now if there weren't taxes. As if taxes are just an onerous burden that have no connection to anything that you use and benefit from right now. This is a common libertarian misconception. The fact is that no taxes means no government. And while you might be clapping and hollering with joy at that proposition, I suggest you look around the world at other states with failed or nonexistent governments.

Afghanistan, Somalia, Tajikistan, etc. I suppose there is Iceland at the moment, but they're hoping it's temporary, and are basically drawing off several generations worth of savings stored by the welfare state, which is probably not what you seek, either.

if neither of these options appeal to you, well, that really is your problem; you have the options, you can take them or not.

Your advocacy of infinite violence against myself and everyone else is indeed my problem. Your sickening sycophantic love affair with power and control is most assuredly problematic to myself and anyone else who possess ever a shred of human decency..

Actually I advocated alternative options to you; you dislike them because they're not as secure and comfortable as the option you are currently utilizing. That's not my fault at all. And unlike you, I actually do have the knowledge to live off the land (not everyone with survivalist training is on the right of the political spectrum, you know! )

You regard taxes as some sort of violence. Okay. But you refuse - absolutely refuse - the alternative option, because it would be uncomfortable. So either you are a hypocrite (possible) or the system you rail against really isn't anywhere near as bad as you claim (probable). In either case, your position of claimed moral superiority is simply a self-aggrandizing illusion.

Followed by me #canning you and assuming control of your company, to install a CEO with a better attitude. Welcome to the democratic system, buddy, better luck next cycle.

Right. Except you would have absolutely zero incentive to provide me with maximum value for my coerced dollar. Violent monopolies tend to not be the most responsive to the people they rule over.

You say this as someone who lives in Canada, which is probably the most responsive government in the Western Hemisphere. So I guess it's not too much of a "violent monopoly," is it?

In fact, most governments are not monopolies. There are some functions served by government that are monopolized, but in large part they are functions that are best performed by public control (I'm not a fan of the idea of the judicial system of my nation being owned by foreign investors, for instance)

Now here's what's funny. When folks call for an end to taxes and smaller governments.. .what you're asking for is in fact... violent monopoly.

Here's how it works. There are two things that the government of any nation will never cut; the armed forces, and the salary of whoever's in charge of the government and whoever is closest to him. So they may cut taxes, and they may cut funding. But then the military becomes disproportionately powerful, and further and further under the control of the "made men" in government. Funding for this ever-tightening spiral of guns and nepotism will generally come from that nations' own arms sector (Assuming it has such a private sector; odds are it's been seized by the military/government) or from a foreign nation seeking to make this its newest client state.

It's the fast track to a military dictatorship, in other words. Ask most of Latin America. Ask Iraq. Ask Pakistan. Ask Myanmar. Ask Belarus. The pattern is consistent enough to be a law of political theory.

Yes, I can always move. So can they. So can you. Stop flapping your ass-cheeks and go, if you dislike it so much. As for my rich neighbors, they are beneficiaries of this system as much - moreso, actually - than I am. Even if we swallow the myth that all wealthy people are that way because of hard work (you have to be pretty gullible to buy that, honestly) then they're still defined as wealthy because they have a larger portion of a government-backed resource than others around them. Ever heard the adage, "you have to spend money to make money?"

HMMM so might not the obvious solution be to remove said 'government backed resources' and thus government itself? I know a statist bigot such as yourself could never conceive of a world without unlimited monopolized violence, but maybe you could pretend for a second to not have a stockholm syndrome like love affair with you masters?

What a funny, willing little pawn you are.

Actually I can very easily conceive of a world without government or taxation. It's just that unlike you, I have a realistic notion of what such a world would look like; I draw from both history and current situations. History for the nature of human society prior to the rise of imperial governments, and current situations of both failed states and those societies that have thus far eluded becoming part of a governmental system. There are very different societies from what we, as fairly comfortable people dwelling in highly advanced nation-states in a democratic system with worldwide trade, know of. Examples of such a situation are literally all over the place.

You seem to be thinking that if taxes and government were ended, there would be no functional change to society, except that everyone would apparently have more money. Think about that for a moment, I'm sure you'll figure out the flaw in this.

. Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

Right and if a slave accepts water from his master, that slave owes his master for the price of digging the well.

Slaves weren't free to seek options besides slavery, you know. That's more or less the core situation of slavery. You, however, are completely free to leave the system you're in. Also if the slave refused to indulge his master's demands, the least he could expect was a severe flogging. I don't think you've ever been flogged, so please, spare me the hyperbolic comparisons. Fact is, you can thumb your nose at the "master." it's not legal, but let's be honest. Lots of freeloaders like yourself get away with it constantly.

So the situation is less master and slave, and more like absentee parent and spoiled child.

I have no other option to get around and live my life because i need roads to do so.

Again, you're being hypocritical, and showing us all that if anyone here is a thief and lover of violence, it's you. You want all the benefits, and you don't want to pay for them. You want others to pay your bills, and you're not willing to abandon the thing causing those bills because, well, it'd be inconvenient.

The government allows no competition in this, and many other areas. This ensures ever degrading service, as this is an intrinsic consequence of a violent monopoly. (violence that you seem to just love and cheerlead in a most grotesque and pathetic manner.)

Actually I just explained to you the reasons for degrading services and rising costs. I hate to tell you, but this is the real world, where real material issues have real material causes; it's not a sermon, where real issues have some magical sub-spiritual cause.

Of course as I have pointed out, it's possible to seek competing contracts or even avoid them altogether. The trouble comes with freeloaders like yourself, who want all the benefits but none of the cost.

Violence prevents me from choosing an alternate system! The gun that you praise blocks me from making any of my own decisions! Just cuz you love the taste of leather boots does not mean we all must be as degraded and corrupt as you are!

Canada forbids emigration? I'm not 100% certain, but, well, I don't think that;'s the case. You're free to seek out a better contract. Also I'm not totally certain of the Canadian tax system, but here in the US, if you aren't making an on-the-books income and aren't claiming large property, you don't pay taxes. So the option of being a hobo is still there for you (in fact in the latter case, you get the best of both worlds; both our nations still provide services to hobos - though admittedly Canada's better at it)

You are not shackled to your current situation, and claiming you are is a lie.

Id go on but I can see theres no point in pretending this is a civil discussion.

You were pretending? I honestly didn't think you were even making a mild effort at civility.

Clearly you advocate violence against me for my beliefs, and for that I hold you in the utmost contempt.

Actually no, I advocated you live up to your beliefs, and adopt one of the alternatives open to you - there are many nations with far lower taxation than Canada (hell, I live in one of them) and Canada does not forbid you from fleeing to these places (though you have to do so on your own dime, unless you can figure out some way to get exiled ) You also have the option for an off-the-grid subsistent lifestyle. Seriously, look it up, a good number of your countrymen already live this way. it's rough living, but you're outside the "system" which seems to be what you're looking for.

It's just that you are too lazy to emigrate, and too lacking in the skills for subsistence. These conditions are both your own fault. You also have it in your head that somehow your comfortable lifestyle will persist if you were to knock down the pillars of this particular temple, and you refuse to realize this.

In other words, your beliefs are wrong. It's not a case of divergent opinions, it's that you're just plain wrong. So of course I oppose your beliefs, for the same reason I oppose belief in winged carnivorous unicorns.

Your sickening subjugation to the evil status quo is nothing short of abhorrent, and the self assured tone you unashamedly flaunt, along with the gun you hide behind, literally chills me to my core as I behold a true enemy of everything I hold to be good and virtuous.

I'm sure. But as I've explained, your position - as the would-be thief who wants others to pay while you steal services, who is too lazy or ignorant to seek out available options - is not a position of moral strength. Your rhetoric has a nice bit of rage behind it, but to quote a better writer than I, "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

You sir, are a sickening little man, and I wish upon you all the consequences you justly deserve for your fawning at the foot of unjust and murderous power. *spit*

You're sickened by reality. I'm not surprised. Mildly disappointed but, oh don't worry, I'll get over it.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Taxes are part of a contract between the voters and government.

No. Government exists as a contract among individuals with rights who decided to create an entity derived from those rights. Life, liberty, and property are the rights of every living being. Government is an entity that exists to ensure the protection of those rights. It derives its power from those inalienable rights. If any government ever acts to infringe on the life, liberty, or property of an individual it dissolves the contract.

Taxation has no role in the contract. If a community decides to enforce taxation it must be done voluntarily, or it is violence. The fact the government exists does not mean a contract exists for taxing a populace. That taxation would be infringing upon the liberty and property of an individual. The rights of any individual are sacrosanct unless that person infringes on those same rights of another. Since government only has power within the rights of the individuals which it derives its power it cannot tax legally. If it is does tax it is indeed using the threat of force and violence, and in doing so threatening life. This dissolves the contract, and means the government is not longer a legitimate institution.

The government provides services for the population it governs, and they in turn pay for this via taxes.

Services rendered to someone under duress are hardly a good thing. The idea that a institution derived from inalienable rights can freely infringe on those very rights is mind boggling.

The costs are distributed among the population, thus minimizing individual cost, while the benefit is distributed among the whole of the governed, even those who for whatever reason aren't obligated to pay taxes.

The idea that a middle man in any economic relationship can lower individual cost is incorrect.
If I buy a shirt from you it costs x. If I send the money to Washington DC, and then DC sends it to you. My shirt just cost me x+y(bureaucratic costs/transit costs/regulatory cots).
The benefit is distributed among those some in the technocratic bureaucracy deem appropriate to receive funds. The whole population receives only the violence of taxation.

Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.

You cannot steal what was stolen from you.

The less you pay in, the less you get out. And the less impact taxpayers have, the less incentive for the elected officials to give a damn about the people.

I don't understand. The influence of the tax payer is derived by the amount of taxation?

I agree entirely and believe that this violence is both justifiable and necessary.