Taxation = Violence

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox


The less you pay in, the less you get out.

edit on 7/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

If only that were true. Actually, it's the people who pay in the least who are getting the most out.

Originally posted by stephinrazin
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.

Well, no.

First, let's start with your initial assumption; that government is a contract between individuals to provide a particular cast of services (which you handwave as "protecting rights"). Alright, if we take this as being true, then we have to figure out... Where does the money come from? 'cause like it or not, protecting the rights of the community does come with costs. A reasonable collection of individuals forming a government would come up with the idea that the community under the aegis of this institution fund it themselves with regular dues. I.e., taxes. Thus a people consenting to benefit from the institution of government are explicitly also agreeing to footing the payment for the cost of services provided by that institution.

Taxes are voluntary; as I have been pointing out, you are free to leave the contract. You can hie off to some tax-free state. you can drop off the grid. You have options and are not forced into the system. it is only people like Neo_Serf and, if I guess right, yourself - people who want all the services of government but are unwilling to pay for any of them - that have the problem. You continue to indulge yourself in the benefits of the institution of government, then you need to pay your part of the costs.

I suppose that when you order pizza, you threaten the delivery guy with bodily harm when he pulls out your bill. "THIS WAS NOT IN THE CONTRACT, DELIVERY BOY!!!"

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.

Actually you pay (X+Y) -z, where z is the contributions of many other people into the "get a shirt for stephinrazin" program. As I said, it reduces individual costs to the consumer. In effect, your cost is subsidized by others paying into the system with you.

Your notion of the population receiving only the "violence" is factually untrue, at least in the vast majority of instances. If there's a "Sheriff of Nottingham" situation where taxes are collected but nothing is offered to the populace at all, then yes, in that case the populace is receiving only the violence - but in such a situation, there are very likely much larger problems than the tax system (Say, a jealous prince usurping the rightful king and murdering his rivals)

of course, such societies are fairly few in number, and tend to stand out as places to avoid. Like North Korea. or Texas.

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.

Well, thing is we're not talking about you reappropriating your stuff - we're talking about you literally stealing the stuff of others because you mistakenly believe that it's all yours.

Basically it's like you're walking into a farmer's market and stealing all the grapes because you think one bunch of them might have been wrongly plucked from your vine. No, not even that 'cause in that case, your grapes actually were stolen.

It's more like you paid $1 into the party's pizza fund and then demanded the right to eat the entire pie when it shows up at the door (after threatening the delivery guy, of course )

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?

Sort of; it's a bit larger-scale than the individual in this case. Basically, it's as I described to Neo_Serf in my last post in this thread, about how cuts to taxes and spending have historically led to a fast track of military dictatorship. Invariably the first things to get cut with a lack of tax revenue are systems that are in place to respond to the citizenry, while the last things cut are the least-responsive; the military and the wannabe dictators.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Well, that's because folks like Neo_Serf and stephinrazin support legislation that creates 0% taxation for the most wealthy. This can easily be reversed.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Well, no.

First, let's start with your initial assumption; that government is a contract between individuals to provide a particular cast of services (which you handwave as "protecting rights").

Service and rights are very different. Services suggests the providing of something. Rights are those privileges guaranteed by the fact we are alive. I did not create this definition. It is the result of enlightenment thought from men like Locke and Hume. This definition is the foundation of the American Republic.(or was)

Alright, if we take this as being true, then we have to figure out... Where does the money come from? 'cause like it or not, protecting the rights of the community does come with costs.
A reasonable collection of individuals forming a government would come up with the idea that the community under the aegis of this institution fund it themselves with regular dues. I.e., taxes. Thus a people consenting to benefit from the institution of government are explicitly also agreeing to footing the payment for the cost of services provided by that institution.

The money required for protection of the rights would be agreed upon at the foundation of the government. If that government expands that taxation beyond what is necessary for the protection of these rights the taxes are unjust.

Taxes are voluntary; as I have been pointing out, you are free to leave the contract. You can hie off to some tax-free state. you can drop off the grid.

Risk imprisonment in a rape room? I also have the choice to jump off a cliff, but that does not mean I should do it. I am forced by threat of violence.

You have options and are not forced into the system. it is only people like Neo_Serf and, if I guess right, yourself - people who want all the services of government but are unwilling to pay for any of them - that have the problem. You continue to indulge yourself in the benefits of the institution of government, then you need to pay your part of the costs.

What do I indulge in? The roads. The police, The fire fighter. All paid for by local property taxes. What do I get from income tax? Inheritance tax? Capital Gains tax? Medicare/Medicaid/social security taxes?(They will all be bankrupt before I retire) Whatever so called benefits this state provides pales in comparison to the amount taken.

Actually you pay (X+Y) -z, where z is the contributions of many other people into the "get a shirt for stephinrazin" program. As I said, it reduces individual costs to the consumer. In effect, your cost is subsidized by others paying into the system with you.

What? No matter how many people pay in they are all paying more by dealing with a middle party. If every person buys a shirt they all pay more my sending the money through DC. I don't really understand your thinking.

Your notion of the population receiving only the "violence" is factually untrue, at least in the vast majority of instances. If there's a "Sheriff of Nottingham" situation where taxes are collected but nothing is offered to the populace at all, then yes, in that case the populace is receiving only the violence - but in such a situation, there are very likely much larger problems than the tax system (Say, a jealous prince usurping the rightful king and murdering his rivals)

of course, such societies are fairly few in number, and tend to stand out as places to avoid. Like North Korea. or Texas.

The idea is philosophical. The state holds the threat of violence over your head in order to get taxation. You personally may not experience it, but the threat is there. Still, someone does receive the violence of the state whether you do or not.

Well, thing is we're not talking about you reappropriating your stuff - we're talking about you literally stealing the stuff of others because you mistakenly believe that it's all yours.

The state seized my money outside of its rights. It used this money to make roads. How can I steal what was stolen from me?

Sort of; it's a bit larger-scale than the individual in this case. Basically, it's as I described to Neo_Serf in my last post in this thread, about how cuts to taxes and spending have historically led to a fast track of military dictatorship. Invariably the first things to get cut with a lack of tax revenue are systems that are in place to respond to the citizenry, while the last things cut are the least-responsive; the military and the wannabe dictators.

That is a pretty blanket statement. I think that is a pretty hard argument to back up. That every time a government cuts taxes or spending they move toward dictatorship. I would argue the opposite. The more money the state taxes and spends the greater the move toward dictatorship. I strongly recommend a Road to Serfdom(Abridged). This Austrian witnessed the rise of Nazism, and knows a fair more then we do about the danger of state of power.

I will agree the military is the last thing to be cut. The situation that allowed for the military to have such influence is the denial of the dangers of increased state power. Without years of entrenched state power through oppressive taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy dictatorships could not come to power.

Originally posted by stephinrazin
Service and rights are very different. Services suggests the providing of something. Rights are those privileges guaranteed by the fact we are alive. I did not create this definition. It is the result of enlightenment thought from men like Locke and Hume. This definition is the foundation of the American Republic.(or was)

Have you ever actually read John Locke or David Hume? I would strongly suggest doing so before you attempt to name-drop. If you have read them, then you really shouldn't be citing them; your position doesn't mesh too well with theirs.

Now, your starry-eyed idealism aside, you're missing the point. The service provided is the protection of rights. We've already been here, and you did say that's what you believe the point of government to be - the protection of rights. That, friend, is a service. And as I'm sure you understand, services are not free. Ergo, taxes.

The money required for protection of the rights would be agreed upon at the foundation of the government. If that government expands that taxation beyond what is necessary for the protection of these rights the taxes are unjust.

That wouldn't work, actually. Most nations last a good while longer than the men who originated them, after all. Societies progress and evolve. The notion of rights continually expand, as well as the people they are applied to. This actually creates an additional need for funding. Progress + Population growth = More revenue needed. Thankfully the growth is arithmetic and not exponential.

Risk imprisonment in a rape room? I also have the choice to jump off a cliff, but that does not mean I should do it. I am forced by threat of violence.

You know, there's a point where "ignorance" crosses the Rubicon, has all the dust washed off, and is revealed to have been "stupidity" all along. How's the water?

For what feels like the hundredth time, you are free to leave. You are free to divorce yourself from the grid. No thugs are going to grab you and force you to have property and income. They're not going to drag you kicking and screaming out of your Dominican tax haven and force you to churn out dollars in Rhode Island. it does not work that way.

For the hundred and first time, your problem is not that you do not have options. Your problem is not the "threat of violence." Your problem is that you want all the benefits of a system paid for by taxes, without ever paying one red cent yourself - I.e., you're a thief. Not just any thief, you're a lazy one.

What do I indulge in? The roads. The police, The fire fighter. All paid for by local property taxes. What do I get from income tax? Inheritance tax? Capital Gains tax? Medicare/Medicaid/social security taxes?(They will all be bankrupt before I retire) Whatever so called benefits this state provides pales in comparison to the amount taken.

Your local property taxes are still taxes, you know. And I find it ironic that you're giving a bitch and moan about the state of Social Security and Medicare/aid.. .while also screaming about paying taxes. Didn't I already explain the cause of deteriorating service vs. rising cost? I'm giving you a free education here, buckaroo, might want to saddle up.

Now, here's what you're missing. You, personally, may not be a direct beneficiary of a given program or service. Like most anti-tax crusaders, you then dismiss that particular program or service as "waste." The thing is, though, you are not the only person in existence (shocking, I know!) You are part of a greater organism, an entire society. You, personally, probably don't benefit from WIC coupons, for instance ("waste!" I hear you shout to the heavens.) But someone does. Some mom and her kid have food - food that I'm absolutely certain you weren't about to donate (odds are you didn't even know this mother and child existed, don't feel too bad). This is a mother who is demonstrably less likely to engage in something illegal to make ends meet. it's a kid who will be fed and, one hopes, healthy, rather than a malnourished waif causing hospital costs to go up. With the WIC option, she has that much less stress, and is that much more able to be a decent mother, or a capable employee, or whatever the hell she;s doing. These effects do come back to benefit you, if only marginally.

That which betters society as a whole benefits the individuals within that society.

What? No matter how many people pay in they are all paying more by dealing with a middle party. If every person buys a shirt they all pay more my sending the money through DC. I don't really understand your thinking.

I know you don't understand my thinking. This seems to be a recurrent problem. The thing here is, not everyone paying into the system is utilizing the system. If everyone who paid in also bought out, then yes, the system would collapse, for the exact reason you described.

The idea is philosophical. The state holds the threat of violence over your head in order to get taxation. You personally may not experience it, but the threat is there. Still, someone does receive the violence of the state whether you do or not.

Yes, the idea is philosophical. So is the question, "do you see the same red that I see?" and "Do trees dream?" and of course, the debate over exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ideally, philosophy is a tool to awaken the mind as to how to ask questions and seek answers. All too often though it becomes a goal unto itself; that is, philosophy can become nothing more than useless mental masturbation. Such is the case here, with your argument. You may be making a philosophical point, but that point is useless for real-world application. Let's try anyway,and see what we come up with.

Taxation is theft, therefore violence. So those who pay taxes are being oppresed by statist violence. A reasonable assumption from this situation is that those who pay the largest sums in taxes will be the most oppressed members of this violence-based system, since, logically, they are the ones being pummeled the hardest for their lunch money by the state. So we look at those who pay the largest sums in taxes - the wealthy and upper classes. Surely they are brutalized, broken bunch?

No, in fact, they are the freest sector of our society. Their wealth grants them more access to their government, it ensures greater security in their health and persons and property, all of which they have more of. The wealthier portions of the society - those who are squeezed the most for taxes - enjoy the highest rate of education, the highest rate of meaningful and secure employment, and the best chances of actually retiring with the ability to enjoy their elder years. They and their children live longer, live better, travel more, and are far better-able to ensure the livelihoods of their descendants to come.

Well, okay, those paying the heaviest taxes might not be doing too badly. But how about those who pay the least? Surely, surely these people, who have the least violence perpetrated against them by hte state - those who, as you have put it, are the beneficiaries of that violence, surely they must be even better-off?

Well, no. The least-taxed sectors of our society are, by and large, the poorest and most destitute. They have poor health, often have lackluster educations, a great many don't even have meaningful shelter. Their children are hungry and often suffer from the desperation and stress of their parents, which unfortunately frequently manifests in addictive diseases such as alcoholism. Most work low-paying jobs that they find little or no personal satisfaction in, and an ever-increasing number are held in debt while their costs keep going higher and their wages stay static. They have almost no access to their government, and what little they have is actually held by charitable people from the higher classes. They often leave nothing to bequeath to their future generations, which only helps ensure the generational nature of this state.

Your philosophy, when applied to reality goes completely backwards. Your philosophy says that those with the most freedom are the most grossly oppressed, while those with the least are freest of all. By your philosophy, Sweden is a failed, degenerate state that needs to be held in contempt for its gross violence and negligence, while Somalia is a shining city on the hill, a beacon to all who seek freedom. Up is down, red is green, and squirrels are canteloupes!

The state seized my money outside of its rights. It used this money to make roads. How can I steal what was stolen from me?

Actually the contract you are living under allows for taxation for the public good. It's in the Constitution. Once again, I should point out you have total freedom to emigrate (a freedom that isn't shared by those who can't afford it as you can, I might add)

As for how you can steal it... think of it this way. I have a World of Warcraft account. it costs me $14 a month, and I have it set to recurrent every month. Thing is, I don't play it very often anymore. I think last time I signed in was in mid-June, in fact. Am I being stolen from? Certainly not. I'm not currently using the service, but I pay to ensure that it's still there if I decide I want to use it, say, in 20 minutes. meanwhile my money is going towards server costs, content development, staff pay, and all sorts of stuff the many, many, many other players in the game are gaining benefit from right now. Is Blizzard threatening me with violence? Nope, I'm under the understanding that if I do not pay, my account will be closed and I cannot access the service until I put money into it again. This is not violence, it's a contractual agreement. Now, if I were to do like some others, and find some way to scam the system so that I can play without paying, is that theft? even though i've already paid lots of money into the game that i didn't directly gain from? Yes, it is still theft.

That is a pretty blanket statement. I think that is a pretty hard argument to back up. That every time a government cuts taxes or spending they move toward dictatorship.

Not every time, and I realized i had unintentionally implied so after the edit time had expired. Sorry. No, there are regular ups and downs to both taxation and spending, organic fluctuations according to the needs of the society.

However, it is the fast track method. You want a dictatorship lickety-split? Slash taxes and radically defund the services provided to the society. Boom, dictatorship in under a month. Allow me to use your example to give you an example.

I would argue the opposite. The more money the state taxes and spends the greater the move toward dictatorship. I strongly recommend a Road to Serfdom(Abridged). This Austrian witnessed the rise of Nazism, and knows a fair more then we do about the danger of state of power.

Oh, I know all about Hayek. Some things you probably either don't, or have conveniently glossed over. Hayek's philosophies actually are the core and cornerstone of many of the grossest violations against human rights in the latter 20th century, and are the founding philosophy of dictators from Indonesia's Suharto to Chile's Pinochet to Russia's Yeltsin. Granted, most of these were passed secondhandedly via Hayek's student, Milton Friedman, and his students in Chicago, but the political and economic philosophies were relatively unadulterated. One could almost think that his Road to Serfdom was taken to be a user's guide - And Hayek lived to see it all done in his name, without ever voicing any contention to it. In fact he praised Pinochet, saying that he'd rather there be a dictator that forced Hayek's economic vision on the people rather than a democracy that didn't.

So, the tl;dr version? Stick Hayek in your ear, he's an even creepier hypocrite than you.

I will agree the military is the last thing to be cut. The situation that allowed for the military to have such influence is the denial of the dangers of increased state power. Without years of entrenched state power through oppressive taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy dictatorships could not come to power.

So you're saying that Norway is bound to become a ruthless military dictatorship any day now, because of its high taxes, large bureaucracy, and strong regulations? I suppose then that all this talk of armed anarchy in tax-free, regulation-free, bureaucracy-free Somalia is just a lie from the liberal media? I suppose of military dictatorships erupting from nascent states that had not had time to establish any real taxes, regulations, or bureaucracy (say, Pakistan) are all make-believe, while all the states that emerged with large taxes, strong regulations, and standing bureaucracy are all, at heart, Hitlers waiting to happen (like, uh, Canada).

And before you troth them out, both Hitler and Stalin emerged out of failed states that had shredded their own social contracts; Germany because the allied victory in World War I forced them to do so, Russia because the Tzars were, well, Tzars.

Your philosophy requires you to say these stupid and factually incorrect things, much as a religious fundamentalist is compelled to say that women were made from man's rib. In both cases, it's the philosophy that needs to be discarded, and the reality of the situation observed and embraced.

Appologies to any serious posters for abandoning my own thread. Clearly I wasnt ready for the emotional combat such a topic obviously would provoke. Walking FAUX clearly got the better of me, in the instance.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Well, that's because folks like Neo_Serf and stephinrazin support legislation that creates 0% taxation for the most wealthy. This can easily be reversed.

It is the wealthy that mostly pay for government.

Ahhhh why not.

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

Sure is. Kinda the basis of my point. The world operates on the aggression principle currently.

I'm afraid you do. You live in Canada, right? That means you claim residence in Canada. Which makes you subject to Canadian Law.

Just off the top, I declare my non consent right now, so were clear.

*subject* is an interesting word. Youre right, to be a subject is to be subjected to, and is the opposite of freely given consent. Thanks for illustrating my point for me.

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.

So if I drive on the only roads allowed and drink water provided involuntarily by the state, I then owe them for their 'service'?

I suppose a slave owes his master room and board?

Also, I noticed you didnt mention all the massive costs and penalties that accrue to myself as a subject of the state.

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.

You realize the near infinite violence of the state stops any alternative from being explored?

If youre my slave, and you need water from the well I forced you to dig, do you then owe me for the costs of keeping you alive?

Im only 'obligated' due to my status as a 'subject'. If I had alternatives I would of course explore them.

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.

Theft is defined as the involuntary removal of justly owned property. The money and production I add to the economy would not have existed if not for my input. Thus anything I produce is justly mine. Some dead guys writing on some paper does not alter this unalterable truth. What happens after that is totally irrelevant.

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?

Sorry I will totally take advantage of any means I can to reacquire any resources I can from the state in the same way I would have no problem taking my bike back if it was stolen. Although nothing I take advantage of will ever come even close to the 50% of my productive time the state has taken from me via force.

Stop saying im willing because I dont run off to the woods. I consent to nothing that is forced upon me. But I still have a life to live.

My high ground is that I dont advocate violence against any non aggressor. Real simple.

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)

Hmm so structural subsidies make an inefficient lifestyle that drains from the productive a viable way to organize society?

So in your viewpoint we should feed and sustain that which could never sustain itself without forcible theft and reallocation of resources?

So not only youre down with the gun, but you dont care much for the environment either?

ect ect.