Taxes aren't theft, agreed. It is like moving into a home but then saying "rent is theft! I don't want to pay rent. Landlords will use force to evict me therefore I am under a threat of violence!". Bunch of crap. If you don't like it move. Same with taxes. Let's see how you like not having a home and all the benefits that come with it.
However, I would like lower taxes. But the problem is I don't want to give up any of the protections or services the government provides. Which I realize is childish. It's like my kids want a big allowance, yet don't want to do their chores. So my only option is to be an active participant in my government to tune the taxes and what they are spent on. I vote and I talk with those I vote for, letting them know what I want. That is my civic responsibility.
How are land masses the same as enclosures? Why do I have to pay third parties for property I've already paid for? What evidence do you have that the individuals calling themselves government have an obligation to protect me? Which specific individuals owe me this protection?
If taxation isn't theft, why do people threaten to throw me in a cage for not submitting to it? Why do they threaten to escalate until I'm dead if I don't comply?
How are the individuals calling themselves government able to expropriate my property and protect it simultaneously? How are they able to threaten me with violence and protect me simultaneously?
Your assertions are filled with logical contradictions yet my premise is the one that's flawed?
None of what either of you said was at all responsive to anything in my article; by contrast, it was a double and triple down on the fallacies described within.
Thanks for proving my point though!
Not sure the relevance of land masses and enclosures. Nations have borders which are on maps, and represent the lines of ownership and governance.
Paying for something does not mean you always own it in perpetuity. There is a whole subject of law concerning this, called Property. In fact software is going this route. Read the box when you buy Windows products. You don't actually own it.
The Declaration of Independence as well as the US Constitutions spells out the role of government (U.S.), which includes providing for a common defense.
We, the people created this government (U.S.) also in the Declaration and Constitution.
Government is a body, not an individual. Same as a corporation, which is a entity not a person.
You will be prosecuted if you do not fulfill your obligation to pay taxes. It is the price of being a citizen. If you give up citizenship, you no longer pay future taxes (still owe the back taxes though). Think of it as a contract.
The government protects and prosecutes harmful or unproductive entities. Same as the human body. Our bodies collectively protect itself and have mechanisms to destroy or evict harmful elements, including cells which go bad.
Yes, I believe my comments follow logic and yours are based upon open ended questions attempting to show contradiction without a point. I see them as a set of false-arguments or sometimes referred to as fallacies or false-logic (depending if you are a Logic major or follow the Argumentation educational path)
You use the word fallacies, but I am not confident you actually understand what that means. For reference I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies It is a good start.
I've written entire articles on Steemit disproving every claim that you just put forth.
I get it though. You have an axe to grind.
what a sophist punk. @ultimus
"Not sure the relevance of land masses and enclosures."
You are not sure because you are a fucking idiot. Yes, borders are on maps. Way to prove you graduated kindergarten. You are going to have to explain how imaginary lines represent "ownership and governance." though. Paying for something means that you own it the amount you agreed to before the transaction took place.
"There is a whole subject of law concerning this, called Property." You state this fucking nonsense then post a list of fallacies , yahokay . That's Argumentum ad baculum, dumbass.
What the fuck does a "body" consist of? If your fucking answer is individuals, you should probably go die in a fire.
"You will be prosecuted if you do not fulfill your obligation to pay taxes."
You mean I will be prosecuted if I don't submit to theft? I do not want any of the services provided by tax dollars. Not a single one. Why am I obligated to pay for services I do not want? If you move from the US and give up citizenship you still have to pay taxes for 10 years so you can shove that "move to somalia" shit right back in your asshole. There is no contract if there is no ability to withhold consent . I have never been offered the opportunity to withhold citizenship, therefore none of this bullshit is valid. "the government" forces people to pay them. that's it. all of the other shit they do is to protect their ability to force you to pay them. Your comments do not follow logic and are completely contradictory to the points you are attempting to make . The contradictions ARE the point, you mouth breathing moron. If your logic is so bad that it is filled with contradictions then maybe you are wrong and need to rethink your positions. Although I'm pretty sure you haven't even thought about them a first time, because you are stupid.
fuck you.
I am enjoying this thread! It is an opportunity for people to exchange opinions.
Unfortunately, it seems some are having difficulty expressing their thoughts in a constructive manner. Shame really, as belligerence detracts from the credibility of what could be interesting opinions and perspectives. I have an open mind. I am willing to listen and evaluate, without the prejudgment that I must be right. In fact, I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, when presented with a clear argument supported by substantive facts that have no counter.
I would argue, passions are running high for some and there is a lack of self control. Everyone is different. But let me state for the record, you won't hear me being belligerent, talking foul, or outright attempting to attack someone as a form or argument (Ad hominem). Just not productive. Truth and insight is a far better outcome.
For the record, I think everyone should have an opinion and at their discretion , voice it in a peaceful way. This is the nature of the 1st amendment (which I suppose is only relevant if you believe in the validity of the U.S. Government) and I believe everyone should take advantage of this right. So please, continue the conversation. I am interested in the logic you are working so hard to express. I can filter out you insults. Maybe there is something to learn.
Nope, we'll just hear you gaslighting by insisting that theft isn't theft. I'd take the ad-homs over your implied threats of physical violence, personally.
ultimus why do you want me dead if I disagree with you. comparing a free market transaction with the state is a truly evil comparison. you have the choice of where you want to live. you have no choice as to whether you pay taxes. if you don't pay your taxes men in blue costumes will come to your door and demand payment. If you fail to fork over the money they will put you in a rape room for 10 years. If you defend yourself they will shoot you dead and get off scott free with murder.
I definitely do NOT want you dead. Disagreement is healthy if done in a constructive way. It can educate all parties and enlighten situations for better opinions all round. The result is a stronger community. So I am glad you are here and expressing your perspectives!
I don't see comparisons as 'evil'. If you disagree with the validity of the comparison, then lets talk about why you feel that is the case. Perhaps provide an alternative comparison and explain why the factors which comprise it are better.
Back to choices. When we make a choice, there are usually conditions. If you purchase a ticket to see a movie, there are rules. You cannot run up and down the isles naked and screaming during the movie. It is not allowed. There are rules and consequences. If you don't like those rules, then don't buy the ticket (or find a theater which allows it). Same with choosing which country and government to live under (the rules which are defined).
For example, you may want to live in Singapore (a beautiful city by the way) but they do not allow chewing gum. If you absolutely want to chew gum everyday in public, it would probably not be a good choice for you.
Taxes are part of the conditions for citizens under all major governments. So is other agreements like not committing crimes against people (assault, battery, homicide, etc.). It is just part of the agreement package. For those who break the rules there are consequences.
So if I refuse to pay, you'll be opposed to individuals calling themselves "government" using force against me to expropriate my property or throw me in a cage?
How do you reconcile "I don't want you dead" with "for those who break the rules there are consequences"? Do you even have any evidence that these so-called "rules" apply to anyone? If so, what? What facts or evidence did you rely on when determining that rules apply to people because of physical location?
"How do you reconcile "I don't want you dead" with "for those who break the rules there are consequences"?"
The legal system has a number of consequences for those who break laws. It might be a fine (ex. speeding ticket), a warning (ex. perhaps for smoking near a grade school), it could be incarceration (ex. unjustified assault-battery), restitution (ex. paying someone for their window you broke while playing baseball), and could be execution depending upon the state (usually for premeditated homicide). For criminal acts, please remember it can be a jury of peers, not 'government' who decide your guilt (the option is up to the accused). This is our system. We created it because we didn't like the colonial system of England. So we (the people) created a new one and also defined the 3 branches of government to run our country.
To validate justification of the U.S. Government, we would need to discuss the history of our national origins, dating back to before the Revolutionary war. We became a self governing body, which the King of England really didn't like. Borders were defined by our self-governing representative bodies and neighboring countries. The rest is, as they say, history. Kind of a unique history . But self-governance, via deciding the structure and voting for leaders, is not entirely unique. The ancient Greeks, well some of the city states, did something similar.
The concept of rules based on location is part of our daily lives. When you walk into a church, are the rules different than at the 50 yard line of a football game? How about in an airport versus a shooting range? Do you establish rules for guests of your house (take your shoes off, no cursing in front of the kids, no food fights, etc?). So there are many precedents we all embrace. Same for borders of countries. Each can set their own rules. You choose to cross the border, you are subject to those rules.
i am glad you don't want me dead. you can no longer vote and you can no longer call taxation anything other than theft. if you support taxation you want me dead.