Taxation Is Robbery

[Truth-Bringer]

I am awed at the abundance of nonsense that is possible in a single post!

Obviously you haven't been reading your own posts...

Homestead operates on the principle of first occupancy. So the state, which represents the body politic formed by the social contract has primacy over the land.

There is no state with primacy as an entity over anything. Reification fallacy. The state is composed of individual human beings who gain no additional rights through joining together in a collective. No rights supercede the unalienable rights of the individual. If every individual in the "state" or in "society" dies, these entities do not continue to exist beyond the individuals that comprise them.

And there is no alleged "social contract" - all contracts must be entered into KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY with FULL DISCLOSURE and cannot be valid if any party is UNDER DURESS.

Understand that homestead is a legal principle embodied in the torrens system of title - hence an INVENTION of the state.

Again, there is no "state" that may invent anything - no "state" ever invented anything - reification fallacy.

And even if, for some absurd twist of logic, your rights are indefeasible, the laws that guarantee the protection of these rights are derived from the same body politic you reject.

What I reject is the absurb notion that human beings gain the right via joining into a collective to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of other human beings.

So, for all intents and purposes, the only law that operates for you is the law that NATURE left you with - survival of the fittest, the primacy of the strong, etc.

By the law of nature:

1. you are incapable of ejecting the state from the vicinity of your person by your powers, alone;

If you conceive that rights do not exist and no one is born with rights, you still must consider that rights are derived from our productive labor. If I send a basketball into the air and it comes down thru a hoop, I have the right to the two points: it was my "productive labor" that produced the result and the ownership of it.

If I gain rightful possession of land (either by first claim or by purchase) and labor to put seed in the ground, remove weeds and pests, provide water et cetera, it is my labor that will create the produce of the land and my "right" to it. Neither the produce nor the right existed before my labor. I may then consume the produce or exchange it for other goods. Here, I exchange the goods but retain the "rights", which are now represented by the 'other goods.'

Rights are, taken in a purely physical sense, something of a social phenomenon: they are effective only so far as your neighbors recognize them; otherwise your rights extend to whatever you produce and can personally defend. This is why the powerful (the masses) must combine with the intelligent and just (the few) in order to secure rights of both.

You seem to be implying that I'm confused as to the distinction between rights and power. A lot of people speak of “rights that are granted”. We should stop here: this phrase is meaningless to me. If you will go back to the founding documents of this union, you’ll find, in numerous declarations, that rights are described as inherent, as derived from nature; and that ‘privileges’ are activities that are granted. If ‘rights are granted,’ as your side claims, what are activities that are not granted? And, what then is the distinction between rights and privileges? According to your definition, they would be the same. Why use two different words to denote the same thing?

American Founders would not tolerate “rights” that are granted; they would have none other than rights that are inherent. I am the same way.

2. you are incapable of political association with people of like mind that would help you remove the state (since that would entail being beholden to another);

Huh? LOL. You are really doing your best to obfuscate as much as possible. Individual human beings may freely associate with one another as long as their actions are of a peaceful, honest, voluntary nature. They may not use force except in self-defense.

therefore, your only recourse, (if indeed the state is intolerable), is to remove yourself from it.

Or educate other misguided human beings who falsely believe they have the authority to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of others. Teach them that other people are not their property.

This is a simple matter, as I pointed out. Renounce the citizenship you were born with. Just because you were born with it, doesn't mean you are compelled to it.

Simple matter? I think not. For one thing the U.S. forbids the renouncing of citizenship for purposes of tax avoidance. And if you leave without renouncing your citizenship, the U.S. will still tax you. Ah, the greedy hand of government...always reaching into your pockets to steal as much as possible. So you will have force applied against you either way. There is no simple parting of the ways.

Citizenship is as free an association as the social contract which brought it about.

The alleged "social contract" is no "free association" - one is immediately threatened with force and prevented from freely participating in numerous peacful, honest, voluntary activities.

Theoretically, there's no such place,

Then why bring it up? LOL. Could it be for purposes of obfuscation.

Understand?

It's quite clear that you don't understand.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You are dodging the question.

One cannot answer a fallacy. Your question was a Non sequitur, and I described exactly why.

If you kept to the ethical integrity of your principles you would refuse to take advantage of those benefits because they were the product of robbery. If indeed you do make use of those benefits willingly, then you are no better than those you denounce.

I find it humorous being lectured on ethics by the accomplice of a thief who would gladly sit by and watch news reports of armed men, whose salaries he helped to pay, storm my house and blow my brains out if I dared to refuse to give them the money they demanded, and tried to fight to keep them off my property.

Let me make this clear. I don't want any of your alleged "benefits." I want nothing to do with any alleged "services." I want you to stop providing ANY of these things to me immediately. And then I want you to stop empowering people with guns to steal from me.

But you know what? Your goons will still demand their payment, even if I never take any of the alleged "benefits." They will not give me back my freedom.

So who is the ethical party? Not your side, clearly.

 

[Coyote]

One cannot answer a fallacy. Your question was a Non sequitur, and I described exactly why.

I don't think you know your fallacies. Non Sequiter follows this basic form:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is stated to be true.
3. Therefore, A must be true.

You are stating that taxes are stolen money.
I am stating that tax money is used to provide certain benefits.

For the sake of argument, lets assume the above two are true.

I am then asking YOU if you utilize those benefits.

You refuse to answer and instead label this a Non Sequiter fallacy which is erroneous.

I find it humorous being lectured on ethics by the accomplice of a thief who would gladly sit by and watch news reports of armed men, whose salaries he helped to pay, storm my house and blow my brains out if I dared to refuse to give them the money they demanded, and tried to fight to keep them off my property.

I find it hilarious that you refuse to answer the question. Ad hominum by the way.

Let me make this clear. I don't want any of your alleged "benefits."

Then don't take them.

I want nothing to do with any alleged "services." I want you to stop providing ANY of these things to me immediately.

Why are you using them?

Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use them?

And then I want you to stop empowering people with guns to steal from me.

But you know what? Your goons will still demand their payment, even if I never take any of the alleged "benefits." They will not give me back my freedom.

So who is the ethical party? Not your side, clearly.

You make a lot of excuses but in the end - it sounds as if you make good use of the benefits people's taxes pay for.

Isn't this something like the person that buys goods off the local fence - knowing it's stolen property?

So, I'll ask again: if taxes are so abhorrent, why do you take advantage of the benefits they pay for?

If taxes are so ethically wrong you spend your entire internet life villafying them - then how do you ethically justify making use of the benefits they provide?

There's a word for that.

 

[numinus]

Obviously you haven't been reading your own posts...

There is no state with primacy as an entity over anything. Reification fallacy. The state is composed of individual human beings who gain no additional rights through joining together in a collective. No rights supercede the unalienable rights of the individual. If every individual in the "state" or in "society" dies, these entities do not continue to exist beyond the individuals that comprise them.

I assure you, the political organization is VERY REAL.

Reification fallacy, indeed!

And there is no alleged "social contract" - all contracts must be entered into KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY with FULL DISCLOSURE and cannot be valid if any party is UNDER DURESS.

Then, by YOUR definition, infants and mentally crippled people are NOT entitled to the PROTECTION of the state, eh?

What nonsense!

Again, there is no "state" that may invent anything - no "state" ever invented anything - reification fallacy.

Civil liberties. The rule of law.

Ring any bells?

What I reject is the absurb notion that human beings gain the right via joining into a collective to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of other human beings.

No natural right is gained in the political association.

You give up your absolute liberty by entering the political association. What you gain is civil liberty and the COMMON FORCE to protect it.

Understand?

If you conceive that rights do not exist and no one is born with rights, you still must consider that rights are derived from our productive labor. If I send a basketball into the air and it comes down thru a hoop, I have the right to the two points: it was my "productive labor" that produced the result and the ownership of it.

To gain two points (if such a thing even exist ouside of the sport), you need to be IN a basketball game complete with rules.

What ineffable twaddle!

If I gain rightful possession of land (either by first claim or by purchase) and labor to put seed in the ground, remove weeds and pests, provide water et cetera, it is my labor that will create the produce of the land and my "right" to it. Neither the produce nor the right existed before my labor. I may then consume the produce or exchange it for other goods. Here, I exchange the goods but retain the "rights", which are now represented by the 'other goods.'

Correct.

The founding fathers 'labored' to create the political association you are in now. That political association continues by both manifest will (suffrage) and tacit consent.

So the political association, by both primacy of occupation and labor has more right over you.

Rights are, taken in a purely physical sense, something of a social phenomenon: they are effective only so far as your neighbors recognize them; otherwise your rights extend to whatever you produce and can personally defend. This is why the powerful (the masses) must combine with the intelligent and just (the few) in order to secure rights of both.

And you are talking of a political association. The state IS ALREADY a political association, and the government, its agent.

You seem to be implying that I'm confused as to the distinction between rights and power. A lot of people speak of “rights that are granted”. We should stop here: this phrase is meaningless to me. If you will go back to the founding documents of this union, you’ll find, in numerous declarations, that rights are described as inherent, as derived from nature; and that ‘privileges’ are activities that are granted. If ‘rights are granted,’ as your side claims, what are activities that are not granted? And, what then is the distinction between rights and privileges? According to your definition, they would be the same. Why use two different words to denote the same thing?

Natural rights are those that exist as inalienable from the human person as he is, in a STATE OF NATURE. This is a PERFECT LIBERTY, since one can do what one wishes to do.

As you can imagine, the perfect liberty of one would necessarily annihilate the perfect liberty of another in ANY social setting. Thus, perfect liberty is an intolerable condition.

When one enters the political association, he gives up his perfect liberty and gains an imperfect (civil) liberty and a vastly multiplied force to protect what liberty he retains.

Understand?

American Founders would not tolerate “rights” that are granted; they would have none other than rights that are inherent. I am the same way.

The natural right you retain from the state of nature are those that are NECESSARY for human existence.

So your right to life, for instance, is retained, and the political association obliged to protect it. However you loose the right to kill anyone you wish. If you do, then the common force would naturally defend itself from you.

Huh? LOL. You are really doing your best to obfuscate as much as possible. Individual human beings may freely associate with one another as long as their actions are of a peaceful, honest, voluntary nature. They may not use force except in self-defense.

And the body politic is such an association.

But according to you, the state, which is the body politic in passive form, is an intolerable condition.

Are you not getting dizzy going in circles?

Or educate other misguided human beings who falsely believe they have the authority to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of others. Teach them that other people are not their property.

Which is one of the activities for which your taxes are used.

Or did you think anyone would labor freely for your benefit.

Simple matter? I think not. For one thing the U.S. forbids the renouncing of citizenship for purposes of tax avoidance. And if you leave without renouncing your citizenship, the U.S. will still tax you. Ah, the greedy hand of government...always reaching into your pockets to steal as much as possible. So you will have force applied against you either way. There is no simple parting of the ways.

Of course. Your wealth was made at the time you were enjoying citizenship.

Pay the taxes and leave. From that point on, the state would no longer assess you of taxes.

The alleged "social contract" is no "free association" - one is immediately threatened with force and prevented from freely participating in numerous peacful, honest, voluntary activities.

You enter the political association with certain rights and responsibilities.

My first grade son understands this concept better than you.

Then why bring it up? LOL. Could it be for purposes of obfuscation.

It's quite clear that you don't understand.

I gave you a practical way out, did I not. Go where other people NEVER go.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

 

[bokile]

hahaha

Communist China is winning the game

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't think you know your fallacies.

I don't think you know yours, because you keep using them.

Non Sequiter follows this basic form:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is stated to be true.
3. Therefore, A must be true.

Actually, it probably qualifies as more of a Straw Man now that I think about it. You're saying "forget about whether A is true or not, because I think B is true." But it still is a modified form of Non Sequitur because your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

You are stating that taxes are stolen money.

Yes, they are. And that's the key issue. Your claim is that if the stolen money is used in a certain way, it's ok. I keep pointing out to you that this does nothing to change the fact that a theft has occurred.

Ad hominum by the way.

No, it's not. You are an accomplice to taking money from others by threat of force, or force if the threat isn't sufficient. I described you accurately.

So, I'll ask again: if taxes are so abhorrent, why do you take advantage of the benefits they pay for?

I don't. Why do you steal from people and claim it's ok because you used some of the money in a claim that you benefitted them?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I assure you, the political organization is VERY REAL.

Reification fallacy, indeed!

Indeed it is. "The state" does not exist as a singular entity. "The state" cannot magically do anything. It is a group of individuals. The following is a logical description of the situation:

IS GOVERNMENT A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING?

People often debate or argue about the "role of government." But there is a basic argument that is almost always overlooked. It is a very simple argument:

* If you examine anything being "done by government," you will find human beings doing whatever is being done. They may also use equipment and machinery, but the most important work is done by individual human beings. If you go to a school, you will not find any "government" that runs the school. You will find a principal, a number of administrative people, and several teachers - all individual human beings. No matter what government monopoly you examine, for example a police station, you will find that the important work is done by individual human beings. If you visit a military installation, or a court, or a jail, or a veterans hospital, or a road being built, you will find individual human beings doing the work.

* The fact that these human beings call themselves "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not call themselves "government."

* Furthermore, the fact that certain individuals organize themselves into an institution called "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not so organize themselves.

* In general, people who don't call themselves "government," can do anything humans can do, at least as well as people who call themselves "government."

Is there any evidence that just because people call themselves "government," or they organize themselves into an institution called "government," they can do their jobs better?

IDOLATRY

In Man and Superman George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Government is the organization of idolatry." The dictionary defines "idol" as:

* A representation or symbol of worship;
* A false god;
* A pretender or impostor;
* An object of passionate devotion;
* A false conception or fallacy.

An idolater is a worshipper of idols. Idolatry is the phenomenon of worshipping idols. What do we call the belief in the "magical power" of government? What about the belief that because people call themselves "government" - or they organize themselves into an institution called "government" - therefore they have "magical powers" to perform miracles? Superstition, perhaps?

WE NEED PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND MANAGING

Certain "communal" activities need to be performed. For example, in a city certain things need to planned, coordinated, and managed. If you go to any city, you will find some human beings doing just this. They may use computers and other equipment, but the essential planning, coordination, and managing is always done by human beings. If you visit a large company, you will find the same thing. We absolutely do need planning, coordination, and managing. We have it. People do it.

DO WE ALSO NEED COERCION, VIOLENCE, AND MONOPOLIES?

Generally, the people who call themselves "government" operate on a different basis from that of the people who don't call themselves "government." The following assumptions seem to underlie the behavior of the people who call themselves "government":

* We are the only ones qualified to do the things we do; therefore we must have a monopoly to do the things we do and no one else may do them.
* In particular, we must be the only ones who have a monopoly on legalized violence.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to do what we want; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to follow our orders.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to pay for our wonderful services; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to pay.
* Because we do our jobs so well, we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force people to not compete with us.
* Some of our friends (who don't call themselves "government") are uniquely qualified to do the things they do (like doctors and other special-interest groups); therefore we grant them monopolies (licences), so they don't have to compete with unqualified quacks in a free market. Guess what this will do to medical costs - and the licence fees and campaign contributions we'll be able to collect!

Governments utilize coercive power, the power of violence, the power that stems from the barrel of a gun, power over or against people, government power at the expense of individual power. Government is organized violence. Governments, over time, tend to do their utmost to eliminate individual power. With a few exceptions, governments do not solve problems, they create them.

THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT

If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the more people they control.

The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of control.

PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS.

Once you realize that governments consist of people, and that whatever is being done is done by individual human beings - even though they may use machines and equipment - then it becomes embarrassingly obvious that only people can solve problems. The entire notion that government can or should do anything becomes quite absurd.

In their book Breakthrough Thinking, Gerald Nadler and Shozo Hibino write that "an organization, as a collective body, can't approach a problem." They have a section on "political and governmental horrors." They indicate that politics and government "are the graveyards of misbegotten problem solving." Politicians and bureaucrats have three basic types of "solutions":

* Pass a law.
* Throw money at the problem.
* Appoint a committee to study the problem.

In terms of problem-solving methodology, all three types are at best inefficient.

I would go further and suggest that as soon as people call themselves "government," there is a considerable probability that they acquire some kind of "magical power in reverse" - they somehow become less able to solve problems. Nadler and Hibino say that, "Government is operated mainly by bureaucrats, and bureaucrats' classic criterion in decision making is not fulfillment of project purposes but protection of their jobs."

Some people say government is a fecal alchemist - everything they touch turns into feces.

GOOD PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT

There are good people in government who produce worthwhile results. These valuable results are produced, not because the good people call themselves "government," but because they are good, competent, skillful people. If these people were to leave government - stop calling themselves "government" - I expect they would be able to produce even better results.

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua9.shtml

Then, by YOUR definition, infants and mentally crippled people are NOT entitled to the PROTECTION of the state, eh?

What nonsense!

Actually according to the Supreme Court, no one is entitled to the protection of the state. I guess you missed that one:

'Castle Rock v. Gonzales - the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband."

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

South v. Maryland - found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide protection to private individuals (1856)

Bowers v. DeVito - the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (1982)

I'll dispense with the rest of your fallacies so we can stay on the root issue:

By what authority do you claim the right to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of other human beings? Is it majority rule?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

To gain two points (if such a thing even exist ouside of the sport), you need to be IN a basketball game complete with rules.

What ineffable twaddle!

Twaddle? LOL. Well if you're going to continue to appeal to ridicule, I'll give as good as I get. First of all, you've gotta be a massive dweeb to even consider using the word "twaddle"... Of course, that was pretty much self-evident from the beginning.

The basketball reference was just one example. Note that you can't use this same fallacious analogy on the later example. Whoops.

Which is one of the activities for which your taxes are used.

No, it's not. It's used to indoctrinate children into believing they have a right to steal from other human beings, and if they change the word "steal" to "tax" then it's ok.

 

[numinus]

Indeed it is. "The state" does not exist as a singular entity. "The state" cannot magically do anything. It is a group of individuals. The following is a logical description of the situation:

Blah, blah, blah....

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua9.shtml

I see you choose to ignore the points raised - which results in all the nonsense posted above.

You are speaking of a government that is ALIEN to the body politic it is supposed to represent.

A government that does not represent the body politic, by definition, does not hold the sovereign will. Such a state is necessarily a FAILED STATE.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, no one is entitled to the protection of the state. I guess you missed that one:

'Castle Rock v. Gonzales - the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband."

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

South v. Maryland - found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide protection to private individuals (1856)

Bowers v. DeVito - the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (1982)

Oh, you meant to use law enforcement as personal body guards, do you?

And in thinking so, you make the police liable for all the crimes committed against private individuals.

Can't you see how absurd that is?

Don't worry. Reasonable people reading your posts would see them for what they are.

I'll dispense with the rest of your fallacies so we can stay on the root issue:

By what authority do you claim the right to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of other human beings? Is it majority rule?

In the political association, all members invest their individual wills to the sovereign will, thereby creating the body politic.

The individual takes on a dual role in the political association - as an integral member of the body politic, he shares in the sovereign will and at the same time, is subject to it.

So, the perfect liberty one originally possessed is replaced by an imperfect liberty. This imperfect liberty is also called civil liberty inasmuch as it is the liberty permissible in civil society and must always conform with the common good.

From the above, it is clear where authority comes from. State authority is merely that which we prescribe to ourselves towards a common good.

 

[numinus]

Twaddle? LOL. Well if you're going to continue to appeal to ridicule, I'll give as good as I get. First of all, you've gotta be a massive dweeb to even consider using the word "twaddle"... Of course, that was pretty much self-evident from the beginning.

'Twaddle' is the most appropriate word in the english language to describe your argument, imo.

I'm not even sure that 'dweeb' can be found in any respectable english dictionary.

The basketball reference was just one example. Note that you can't use this same fallacious analogy on the later example. Whoops.

Use an example that is fatal to your whole argument, eh?

Space jam rules make basketball pointless. Only rules that apply equally to everyone playing the game would make any sense.

Same can be said about the political association.

No, it's not. It's used to indoctrinate children into believing they have a right to steal from other human beings, and if they change the word "steal" to "tax" then it's ok.

As I said, if you do not wish to pay, then stop recieving the benefits.

The fundamental element of choice is ALWAYS present.

That way, you would merely exchange the benevolence of civil society for the truly 'coersive' powers of nature.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Oh, you meant to use law enforcement as personal body guards, do you?

Can't you see how absurd that is?

No, the quotes were quite clear, but I see that you must obfuscate.

Don't worry. Reasonable people reading your posts would see them for what they are.

And reasonable people will also see that you just had to obfuscate once again.

In the political association, all members invest their individual wills to the sovereign will, thereby creating the body politic.

The individual takes on a dual role in the political association - as an integral member of the body politic, he shares in the sovereign will and at the same time, is subject to it.

So, the perfect liberty one originally possessed is replaced by an imperfect liberty. This imperfect liberty is also called civil liberty inasmuch as it is the liberty permissible in civil society and must always conform with the common good.

From the above, it is clear where authority comes from. State authority is merely that which we prescribe to ourselves towards a common good.

Just say what you mean my friend. There's no need for pointless gobbledegook.

You say "we prescribe to ourselves" - I'm asking you to clarify - do you mean the majority of individuals in a certain territory? And would the majority decide EVERYTHING within what you term as the "political association"?

 

[numinus]

No, the quotes were quite clear, but I see that you must obfuscate.

I've never read ANY supreme court ruling that consists of a single sentence.

And if you had any intellectual integrity in ascribing the sc's opinions to your argument, you would at least provide a link for anyone's perusal.

And reasonable people will also see that you just had to obfuscate once again.

You do love that word, don't you? Makes your argument sound intelligent to your ears, I suppose.

Just say what you mean my friend. There's no need for pointless gobbledegook.

You say "we prescribe to ourselves" - I'm asking you to clarify - do you mean the majority of individuals in a certain territory? And would the majority decide EVERYTHING within what you term as the "political association"?

(Sigh)

The will of the majority is expressed ONLY in suffrage. How then can the majority 'decide everything'?

And so there must exist a balance that would differentiate the common good from mob rule.

But I see you have entered into another subject of discussion that is beyond taxation.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think you know yours, because you keep using them.

Whether I know them or not is irrelevent. You are the one proclaiming them -wrongfully - to be fallacies. If you are going to accuse me of making fallacies at least be correct about them.

Actually, it probably qualifies as more of a Straw Man now that I think about it. You're saying "forget about whether A is true or not, because I think B is true." But it still is a modified form of Non Sequitur because your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

No. It is not a Straw Man either.

A Straw Man fallacy is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

My point - which you continually ignore or refuse to answer - is a question: if taxes are stealing people's money to provide benefits (which you do not want) - ARE YOU making free use of those benefits?

This points to a gross inconsistancy in your position.

Taxes are stealing.
Stealing is wrong.
Yet you are willingly utilizing the products of such theft?

Yes, they are. And that's the key issue. Your claim is that if the stolen money is used in a certain way, it's ok. I keep pointing out to you that this does nothing to change the fact that a theft has occurred.

Go back and re-read my posts. I am making no claims yet until I understand your position and have an answer to my question. I am not claiming that theft has or has not occurred. I am simply questioning how you can take this position yet turn around and make use of the benefits (which I am assuming no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take said benefits) which stolen money provides?

To put it simply - I would have a lot more respect for your position if you carried it through to it's logical end. It's a bit like someone arguing for environmental activism while simultaneiously refusing to recycle. You know what the word for that is.

No, it's not. You are an accomplice to taking money from others by threat of force, or force if the threat isn't sufficient. I described you accurately.

Since I have not stated my position what-so-ever you know nothing at all about me. Rather than answering a simple question you choose to attack me. I believe that is Ad Hominum.

I don't. Why do you steal from people and claim it's ok because you used some of the money in a claim that you benefitted them?

Ah - an answer. You don't use any benefits that taxes pay for?

You don't drive on the interstate system...
You've never taken advantage of low-interest college loans...
You did not attend public schools...
You do will not call the police if a crime is committed on you
You do not and will not use 911 services
If you hae a fire you do not call the fire department for help
Presumably if you are ever down and out, you will not make use of any subsidized medical care
If you should have a badly disabled child, you will not make use of any public or educational help that is available
You do not use any publically funded and subsidized bridges, airports, or public transportation..
I am sure that there are many more benefits you strive to avoid using in order to not be a hypocrit.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

A Straw Man fallacy is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Which you are doing.

My point - which you continually ignore or refuse to answer - is a question: if taxes are stealing people's money to provide benefits (which you do not want) - ARE YOU making free use of those benefits?

This points to a gross inconsistancy in your position.

Taxes are stealing.
Stealing is wrong.
Yet you are willingly utilizing the products of such theft?

Again, a distortion. The argument is "Is taxation theft?" You have not disproven that. You are attempting to add to the argument to distort it, in order to continue ad nauseum. Your question is a Straw Man, and does not follow the premise. Like saying

Killing is murder.
Murder is wrong.
Yet you are walking on a road made from the bones of these people every day.

What the heck does that have to do with the fact that other people were killing them and they built the road in my way, without my consent or help? The issue is the MURDER. The action that should be taken is: STOP THE MURDERING and then reassess everything from that point.

I am not claiming that theft has or has not occurred.

But I am claiming a theft has occurred. You cannot refute that. Game over.

Since I have not stated my position what-so-ever you know nothing at all about me.

Now I know you're a deceptive fraud. You can't be honest, because then you know my point stands.

Ah - an answer. You don't use any benefits that taxes pay for?

You don't drive on the interstate system...

no

You've never taken advantage of low-interest college loans...

No. I paid for my own tuition.

You did not attend public schools...

I did not attend by my choice. I was a child and was forced to attend by my parents. And the alleged "education" harmed me. I had to have everything retaught to me by my parents at night since the teachers were incompetent. I was also constantly under duress and had my life threatened at one point by a public school teacher.

You do will not call the police if a crime is committed on you

No, I will defend myself with my own weapon. The police have no obligation to protect me via the Supreme Court rulings I posted earlier. So why on earth would I rely on them? If someone comes at me with a gun, my best defense will be my own gun. Not calling 911 to wait on a cop to show up after I've been shot by an intruder.

You do not and will not use 911 services

As I said above, no.

If you hae a fire you do not call the fire department for help

No. I practice precaution and have private insurance.

Presumably if you are ever down and out, you will not make use of any subsidized medical care

No, I only see holistic practitioners anyway, and I have private insurance for that.

If you should have a badly disabled child, you will not make use of any public or educational help that is available

No, I will bear my own burden rather than stealing from other people. It is my responsibility.

You do not use any publically funded and subsidized bridges, airports, or public transportation..

No, there are none in my area.

I am sure that there are many more benefits you strive to avoid using in order to not be a hypocrit.

Indeed. I'll avoid all of your benefits. Now will you stop being a hypocrite and stop stealing from me?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The will of the majority is expressed ONLY in suffrage. How then can the majority 'decide everything'?

I'm asking you how rules are determined in the "political association." If voting by the majority does not determine the rules, what does? Or is it indeed determined by the vote of the majority?

And so there must exist a balance that would differentiate the common good from mob rule.

Again, who determines this "balance"? Is it the majority?

But I see you have entered into another subject of discussion that is beyond taxation.

You are the one adding to the argument, after you were unable to disprove that taxation was theft. And my question is valid since taxes are taken from people by force who are engaged in peaceful, honest, voluntary actions. I'm asking you to ultimately explain what you claim gives you this authority.