Taxation Is Robbery

[Truth-Bringer]

You must have a problem reading if you think that.

You seem to have a problem answering my questions. Here they are again:

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?

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

 

[Coyote]

Once again, obfuscation and deception masquerading as rebuttal. Taxation need not be IDENTICAL to theft in order to qualify as having the same characteristics that are the basis for the argument, i.e. the use of force.

My you are the one for big words...."all sound and fury signifying nothing"...all that mumbo jumbo doesn't alter the fact that you commited a logical fallacy and that fallacy stands since YOU claimed it to be "logical truth". Who's talking about similar? It's not even close.

And mammal is spelled with an "a" at the end, not an "e", Einstein. And please don't try and claim a typing error since you did it twice. ROTFL.

How quaint...so now you are reduced to a spelling nazi since your point doesn't hold water? Surely you can do better then that.

 

[vyo476]

Nice Straw Man. Exactly when did I claim taxes weren't legal under the Constitution? Never.

I like your Straw Man better. Where'd I say that you said taxes were illegal? I was just pointing it out to prove a point. This point, actually:

The word "robbery" is a term used for illegal appropriation. Were the discussion on some other form of appropriation, the term "robbery" would not apply - meaning that "robbery" necessarily implies illegality. In the literal sense, nothing allowed by the Constitution could be "illegal" - following the line of reasoning that taxation is not illegal, it is therefore not robbery.

It's in response to the title of the thread. Next time, read the whole post.

 

[numinus]

You seem to have a problem answering my questions. Here they are again:

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?

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

I have answered it.

Rules are determined through the DYNAMICS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

Debate, consensus building, the common good (and not merely the good of the majority), etc.

How did you imagine the democratic process worked, eh?

 

[Burning Giraffe]

It is not neccessarily immoral for government to compulse taxes. But they certainly can compulse them immoraly and they often do. To the extent that the secular gov is instituted by God it will be moral.

The government that governs the least governs best.

Less taxes are better than more.

Taxing for things that don't absolutley need to be taxed is also wrong.

The IRS Tax Code and the federal bureaucracies are the real powerhouses in Washington DC. If we got rid of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, most of the departments, and instead demanded a small efficient government, we'd have a real shot at a truly beautiful country.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

My you are the one for big words...."all sound and fury signifying nothing"...all that mumbo jumbo doesn't alter the fact that you commited a logical fallacy and that fallacy stands since YOU claimed it to be "logical truth". Who's talking about similar? It's not even close.

Again, here you come with the obfuscation and deception - while failing to address my point.

Let's look at another example:

Naked Mole Rats are warm-blooded.
Human Beings are warm-blooded.
Human Beings and Naked Mole Rats are both warm-blooded.

Therefore, one can accurately term both Human Beings and Naked Mole Rats as warm-blooded creatures.

Again, the issue of the use of force.

How quaint...

No - how stupid of you. You really need to learn how to spell before trying to convince everyone you're a logician. You got caught not being able to spell a two syllable word. Please stop crying. And please don't audition for the show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I like your Straw Man better. Where'd I say that you said taxes were illegal?

That was certainly your implication.

I was just pointing it out to prove a point.

Which was completely and totally meaningless then.

This point, actually:

If the courts can use the word in relation to robbery, then so can I:

"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." - Citizen's Savings & Loan Assn v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 664

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I have answered it.

Rules are determined through the DYNAMICS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

Debate, consensus building, the common good (and not merely the good of the majority), etc.

How did you imagine the democratic process worked, eh?

Again, more obfuscation from you. You have not answered my questions.

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?

Again, how are the rules FINALIZED AND PLACED INTO A POSITION WHERE THEY WILL BE ENFORCED? Is it by vote of the majority or not? And please don't obfuscate that further by going into the legislative functions - unless you're claiming the majority will not elect the legislators.

 

[vyo476]

"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." - Citizen's Savings & Loan Assn v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 664

They were found to be illegal taxes. So? This doesn't set any precedent at all for so broad an implication as saying that taxation is "robbery." If taxes are found to be illegal (ie, not within the confines of the law) then yes, they're still taxes, and yes, they're illegal, but that doesn't make all taxation illegal.

All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles. All illegal taxes are taxes, but not all taxes are illegal - and the ones that are illegal are dealt with by bodies like the Supreme Court, which struck down this particular illegality, allowing the legal taxes in the state of Kansas to continue.

So in other words, the broad statement "Taxation is Robbery" still holds no water.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

This doesn't set any precedent at all for so broad an implication as saying that taxation is "robbery.

You have to introduce unnecessary complexity into the equation and play on semantics because you have no argument.

My meaning was never that taxation was de jure robbery. My point was merely that it is de facto robbery. The point is still the same. The taking of money or property by threat of force or force is wrong:

"To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent where no consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did not, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent. The government's pretense of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he does not desire it, or does not bargain for it, the government has no more right, than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it." - Lysander Spooner, "Trial by Jury"

 

[Coyote]

Again, here you come with the obfuscation and deception - while failing to address my point.

Let's look at another example:

Naked Mole Rats are warm-blooded.
Human Beings are warm-blooded.
Human Beings and Naked Mole Rats are both warm-blooded.

Therefore, one can accurately term both Human Beings and Naked Mole Rats as warm-blooded creatures.

Again, the issue of the use of force.

That doesn't follow your logic.

You said:

Taxation is money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

Theft is money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

Taxation and theft are both money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.


...which, by the way is STILL a logical fallacy.

Some taxation is or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

ALLTheft is money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

Therefor your conclusion is false still - even assuming that your definition of taxes is correct.

No - how stupid of you. You really need to learn how to spell before trying to convince everyone you're a logician. You got caught not being able to spell a two syllable word. Please stop crying. And please don't audition for the show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"

So in the end, logic fails you, and all you are left with is ad hominum and insult? How pathetic.

 

[vyo476]

You have to introduce unnecessary complexity into the equation and play on semantics because you have no argument.

This is my argument. I was simply pointing out that the title of the thread is not correct.

My meaning was never that taxation was de jure robbery. My point was merely that it is de facto robbery. The point is still the same. The taking of money or property by threat of force or force is wrong:

So should we, from now on, assume that you hold all laws that do not mesh with your particular ideology in total contempt?

 

[numinus]

Again, more obfuscation from you. You have not answered my questions.

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?

Again, how are the rules FINALIZED AND PLACED INTO A POSITION WHERE THEY WILL BE ENFORCED? Is it by vote of the majority or not? And please don't obfuscate that further by going into the legislative functions - unless you're claiming the majority will not elect the legislators.

You want me to answer 'will of the majority'?

And if I don't answer 'will of the majority' (which in itself, is a defective way of describing the democratic process), I am obfuscating?

A democratic political association, by nature, is DYNAMIC. The majority can't simply make laws as they wish because these laws are still subject to CONSTITUTIONALITY and the practical necessities of ENFORCEMENT.

Talk about a straw man argument!

 

[Truth-Bringer]

That doesn't follow your logic.

Yes, it does. This is not "it's so cause you say so." You really need to grow a brain.

You said:

Taxation is money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

Theft is money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

Taxation and theft are both money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.


...which, by the way is STILL a logical fallacy.

No, it's not.

Some taxation is or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

ALLTheft is money or property taken by threat of force, or direct force if the threat isn't sufficient.

All taxation is taken by threat of force or force if the threat isn't sufficient. This is a common trait with theft.

Therefor your conclusion is false still

LOL. You've proven no such thing.

So in the end, logic fails you, and all you are left with is ad hominum and insult? How pathetic.

You cannot spell a two syllable word. That is not an ad hominem (which you again failed to spell correctly). That is a proven fact.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

So should we, from now on, assume that you hold all laws that do not mesh with your particular ideology in total contempt?

You should assume that I believe all human beings have the right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activities of their choosing. If you claim that they do not, please explain by what authority you seek to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary activities of other human beings.