The Flat tax

[BigRob]

Your logic would have all rapists go free. "They implied consent by being present at the scene of the rape." You logic is fvcked and is based on the false assumptions that I do not rebel.

What an absurd statement...

If someone is raped (ie forced to have non-consensual sex) they clearly have not consented just by being present.

In terms of the government, which we created and give our consent to, they clearly have the power to tax, as spelled out in the Constitution.

You can look at a country in much the same way as club. A club can charge dues, set membership requirements etc...if you don't like the club, you leave the club. Just because you don't like the idea of leaving does not mean the option is not open to you.

If you don't take it, then you are giving your consent to the government to enforce the law... ie you will pay taxes.

I don't view the killing of another human being in cold blood as murder. But does that change what it is? You can call a spade a club but it is still a spade.

Ok.. would you agree that there are times when killing another human being is not murder? If so, then the issue is not black and white...and neither should the issue of "tax is theft" be so black and white.

 

[BigRob]

But I am living in a state of rebellion. I have stated that I don't want to pay some of these taxes and I have argued that the gov is unjust. Granted it is a very very small rebellion but that means that I no longer have to follow the tax law. Right?

Stating you are living in a state of rebellion does not make it so.

 

[steveox]

So you are in favor of a flat tax

as long as they abolish state taxes.

If they can do it that way im all for it. In Canada look at your seles recipt. It says TAX 1 And TAX 2. Tax 1 is Local Tax. And Tax 2 is Federal tax. We dont need that crap.

 

[Apathy]

What an absurd statement...

If someone is raped (ie forced to have non-consensual sex) they clearly have not consented just by being present.

Just as absurd as claiming someone consented to theft just by being there to steal from.

In terms of the government, which we created and give our consent to, they clearly have the power to tax, as spelled out in the Constitution.

I still havent seen where I consented to this theft. A piece of parchment doesn't give anyone the right to steal no matter how many signatures you put on it and no matter how official it looks.

You can look at a country in much the same way as club. A club can charge dues, set membership requirements etc...if you don't like the club, you leave the club. Just because you don't like the idea of leaving does not mean the option is not open to you.

The country club doesn't go into YOUR HOME with guns kidnap you and throw you in a cage for not paying your dues. Silly analogy.

If you don't take it, then you are giving your consent to the government to enforce the law... ie you will pay taxes.

Yes, enforce their moral right to steal.

Ok.. would you agree that there are times when killing another human being is not murder? If so, then the issue is not black and white...and neither should the issue of "tax is theft" be so black and white.

Yeah If I write an official looking document stating I have the moral right to collect others lives and have my buddies sign it I could give the killing of an individual a different name. I could name it something pretty like the "Puppy Act" and I'd have everyone's consent to collect "puppies".

And a couple hundred years from now when a crazy individual calls the "Puppy Act" murder you can tell him he consented and that they have every right to collect "puppies".

 

[Dr.Who]

What an absurd statement...

If someone is raped (ie forced to have non-consensual sex) they clearly have not consented just by being present.

In terms of the government, which we created and give our consent to, they clearly have the power to tax, as spelled out in the Constitution.

They do have the authority to tax as spelled out in the constitution. It was the signers of the constitution and the representatives of the states and those who voted for those representatives who have consented.

Those who voted against it or who did not vote at all on it did not consent.

I was not there and I did not consent. My staying in the country does not mean that I do or do not consent. Only my consent can be proof of my consent. The social contract is an analogy at best and only applies to whole groups of people not individuals.

If staying in the country were proof of consent then that would mean that if you stay in the country that you consent to every single thing the government does. Do you?

You, no doubt, consent to some things and not others. For example I understand that you do not approve of some of the wasteful foreign aid.

 

[BigRob]

Just as absurd as claiming someone consented to theft just by being there to steal from.

I still havent seen where I consented to this theft. A piece of parchment doesn't give anyone the right to steal no matter how many signatures you put on it and no matter how official it looks.

You consent to it because when you choose to live in a society, you fall under the legal framework established by that society. If you don't consent to it, then don't live here.

The country club doesn't go into YOUR HOME with guns kidnap you and throw you in a cage for not paying your dues. Silly analogy.

It is only "silly" because you missed the analogy. If you choose the leave the "club" (ie the country) and live elsewhere with a different citizenship, the United States would not hunt you down to collect taxes either.

Yes, enforce their moral right to steal.

Again, every society establishes a framework for how they will be governed. If you don't want to live under that framework, you don't have to.

Yeah If I write an official looking document stating I have the moral right to collect others lives and have my buddies sign it I could give the killing of an individual a different name. I could name it something pretty like the "Puppy Act" and I'd have everyone's consent to collect "puppies".

And a couple hundred years from now when a crazy individual calls the "Puppy Act" murder you can tell him he consented and that they have every right to collect "puppies".

Let me ask you this... would you choose to live in a society in which murder was legal, and if you did, would you really be shocked if you got murdered? Again, the point here is that you chose to live under that framework.

 

[Apathy]

You consent to it because when you choose to live in a society, you fall under the legal framework established by that society. If you don't consent to it, then don't live here.

You wont back off this ****ed logic... Just because the jews lived in Europe doesn't mean they consented to be killed by the millions.

It is only "silly" because you missed the analogy. If you choose the leave the "club" (ie the country) and live elsewhere with a different citizenship, the United States would not hunt you down to collect taxes either.

That is not rain.

Again, every society establishes a framework for how they will be governed. If you don't want to live under that framework, you don't have to.

Yes because our government is completely free of any type of coercion.

Let me ask you this... would you choose to live in a society in which murder was legal, and if you did, would you really be shocked if you got murdered? Again, the point here is that you chose to live under that framework.

First off it isnt murder it's the puppy act. Do you have something against puppies?

You miss the point a piece of parchment does not give legitimacy to a group of thugs that wish to steal.

 

[BigRob]

You wont back off this ****ed logic... Just because the jews lived in Europe doesn't mean they consented to be killed by the millions.

Surely you can see a difference between a society that refuses to allow people to leave, and the one that openly promotes freedom of movement?

Yes because our government is completely free of any type of coercion.

I never argued that the government was free of coercion...the point is that no one has coerced you to live under this legal framework if you don't want to.

First off it isnt murder it's the puppy act. Do you have something against puppies?

You miss the point a piece of parchment does not give legitimacy to a group of thugs that wish to steal.

And you apparently refuse to grasp reality that a society establishes rules for how it will govern itself...and those rules will dictate how that society operates.

 

[Apathy]

Surely you can see a difference between a society that refuses to allow people to leave, and the one that openly promotes freedom of movement?

Hitler tried to deport the jews before the holocaust even started factually incorrect.

I never argued that the government was free of coercion...the point is that no one has coerced you to live under this legal framework if you don't want to.

An illegitimate government will not force me from my home.

And you apparently refuse to grasp reality that a society establishes rules for how it will govern itself...and those rules will dictate how that society operates.

You fail to grasp the fact that the state has no legitimate purpose.

 

[BigRob]

Hitler tried to deport the jews before the holocaust even started factually incorrect.

You are still trying to argue that forced deportation, and eventually forcing people to stay, is the same scenario that you are facing here?

An illegitimate government will not force me from my home.

Who says the home is yours? Who protects your property rights?

A government is not illegitimate simply because you say so.

You fail to grasp the fact that the state has no legitimate purpose.

A state derives its authority and purpose from the consent of the governed. The government clearly has legitimate purpose to exist, and simply saying otherwise does not make it untrue.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hitler tried to deport the jews before the holocaust even started factually incorrect.


An illegitimate government will not force me from my home.



You fail to grasp the fact that the state has no legitimate purpose.

If each individual in the society agrees and consents then clearly its purpose is whatever they consent to.

In our country it has authority based on the constitution which most of us consent to most of. For most of us it has a legitimate purpose.

For the rest it is not fair. Which is why there need to be large safeguards to protect the rights of the people who live here. checks, balances, a constitution, a bill of rights, courts, representatives, voting, juries, right to bear arms, etc.

In a perfect world people would be free of coercion. Our government does not operate free of coercion which is why I agree that it is not correct to say that your ability to move does not mean that the gov is consented to or just. If you have to move to maintain your freedom from coercion then the system is not just. Though it is still better than anarchy.