Taxation Is Robbery

[Coyote]

Which you are doing.
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.

No, it is not a strawman. My point is as follows:

Theft is wrong.
Willfully using the products of theft makes you an accessory to theft.

Do you deny any of the above?

If the above is true - your position is greatly weakened because, bluntly it makes you a hypocrit. Hence, my asking the question.

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

I do refute it. We live in a society where we are constantly having to measure the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the greater society.

You adhere to a philosophy where the rights of the individual are paramount. I don't agree with that because - in real life, beyond a small locality or individual situation - it doesn't work very well for the majority of the people or for a country. In fact, it's is little short of anarchy and depends heavily on the hope that other people have the same sense of responsibility and ethics that you do.

Certain benefits benefit all - whether or not you use them or not you still benefit. You may claim to never use fire services (though you'll pardon me if I maintain skepticism that if you were faced with a major fire and your loved ones were trapped inside you would not call for help) and that is all good yet you benefit by the fire service protection that others willingly pay for - for example legal adherence to fire codes which protect everyone.

If no one paid taxes and there were no enforcement of these codes or fire services (just a general example here) - you might make out ok, but the disabled man in the apartment next door might not, nor perhaps the elderly couple down the street living next a trashy, miswired, illegal and ready-to-burn trailor. If everyone did not pay - no one person could afford to pay and the law of the jungle would apply.

It's a bit like the vaccination issue. There are people that believe vaccinations are bad (and I am just referring to vaccinations for serious life threatening illnesses) and are refusing to vaccinate their children. That's all well and good except that the ONLY thing that protects our children from these diseases and the ONLY thing that keeps them rare is that fact that there is a huge pool of vaccinated children immune. At some point that number could drop to below the level where the population is protected enough and you'll see a resurgence of some ugly diseases. It is the fact that the majority of the population submits to vaccinations that protects the minority that refuses to do so.

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

Not at all - still resorting to ad hominum are you? I didn't state my case until I had an answer from you. Why should I waste time arguing with someone who is a hypocrite?

If you truthfully make use of NO benefits - use no municiple airports, drive on no taxpayer funded roads, etc. - then I commend you. But you are also fortunate. Not everyone can afford private insurance, or even to live independently if they are disabled. Not everyone has a family to support them in time of need or are born into money. Not everyone is strong enough to fight off intruders by themselves. Of course if you adhere to the law of the jungle that makes no difference - they deserve to die anyway.

On taxes - I don't feel they are "theft". They are legal and they are legal by the will of the majority of this countries citizens and our laws.

No one forces you to live in this country and like it or not - you benefit from the presence of a strong military that protects us and our way of life and protects your ability to *****, and you benefit from the effects of taxpayer funded public enterprises. I have no issue with paying taxes to help support the weaker members of our society. It's what constitutes being civilized. Someone has to pay for the services that protect us as a community

I live in a state that probably has one of the lowest number of paved roads. Gradually this is changing and we are gaining an interstate system that is changing our demographics and economy. This could never have happened through private money alone and my state would have been relegated to poverty because it could never have afforded the infrastructural work necessary to bring in business.

The attitude you subscribe too depends heavily on individual strength, hard work, and good fortune and, not the least - the fruits of the hard work and sacrifices of others to ensure that YOU won't ever need fire protection or other services.

As long as taxes are legal they are not theft. Change the law.

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

Tell me exactly how I am being a hypocrite please?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

No, it is not a strawman. My point is as follows:

Theft is wrong.

And taxation is theft. Do you or do you not support taxation?

 

[Coyote]

And taxation is theft. Do you or do you not support taxation?

Taxation is theft according to YOU. Just because YOU say it is theft does not make it so.

If you do not wish to pay taxes (which are legal in this country) then you can move elsewhere. No one is stopping you.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Taxation is theft according to YOU. Just because YOU say it is theft does not make it so.

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.

That's not according to me - that's according to logical truth.

And as I stated earlier, someone is stopping me. The U.S. government taxes its citizens in other countries and does not allow you to renounce your citizenship for purposes of tax avoidance.

Your "argument" is toast.

 

[9sublime]

But you are quite happy to use all the things everybody in your country pays for with their taxes truth bringer? Until you stop enjoying the benefits of everyones taxes in your every day life, maybe you should stop complaining about them so much.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

But you are quite happy to use all the things everybody in your country pays for with their taxes truth bringer?

Once again, you guys are employing disingenuous tactics and changing the subject. But I'll answer anyway. No, I am not happy to enjoy them, and I don't enjoy any as far as I know.

And again, this ignores the truth that taxation is theft. This is the same "logic" used by the attorneys who sued the L.A. police dept after one of the bank robbers they had apprehended died while waiting on an ambulance.

THE ROBBER NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT POSITION HAD HE NOT TAKEN HOSTAGES, ROBBED A BANK, AND THEN MOVED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOOTING AT POLICE OFFICERS AND RANDOM CIVILIANS.

 

[Coyote]

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.

That's not according to me - that's according to logical truth.

ooooh...once again a logical fallacy masquerading as truth.


Naked Mole Rats are mammels.
Human Beings are mammels.
Therefore Human Beings are Naked Mole Rats.

Logical truth right?

 

[Coyote]

Once again, you guys are employing disingenuous tactics and changing the subject. But I'll answer anyway. No, I am not happy to enjoy them, and I don't enjoy any as far as I know.

And again, this ignores the truth that taxation is theft. This is the same "logic" used by the attorneys who sued the L.A. police dept after one of the bank robbers they had apprehended died while waiting on an ambulance.

THE ROBBER NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT POSITION HAD HE NOT TAKEN HOSTAGES, ROBBED A BANK, AND THEN MOVED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOOTING AT POLICE OFFICERS AND RANDOM CIVILIANS.

That is because there are two sides to the subject - you can't address only one and ingore the other, much as you might like to.

And you have yet to make a logical case that taxation is the same as theft.

 

[vyo476]

Taxes are perfectly legal, according to the Constitution of the United States.

From Article 1, Section. 7:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

From Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

From Amendment V: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is one bit of the Constitution that could support the idea that taxes are illegal. Here it is:

From Article 1, Section 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

However, this Section was revised by the Sixteenth Amendment:

Amendment XVI:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So, according to our own Constitution (the document at the heart of our legal system) taxation is not illegal.

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.

You can call it amoral, you can call it wrong, you can complain all you like - but that doesn't make it illegal.

 

[9sublime]

No, I am not happy to enjoy them, and I don't enjoy any as far as I know.

So you don't use the roads in your country? You wouldn't ring the fire department if your house was burning down? You wouldn't ring the police if you were being robbed? You don't want any money put into community development, public maintinence/works? Did you ever go to a state funded school?

 

[numinus]

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?

You are asking me how the dynamics of representative government works?

And do you suppose that polls made by the general public on specific concerns can replace these dynamics?

What a truly odd question, indeed?

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.

You must have a problem reading if you think that.

And your claim of your right to 'engage in peaceful, honest and voluntary actions' is guaranteed ONLY in the political association.

Outside of it, what is stopping someone bigger and more physically powerful than you from denying the exercise of these inalienable rights, eh?

And because NECESSITY dictates MUTUAL PROTECTION as the basic imperative in all political association, NECESSITY also dictates MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY that makes this possible.

As I said, towards which you neglected to give an intelligible reply, you simply need to remove yourself from the natural refuge of the political association if you feel that the burden of the responsibility outweighs the benefit.

 

[9sublime]

So Truthbringer, do you use anything funded by peoples taxes?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

ooooh...once again a logical fallacy masquerading as truth.


Naked Mole Rats are mammels.
Human Beings are mammels.
Therefore Human Beings are Naked Mole Rats.

Logical truth right?

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.

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.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

So you don't use the roads in your country? You wouldn't ring the fire department if your house was burning down? You wouldn't ring the police if you were being robbed? You don't want any money put into community development, public maintinence/works? Did you ever go to a state funded school?

I answered all these questions earlier. Please read my posts.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Taxes are perfectly legal, according to the Constitution of the United States.

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

However, under the original intent of the Constition, internal taxes were never intended to be permanent:

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and tariffs connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm


From Federalist 45:

"If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."