Taxation is Theft

[Wry Catcher]

Right, our choices are authoritarian leftism or anarchy. You cannot conceive of anything in the middle. We support leftist authoritarianism or we are anarchists. You get 50% plus one and you have the right to take our liberty and property and we just need to shut the fuck up.

You know, like when States voted for man/woman marriage, you accepted that because the majority spoke and shut up.

You're a liar and an idiot. You're a liar because you only accept the maroity when it says what you want. And you're an idiot because majority voting being sufficient in itself to take people's liberty and property is wrong. Hey, the majority voted for the Nazis, so you gotta accept what the Nazis did and shut the fuck up.

Seriously.

Pick up the Constitution. Read it.

It's not conservative. It's not libertarian.

It's Liberal. It's a Liberal form of government, funded by the people, and representative of the people.

There's a whole lot in it about Taxation and Federal Power.

You might be shocked.

Yes, the constitution is classic liberal. You are an authoritarian leftist. There is no relation between you and liberalism, you just like the word because it implies what you are not. In fact they are opposites. The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You revel in the tyranny of the majority. That is unless they are wrong, then you run to the courts to decree your way.

The reason you like voting is the same as Stalin and Hussein. It gives false validation.

You are an authoritarian, neo fascist, racist, bigoted idiot. Wow, I didn't know how easy it would be to post in your genre. No thinking or evidence required. That was fun!

 

[kaz]

What about government using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another being armed robbery confuses you exactly?

You have not addressed my challenge. You are to name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery." Since that apparently happens so often, you should be able to name such instances with ease. Since you're now adding more details, I would like to see these instances of "armed robbery" involving government agents "using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another".

Try not paying those taxes. Then you will see the guns. So to you when the mafia sends letters offering "insurance" to local business owners who pay it to avoid having their business torched, it wasn't armed robbery because they never had to produce the guns to get the money? Even though the merchants knew what would happen if they didn't pay?

LOL, as I said, you're a tool of the Democrats.

I want to make absolutely certain: You're admitting that the ACA is a legitimate function of government, as it serves the "general good" as defined by you?

Um..no... WTF? I said general welfare are services like police, civil and criminal courts, roads that are available to all. Then you come back with, oh, so you're saying government mandating to companies what they can sell and to customers what they can buy while confiscating money with government guns and "subsidizing" policies is general welfare? Wow.

The rest of your post is just repeating the same questions.

 

[kaz]

Seriously.

Pick up the Constitution. Read it.

It's not conservative. It's not libertarian.

It's Liberal. It's a Liberal form of government, funded by the people, and representative of the people.

There's a whole lot in it about Taxation and Federal Power.

You might be shocked.

Yes, the constitution is classic liberal. You are an authoritarian leftist. There is no relation between you and liberalism, you just like the word because it implies what you are not. In fact they are opposites. The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You revel in the tyranny of the majority. That is unless they are wrong, then you run to the courts to decree your way.

The reason you like voting is the same as Stalin and Hussein. It gives false validation.

You are an authoritarian, neo fascist, racist, bigoted idiot. Wow, I didn't know how easy it would be to post in your genre. No thinking or evidence required. That was fun!

You're none of those things, you're just stupid. Which is why Democrats manipulate you so easily.

 

[kowalskil]

No taxes, no government, no capitalism. There has to be some "taking" if you wish to go on "making". ...

I like the video:



very much. It is worth sharing this link with others.

Ludwik

P.S. Yes I know that some countries, such as the USSR, were socialist by name only. The so-called "proletarian dictatorship" was not socialism.

 

[kaz]

P.S. Yes I know that some countries, such as the USSR, were socialist by name only. The so-called "proletarian dictatorship" was not socialism.

Of course it is. Socialism is centralized economic planning. And only government can centrally plan an economy because only government can use force. It's correct to say they are not socialism in the sense of say Sweden and most of Europe who are democratic socialist countries, but in both cases the economies are centrally planned and there socialist.

Capitalism is distributed economic planning. It is where consumers, suppliers, employees, employers and other economic market players are free to make their own decisions. The role of government in a capitalist system is to give recourse for criminal and fraudulent acts, it is not to force anyone to do the bidding of government.

 

[kaz]

We are more on our way to becoming a Plutocracy than a socialist republic.

What's sad is that while Plutocracy is too specific, you're right that government is controlled by money. Yet you argue government is controlled by the rich, and your solution is to give government more and more power. You're a liar, you don't believe it's a Plutocracy. Which is too bad since what you said is essentially right.

I believe it, which is why I take the logical step of realizing that if government is controlled by money, the safest thing I can do is minimize government. That means government can infringe on my rights less because it's smaller, it also means it attracts less controlling money because they get less for it.

On the other hand, you say government is controlled by money, so you want it larger and larger, and that will draw even more money to control it. And then things will be good. Again, you're a liar. You're just parroting Marxist rhetoric.

If you want liberty, think about what you said, because you are arguing the right thing. It's everything you say after that which is just inane.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxes are spent on more than that because the People want taxes spent on more than that;

if you can come with a way to democratically take the People out of the equation then you can have your tax preferences, and still call it democratic. lol

People are lynched because the people want them to be lynched. That's the level of "logic" in your post. Majority rule doesn't justify anything. An immoral act doesn't suddenly become moral because a majority votes to do it.

An immoral act is also not a crime unless there is a criminal justice system. If nothing is illegal, then nothing is impermissible. In that system, i.e. anarchic chaos, the pedophile is as law biding as anyone else.

Why would you want that kind of a world?

Preying on children isn't legal, so how can a practising pedophile be law abiding?

The discussion here isn't about what is legal. It's about what is moral. If legality and morality were the same thing, then there would be no such thing as immoral laws. It would mean there was nothing immoral about the Nazis shoving Jews into gas ovens because it was all legal. It also means the slavery was moral because it was perfectly legal.

Whenever a discussion starts about the morality of liberal laws, turds like you start arguing about the law. It's just another classic libturd diversion.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxes are spent on more than that because the People want taxes spent on more than that;

if you can come with a way to democratically take the People out of the equation then you can have your tax preferences, and still call it democratic. lol

People are lynched because the people want them to be lynched. That's the level of "logic" in your post. Majority rule doesn't justify anything. An immoral act doesn't suddenly become moral because a majority votes to do it.

No, lynching is against the law because the People made it against the law. You are irreparably confused.

I didn't say lynching was legal, moron. However, according to you it is moral because the majority approved of stringing up the Negro from the nearest tree.

In ancient Greece lynching was technically legal. People were executed by a simple majority vote.

It's classic that a liberal turd like you can't understand the distinction between "legal" and "moral."

 

[bripat9643]

People are lynched because the people want them to be lynched. That's the level of "logic" in your post. Majority rule doesn't justify anything. An immoral act doesn't suddenly become moral because a majority votes to do it.

An immoral act is also not a crime unless there is a criminal justice system. If nothing is illegal, then nothing is impermissible. In that system, i.e. anarchic chaos, the pedophile is as law biding as anyone else.

Why would you want that kind of a world?

This is the dumbest shit muttered today so far. Congrats.

Agreed. NYcarbineer is definitely in the running for dumbest member of the forum.

 

[GreenBean]

What sucks? It looks like you're saying that paying taxes sucks, but I want to make sure you're outing yourself as a libertardian corporate shill before I formally accuse you of it.

Taxes are the collective contributions of all members of society for the maintainence and protection of that society and it's members - however in degenerating socialist societies the collective contributions are not neccessarily used for the preservation or maintainence of the society or for the protection of its members, but rather for the advancement of the ruling classes and continued subjugation of the productive working class.

This is most certainly the case in Modern Day America as Socialists , who are really little more than "useful idiots" continue to advance the causes of the ruling class elite.

We are more on our way to becoming a Plutocracy than a socialist republic. A Plutocracy can become something more than rule by the rich, it can and may provide health care for the masses and proivde 'welfare'; issues which you and others considered socialistic. But if one considers Saudia Arabia as an example, one can see their Plutocracy suppresses freedom and provides some resources to its poor, but hides them very well from the world.

IMO the 'welfare' provide to the poor Saudi is nothing more than an effort to keep the poor in their place, and to prevent them marching with torches and pitch forks in mass - similar to enlightened conservatives in our country; apparently the hoi polloi conservative - the '"useful idiots"' - arem't smart enough to protect their own backs.

IMO the 'welfare' provide to the poor Saudi is nothing more than an effort to keep the poor in their place, and to prevent them marching with torches and pitch forks in mass -

In your Opinion -How does that differ greatly from Welfare in the USA - where the masses are more educated . Do you agree with the view of economist Walter Williams

Instead of gratitude, the deliverers of entitlements are treated, at best, with indifference and, at worse, contempt. Entitlements make people dependent. As the opposite of independence, dependence is a form of slavery. The welfare state pits one group of citizens against another. One group is entitled. The other group is obligated.

 

[LiberalMedia]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

I don't agree. First off, we don't get to choose the nominees. They are chosen for us, piss poor selection at that, so you either vote for the BEST candidate or you don't vote at all.

Wrong. You DO get to choose the nominees, through something called primary elections, often simply known as "primaries".

I can hear your despondent reaction now. "B-B-BUT, LM! I don't vote in primaries and/or I don't vote in the primary that more often than not determines who the winner of the general election will be!" And who's fault is that? No one but your own. You have plenty of opportunities to change your registration if that is an obstacle, and opportunities in every partisan election to choose who a party's nominee will be if it isn't. If you absolutely refuse to vote in the primary of any party, then support an independent candidate. None running? Then YOU run, or quit whining and get back in the line of loyal, obedient cytyzyns that worshyp and adore our legal lord and secular savior, President Obama.

Also, politicians lie to the people. They make ALL kinds of campaign promises and then they don't stick to them. And the people are stupid and uneducated when it comes to politics, so they vote for whoever promises them the most stuff, basically.

Whose fault is it that Wrongpublicans continuously vote for liars? Whose fault is it that there is no mechanism for holding elected representatives accountable between elections in some jurisdictions, and whose fault is it that where there are such mechanisms, they aren't utilized to their fullest extent? Again, yours. You personally are to blame for everything you have identified as being wrong in this country and have failed to even attempt to fix. The way I see it, all you're doing is grasping at straws, trying to come up with some racist excuse to attack President Obama, hys administration, or the system under which he was elected.

Our taxes are misspent, wasted, and abused. Turtle crossings?

First, who let tax misspenders get elected in the fyrst place? You, and sheeple like you that whine without doing anything substantive. Protip: Parroting Faux News talking points on the internet isn't substantive action, conservatard.

Second, explain how turtle crossings are an example of taxes being misspent, wasted, or abused. We have pyyple crossings, so why not crossings for tyrtles as well? Are you some kynd of speciesist bigot?

HOW are the our elected officials held accountable? Please. Once they are in office, it seems as though they are no longer accountable to anyone for anything.

"It seems" is not an argument in your favor; rather, it is an admission on your part that you are doing NOTHING to hold elected representatives accountable.

Further, you used the term "elected officials." This denotes your submissiveness to mymbyrs yf gyvyrnmynt, as it is equitable to a title of nobility. You don't call them elected representatives, which connotes a responsibility on their part to represent their constituents; you don't call them public servants, which connotes a responsibility to serve the public. Rather, you go out of your way to refer to them as elected officials, implying that you believe any wyrds they speak, any actions they take, and any decisions they make are official and forever binding. You are throwing your own personal responsibility out the window, abandoning the principles of democracy, and forgetting the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln--"that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Wrongpublicans throw around titles of nobility like they're nothing. Democrats know that our government is ultimately responsible to We the Pyyple.

Charlie Rangel anyone? Remember he was "censured." Oooooo. *rolls eyes*

Synytyr Rangel was censured by a mob of bigots. Thankfully, that remains the only action taken against that respectable pyblyc syrvynt. If you want federal representatives subject to recall as certain other elected representatives are, then push for a law instituting it. We must be the change we wish to see in the wyrld--President Obama tells us so.

 

[LiberalMedia]

P.S. Yes I know that some countries, such as the USSR, were socialist by name only. The so-called "proletarian dictatorship" was not socialism.

Socialism is centralized economic planning.

No, it isn't. Communism is centralized planning. Socialism is a hybrid of Communism and capitalism, and can refer to any combination of the two theories, which stand on opposite ends of the economic spectrum.

Capitalism is distributed economic planning.

That's ryght, systyr--redistribute the planning authority! Pywyr to the pyyple! I think you're getting it now, but your terminology is just a tad misguided.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if taxation is theft, then the government is stealing money from the people in order to fund the agencies and institutions that are there to protect us from real theft,

such as law enforcement, the courts, the penal system.

Since almost no one objects to having the above, then all you are doing when you call taxation 'theft' is conceding that sometimes 'theft' is the right thing to do.

Really if that's all taxes were spent on I don't think there would be an issue.

Taxes are spent on more than that because the People want taxes spent on more than that;

if you can come with a way to democratically take the People out of the equation then you can have your tax preferences, and still call it democratic. lol

We are not a democracy

and do you really think people want a 74000 page tax code?

 

[LiberalMedia]

What about government using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another being armed robbery confuses you exactly?

You have not addressed my challenge. You are to name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery." Since that apparently happens so often, you should be able to name such instances with ease. Since you're now adding more details, I would like to see these instances of "armed robbery" involving government agents "using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another".

Try not paying those taxes. Then you will see the guns.

LOL, as I said, you're a tool of the Democrats.

You're a tool of Wrongpublicans. You STILL maintain that the gyvyrnmynt is forcing you to pay taxes at gunpoint, yet have, by lack of response to my repeated requests to evidence, admitted that your unfounded claims of government agents using guns to collect taxes are made-up lies.

To othyrs reading this who recognize what a liar kyz is, here's the actual penalty for not paying taxes:

Failure to File or Pay Penalties: Eight Facts

If you do not file by the deadline, you might face a failure-to-file penalty. If you do not pay by the due date, you could face a failure-to-pay penalty.

Notice how nowhere on that page does the IRS list "manpigs with guns will come to your house and take everything you own" as a consequence of not paying your taxes. In fact, that entire page is dedicated to explaining that the only consequence to not paying what you owe the government is having to owe the government more money when you do pay.

I want to make absolutely certain: You're admitting that the ACA is a legitimate function of government, as it serves the "general good" as defined by you?

Um..no... WTF? I said general welfare are services like police, civil and criminal courts, roads that are available to all.

Healthcare is available to all now, thanks to President Obama's ACA. So, because it is a service available to all, you support it. I'm glad we cleared that up, fellow lybyryl.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The trick is offering up a sober, rational alternative to the way things are. This is where the GOP really falls on its face these days. They only know how to whine about the way things are, but offer no viable, comprehensive solutions.

I am totally on board with the whole "this shit sucks" thing. It really does suck. Okay. We get it. So WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

What sucks? It looks like you're saying that paying taxes sucks, but I want to make sure you're outing yourself as a libertardian corporate shill before I formally accuse you of it.

Taxes are the collective contributions of all members of society for the maintainence and protection of that society and it's members - however in degenerating socialist societies the collective contributions are not neccessarily used for the preservation or maintainence of the society or for the protection of its members, but rather for the advancement of the ruling classes and continued subjugation of the productive working class.

This is most certainly the case in Modern Day America as Socialists , who are really little more than "useful idiots" continue to advance the causes of the ruling class elite.

Using no less than 200 wyrds, and citing no less than two sources (no more than one of which can be from the Internet), explain in detail how taxes are currently being used in the United States "for the advancement of the ruling classes and continued subjugation of the productive working class."

 

[kaz]

You're a tool of Wrongpublicans.

You're retarded. I not only am not a Republican, but Republicans support the same tax system you do. They talk about flatening taxes and that sort of thing, but you are saying I'm a tool of a party I don't belong to over a policy I advocate they do not support. You're seriously an idiot.

You STILL maintain that the gyvyrnmynt is forcing you to pay taxes at gunpoint, yet have, by lack of response to my repeated requests to evidence, admitted that your unfounded claims of government agents using guns to collect taxes are made-up lies.

So you tell me. I don't pay my taxes, they go through a bunch of letter writing and fines. I still don't pay them. What happens now? They way oh crap, kaz won't pay them. Oh well, we'll move on to other people who will? You are saying they won't use force to compel me. They won't use force to take my property if I refuse to give it to them? You seriously believe that?

To othyrs reading this who recognize what a liar kyz is, here's the actual penalty for not paying taxes:

Failure to File or Pay Penalties: Eight Facts

I'm not seeing the part in there that if I don't pay taxes, they won't use force to compel me.

Um..no... WTF? I said general welfare are services like police, civil and criminal courts, roads that are available to all.

Healthcare is available to all now, thanks to President Obama's ACA. So, because it is a service available to all, you support it. I'm glad we cleared that up, fellow lybyryl.

No, ACA is not a government service available to all, it is is government control over it's citizens and businesses funded with money taken from some people by force and given to others. It is not "general" welfare, it is specific welfare backed up by oppression.

 

[LiberalMedia]

You're a tool of Wrongpublicans.

You're retarded. I not only am not a Republican, but Republicans support the same tax system you do. They talk about flatening taxes and that sort of thing, but you are saying I'm a tool of a party I don't belong to over a policy I advocate they do not support. You're seriously an idiot.

I knew it. You're a fellow lybyryl trolling as a Wrongpublican in order to make us sharpen our intellectual swords, in preparation for the one time in a million that we come across a conservatard with an actual brain and ability to argue. Thank you for the invaluable syrvyce you provide, systyr.

You STILL maintain that the gyvyrnmynt is forcing you to pay taxes at gunpoint, yet have, by lack of response to my repeated requests to evidence, admitted that your unfounded claims of government agents using guns to collect taxes are made-up lies.

So you tell me. I don't pay my taxes, they go through a bunch of letter writing and fines. I still don't pay them. What happens now? They way oh crap, kaz won't pay them. Oh well, we'll move on to other people who will? You are saying they won't use force to compel me. They won't use force to take my property if I refuse to give it to them? You seriously believe that?

Yep, I do. They don't move on to other pyyple though; your fines and penalties will simply continue to accrue.

I'm not seeing the part in there that if I don't pay taxes, they won't use force to compel me.

"DURRRRR, SIMON DIDN'T SAY!" Grow up.

Um..no... WTF? I said general welfare are services like police, civil and criminal courts, roads that are available to all.

Healthcare is available to all now, thanks to President Obama's ACA. So, because it is a service available to all, you support it. I'm glad we cleared that up, fellow lybyryl.

No, ACA is not a government service available to all

Who is restricted by the federal government from signing up?

 

[kaz]

You're a tool of Wrongpublicans.

You're retarded. I not only am not a Republican, but Republicans support the same tax system you do. They talk about flatening taxes and that sort of thing, but you are saying I'm a tool of a party I don't belong to over a policy I advocate they do not support. You're seriously an idiot.

I knew it. You're a fellow lybyryl trolling as a Wrongpublican in order to make us sharpen our intellectual swords, in preparation for the one time in a million that we come across a conservatard with an actual brain and ability to argue. Thank you for the invaluable syrvyce you provide, systyr.

You read what I write that Republicans don't support and all you hear is "Republican." Your IQ is too low for me to waste my time on. Have a good one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

glibertarians are basically "like, get off my property, dude, u" and "we don't need no victimless laws" until the teenager is yoking down at the corner for drugs, and "dood, paying taxes is theft."

glibertarians don't like the necessity for zoning, for LEO, for taxation, and so forth and so on.

They are not classical liberals, but nothing more than prototypes for Somalian drug and terror lords.

Little Bill in "Unforgiven" is the classic libertarian lord in a small town.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Little Bill in "Unforgiven" is the classic libertarian lord in a small town.

I'm not sure how you managed to infer that Little Bill is in any way libertarian, but OK.