Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See, that's the problem. On so many issues you are just plain wrong.
>>> No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.
The correct answer was yes. See voting by ballot and by hand wherein locals choose by themselves what and how much locals will or will not be taxed. To many examples to name here, but bonds building schools that temporarily increase income or sales taxes are one example.
If there were direct voting on measure regarding taxes there would be no taxes at the local level. Not sure where you live, but i've never heard of it and I've lived in several states and in several different local areas in those states.
the corrrect answer was irrelevant. As it is irrelevant to the discussion.
>>> Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?
As already stated if you voluntarily sign a contract to pay a tax, and then voluntarily pay the tax, you in fact voluntarily paying a voluntary tax. Signing a real estate contract that says you will pay real-estate taxes was one of my many examples. Buying a lottery ticket was another. Sales taxes was another. Road use taxes was another. Buying and selling goods that carry an excise tax vs goods that do not is yet another. The number of voluntary taxes are really only limited to your willingness to agree "what the difference is" between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone.
The only difference in these examples is that you're free to choose not to own property. The "contract" that says you'll pay a real estate tax isn't negotiable. You can either pay or walk away. in that, it's the same argument as "if you dont like taxation, go live somewhere else." They're not asking, they are telling you. Its an act of aggression.
The same is arguably said about user taxes, such as road use, etc...which is the ONE form of tax i actually agreed the government could use without coercion (arguably).
Alright, I'm gonna leave this guy to it. it's just a walk in circles here.
Saying there can be no choice or voluntary in a system that involves taxation is equivalent to saying all sex is rape. You are wrong. You admit there is a difference between force and consensual payment yet you won't agree that the difference is consent. You are the one talking in circles.
I don't agree at all. I'm just not interested in walking the circle with you. You've made more erroneous statements in this discussion that can be counted. And you apparently can not differentiate between consent through fear of force/violence, and voluntary.
Where did I say I did not agree with non-aggression in principle? The only thing I've disagreed with is the coloring all current and future forms of taxation as requiring aggression. IOW I see there are solutions available to us vs. the above doom and gloom of anarchy or tyranny nothing in between is possible arguments being made above.You usually get these sorts of lame arguments from liberals. To be a libertarian means you agree with non aggression principle.
However, lot's of people call themselves libertarians who really aren't. Even Bill Clinton claimed to be a libertarian once.
All your examples of "voluntary taxes" violate the non-aggression principle, so you obviously don't agree with it. By definition, taxes are money the government takes from you without your consent. All taxes violate the non-aggression principle. Your so-called "solutions" do not eliminate the aggression. Having to alter your decision because a third party imposes a cost on you does not make that behavior voluntary. It does not constitute consent to the payment. That's the precise definition of involuntary.
If there were direct voting on measure regarding taxes there would be no taxes at the local level. Not sure where you live, but i've never heard of it and I've lived in several states and in several different local areas in those states.
the corrrect answer was irrelevant. As it is irrelevant to the discussion.
The only difference in these examples is that you're free to choose not to own property. The "contract" that says you'll pay a real estate tax isn't negotiable. You can either pay or walk away. in that, it's the same argument as "if you dont like taxation, go live somewhere else." They're not asking, they are telling you. Its an act of aggression.
The same is arguably said about user taxes, such as road use, etc...which is the ONE form of tax i actually agreed the government could use without coercion (arguably).
Alright, I'm gonna leave this guy to it. it's just a walk in circles here.
Saying there can be no choice or voluntary in a system that involves taxation is equivalent to saying all sex is rape. You are wrong. You admit there is a difference between force and consensual payment yet you won't agree that the difference is consent. You are the one talking in circles.
We're saying all tax is theft, which is exactly what it is. There is a difference between force and consensual payment. Taxes fit the former description, not the later. Paying Guido the Leg Breaker protection money is not consensual, but according to your argument it is. "Consensual" doesn't mean subject to arbitrary conditions imposed someone who isn't a party to the transaction.
I don't agree at all. I'm just not interested in walking the circle with you. You've made more erroneous statements in this discussion that can be counted. And you apparently can not differentiate between consent through fear of force/violence, and voluntary.
Blah blah blah yeah right no such thing as voluntary taxation... How many times did you say that? Now you agree voluntary consent for taxation is voluntary taxation. Wow.. how many posts did it take for you to admit that all forms of taxation were not through coercion? 200?
I don't agree at all. I'm just not interested in walking the circle with you. You've made more erroneous statements in this discussion that can be counted. And you apparently can not differentiate between consent through fear of force/violence, and voluntary.
Blah blah blah yeah right no such thing as voluntary taxation... How many times did you say that? Now you agree voluntary consent for taxation is voluntary taxation. Wow.. how many posts did it take for you to admit that all forms of taxation were not through coercion? 200?
Wow, you're dumber than I originally thought. Anyway, have fun in the hampster wheel. I admitted no such thing. you still can not differentiate between force and voluntary, then claim I agree with you.
Good day, sir. You lost this argument long ago.
I call BS. Libertarianism is the direct result of observing human nature. Libertarianism is the solution.Libertarianism, like Marxism, has it all figured out -- except for one thing. Human nature.
Blah blah blah yeah right no such thing as voluntary taxation... How many times did you say that? Now you agree voluntary consent for taxation is voluntary taxation. Wow.. how many posts did it take for you to admit that all forms of taxation were not through coercion? 200?
Wow, you're dumber than I originally thought. Anyway, have fun in the hampster wheel. I admitted no such thing. you still can not differentiate between force and voluntary, then claim I agree with you.
Good day, sir. You lost this argument long ago.
How many times do you have to admit that the difference between forced and voluntary taxation is voluntary consent? Just as there is no aggression in voluntary consent to taxation, there is no rape in sex with between consenting adults. Your sky is falling aggression regarding taxation only exists in cases where taxation involves government employees raping us by taxing us against our will and without our consent. Or are you trying to say all contracts are aggression... ROFL
The government is not a person.Here's the definition of theft:
theft legal definition of theft. theft synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Explain how taxation doesn't qualify.
So it's not theft because the government does it? You're serious?
You consent by not renouncing your citizenship and moving away freely.
Horseshit. That doesn't conform to any moral, ethical or legal definition of "consent."
If you could identify an individual 'taker' (which you can't) such as an IRS agent they don't get your money for their personal use.
It is so different that they even have a different word for it.
So corporations can't ever be guilty of theft because no single individual is involved? How about the Mafia?
If only you could understand how pathetic and desperate you sound.
So it's not theft because the government does it? You're serious?
exactly.
I debated with myself whether to respond to this because the only proper response is insulting, but I guess you deserve it.
Anyone who thinks a given action is moral simply because the government does it is an imbecile. Furthermore, you're a servile toady. What magic does the government perform that makes their behavior sainted when the likes of you and me would be considered criminals for doing exactly the same thing? It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that kind of "logic."
You still haven't explained how not leaving constitutes "consent." If Guido the leg breaker comes into my business and tells me I can pay him $1000/month for his "protection," go somewhere else or have my legs groken, have I "consented" if I pay him the money?
No one consents to paying taxes.
So corporations can't ever be guilty of theft because no single individual is involved? How about the Mafia?
Have you ever seen a corporation behind bars? Individuals steal and are punished as individuals.
So corporations can't steal or commit crimes? What about Enron?
Here's the definition of theft:
theft legal definition of theft. theft synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Quote:
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).
Explain how taxation doesn't qualify.
Saying there can be no choice or voluntary in a system that involves taxation is equivalent to saying all sex is rape. You are wrong. You admit there is a difference between force and consensual payment yet you won't agree that the difference is consent. You are the one talking in circles.
We're saying all tax is theft, which is exactly what it is. There is a difference between force and consensual payment. Taxes fit the former description, not the later. Paying Guido the Leg Breaker protection money is not consensual, but according to your argument it is. "Consensual" doesn't mean subject to arbitrary conditions imposed someone who isn't a party to the transaction.
Wrong wrong wrong... all tax is not theft... just like all sex is not rape.
That which is freely agreed upon and provided is not theft.
If you don't agree and you did not sign a contract then it is theft.
You are confusing the word "some" with "all" and also confusing the term "consent" with no choice but to accept.
Remember you asked me to qualify it under YOUR definition.
Here's the definition of theft:
theft legal definition of theft. theft synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Quote:
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).
Explain how taxation doesn't qualify.
YOUR definition says theft is when a "person" takes property. This makes total sense, if a cashier at McDonalds steals does that make McDonalds a thief? No I don't think so.
If you join a club that has dues/fees then you can quit and stop paying (from the point of quitting) and you will probably lose your membership benefits. As you might suspect quitting a country is more logistically challenging but can still be done in our country. You would only owe taxes/dues for the time you were a member/citizen. BTW most people consent to paying taxes or else they would all be voting for Libertarians.
Just remember that people made up the idea of government, millions of years of evolution and/or God made up people.
Wow, you're dumber than I originally thought. Anyway, have fun in the hampster wheel. I admitted no such thing. you still can not differentiate between force and voluntary, then claim I agree with you.
Good day, sir. You lost this argument long ago.
How many times do you have to admit that the difference between forced and voluntary taxation is voluntary consent? Just as there is no aggression in voluntary consent to taxation, there is no rape in sex with between consenting adults. Your sky is falling aggression regarding taxation only exists in cases where taxation involves government employees raping us by taxing us against our will and without our consent. Or are you trying to say all contracts are aggression... ROFL
And that is almost every tax out there. Taxes, are by their very definition, compulsory. That's the point. If by not consenting you mean you refuse and take the risk of jail or worse, that's not voluntary consent, it's forced compliance, not consent. You seem to be confused about the NAP. What you're basically saying is that by not violently, or as passively as possible mitigating the taxation, and paying as much as you feel is worthy as possible, means its consent. When in reality, if I weren't faced with the prospects of a far worse punishment than the tax, I would pay none of it that I dont volunteer...by writing the check and sending it directly in under absolutely no obligation of force.
Anyway, you can go ahead and believe that your version is consent, to me your argument hinges essentially on "comply, resist or leave" as consent. When what it really is, is compliance.
We're saying all tax is theft, which is exactly what it is. There is a difference between force and consensual payment. Taxes fit the former description, not the later. Paying Guido the Leg Breaker protection money is not consensual, but according to your argument it is. "Consensual" doesn't mean subject to arbitrary conditions imposed someone who isn't a party to the transaction.
Wrong wrong wrong... all tax is not theft... just like all sex is not rape.
Invalid analogy. All sex that isn't consented to is rape. That's the valid analogy. Taxes are not consented to.
Taxes are not freely agreed upon. I certainly never agreed to any of them.
If you don't agree and you did not sign a contract then it is theft.
Wrong. The story ends with, "if you don't agree." The contract is irrelevant. The tax imposing authority is not a legitimate party to the contract anymore than Guido the Leg breaker is a party to the lease on your business.
You are confusing the word "some" with "all" and also confusing the term "consent" with no choice but to accept.
Not at all. The fact that you may be happy to stick your head in a noose doesn't make it voluntary when a man with a gun forces me to stick mine in one.
You are not given any choice about paying taxes, period. The only "choice" you're given is the same choice a mugger gives you: pay up or take a bullet in the chest.
Remember you asked me to qualify it under YOUR definition.
Here's the definition of theft:
theft legal definition of theft. theft synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Quote:
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).
Explain how taxation doesn't qualify.
YOUR definition says theft is when a "person" takes property. This makes total sense, if a cashier at McDonalds steals does that make McDonalds a thief? No I don't think so.
Oh puhleeze. You're hairsplitting is beyond pathetic.
If you join a club that has dues/fees then you can quit and stop paying (from the point of quitting) and you will probably lose your membership benefits. As you might suspect quitting a country is more logistically challenging but can still be done in our country. You would only owe taxes/dues for the time you were a member/citizen. BTW most people consent to paying taxes or else they would all be voting for Libertarians.
Government is not a club. You don't have to move to quit a club. You don't become a member of a club by being born in a certain location. Genuine consent doesn't require any action from a person other than to give it. Any other requirements are forms of compulsion.
Just remember that people made up the idea of government, millions of years of evolution and/or God made up people.
Government has only been around since the dawn of agriculture, and the reason is quite simply. When property evolved to the point where people couldn't simply pack it up and take it with them, they became ripe prey for the purveyors of government - slave masters, in other words.
In fact, no one consents to paying taxes because if there were no criminal penalties then the amount collected would be virtually zero.
Remember you asked me to qualify it under YOUR definition.
YOUR definition says theft is when a "person" takes property. This makes total sense, if a cashier at McDonalds steals does that make McDonalds a thief? No I don't think so.
Oh puhleeze. You're hairsplitting is beyond pathetic.
Government is not a club. You don't have to move to quit a club. You don't become a member of a club by being born in a certain location. Genuine consent doesn't require any action from a person other than to give it. Any other requirements are forms of compulsion.
Just remember that people made up the idea of government, millions of years of evolution and/or God made up people.
Government has only been around since the dawn of agriculture, and the reason is quite simply. When property evolved to the point where people couldn't simply pack it up and take it with them, they became ripe prey for the purveyors of government - slave masters, in other words.
In fact, no one consents to paying taxes because if there were no criminal penalties then the amount collected would be virtually zero.
WOW So without the threat of jail you would not volunteer to pay for police, fire, or rescue for your city. Wow, just wow. Yeah, the punishment for folks like you should be banishment.
How many times do you have to admit that the difference between forced and voluntary taxation is voluntary consent? Just as there is no aggression in voluntary consent to taxation, there is no rape in sex with between consenting adults. Your sky is falling aggression regarding taxation only exists in cases where taxation involves government employees raping us by taxing us against our will and without our consent. Or are you trying to say all contracts are aggression... ROFL
And that is almost every tax out there. Taxes, are by their very definition, compulsory. That's the point. If by not consenting you mean you refuse and take the risk of jail or worse, that's not voluntary consent, it's forced compliance, not consent. You seem to be confused about the NAP. What you're basically saying is that by not violently, or as passively as possible mitigating the taxation, and paying as much as you feel is worthy as possible, means its consent. When in reality, if I weren't faced with the prospects of a far worse punishment than the tax, I would pay none of it that I dont volunteer...by writing the check and sending it directly in under absolutely no obligation of force.
Anyway, you can go ahead and believe that your version is consent, to me your argument hinges essentially on "comply, resist or leave" as consent. When what it really is, is compliance.
As stated earlier in this thread you and I are likely in violent agreement with regard to the current federal taxes. Your issue with me, however, is made up by you. I did not say the current federal taxes are voluntary. You are making that up. What I said is that there is no reason any of the current taxes can't be made voluntary. To make them voluntary we just have to make them voluntary. Why you can't admit or consider that taxes could be made voluntary makes you sound silly. Making them voluntary requires something like a contract with consent and without coercion. It's not that hard. With regard to your "leave" argument, you must be talking about real-estate taxes again. When you sign an agreement to pay that tax you are moving to the location. You pick a location to move to based on whether or not you want to live there and pay the required taxes. There are some locations that do not have any required real-estate taxes. That is what we call free will. If some majority or elected representative creates a new tax that you have not volunteered to pay against your will then yeah sure that's aggression.
Oh puhleeze. You're hairsplitting is beyond pathetic.
Government is not a club. You don't have to move to quit a club. You don't become a member of a club by being born in a certain location. Genuine consent doesn't require any action from a person other than to give it. Any other requirements are forms of compulsion.
Government has only been around since the dawn of agriculture, and the reason is quite simply. When property evolved to the point where people couldn't simply pack it up and take it with them, they became ripe prey for the purveyors of government - slave masters, in other words.
In fact, no one consents to paying taxes because if there were no criminal penalties then the amount collected would be virtually zero.
WOW So without the threat of jail you would not volunteer to pay for police, fire, or rescue for your city. Wow, just wow. Yeah, the punishment for folks like you should be banishment.
Without threat of jail almost no one would pay taxes. However, that doesn't mean we wouldn't have police, fire protection or rescue. These things can all be funded privately and are funded privately in many locations.
Wrong wrong wrong... all tax is not theft... just like all sex is not rape.
Invalid analogy. All sex that isn't consented to is rape. That's the valid analogy. Taxes are not consented to.
Taxes are not freely agreed upon. I certainly never agreed to any of them.
Wrong. The story ends with, "if you don't agree." The contract is irrelevant. The tax imposing authority is not a legitimate party to the contract anymore than Guido the Leg breaker is a party to the lease on your business.
You are confusing the word "some" with "all" and also confusing the term "consent" with no choice but to accept.
Not at all. The fact that you may be happy to stick your head in a noose doesn't make it voluntary when a man with a gun forces me to stick mine in one.
You are not given any choice about paying taxes, period. The only "choice" you're given is the same choice a mugger gives you: pay up or take a bullet in the chest.
Wrong wrong wrong. How can you be so wrong on so many topics?
If you sign a contract to pay a certain amount of your own free will, then the obligation to pay the amount is not aggression.
What you are incapable of understanding is that, all that is required to make a tax voluntary is consent, wherein your approval is acquired without coercion.
Refusing to pay what you agreed to pay, complaining about it, and attacking the other party for billing you what you agreed to pay is also aggression.
Have you never signed a contract for anything?
You are confusing your "current" taxes with all taxes.
WOW So without the threat of jail you would not volunteer to pay for police, fire, or rescue for your city. Wow, just wow. Yeah, the punishment for folks like you should be banishment.
Without threat of jail almost no one would pay taxes. However, that doesn't mean we wouldn't have police, fire protection or rescue. These things can all be funded privately and are funded privately in many locations.
So? What's the difference between volunteering to pay for police fire and rescue privately and volunteering to pay for police fire and rescue a the township level? What is the difference between a group of people of a township and a group of people of a private group? Both are groups, both are organizations, both are formed by the people of the group. Refuse to adhere to the rules of the group you get punished by the rules agreed to by the group that you decided to join.
