25 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh hell. You wrote something that actually went in a straight line and sucked me back in.
If you classify drinking a cup of coffee as theft, is drinking a cup of coffee wrong?
Why don't you understand the argument is circular?
There is a certain amount of taxation, which you believe is not theft, assuming you're not an anarchist. I propose raising the taxes, but you oppose because it is theft. These two things are not compatible. Either all forms of taxation are theft, or none are.
Look, I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here so try to concentrate. The argument appears circular to you because you are willfully closing your eyes to something obvious. It is not a question of whether taxation is or is not theft. It is a question of whether taxation violates people's rights. If it violates people's rights then it is theft, if not, then it isn't.
Now, a full blown libertarian would tell you that any taxation that goes beyond what is required to fund the activities of the minimal state, (i.e. a state that protects individuals from force, fraud, and theft, and that enforces contracts etc) is unjustified. Now, whether or not you agree with that (you don't), you should at least be able to acknowledge that at some point before you have reached a taxation level of 100%, you have crossed a line that violates people's rights because at that point the taxpayer becomes a slave. Now if you acknowledge that, then you have already acknowledged that some taxation can indeed be theft. The only question that remains then is how much is too much.
Edit: And to avoid going around in a circle again, let's be clear. The term "theft" in this context does not mean taking something in an illegal way. It means taking something that you have no right to take.
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyPersonally, I would only consider it theft if taxpayers money end up in the
Oh hell. You wrote something that actually went in a straight line and sucked me back in.
Look, I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here so try to concentrate. The argument appears circular to you because you are willfully closing your eyes to something obvious. It is not a question of whether taxation is or is not theft. It is a questi ...[text shortened]... thing in an illegal way. It means taking something that you have no right to take.[/i]
pockets of a select few (like saving automobile companies, for instance). If
the money goes right back into society I wouldn't consider it theft. At most I
would consider it wasted money if I don't support the cause, but then, that's
why we get to choose our politicians, innit?
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyOf course there is a certain optimum taxation after which raising them will reduce the general wellbeing of the populace. We differ in opinion on where this optimum is; you think the optimum is a government that protects the populace from force and fraud, I think the optimum is located at the point where the government best serves the interests of the people. There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest these two don't overlap.
Oh hell. You wrote something that actually went in a straight line and sucked me back in.
Look, I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here so try to concentrate. The argument appears circular to you because you are willfully closing your eyes to something obvious. It is not a question of whether taxation is or is not theft. It is a questi ...[text shortened]... thing in an illegal way. It means taking something that you have no right to take.[/i]