Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mar 2, 2004, 12:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Look at the dictionary definition ... I've read you post and answered them And i saw to proof of anything. You can pretend that tax=theft, and hide your head in the side to protect this belief, but such beliefs will never change reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

First, as I have already noted and you have ignored, adding the legal aspect of theft is completely arbitrary and begs the question. Theft can and does occur outside of any government authority. Property exists outside of any government authority.

Second, I asked for any NON_ARBITRARY description of theft, and you have given only the logically flawed description.

So by all means let us appeal to reality rather than to arbitrary ideology such as is represented by the claim that law determines theft, rather than the nature of property.

I understand that you have no desire to see the proof given, but if you will only abide by two things the proof will be perfectly clear. Those two things are reason and reality. I have shown in each case that your arguments have been logically flawed so that the conclusions are at best unreliable.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Nice appeal to emotion, nice try. When you attack me on logical fallacies, try to not fill you attack with those. Why do you continue to pretend that everyone accepts you black colored vision of tax? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I made no appeal to emotion. I also have not attacked you at all. I have pointed out that the arguments have been fatally flawed and the assumption/conclusions were not reasonable. I am not pretending anything at all, much less that everyone is willing to acknoweldge the nature of reality. Clearly there are those who are putting their ideology before reason and reality. I am simply pointing out that reality does not depend on ideology.

The question still remains: Can you offer any NON-ARBITRARY description of theft, that does not necessitate that taxation is a central case?

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 2, 2004, 02:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
I never saw this , so call irrefutable proof... I will repeat again. I pay tax, I get benifit form it, there no theft in my impression. It is as simple as that, You can write the bible on a grain of rice, you have still not ruled out this . It is simple.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Fortunately, you DON'T speak for everyone.

Not everyone wants to pay taxes as they are not stupid as can see the obvious truth: whatever service they desire can be serviced better by the private sector.

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 03:01 pm

I am not speaking for everyone, nor do you. That's exactly what I'm saying since the beginning.

Mar 2, 2004, 03:16 pm

But Mathieu you are pretending that reality is not reality and therein lay the problem. Sure you may want to pay taxes, and if so then you are in luck since you are forced to do so anyway. But the fact that you want to pay taxes does not change their nature.

Analogously, if you wanted to be mugged, the muggin would still be theft, otherwise it is not mugging.

tusaki · Mar 2, 2004, 03:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08)
whatever service they desire can be serviced better by the private sector. <hr size="1" /></blockquote> Well, we've seen the disaster which is the British Railway & Californian Power companies. Perhaps they have not done such a good 'privitisation' job, but when everything is about making profit instead of providing a good public service, you are bound to run into problems. In theory it should work, companies which have to manage their own income and keep the consumer happy should be providing a better service than a company which will get its money from the government anyway. Why doesn't it work then?

Mar 2, 2004, 03:45 pm

Check the facts of the California power situation and you will find that in fact it was because they did not allow for private investment in power, and they still have not removed the regulations that prevented the power companies from meeting the demand. You should also note that after decades of preventing power plants and other power suppliers from being built, there was no way to provide sufficient power to meet the demand.

The California situation is actually another wonderful example of the failure of the state.

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 03:47 pm

If I do an empirical analysis as you sugessted, then why wouldn't it be you who commit theft, if you don't pay tax ?

tusaki · Mar 2, 2004, 03:59 pm

Tax = theft. In a very literal sense. But I think of it as 'forcing every egoist to give some of his property for the benefit of the whole'. Theft the way people use it in this thread has a very emotional 'charge' in it, something which is not quite right.

But it remains theft because people have no choice. People have no choice because there is a fear people are not willing to spend money on things they themselves are not the direct beneficiaries of. And I think that fear is just. People are selfish ignorant bastards who need to be protected from themselves. People are not fit to make choices of their own, because most people are stupid. I don't really care that this is a non-politically correct saying, but it's just true. Most people don't even CARE. They just want their food, their sex and their fun. But humanity as a whole, most people don't really give a shit about. That's why a government is a solution. There are people out there who know better what to do about lots of things than me. I accept the fact that there are things which need to be done and that I am not the one who is going to make the right choices, because I'm selfish and egoistic at a certain conscious level. A government, as a body, has more smart people and more experience in dealing with all the different facets of a society than any person, group or company. The problem in handing all the power to private companies, is that those companies do not have the same goals a government has. The government has to act for the interest of the people, because otherwise the people will vote the government away. And whether you believe it or not, they usually do act in such a way and with your interests in mind. Companies on the other hand, think about the amount of money they can get from their 'customers', therefore they do not necessarily think or act with the best interest of their customers in mind. But, yes, tax = theft and I am glad it is so.

tusaki · Mar 2, 2004, 04:05 pm

As a counter-argument to my post (yes, I'm here to debate and not religiously defend or attack a certain principle or point ;-). Not all governments act with the best interest of their people in mind. I was just thinking about the Chinese or North-Koreans or the Iranians.

On the other hand... I may hope that the American and European democracies do. Oh well... ;-)

tusaki · Mar 2, 2004, 04:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
... californian power ... <hr size="1" /></blockquote> Ah, I didn't know that. ... searching ....
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not free enterprise, but government controls. - Ayn Rand <hr size="1" /></blockquote> although the source is a website with 'radical' in its name -grin-

Another story about it:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn13509.htm

funny, this leads me to think that the fear of giving control away to the free markets leads to half-assed regulations which will make certain the initial fear will become justified. So, like I said, most privitisations are just done badly. :). Anyone got an example of a privitisation which worked well? Because it should be better if done well.

Mar 2, 2004, 04:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If I do an empirical analysis as you sugessted, then why wouldn't it be you who commit theft, if you don't pay tax ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Okay so you are seriously suggesting that if one does not succomb to any threat of violence to their person, and keeps their property, it is somehow the individual who has committed theft?

No, keeping your property, refusing to allow a theif to take it, does not make you a theif. Nothing could be more absurd than to blame the one who is being aggressed against for that aggression.

Indeed I would like for you to rely on reality in this discussion.

First note that property exists separate from and prior to any state.
Then note that the taking of that property by anyone other than the righful owner, is theft, and this occurs outside of and prior to any state.

Now, with the arbitrary legal red herring out of the way, any and all descriptions of theft, which do not rely on any arbitrary elements, and encompass the uses of the word, it is perfectly clear that in every single case taxation is a central example of theft. This is a clear deduction, not an assumption. Nor is this a starting point, but rather what is necessitated by critical examination of the world in which we live.

Mar 2, 2004, 05:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
funny, this leads me to think that the fear of giving control away to the free markets leads to half-assed regulations which will make certain the initial fear will become justified. So, like I said, most privitisations are just done badly. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Good point. Most so called privatizations are not privatizations at all just as you noted. Half assed regulation and restriction is still regulation and restriction. It is akin to tying both of their hands behind their back and then blindfolding them... no chance for success when they stack the deck against you.

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 05:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)

Okay so you are seriously suggesting that if one does not succomb to any threat of violence to their person, and keeps their property, it is somehow the individual who has committed theft?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No I am saying that if there is a general consensus that the governement is there to serve the citizens, and if those citizen are willingly paying tax to maintain this governement. Then no theft occured.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, keeping your property, refusing to allow a theif to take it, does not make you a theif. Nothing could be more absurd than to blame the one who is being aggressed against for that aggression.

Indeed I would like for you to rely on reality in this discussion. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well if you are the one on the property of governement wich use the infrastructures and you are not willing to pay tax, then it is you who commit a theft.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

First note that property exists separate from and prior to any state.
Then note that the taking of that property by anyone other than the righful owner, is theft, and this occurs outside of and prior to any state.

Now, with the arbitrary legal red herring out of the way, any and all descriptions of theft, which do not rely on any arbitrary elements, and encompass the uses of the word, it is perfectly clear that in every single case taxation is a central example of theft. This is a clear deduction, not an assumption. Nor is this a starting point, but rather what is necessitated by critical examination of the world in which we live.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again you provide no arguments and rely on your assumption that everyone has his tax money taken against their will. I provided a definition wich is seperate of any law and still you refused it , it is me who ask you to be honest here.

Mar 2, 2004, 06:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No I am saying that if there is a general consensus that the governement is there to serve the citizens, and if those citizen are willingly paying tax to maintain this governement. Then no theft occured. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Truth is not a popularity contest. Reality is not determined by popularity either.

Can you opt out of taxes? No. No choice exists. The taking is not reliant upon any willingness to give, so any claim that this is a voluntary contribution is quite simply false.

BTW nice avoidance of what is necessitated by your statements. How do you reconcile the fact that the thug in the alley is committing theft (you will acknowledge this right?) but by your reasoning no theft occurs?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Well if you are the one on the property of governement wich use the infrastructures and you are not willing to pay tax, then it is you who commit a theft. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Stipulating and repeating your already completely refuted claim, will not make it any more true than the first time it was proven to be false. If you are son convinced that your feeling is correct, why not address the arguments and issues raised?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Again you provide no arguments and rely on your assumption that everyone has his tax money taken against their will. I provided a definition wich is seperate of any law and still you refused it , it is me who ask you to be honest here.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes indeed I have continued to ask you to try to be honest, unfortunately to no avail. As for your definition, you relied upon the notion of "felonious" taking which necessitates law. If you have another description I would love to see it.

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 06:29 pm

You havent discard anything, you are willingly deforming what I say in odrder to fit it to your loosy refutation.

You still havent show me why tax constitute a theft if i am paying it willingly whitout being force ? What make you say I do not receive anything in exchange ? It is a trade , not a theft ?

If you are not willing to pay tax you can leave your country. You can say that if you are forced then it is a theft, but you can't declare the same for everyone who pay tax in this world, it is only your personal case. It only rely on your political stance and nothing more.

Inside a libertarian state, if group of person wanted to form a state within the state, how would you oppose to that ? If they want to constitute a governement substain by tax, it is not your problem, people in this state can leave elsewhere in the couuntry...

Earth is a big libertarian state , and you can leave your country if you are not willing to participate to it.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 2, 2004, 06:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You still havent show me why tax constitute a theft if i am paying it willingly whitout being force ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You still don't get it?!

All we're saying is that it's theft to take taxes from someone who doesn't want to pay them.

If you LIKE being lead around by the bit in your mouth...then be our guests (can i have some of your money since you're just giving it away for no reason?).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If you are not willing to pay tax you can leave your country<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We'd rather just stay here and do away with the government.

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 06:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

You still don't get it?!

All we're saying is that it's theft to take taxes from someone who doesn't want to pay them.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I have no problem with that, that is exactly what I say. It is not a fact for everyone . Wich make it pointless to bring that back in every damn thread for little or no reason to justify everything. Spend you time elsewhere, like to find exemple wich support your point of view , instead of screaming that like a mantra wich is only noise to those thread.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

If you LIKE being lead around by the bit in your mouth...then be our guests (can i have some of your money since you're just giving it away for no reason?).

We'd rather just stay here and do away with the government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If that's being lead around by the bit in your mouth..., then I'm quite ok with the way it's going.

BTW, I consider I receive from what I pay to my governement, Again you can think the opposite for yourself , but that only implies you . your straw men argument is ridicule.

Ok, I'll just sit here and wait that Quebec become a big libertarian state ...

jamiec3po · Mar 2, 2004, 06:54 pm

it isn't thieving to tax. taxation is a payment for the stable environment that we all enjoy provided by the government

Poetic_Justice · Mar 2, 2004, 07:34 pm

It is theft for everyone, because not even you have a choice Mathieu...
If you had tyhe choice, and still paid, that would notb e theft, but as it is, even you are burglarized...

Take as an example the plight of a business owner who is told by a group of mafioso's that he msut pay them for "protection", Now he might think this protection is useful. For example he might feel that it protects hi mfrom the police and from other gangs, he may also beleive it gives him a way to hel pthe community, because this mafia just happens to help out some member sof the community too with both jobs and money for widows and such. So he doesn't oppose his obligation, and were he given the option, he wouldn't even bother to leave the arrangement. However, they still take his money forcefully... And such is the situation of us with government.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 2, 2004, 07:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
it isn't thieving to tax. taxation is a payment for the stable environment that we all enjoy provided by the government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If its such a great thing, then why do they have to force us to do it, on pain of death?

Mar 2, 2004, 12:50 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Look at the dictionary definition ... I've read you post and answered them And i saw to proof of anything. You can pretend that tax=theft, and hide your head in the side to protect this belief, but such beliefs will never change reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First, as I have already noted and you have ignored, adding the legal aspect of theft is completely arbitrary and begs the question. Theft can and does occur outside of any government authority. Property exists outside of any government authority. Second, I asked for any NON_ARBITRARY description of theft, and you have given only the logically flawed description. So by all means let us appeal to reality rather than to arbitrary ideology such as is represented by the claim that law determines theft, rather than the nature of property. I understand that you have no desire to see the proof given, but if you will only abide by two things the proof will be perfectly clear. Those two things are reason and reality. I have shown in each case that your arguments have been logically flawed so that the conclusions are at best unreliable. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Nice appeal to emotion, nice try. When you attack me on logical fallacies, try to not fill you attack with those. Why do you continue to pretend that everyone accepts you black colored vision of tax? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I made no appeal to emotion. I also have not attacked you at all. I have pointed out that the arguments have been fatally flawed and the assumption/conclusions were not reasonable. I am not pretending anything at all, much less that everyone is willing to acknoweldge the nature of reality. Clearly there are those who are putting their ideology before reason and reality. I am simply pointing out that reality does not depend on ideology. The question still remains: Can you offer any NON-ARBITRARY description of theft, that does not necessitate that taxation is a central case?

Mar 2, 2004, 02:42 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) I never saw this , so call irrefutable proof... I will repeat again. I pay tax, I get benifit form it, there no theft in my impression. It is as simple as that, You can write the bible on a grain of rice, you have still not ruled out this . It is simple.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Fortunately, you DON'T speak for everyone. Not everyone wants to pay taxes as they are not stupid as can see the obvious truth: whatever service they desire can be serviced better by the private sector.

Mar 2, 2004, 03:34 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08) whatever service they desire can be serviced better by the private sector. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, we've seen the disaster which is the British Railway & Californian Power companies. Perhaps they have not done such a good 'privitisation' job, but when everything is about making profit instead of providing a good public service, you are bound to run into problems. In theory it should work, companies which have to manage their own income and keep the consumer happy should be providing a better service than a company which will get its money from the government anyway. Why doesn't it work then? Hope & Dream

Mar 2, 2004, 03:59 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	Tax = theft. In a very literal sense. But I think of it as 'forcing every egoist to give some of his property for the benefit of the whole'. Theft the way people use it in this thread has a very emotional 'charge' in it, something which is not quite right. But it remains theft because people have no choice. People have no choice because there is a fear people are not willing to spend money on things they themselves are not the direct beneficiaries of. And I think that fear is just. People are selfish ignorant bastards who need to be protected from themselves. People are not fit to make choices of their own, because most people are stupid. I don't really care that this is a non-politically correct saying, but it's just true. Most people don't even CARE. They just want their food, their sex and their fun. But humanity as a whole, most people don't really give a shit about. That's why a government is a solution. There are people out there who know better what to do about lots of things than me. I accept the fact that there are things which need to be done and that I am not the one who is going to make the right choices, because I'm selfish and egoistic at a certain conscious level. A government, as a body, has more smart people and more experience in dealing with all the different facets of a society than any person, group or company. The problem in handing all the power to private companies, is that those companies do not have the same goals a government has. The government has to act for the interest of the people, because otherwise the people will vote the government away. And whether you believe it or not, they usually do act in such a way and with your interests in mind. Companies on the other hand, think about the amount of money they can get from their 'customers', therefore they do not necessarily think or act with the best interest of their customers in mind. But, yes, tax = theft and I am glad it is so. Hope & Dream

Mar 2, 2004, 04:05 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	As a counter-argument to my post (yes, I'm here to debate and not religiously defend or attack a certain principle or point ;-). Not all governments act with the best interest of their people in mind. I was just thinking about the Chinese or North-Koreans or the Iranians. On the other hand... I may hope that the American and European democracies do. Oh well... ;-) Hope & Dream

Mar 2, 2004, 03:01 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	I am not speaking for everyone, nor do you. That's exactly what I'm saying since the beginning.

Mar 2, 2004, 03:16 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	But Mathieu you are pretending that reality is not reality and therein lay the problem. Sure you may want to pay taxes, and if so then you are in luck since you are forced to do so anyway. But the fact that you want to pay taxes does not change their nature. Analogously, if you wanted to be mugged, the muggin would still be theft, otherwise it is not mugging.

Mar 2, 2004, 03:45 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Check the facts of the California power situation and you will find that in fact it was because they did not allow for private investment in power, and they still have not removed the regulations that prevented the power companies from meeting the demand. You should also note that after decades of preventing power plants and other power suppliers from being built, there was no way to provide sufficient power to meet the demand. The California situation is actually another wonderful example of the failure of the state.

Mar 2, 2004, 03:47 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	If I do an empirical analysis as you sugessted, then why wouldn't it be you who commit theft, if you don't pay tax ?

Mar 2, 2004, 04:34 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) ... californian power ... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ah, I didn't know that. ... searching .... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not free enterprise, but government controls. - Ayn Rand <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> although the source is a website with 'radical' in its name -grin- Another story about it: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn13509.htm funny, this leads me to think that the fear of giving control away to the free markets leads to half-assed regulations which will make certain the initial fear will become justified. So, like I said, most privitisations are just done badly. :). Anyone got an example of a privitisation which worked well? Because it should be better if done well. Hope & Dream

Mar 2, 2004, 04:58 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If I do an empirical analysis as you sugessted, then why wouldn't it be you who commit theft, if you don't pay tax ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay so you are seriously suggesting that if one does not succomb to any threat of violence to their person, and keeps their property, it is somehow the individual who has committed theft? No, keeping your property, refusing to allow a theif to take it, does not make you a theif. Nothing could be more absurd than to blame the one who is being aggressed against for that aggression. Indeed I would like for you to rely on reality in this discussion. First note that property exists separate from and prior to any state. Then note that the taking of that property by anyone other than the righful owner, is theft, and this occurs outside of and prior to any state. Now, with the arbitrary legal red herring out of the way, any and all descriptions of theft, which do not rely on any arbitrary elements, and encompass the uses of the word, it is perfectly clear that in every single case taxation is a central example of theft. This is a clear deduction, not an assumption. Nor is this a starting point, but rather what is necessitated by critical examination of the world in which we live.

Mar 2, 2004, 05:00 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by funny, this leads me to think that the fear of giving control away to the free markets leads to half-assed regulations which will make certain the initial fear will become justified. So, like I said, most privitisations are just done badly. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Good point. Most so called privatizations are not privatizations at all just as you noted. Half assed regulation and restriction is still regulation and restriction. It is akin to tying both of their hands behind their back and then blindfolding them... no chance for success when they stack the deck against you.

Mar 2, 2004, 05:49 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Okay so you are seriously suggesting that if one does not succomb to any threat of violence to their person, and keeps their property, it is somehow the individual who has committed theft? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No I am saying that if there is a general consensus that the governement is there to serve the citizens, and if those citizen are willingly paying tax to maintain this governement. Then no theft occured. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, keeping your property, refusing to allow a theif to take it, does not make you a theif. Nothing could be more absurd than to blame the one who is being aggressed against for that aggression. Indeed I would like for you to rely on reality in this discussion. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well if you are the one on the property of governement wich use the infrastructures and you are not willing to pay tax, then it is you who commit a theft. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by First note that property exists separate from and prior to any state. Then note that the taking of that property by anyone other than the righful owner, is theft, and this occurs outside of and prior to any state. Now, with the arbitrary legal red herring out of the way, any and all descriptions of theft, which do not rely on any arbitrary elements, and encompass the uses of the word, it is perfectly clear that in every single case taxation is a central example of theft. This is a clear deduction, not an assumption. Nor is this a starting point, but rather what is necessitated by critical examination of the world in which we live.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again you provide no arguments and rely on your assumption that everyone has his tax money taken against their will. I provided a definition wich is seperate of any law and still you refused it , it is me who ask you to be honest here.

Mar 2, 2004, 06:05 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No I am saying that if there is a general consensus that the governement is there to serve the citizens, and if those citizen are willingly paying tax to maintain this governement. Then no theft occured. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Truth is not a popularity contest. Reality is not determined by popularity either. Can you opt out of taxes? No. No choice exists. The taking is not reliant upon any willingness to give, so any claim that this is a voluntary contribution is quite simply false. BTW nice avoidance of what is necessitated by your statements. How do you reconcile the fact that the thug in the alley is committing theft (you will acknowledge this right?) but by your reasoning no theft occurs? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Well if you are the one on the property of governement wich use the infrastructures and you are not willing to pay tax, then it is you who commit a theft. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Stipulating and repeating your already completely refuted claim, will not make it any more true than the first time it was proven to be false. If you are son convinced that your feeling is correct, why not address the arguments and issues raised? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Again you provide no arguments and rely on your assumption that everyone has his tax money taken against their will. I provided a definition wich is seperate of any law and still you refused it , it is me who ask you to be honest here.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes indeed I have continued to ask you to try to be honest, unfortunately to no avail. As for your definition, you relied upon the notion of "felonious" taking which necessitates law. If you have another description I would love to see it.

Mar 2, 2004, 06:29 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	You havent discard anything, you are willingly deforming what I say in odrder to fit it to your loosy refutation. You still havent show me why tax constitute a theft if i am paying it willingly whitout being force ? What make you say I do not receive anything in exchange ? It is a trade , not a theft ? If you are not willing to pay tax you can leave your country. You can say that if you are forced then it is a theft, but you can't declare the same for everyone who pay tax in this world, it is only your personal case. It only rely on your political stance and nothing more. Inside a libertarian state, if group of person wanted to form a state within the state, how would you oppose to that ? If they want to constitute a governement substain by tax, it is not your problem, people in this state can leave elsewhere in the couuntry... Earth is a big libertarian state , and you can leave your country if you are not willing to participate to it.

Mar 2, 2004, 06:36 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You still havent show me why tax constitute a theft if i am paying it willingly whitout being force ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You still don't get it?! All we're saying is that it's theft to take taxes from someone who doesn't want to pay them. If you LIKE being lead around by the bit in your mouth...then be our guests (can i have some of your money since you're just giving it away for no reason?). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If you are not willing to pay tax you can leave your country<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We'd rather just stay here and do away with the government.

Mar 2, 2004, 06:52 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) You still don't get it?! All we're saying is that it's theft to take taxes from someone who doesn't want to pay them. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have no problem with that, that is exactly what I say. It is not a fact for everyone . Wich make it pointless to bring that back in every damn thread for little or no reason to justify everything. Spend you time elsewhere, like to find exemple wich support your point of view , instead of screaming that like a mantra wich is only noise to those thread. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If you LIKE being lead around by the bit in your mouth...then be our guests (can i have some of your money since you're just giving it away for no reason?). We'd rather just stay here and do away with the government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If that's being lead around by the bit in your mouth..., then I'm quite ok with the way it's going. BTW, I consider I receive from what I pay to my governement, Again you can think the opposite for yourself , but that only implies you . your straw men argument is ridicule. Ok, I'll just sit here and wait that Quebec become a big libertarian state ...

Mar 2, 2004, 06:54 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
jamiec3po Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	it isn't thieving to tax. taxation is a payment for the stable environment that we all enjoy provided by the government

Mar 2, 2004, 07:34 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	It is theft for everyone, because not even you have a choice Mathieu... If you had tyhe choice, and still paid, that would notb e theft, but as it is, even you are burglarized... Take as an example the plight of a business owner who is told by a group of mafioso's that he msut pay them for "protection", Now he might think this protection is useful. For example he might feel that it protects hi mfrom the police and from other gangs, he may also beleive it gives him a way to hel pthe community, because this mafia just happens to help out some member sof the community too with both jobs and money for widows and such. So he doesn't oppose his obligation, and were he given the option, he wouldn't even bother to leave the arrangement. However, they still take his money forcefully... And such is the situation of us with government.

Mar 2, 2004, 07:35 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by it isn't thieving to tax. taxation is a payment for the stable environment that we all enjoy provided by the government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If its such a great thing, then why do they have to force us to do it, on pain of death?