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

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 07:39 pm

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

That is a totally distorted comparaison.You comparison with mafia is totally out of context and bring nothin as arguments. Yes you have a choice , you can leave your country . And no it does not constitute a theft If i am willingly paying tax to receive a service in exchange .

Mar 2, 2004, 07:44 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 ? What make you say I do not receive anything in exchange ? It is a trade , not a theft ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Trade involves VOLUNTARY CHOICE. No voluntary action is possible with regard to taxation, just as no voluntary action exists with regard to the thug in teh alley.

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

"love it or leave it" responses are red herrings that do not address the issue in any way, shape, or form. I have shown repeatedly that since NO CHOICE EXISTS you cannot honestly nor accurately state that taxation is a voluntary and willing action for all citizens, or even for ANY citizens. I rely on the facts and sound reasoning, as has been demonstrated ad infinitum. Feel free to have the arguments checked by any logician, I have nothing to fear.

I have no answers for you regarding a libertarian or Libertarian state FOR I HAVE NEVER BASED ANYTHING I HAVE SAID ON A LIBERTARIAN POSITION. In fact if you will check you will note that I have not once declared that I am a libertarian, but better yet I have clearly stated that I do not claim libertarianism.

But more importantly you are simply trying to take attention away from the fact that you have yet to offer any refutation of the fact that with any non-arbitrary description of theft necessarily includes taxation as a central case.

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 08:32 pm

Yuo haven't at anytime shown that the choice of leaving the country cannot be taken, in respect to the people who constituted a governement who is owner of its land . You can leave your country. That an option, you have no right on the property of the governement who is composed of the people who consitute it , they are the owner of the land, and you have the right to leave it.

That a theft must be qualified as a theft imply that the person who had his property removed has not consent. You cannot qualify of theft an act where there was no victim. And that, out of any concept of taxation .

You have not even read what I say.

You can consider thaT tax is theft because you do not consent to it.
You can stop paying it . Never heard of anyone sentence to death for not paying tax in Canada or US .

At the moment you refuse to pay tax you get out of the protection and propriety of governement. What should prevent them to do that ? The law ? Is is written in rocks or something ? Why should they accept you moral if you do not accept theirs ?

Theft cannot occur without someone who associate what has happen to him as theft .

You do not own your country. If you don't want to be part of the social contract wich constitute it, you can leave it.

koi · Mar 2, 2004, 10:18 pm

"You do not own your country. If you don't want to be part of the social contract wich constitute it, you can leave it."
this coming from a quebecois

Mar 2, 2004, 10:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Yuo haven't at anytime shown that the choice of leaving the country cannot be taken, in respect to the people who constituted a governement who is owner of its land . You can leave your country. That an option, you have no right on the property of the governement who is composed of the people who consitute it , they are the owner of the land, and you have the right to leave it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Of course I have not followed you down that garden path. As I have noted, this is naught but a red herring.

Are you really unfamiliar with the notion of coercion?

And here again let me remind you that there is NO OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENT for there exists NO CHOICE.

And once again let us return to the thug in the alley scenario that you continue to ignore. By your reasoning, you are giving consent to the thug in the alley to take your property, therefore no theft occurs. However your line of reasoning actually has even more dangerous consequences, for it completely eliminates the ability to recognize rape for what it is. That the person succombs to the use of force or coercion, according to you, she is giving consent TO BE RAPED.

Again, we find a situation in which your position is in direct conflict with reality. Recall that when this occurs the reasonable, the rational person, abandons the position in favor of reality. It is only the irrational person who denies reality and proclaims that their position is correct.

I have already addressed your other approach, to no avail apparently since you bring it up again, but allow me to clarify this once again so that there can be no pretense that the approach somehow works or could even be considered reasonable by anyone.
You pretend that since one "receives" what YOU consider to be benefits, that any action at all can be taken against them, that they have given over any and all rights to the state. So consider the unjustly accused prisoner. He is given the benefit of protection from the weather. He is given some low quality food that barely sustains him. Now according to your reasoning, his imprisonment is completely and wholly justified for he has "enjoyed" the "benefits" of his imprisonment.

Again, you see that your reasoning leads to a clearly false and absurd conclusion, which tells us that the argument form itself is invalid, meaning that it cannot ever lead us to a realiable conclusion. So here again the reasonable person abandons the invalid argument in favor of reality and reason.

Mar 2, 2004, 10:21 pm

And for what it is worth, no one owns me, but me. This means that the state does not own me, so to apply your red herring reasoning, it follows that the state ought to leave me alone. Gotta love it when your own arguments shoot themselves in the foot! :)

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 10:38 pm

You thug argument does not refute anything , it is theft because one is not Willing to give his property.
Wich is not my case.

It is an exchange. You write long non-sense but you failed to understand such simple principle.

I don't why I should spend more time to try to make you understand something wich is clearly over your comprehension .

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 10:40 pm

As for you , koi, nice personal attack !
But to stay in your line, I 'm not surprised to hear this from a Canadian ...

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 10:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
And for what it is worth, no one owns me, but me. This means that the state does not own me, so to apply your red herring reasoning, it follows that the state ought to leave me alone. Gotta love it when your own arguments shoot themselves in the foot! :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What should prevent the state to do so... A law ?

Mar 2, 2004, 11:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You thug argument does not refute anything , it is theft because one is not Willing to give his property.
Wich is not my case.

It is an exchange. You write long non-sense but you failed to understand such simple principle.

I don't why I should spend more time to try to make you understand something wich is clearly over your comprehension .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I again suggest that you read the etiquette section regarding ad hominem attacks.

The issues involved are indeed simple, but you keep employing logical fallacies and false assertions to create confusion.

You argue that succumbing to coercion DEMONSTRATES willingness. So you cannot claim that the thug in the alley analogy does not work, because of your willingness. According to your reasoning, there can be no theft because you gave in to the threat thus DEMONSTRATING your willingness.

As for your false characterization of reason as nonsense, I am perfectly willing ot allow any logician to examine the exchanges and offer up a critical evaluation. In fact if you like I will call up logicians other than myself to evaluate the exchanges.

The fact remains that you have not only not supported your assumption/conclusions, you have relied on logical fallacies, bold proclations, insults, and personal attacks to try to distract from the fact that you have not yet bothered to address the first questions asked, nor the clear and sound refutations of the proclamations you have made. But by all means do not take my word for this, have the arguments examined by any other logician of your choice.

Where is this description of theft which is not arbitrary and which accounts for the usage of the word, but somehow eliminates taxation as a central example of theft? Recall that you claimed you had already offered this, but the record demonstrates otherwise.

Mar 2, 2004, 11:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
And for what it is worth, no one owns me, but me. This means that the state does not own me, so to apply your red herring reasoning, it follows that the state ought to leave me alone. Gotta love it when your own arguments shoot themselves in the foot!

Mathieu:
What should prevent the state to do so... A law ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Um.. you missed the point dude.. You see that your argument as to why the state has the moral right to taxation, necessitates also that the state has NO right to taxation at all. That is what this application of your argument which I provided demonstrates.

Or to put it another way, your assumptions and proclamations lead to two directly contradictory conclusions, thus demonstrating that the argument itself is invalid. This means that your red herring love it or leave it argument is self defeating. The conclusion cannot be supported. The argument is unsound. The argument is unreasonable. There is no basis from which to make your case... clear? :)

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 11:15 pm

If you still not able to understand , it is not my problem, read back the thread and have fun ...

Mar 2, 2004, 11:23 pm

The problem, well the problem for your claims, accusations, personal attacks, and proclamations, is that I understand all too well. Were I actually unable to understand I would not have been able to point out the logical fallacies, the false claims, and the personal attacks you have employed in place of honest, civil, intellectual discussion. Even now, your last post is only another pathetic attempt to offer insult inplace of dialogue, discussion, or argument.

forecg · Mar 2, 2004, 11:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
You can consider thaT tax is theft because you do not consent to it.
You can stop paying it . Never heard of anyone sentence to death for not paying tax in Canada or US . <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I can choose not to pay taxes? Yes.
I can choose to ignore the IRS when they send me threatening letters for not paying my taxes? Yes.
I can choose not to cooperate with the people with guns who come to arrest me when I ignore the letters? Yes.
I can choose not to die if they shoot me for resisting them? No.
I can choose not rot away in prison if they subdue me without killing me? No.

It doesn't matter how many layers you try to hide it under or which pretty names you give to the layers: people pay taxes because it's their answer to the question "Your life or your money?"

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

You do not own your country. If you don't want to be part of the social contract wich constitute it, you can leave it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Meaningful debate happens when opposing sides can find irrefutable facts that they both can agree on, and then use these facts and the rules of logic to defend their positions. If we use "facts" in our arguments that our opponents do not accept, then we are wasting our breath.

Mathieu, the people who are arguing that tax is theft DO NOT ACCEPT your concept of a social contract. Wouldn't you agree that we'd be better off finding out what we DO agree on and then debating social contracts?

Mathieu · Mar 2, 2004, 11:33 pm

There not much on wich we agree. If someone was ever able to show me that tax necesarly equals theft in every case, then I'll be happy it is this way .

Poetic_Justice · Mar 2, 2004, 11:55 pm

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

That is a totally distorted comparaison.You comparison with mafia is totally out of context and bring nothin as arguments. Yes you have a choice , you can leave your country . And no it does not constitute a theft If i am willingly paying tax to receive a service in exchange .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

to further show the relevance, this shop owner could also change neighborhoods. Interesting how well this analogy fits? I stil lhaev yet to see how they aren't perfectly assymetrical

as i said, you can pay willingly, but are yo utruly free, if you have no choice?

If a man is in a room, and he decides to stay in that room, that is a free choice right? but if the room is locked and he cannot escape, and he stil lmakes that choice, is he really free? is it really a free choice?

forecg · Mar 2, 2004, 11:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
There not much on wich we agree. If someone was ever able to show me that tax necesarly equals theft in every case, then I'll be happy it is this way .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is part of the problem. Many of us do not believe tax is theft in every possible case, so we're not going to argue for it or show it to you. If it makes you happy to know that your money is used by the state, and if you would pay this money even in the absence of force, then I don't consider that theft.

I DO consider it theft, however, when you force people to pay taxes if they WOULDN'T pay them in the absence of force.

Is there a part of this with which you disagree? Specifically, which part?

Mathieu · Mar 3, 2004, 12:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
There not much on wich we agree. If someone was ever able to show me that tax necesarly equals theft in every case, then I'll be happy it is this way .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is part of the problem. Many of us do not believe tax is theft in every possible case, so we're not going to argue for it or show it to you. If it makes you happy to know that your money is used by the state, and if you would pay this money even in the absence of force, then I don't consider that theft.

I DO consider it theft, however, when you force people to pay taxes if they WOULDN'T pay them in the absence of force.

Is there a part of this with which you disagree? Specifically, which part?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I agree pretty much to all of this.

Mathieu · Mar 3, 2004, 12:36 am

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

That is a totally distorted comparaison.You comparison with mafia is totally out of context and bring nothin as arguments. Yes you have a choice , you can leave your country . And no it does not constitute a theft If i am willingly paying tax to receive a service in exchange .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

to further show the relevance, this shop owner could also change neighborhoods. Interesting how well this analogy fits? I stil lhaev yet to see how they aren't perfectly assymetrical

as i said, you can pay willingly, but are yo utruly free, if you have no choice?

If a man is in a room, and he decides to stay in that room, that is a free choice right? but if the room is locked and he cannot escape, and he stil lmakes that choice, is he really free? is it really a free choice?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, in any case , the shop owner is not willing to pay the money . I think that's the big difference. Maybe willing is not the appropriate word, well, in french, I would say has not the "désir" to do so.

For the man in the room, there is many different analysis wich can be done. ONe can say argue that his choice is not a choice because he can't get out of the room . But one can also argue that if he see absolutely no reason to get out, he still made the same choice, at the limit, he do not know the consequences and is not curious to investigate it. That is all relative. I don't think it is as clear as it appears.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 3, 2004, 12:54 am

What I say is that his freedom is not rue, he may think he is making a free choice, but he has not actually made a free choice, and until the room is unlocked, he cannot truly make a free choice.

Mar 2, 2004, 07:39 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a totally distorted comparaison.You comparison with mafia is totally out of context and bring nothin as arguments. Yes you have a choice , you can leave your country . And no it does not constitute a theft If i am willingly paying tax to receive a service in exchange .

Mar 2, 2004, 07:44 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</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 ? What make you say I do not receive anything in exchange ? It is a trade , not a theft ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Trade involves VOLUNTARY CHOICE. No voluntary action is possible with regard to taxation, just as no voluntary action exists with regard to the thug in teh alley. </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. 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. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "love it or leave it" responses are red herrings that do not address the issue in any way, shape, or form. I have shown repeatedly that since NO CHOICE EXISTS you cannot honestly nor accurately state that taxation is a voluntary and willing action for all citizens, or even for ANY citizens. I rely on the facts and sound reasoning, as has been demonstrated ad infinitum. Feel free to have the arguments checked by any logician, I have nothing to fear. I have no answers for you regarding a libertarian or Libertarian state FOR I HAVE NEVER BASED ANYTHING I HAVE SAID ON A LIBERTARIAN POSITION. In fact if you will check you will note that I have not once declared that I am a libertarian, but better yet I have clearly stated that I do not claim libertarianism. But more importantly you are simply trying to take attention away from the fact that you have yet to offer any refutation of the fact that with any non-arbitrary description of theft necessarily includes taxation as a central case.

Mar 2, 2004, 10:18 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	"You do not own your country. If you don't want to be part of the social contract wich constitute it, you can leave it." this coming from a quebecois "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Mar 2, 2004, 10:20 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Yuo haven't at anytime shown that the choice of leaving the country cannot be taken, in respect to the people who constituted a governement who is owner of its land . You can leave your country. That an option, you have no right on the property of the governement who is composed of the people who consitute it , they are the owner of the land, and you have the right to leave it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course I have not followed you down that garden path. As I have noted, this is naught but a red herring. Are you really unfamiliar with the notion of coercion? And here again let me remind you that there is NO OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENT for there exists NO CHOICE. And once again let us return to the thug in the alley scenario that you continue to ignore. By your reasoning, you are giving consent to the thug in the alley to take your property, therefore no theft occurs. However your line of reasoning actually has even more dangerous consequences, for it completely eliminates the ability to recognize rape for what it is. That the person succombs to the use of force or coercion, according to you, she is giving consent TO BE RAPED. Again, we find a situation in which your position is in direct conflict with reality. Recall that when this occurs the reasonable, the rational person, abandons the position in favor of reality. It is only the irrational person who denies reality and proclaims that their position is correct. I have already addressed your other approach, to no avail apparently since you bring it up again, but allow me to clarify this once again so that there can be no pretense that the approach somehow works or could even be considered reasonable by anyone. You pretend that since one "receives" what YOU consider to be benefits, that any action at all can be taken against them, that they have given over any and all rights to the state. So consider the unjustly accused prisoner. He is given the benefit of protection from the weather. He is given some low quality food that barely sustains him. Now according to your reasoning, his imprisonment is completely and wholly justified for he has "enjoyed" the "benefits" of his imprisonment. Again, you see that your reasoning leads to a clearly false and absurd conclusion, which tells us that the argument form itself is invalid, meaning that it cannot ever lead us to a realiable conclusion. So here again the reasonable person abandons the invalid argument in favor of reality and reason.

Mar 2, 2004, 10:41 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) And for what it is worth, no one owns me, but me. This means that the state does not own me, so to apply your red herring reasoning, it follows that the state ought to leave me alone. Gotta love it when your own arguments shoot themselves in the foot! :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What should prevent the state to do so... A law ?

Mar 2, 2004, 08:32 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Yuo haven't at anytime shown that the choice of leaving the country cannot be taken, in respect to the people who constituted a governement who is owner of its land . You can leave your country. That an option, you have no right on the property of the governement who is composed of the people who consitute it , they are the owner of the land, and you have the right to leave it. That a theft must be qualified as a theft imply that the person who had his property removed has not consent. You cannot qualify of theft an act where there was no victim. And that, out of any concept of taxation . You have not even read what I say. You can consider thaT tax is theft because you do not consent to it. You can stop paying it . Never heard of anyone sentence to death for not paying tax in Canada or US . At the moment you refuse to pay tax you get out of the protection and propriety of governement. What should prevent them to do that ? The law ? Is is written in rocks or something ? Why should they accept you moral if you do not accept theirs ? Theft cannot occur without someone who associate what has happen to him as theft . You do not own your country. If you don't want to be part of the social contract wich constitute it, you can leave it.

Mar 2, 2004, 10:21 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	And for what it is worth, no one owns me, but me. This means that the state does not own me, so to apply your red herring reasoning, it follows that the state ought to leave me alone. Gotta love it when your own arguments shoot themselves in the foot! :)

Mar 2, 2004, 10:38 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	You thug argument does not refute anything , it is theft because one is not Willing to give his property. Wich is not my case. It is an exchange. You write long non-sense but you failed to understand such simple principle. I don't why I should spend more time to try to make you understand something wich is clearly over your comprehension .

Mar 2, 2004, 10:40 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	As for you , koi, nice personal attack ! But to stay in your line, I 'm not surprised to hear this from a Canadian ...

Mar 2, 2004, 11:09 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You thug argument does not refute anything , it is theft because one is not Willing to give his property. Wich is not my case. It is an exchange. You write long non-sense but you failed to understand such simple principle. I don't why I should spend more time to try to make you understand something wich is clearly over your comprehension .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I again suggest that you read the etiquette section regarding ad hominem attacks. The issues involved are indeed simple, but you keep employing logical fallacies and false assertions to create confusion. You argue that succumbing to coercion DEMONSTRATES willingness. So you cannot claim that the thug in the alley analogy does not work, because of your willingness. According to your reasoning, there can be no theft because you gave in to the threat thus DEMONSTRATING your willingness. As for your false characterization of reason as nonsense, I am perfectly willing ot allow any logician to examine the exchanges and offer up a critical evaluation. In fact if you like I will call up logicians other than myself to evaluate the exchanges. The fact remains that you have not only not supported your assumption/conclusions, you have relied on logical fallacies, bold proclations, insults, and personal attacks to try to distract from the fact that you have not yet bothered to address the first questions asked, nor the clear and sound refutations of the proclamations you have made. But by all means do not take my word for this, have the arguments examined by any other logician of your choice. Where is this description of theft which is not arbitrary and which accounts for the usage of the word, but somehow eliminates taxation as a central example of theft? Recall that you claimed you had already offered this, but the record demonstrates otherwise.

Mar 2, 2004, 11:13 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) And for what it is worth, no one owns me, but me. This means that the state does not own me, so to apply your red herring reasoning, it follows that the state ought to leave me alone. Gotta love it when your own arguments shoot themselves in the foot! Mathieu: What should prevent the state to do so... A law ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Um.. you missed the point dude.. You see that your argument as to why the state has the moral right to taxation, necessitates also that the state has NO right to taxation at all. That is what this application of your argument which I provided demonstrates. Or to put it another way, your assumptions and proclamations lead to two directly contradictory conclusions, thus demonstrating that the argument itself is invalid. This means that your red herring love it or leave it argument is self defeating. The conclusion cannot be supported. The argument is unsound. The argument is unreasonable. There is no basis from which to make your case... clear? :)

Mar 2, 2004, 11:15 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	If you still not able to understand , it is not my problem, read back the thread and have fun ...

Mar 2, 2004, 11:23 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	The problem, well the problem for your claims, accusations, personal attacks, and proclamations, is that I understand all too well. Were I actually unable to understand I would not have been able to point out the logical fallacies, the false claims, and the personal attacks you have employed in place of honest, civil, intellectual discussion. Even now, your last post is only another pathetic attempt to offer insult inplace of dialogue, discussion, or argument.

Mar 2, 2004, 11:28 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) You can consider thaT tax is theft because you do not consent to it. You can stop paying it . Never heard of anyone sentence to death for not paying tax in Canada or US . <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I can choose not to pay taxes? Yes. I can choose to ignore the IRS when they send me threatening letters for not paying my taxes? Yes. I can choose not to cooperate with the people with guns who come to arrest me when I ignore the letters? Yes. I can choose not to die if they shoot me for resisting them? No. I can choose not rot away in prison if they subdue me without killing me? No. It doesn't matter how many layers you try to hide it under or which pretty names you give to the layers: people pay taxes because it's their answer to the question "Your life or your money?" </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) You do not own your country. If you don't want to be part of the social contract wich constitute it, you can leave it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Meaningful debate happens when opposing sides can find irrefutable facts that they both can agree on, and then use these facts and the rules of logic to defend their positions. If we use "facts" in our arguments that our opponents do not accept, then we are wasting our breath. Mathieu, the people who are arguing that tax is theft DO NOT ACCEPT your concept of a social contract. Wouldn't you agree that we'd be better off finding out what we DO agree on and then debating social contracts?

Mar 2, 2004, 11:33 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	There not much on wich we agree. If someone was ever able to show me that tax necesarly equals theft in every case, then I'll be happy it is this way .

Mar 2, 2004, 11:55 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a totally distorted comparaison.You comparison with mafia is totally out of context and bring nothin as arguments. Yes you have a choice , you can leave your country . And no it does not constitute a theft If i am willingly paying tax to receive a service in exchange .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> to further show the relevance, this shop owner could also change neighborhoods. Interesting how well this analogy fits? I stil lhaev yet to see how they aren't perfectly assymetrical as i said, you can pay willingly, but are yo utruly free, if you have no choice? If a man is in a room, and he decides to stay in that room, that is a free choice right? but if the room is locked and he cannot escape, and he stil lmakes that choice, is he really free? is it really a free choice?

Mar 2, 2004, 11:57 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) There not much on wich we agree. If someone was ever able to show me that tax necesarly equals theft in every case, then I'll be happy it is this way .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is part of the problem. Many of us do not believe tax is theft in every possible case, so we're not going to argue for it or show it to you. If it makes you happy to know that your money is used by the state, and if you would pay this money even in the absence of force, then I don't consider that theft. I DO consider it theft, however, when you force people to pay taxes if they WOULDN'T pay them in the absence of force. Is there a part of this with which you disagree? Specifically, which part?

Mar 3, 2004, 12:25 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) There not much on wich we agree. If someone was ever able to show me that tax necesarly equals theft in every case, then I'll be happy it is this way .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is part of the problem. Many of us do not believe tax is theft in every possible case, so we're not going to argue for it or show it to you. If it makes you happy to know that your money is used by the state, and if you would pay this money even in the absence of force, then I don't consider that theft. I DO consider it theft, however, when you force people to pay taxes if they WOULDN'T pay them in the absence of force. Is there a part of this with which you disagree? Specifically, which part?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree pretty much to all of this.

Mar 3, 2004, 12:36 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a totally distorted comparaison.You comparison with mafia is totally out of context and bring nothin as arguments. Yes you have a choice , you can leave your country . And no it does not constitute a theft If i am willingly paying tax to receive a service in exchange .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> to further show the relevance, this shop owner could also change neighborhoods. Interesting how well this analogy fits? I stil lhaev yet to see how they aren't perfectly assymetrical as i said, you can pay willingly, but are yo utruly free, if you have no choice? If a man is in a room, and he decides to stay in that room, that is a free choice right? but if the room is locked and he cannot escape, and he stil lmakes that choice, is he really free? is it really a free choice?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, in any case , the shop owner is not willing to pay the money . I think that's the big difference. Maybe willing is not the appropriate word, well, in french, I would say has not the "désir" to do so. For the man in the room, there is many different analysis wich can be done. ONe can say argue that his choice is not a choice because he can't get out of the room . But one can also argue that if he see absolutely no reason to get out, he still made the same choice, at the limit, he do not know the consequences and is not curious to investigate it. That is all relative. I don't think it is as clear as it appears.

Mar 3, 2004, 12:54 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	What I say is that his freedom is not rue, he may think he is making a free choice, but he has not actually made a free choice, and until the room is unlocked, he cannot truly make a free choice.