One of the greatest mysteries of today is whether a pirate is good or bad.
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
No, it's really not. It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the elimination of taxes, I'm pointing out that they're a lot closer to theft than the person I was replying too wanted to admit.
That policy was written on the door when you came in, Helter. They even wrote down a nice scale on the door showing exactly how much someone at your income level would have to pay. Even if you happened to go in without having the chance to read the scale and the policy, they have it written on the placemat and the waiter reads it to you before you order. Just because this restauraunt has the best food and the cleanest dishes doesn't mean you can't go right across the street to another one.
Ok, so you're basically saying "put up with inequality in the system or get the hell out?"
Gee, do you think that's what black people should have done too? Should they have just moved to another country that was more "black friendly?" Was it any less oppression because it was codified? That's pretty much what your argument comes down too... "you know that it's happening, therefore it's not theft". Huh? how does that work?
Sorry, but "you can always go somewhere else" doesn't fly as an argument. It's
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
Arguable. The rich benefit immensely from having a government around to keep the poor from
barbecuing them ("eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy").
The state creates and defends many artificial "property rights" - patents and trademarks, mineral rights, water rights - that obviously benefit those it designates as owners. Its reserve banking systems, chartering of corporation
The fed. doesn't keep the poor from barbequeing the rich first of all. Police are provided by state and municiple governments. Further that's not a service provided to the rich, it's a service provided to everyone. If you've lived in both bad and good neighborhoods you'll also know that it's a service that's taken advantage of far more in poor neighborhoods than rich ones.
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to cr
Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value.
You seem to be arguing from a fairness point of view - to complete that point of view all money from inheritance should be put into a common pool, no one should be allowed to give gifts beyond some token value, and anyone who dupes or forces other people to give them m
Actually, I was born into the part of the bell curve that earns less, and I'm still on that part of the bell curve. I live in a ghetto and earn so little yearly that most years I get a full refund on taxes (though within a few more years that should start changing). I don't like the system because it's inequitable and allows, even promotes rampant social irresponsibility. The people just keep voting themselves bread and circuses... (if you don't know what that's from, take a look into roman history)
H
A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work
by being declared to work.
-- Anatol Holt
It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1, Insightful)
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the elimination of taxes, I'm pointing out that they're a lot closer to theft than the person I was replying too wanted to admit.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
You might find
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
Gee, do you think that's what black people should have done too? Should they have just moved to another country that was more "black friendly?" Was it any less oppression because it was codified? That's pretty much what your argument comes down too... "you know that it's happening, therefore it's not theft". Huh? how does that work?
Sorry, but "you can always go somewhere else" doesn't fly as an argument. It's
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Arguable. The rich benefit immensely from having a government around to keep the poor from barbecuing them ("eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy").
The state creates and defends many artificial "property rights" - patents and trademarks, mineral rights, water rights - that obviously benefit those it designates as owners. Its reserve banking systems, chartering of corporation
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to cr
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
You seem to be arguing from a fairness point of view - to complete that point of view all money from inheritance should be put into a common pool, no one should be allowed to give gifts beyond some token value, and anyone who dupes or forces other people to give them m
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
H