"So wouldnt it seem that people dont have to threatened with violence to get them to pay up. "
If the government didn’t have consequences for not paying income and sales tax…noone would pay.
As a result, the government would die off (eventually) because it wouldn’t be funded.
As a result roads and other things that some people seem to think can only be provided by the government would be sold and run by private indivduals/groups of individuals.
So, if I own a store, and then threaten you and say “if you go to any other store i’ll kill you” that’s different from “shop at my store or i’ll kill you”? I guess it is different in that you can still choose whether or not to purchase a product, but I am certainly threatening you with violence.
Not quite the way I see it. I think we need to make sure we keep two things separate. Taxes and monopoly on services.
There are two different forces at work here. Taxes (pay me or I will kill you) and government monopoly (compete with me and I will kill you).
We are talking about taxes. Remove the compulsion to pay does not mean that people will not. Especially when government still maintains the monopoly. People are not forced to shop at any store, they choose to. But they only have one provider of the services. The customers are not threatened with violence, potential competitiors are theatened with violence.
If the government didn’t have consequences for not paying income and sales tax…noone would pay.
As a result, the government would die off (eventually) because it wouldn’t be funded.
But there are consequences for not paying. Especially if the government maintains a monopoly certain services.
Remember I prefaced everything I have said so far with “If all else remains the same”. You are looking at it from the point of veiw that other things change as well.
I agree with your assesment that if goverment cant finance itself it withers and dies. But the only way that this will happen is if enough people learn that the services provided by government can be provided privately. As long as most people beleive government is the only one who can provide certain things they will alwasy support taxation.
The point of all of this is that people are not just a bunch of irrational idiots that what to have thier stuff stolen. They dont see it a theft because they recieve a benefit from taxation.
“As long as most people beleive government is the only one who can provide certain things they will alwasy support taxation.”
I guess this is the main difference you and I disagree with. Whether they think taxation provides great things or not I believe is irrelvent. Take away consequences and noone pays taxes. Which, to me would prove that people, regardless of what they say, are paying taxes to avoid the consequences of not paying.
And that seems like a sad truth some people have yet to face. Noone wants to have a third of their income stolen…and they would never give it up voluntarly to a government.
Well, I disagree but that’s a separate debate. Even if you were right, we don’t know what the law is because we do not live under rule of law, we live under rule by dictate, that is, statutory rule.
I never called you a thief, just pointed out that you have no moral credibility. No need to get all defensive and “that is my right!” on me.
Bullshit. Most people support the system of universal plunder only because they do not understand what it is. We can argue about how willing this ignorance is but the difference between you and most Americans is that you conscientiously embrace an immoral system. At least most Americans have the moral excuse that they are, in fact, dupes. You don’t have that excuse. You’re in the same category as a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Vapid, cynical, cowardly and utterly devoid of moral fiber.
But don’t take that as an insult, I’m sure I’d enjoy having a beer with you.
I’m baffled by your dragging legal rights into this discussion. I’ve only pointed out you have no moral credibility, there is no need to threaten legal action.
The Constitution is not law, it is statutory dictate.
Clayton -
Whether they think taxation provides great things or not I believe is irrelvent.
Maybe this is the difference. I think it does matter whether or not they believe it is theft. If they think it is theft they will take steps to stop it. If they just think they are paying for services then they will allow it indefinitely.
Just a difference of opinion. But I always enjoy a good conversation.
The Constitution is the law of the land and I don’t drink beer.
Pshaw, you didn’t know that the fuzz inside my navel is the law of the land??!
I’m sorry.
Clayton -
Bloom nowhere near deserves the kind of shit you guys keep giving him.
For god’s sake, learn how to relax, people.
“Maybe this is the difference. I think it does matter whether or not they believe it is theft. If they think it is theft they will take steps to stop it. If they just think they are paying for services then they will allow it indefinitely.”
perhaps that is our difference…although, even if everyone thought the services were the most efficient and greatest thing ever…I still think if they didn’t have consequences…zero people would pay…
perhaps that is our difference…although, even if everyone thought the services were the most efficient and greatest thing ever…I still think if they didn’t have consequences…zero people would pay…
I agree. If there were no consequences people would not pay. But I think there would be consequences. Not jail time or threats of violence, but undriveable roads, no water or sewage, etc… if the only thing that changes is no penalty for paying taxes. Most definitely there would be free riders (non tax payers) but common property maintained by donations of time and money are not unheard of.
“Not jail time or threats of violence, but undriveable roads, no water or sewage, etc…”
if they didn’t have consequences to make us pay (use threat of force against us)…there must be something seriously weakened with the government…in such case…all that government property would probably quickly get bought up and put in private hands…
in which case roads, water and all government owned services would be taken over by private hands…in such case…it would be maintained…
probably a hell of alot better than the government ever maintained it…and probably alot cheaper too…
in which case roads, water and all government owned services would be taken over by private hands…in such case…it would be maintained…
That is why I prefaced my comments with “if everything else stays the same”
all that government property would probably quickly get bought up and put in private hands…
Only if the government decides to sell the property. Or they could just say “We cant maintain the roads if no one pays”.
But who knows.
probably a hell of alot better than the government ever maintained it…and probably alot cheaper too…
Agreed.