"Just because something is permitted does not mean it is good, or wise, it just means it is legal. "
I don’t give a damn whether it’s “legal” or not, as I demonstrated above, governments have tolerated all sorts of injustices that are eventually recognized as such. Failure to recognize or codify an injustice does not make it any more tolerable, from a moral POV.
You can rationalize it however you’d like.
I don’t give a damn whether it’s “legal” or not, as I demonstrated above, governments have tolerated all sorts of injustices…
Once again there is not system of property rights where a large number of people will be in agreement with it. At some point someone will claim that someone else has something they claim is their own. At that point they can settle it violently between themselves, or the judge and Sheriff can settle it.
As to taxation = theft, the mere act of taking something you claim as your own against your will is not theft. If I had something of yours, and refused to admit it was yours, and the sheriff retrieved it, I would consider it theft, you would call it justice. The reason the government is taking it is that under the law it is not yours. If you do not like the law you can do anything from nothing to take up arms against the government. Once again taxation=theft is a slogan not a truth, which in my opinion will not motivate many people outside of liberterian circles, so IMO Taxation=Theft is not true and does not function well as a slogan. It may be function for some groups. The problem with Ron Paul was that he had slogans that were successfull with a core group of about 5% of voters, but he never figured out a way to attract larger groups, and his platform was not understood or considered problamatic to large numbers of voters. I do not think people at this point want to hear Taxation=Theft.
You might consider reading taxpayers in revolt by Beito (sold by Mises). It points out the many mistakes that the taxpayers made when confronting the government. One of the mistakes was ot assume that all citizens felt the same way about taxation. The government spotted this and started a good services for reasonable payment (taxes) campaign. The gov one, although some claim the end of prohibition is what did the trick.
Laws made by an illegitimate government. As such, it is theft.
Laws made by an illegitimate government.
Once again it is impossible to create a system that 100% of the people will claim is legitimate. Main stream religous all allow taxation. The constitution allows taxation. If you want to eliminate taxation based on religous reasons you will need a new commandement “thou shalt not tax”. In short taxation = theft won’t work.
Just the opposite is true. You just have to let people opt out of being ruled if they do not like the rulers. Just like people are not forced to go to just one grocery store.
Laws made by an illegitimate government. As such, it is theft.
Legitimacy, property and theft are in the eye of the ideologue.
Well, with the taxes we pay [in America], it practically is theft. It’s not quite as bad because we still do get some services (ie: police, millitary), that are useful, it is like theft. Now the SS is a complete 100% ponzi scheme, and theft.
In response to you’re friends argument, you can call it theft because you ARE being forced to pay for it, and you have no choice. And most people I know, are wholly unwilling to have there money taken away, except for a very few things. But it is defineately theft when they use the money to bailout every company in America.
So called ‘radical subjectivism’ is so much fun…
I’m not a legal subjectivist, I’m a legal amoralist. Laws are as objective as the cultural consistency allows them to be, torts are certainly well understood. But conflict equilibrium solutions a moral imperative do not make.
You don’t need to create a single system that 100% of people will tolerate, you simply need to tolerate the fact that other people might choose a system that you yourself don’t prefer. As long as you don’t force your system on them, nor they upon you, there should be few problems.
In the USA you can actually leave to a different country. The Amish live apart, I believe they do not contribute to social security. Orhodox Jews have their own court system and communities. Mormons have in a sense created a new culture. Liberterians tried to start their own community but I don’t think it worked.
So what have you done to escape your tax oppression?
“Tax is not stealing. Its participation.”
This is what I just was told by an idiot on another forum I frequent…
He claims that taxing to fund education is right because “free” education for all children is a right.
[+o(]
Taxation is not theft, it is not participation. It is taxation.
Jailing is not kidnapping.
War is not murder.
That is not to say any of these things are nice.
and hypocrisy is not hypocrisy.
Ok now he is giving the argument:
“If given the choice between putting food on table or going to school to learn, a parent will put food on table. the kid who can’t afford schooling should not be deprived of it and the standard should be such that they are not disadvantaged from being poor.”
This was in response to my assertion that anyone who really wanted an education in a free market system would be able to get one in a free market, if that were a priority for them.
Not to mention he’s assuming that going to a public school, aka indoctrination center, is the same thing as getting an education…
Lol now I got:
“How can you put a price on education?? plus u say it’s paid for with stolen money. well good thing when these educated people grow up and get jobs they can pay back their “stolen” loan!! that’s the whole premise and you just choose to skip over the entire idea to feed into your own fantasy utopia.”
And tutoring isn’t the same as this? Why would people bother tutoring if the public schools were sufficient enough. Oh? The child is just stupid? Then I suppose thousands of children are just stupid as well?
Public education already requires a bunch of fees for textbooks, clubs, labs, etc. So technically, why are public schools themselves putting a hidden price on education they supposedly provide for free? Why are public schools employing razor blade economics*, when they shouldn’t be putting a price on education?
*[link, since he most likely will not know what this means: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Razor:and:blades:business:model.htm ]
Should I, or anyone else, be forced to pay for the hidden fees of public schooling, or should I be allowed the choice to voluntarily choose another school / institute/tutor that might better use my money for my child’s educational needs?
Yes, by getting more money stolen from them via taxes, & being in a prolonged period of “paying back” a student loan to cost of living, inflation, lack of competition for student loans causing them to be unnecessarily expensive, etc. Oh? You haven’t paid yours off? Good day then.
Do you know any economics beyond rhetoric & rants in the local blogs you read?
For a person who doesn’t know economics beyond a basic high school level, it seems pretty hypocritical to say I’m the one living in a fantasy utopia, when you can’t even see how taxes might just possibly be theft (hint: do all humans born into this world consent to being taxed? Yes? No?), or that somehow, a majority vote on “who to kill” somehow justifies the vote itself?
I don’t know how you can stand such arrogant ignorance, sirmonty. [+o(]
Technically, this is correct, if he views (which obviously he does) that The State is a legitimate concept, and, that, anything counter to his Statist religion is poison, blasphemous, & is automatically wrong & evil.
Yet it is.
Oh, but it is.
You’re right. It’s mass murder.