Is it mostly irrelevant because you believe they are lying? Or for some other reason?
To put this into an analogy- George agrees to give over his wallet after a robber has held him up at gun point. George has clearly been robbed. However, if George has the choice to be held up and hand over his wallet, and agrees to this in the hopes that the robber will help his sick grandmother, has he been coerced?
When I ask people if they would be willing to pay taxes if they were not mandatory they generally reply with something such as, “Society would fall apart- who would pay for the roads, police, or fire fighters, etc. etc. etc. EVERYONE (including themselves) NEEDS to be taxed to pay for these services”. I have asked this question to net tax producers as well as net tax consumers. They demand different services, but the fact that they want others (and themselves) to be coerced still stays the same.
Has that ever happened? I say no until you prove otherwise.
As Juan pointed out, they can say what they want, but the fact remains that if they were told they did not have to pay taxes, they wouldn’t. And wanting others to be robbed, makes it no less robbery.
That is exactly what I explained in the preceding paragraph.
Next time you are at your super market, I want you to strike up a conversation with a fellow shopper. Ask him exactly that. See what he responds. My experience with it is that people will provide reasons for advocating for taxation that do not have to do with having a gun pointed at them. In fact they will argue against any gun in the picture at all.
I’m not sure how that is relevant to what I have said. Please explain.
Clearly. But the entire point of this conversation is to determine if someone who advocates taxation (rape) are being coerced (raped) or if it is agreed upon.
“Society would fall apart- who would pay for the roads, police, or fire fighters, etc. etc. etc. EVERYONE (including themselves) NEEDS to be taxed to pay for these services”.
This is an example of someone choosing to be held up.
IMO no matter how much someone says or thinks that they are pro-coersion, we have to remember that there is still a gun in the room. The gun must change peoples decision making process. At the very least it might alter their choices to the point that their answers shouldn’t be trusted.
If taxation was entirely voluntary and down to the individual then it wouldn’t be theft, but just because the majority wants taxes doesn’t mean that taxing it from the minority that opposes it is any less of an act of theft than if there hadn’t been democratic consent. Democracy killed Socrates. Even the life of Jesus was put to a vote; democracy is the lynch mob.
This gem is the statist equivalent of the “how can something come from nothing” strawman. Creationists like to think of that rhetorical question as their smoking gun. In reality, the fallacious argument is seen as a punchline, and a testmant of their dedication to ignorance. Like confused Republican teenagers, they continue to confidently make vociferous declarations (laden with question begging), only to embarrass themselves in the process.
Lets say there is a person who wears flip-flops to everywhere. Then years later the state comes in and makes flip-flops mandatory footwear for everyone. Is this person now being coerced into wearing flip-flops? No, he would have wore them anyway. However are his rights being violated by the law that makes flip-flops mandatory? Yes. Choice has been taken away from him. However since the choice to wear footwear other than flip-flops is not a choice he would have ever exercised he does not feel that choice has been taken away from him. He does not feel that his rights are being violated, even though in fact they are being violated.
This means that it is never morally permissible to argue for taxation. And that it is always morally commendable to argue for complete and immediate abolition of taxation. However from a tactical point of view we must see that a demand for the abolition of taxation is unlikely to succeed precisely because a large swathe of the population does not feel that taxation is a violation of their rights, albeit it actually is.
I mean, the piece of information “(some) people like to pay taxes” is unreliable(and so unimportant) because these people don’t actually have the option to not pay taxes.
You go to the supermarket and buy wine, not beer, because you like wine - free choice.
Now you go to the supermarket and there’s a guy there who says to you “if you buy wine, I’ll shoot you” - so you buy beer…
Can I infer in that second case that you actually like beer ?
…Why would the robber then point a gun at him ? If there were a real choice, George would simply walk to Mr. Robber’s house, hand his wallet and say “Here Mr. Robber, use this to help your sick mother”…
That sounds like a variation on the free-rider fallacy…
It seems people can’t imagine a voluntary system. That doesn’t mean the voluntary system is unworkable though. Also, as others pointed out, the fact that they allegedly don’t mind being coerced doesn’t mean they are justified in coercing others.
Regardless of how ridiculous the claim is- it is made. My point is that if someone advocates violent taxation against others, is it wrong to take from them?
No. But I do not believe this addresses my question. I am stating that given the choice to be taxed or not, the general populace will agree that it is necessary to force everyone to pay tax in order to deal with goods that they perceive to suffer from the ‘tragedy of commons’ (ie Public roads, environment, parks, military, police, health, etc) They see it as a necessary evil.
Actually, repaying the debt is not compulsory. One normally agrees in such a loan contract, that failure to pay means surrendering either collateral or relinquishing the goods purchased with the loan. This was agreed upon voluntarily. Of course, the debtor might certainly try to fight the collection of said property, but it was agreed upon, after all.