Taxation Is Robbery

[numinus]

It's painfully obvious you are an overeducated moron who likes to wallow in unnecessary complexity for the sake of obfuscating an argument.

What I am saying is not unnecessarily complex. It is included in most college freshman social science course.

The reason you can't answer my question is simple.

If you say "yes" you would kill a 5 year old child if that was the law passed by the majority. Then you're clearly an immoral Nazi.

John locke's 2nd treatise clearly expounds the fundamental DIFFERENCE between the sovereign will and the majority will. Clearly, killing 5 year old children is NOT permissible in the social contract, whether you are using locke's, rousseau's or hobbes' theory.

If you say "no" you would disobey the law, then you're a hypocrite and a fraud if you criticize others for disobey laws involving the use of force to restrict peaceful, honest, voluntary behavior.

And the RIGHT OF RESISTANCE, which is included in locke's social contract, is itself a DISTINCT political theory on its own.

Obviously, you are not aware of that one also.

Your position is irrational. Now STFU and have a nice day.

It amuses me that you present your straw man argument in so naive and absurd a manner.

Clearly, I am speaking with an intellectual novice - which in itself is no fault of yours.

Have a nice life yourself.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

in the social contract

There is no "social contract." You really need to have those hallucinations checked.

A contract can only be entered into KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY.

 

[vyo476]

There is no "social contract."

Then there has never been a legitimate government. I'm sure that idea makes you happy.

The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. In laymen's terms this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order.

Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.

The starting point for most of these theories is an heuristic examination of the human condition absent any social order, termed the “state of nature” or “natural state”. In this state of being, an individual’s action is bound only by his or her conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily subrogate the freedom of action one has under the natural state (their so called “natural rights”) in order to obtain the benefits provided by the formation of social structures.

Common to all of these theories is the notion of a sovereign will which all members of a society are bound by the social contract to respect. The various flavors of social contract theory that have developed are largely differentiated by their definition of the sovereign will, be it a King (monarchy), a Council (oligarchy) or The Majority (republic or democracy). Under a theory first articulated by Plato in his Socratic dialog Crito, members within a society implicitly agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society. Thus implicit in most forms of social contract is that freedom of movement is a fundamental or natural right which society may not legitimately require an individual to subrogate to the sovereign will.

We subscribe to the social contract. You do not. We have our society and you should be allowed to leave, since you do not recognize nor wish to be a part of it. If you are incapable of leaving, then that is a situation that needs rectifying. We apologize for inconveniencing you with our rhetoric and we regret inconveniencing ourselves with having to listen to yours.

Before you run off on a joyride of rampant individualism, you may want to read Emile Durkheim's work on anomie. Just in case.

 

[Coyote]

Bye bye

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Then there has never been a legitimate government.

Well that's a refreshing admission.

We subscribe to the social contract. You do not.

You subscribe to irrationality. I do not.

We have our society and you should be allowed to leave, since you do not recognize nor wish to be a part of it. If you are incapable of leaving, then that is a situation that needs rectifying.

Some goverments do threaten people with force if they try to leave. If you believe the collective is the sole determiner of what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure you would accept the decision. Just because it isn't legal in your system now, doesn't mean that it can't be legal in the future.

We apologize for inconveniencing you with our rhetoric and we regret inconveniencing ourselves with having to listen to yours.

Why don't you leave? Why doesn't "the state" just leave?
Who gave "the state" ownership of the land? Who gave them the right to take first claim? What gave them the right to think that anyone else owes them an obligation?

Who is entitled to occupy the space? Most of you collectivists immediately assume "the state" automatically owns everything. Given "the state's" history of conquest and plunder, I'd say homesteading and voluntary exchange are the only true ethical means of property exchange/acquisition. "The state" doesn't rightfully own any property - the people do.

 

[Coyote]

Well that's a refreshing admission.
Who is entitled to occupy the space? Most of you collectivists immediately assume "the state" automatically owns everything. Given "the state's" history of conquest and plunder, I'd say homesteading and voluntary exchange are the only true ethical means of property exchange/acquisition. "The state" doesn't rightfully own any property - the people do.

What gives you any more right to it?

 

[vyo476]

Well that's a refreshing admission.

Perhaps I ought to have added "by your logic." Sorry for the confusion.

You subscribe to irrationality. I do not.

It is only "irrational" because you say it is.

Some goverments do threaten people with force if they try to leave. If you believe the collective is the sole determiner of what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure you would accept the decision. Just because it isn't legal in your system now, doesn't mean that it can't be legal in the future.

Part of any social contract is the recognition of rights (or lack thereof). In ours society, rights are malleable - but only with a very, very strong consensus.

Part of such malleability is the concept of trust, too. One of your favorite examples is the one of the formation of a law that mandates the killing of children. Indeed, it would be legally possible for such a law to be passed by the United States government - but we trust that it won't. Why won't it? Go out and ask people if they'd desire to see such a law passed.

Your stance is based firmly in fear of having to put your trust in others.

Why don't you leave? Why doesn't "the state" just leave?
Who gave "the state" ownership of the land? Who gave them the right to take first claim? What gave them the right to think that anyone else owes them an obligation?

You've totally missed the point. The people of a certain area give these rights of government to the government; the borders are determined by both they themselves and the international community (cause if we were to start rearranging our own borders, the Canadians and the Mexicans would probably get a little angry at us). From there, the government, with the will of the people behind it, forms laws based on shared cultural values.

The people formed the state. It cannot "leave" because it only exists so long as the people say it does. And yes, there are people who don't agree with the government - or even with it's existence. However, these things have been determined by the will of the majority and the minority are then asked to put up with it. That's just how it works here. What gives them the authority to do so? Society.

Take a class in Sociology sometime. You might find it enlightening.

Who is entitled to occupy the space? Most of you collectivists immediately assume "the state" automatically owns everything. Given "the state's" history of conquest and plunder, I'd say homesteading and voluntary exchange are the only true ethical means of property exchange/acquisition. "The state" doesn't rightfully own any property - the people do.

I believe in private property. The government believes in private property. This is the most ill-formed Straw Man I've ever seen.



Truth-Bringer, I have a question for you, and it pertains to your vision of a Libertarian state. How is it that you think your ideas on a Libertarian state could exist without social contract? Will every citizen sign a separate contract with what limited government you allow to exist?

 

[numinus]

There is no "social contract." You really need to have those hallucinations checked.

A contract can only be entered into KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY.

And your membership in the political association is entered into KNOWINGLY, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY.

Proof - you can end your citizenship anytime you wish, and along with it, the benefits you derive.

Is that plain enough for you, or do you need further assistance in understanding such a simple thing?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

What gives you any more right to it?

I asked you first. You like to avoid questions, don't you?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

And your membership in the political association is entered into KNOWINGLY, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY.

No, it is not. I was not given a choice on paying taxes, as one example. I am immediately threatened by force in this "political association."

Proof - you can end your citizenship anytime you wish, and along with it, the benefits you derive.

No you cannot. For example, in the U.S. one cannot end their citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes - so the state retains its hold on your wealth and property. It does not give you a free choice in the matter. One day there will be a one world government. What will you clowns argue then? That people must leave and go to the moon if they don't agree with the majority?

 

[Coyote]

No, it is not. I was not given a choice on paying taxes, as one example. I am immediately threatened by force in this "political association."



No you cannot. For example, in the U.S. one cannot end their citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes - so the state retains its hold on your wealth and property. It does not give you a free choice in the matter. One day there will be a one world government. What will you clowns argue then? That people must leave and go to the moon if they don't agree with the majority?

You most certainly can end your citizenship and move to another country.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

It is only "irrational" because you say it is.

No, it is irrational because I've proven that the will of the majority does not in and of itself determine truth. If the majority passes a law saying 2+2=5 will be written into textbooks instead of 2+2=4, would they be right? See, your assumption is that the majority can never make a bad decision. That would mean you're arguing the majority has to be perfect - which is irrational.

Part of any social contract is the recognition of rights (or lack thereof). In ours society, rights are malleable - but only with a very, very strong consensus.

Again with more obfuscation...and appeal to the majority fallacy. How do you define "very, very strong consensus?" 51%, 67%, 80%, 95%? You must have a uniform standard. Regardless, consensus means nothing. If 95% of people agree that 2+2=5, are they right because they're a vast majority?

Have you ever heard of Ignaz Semmelweis? If not, here's a little story about professional consensus:

THE SEMMELWEIS-REFLEX

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician who discovered in the 1840s that puerperal or childbed fever could be virtually abolished if doctors washed their hands in a chlorine solution. This is a superb example of a new inside angle. (The Semmelweis story is told in Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science By William Broad & Nicholas Wade.) At the time puerperal fever typically caused a 10-30% mortality rate in maternity hospitals throughout Europe. Semmelweis reduced the mortality rate in the division of the obstetric clinic where he worked in the General Hospital of Vienna from 18 percent to 1 percent. But he failed to convince his colleagues and superiors. Instead of listening to him, and disinfecting their hands, they hounded, persecuted, and fired him - for daring to suggest that they wash their hands properly. In the autumn of 1860, after the dismissal of Semmelweis, in the same ward where he had demonstrated how to virtually eradicate childbed fever, 35 out of a 101 patients died.

In a book published in 1861 Semmelweis presented his statistics and findings. He sent copies to medical societies and to leading obstetricians in Germany, France, and England. Despite his copious and undisputed statistics he was completely ignored.

Thirty years after Semmelweis's discovery, Lister and Pasteur succeeded in convincing doctors that they should disinfect their hands.

The Semmelweis-reflex is the automatic rejection of the obvious, without thought, inspection, or experiment. It was so named by author Robert Anton Wilson. The results that Semmelweis produced made it obvious that his possible discovery needed to be inspected, experimented with, and thought about.

The people formed the state.

No, 100% of the people did not equally and unanimously form the state. The state was formed by some and granted control over others. You really need to stop putting forth this fallacious nonsense.

Take a class in Sociology sometime. You might find it enlightening.

A class is only as good as the textbooks and the teacher. If the teacher is a collectivist, and the textbook was written by collectivists, then the students will end up as brainwashed collectivists.

I believe in private property.

LOL. Depends on how you define private... So you believe in private property, aye? But do you believe in allodial property rights for all? That is the question...from the non-statist viewpoint.

Truth-Bringer, I have a question for you, and it pertains to your vision of a Libertarian state. How is it that you think your ideas on a Libertarian state could exist without social contract? Will every citizen sign a separate contract with what limited government you allow to exist?

Well the only legitimate contract allows everyone the right to pursue any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that they choose. Government will have the authority to step in ONLY if someone uses force, fraud, or coercion against another. It's the only system that can be defended from a standpoint of pure logic.

Within that system, people can create any number and any manner of contracts with each other that they choose - as long as the results of the contracts are peaceful, honest and voluntary.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You most certainly can end your citizenship and move to another country.

Note I included some terms there, pup...which you conveniently ignored...

Regardless, what good is that if the other countries steal from you as well? Your argument is like saying - ok - the mafia controls all the neighborhoods, but if you don't like your neighborhood, you can leave and go live under another mafia, so you have freedom... Yeah, right...

Again, what happens when we have a one world government? What do you argue then?

 

[Coyote]

Note I included some terms there, pup...which you conveniently ignored...

Nope. Didn't ignore them kid. I just simplified it. You can end your citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes. You will simply have to find another country to live in. Or purchase an island.

Regardless, what good is that if the other countries steal from you as well? Your argument is like saying - ok - the mafia controls all the neighborhoods, but if you don't like your neighborhood, you can leave and go live under another mafia, so you have freedom... Yeah, right...

You could go to:

Andorra
Personal Taxes: “In Andorra there are no taxes on profits, dividends
or income; there is no capital gains tax, no withholding tax and no
sales tax.”

Anguilla
Taxation: “There are no income, capital gains, estate, profit or other
forms of direct taxation on either individuals or corporations,
whether resident in Anguilla or not.”

Bahamas
Personal Taxes: “In the Bahamas there is no income tax, capital gains
tax, purchase or sales tax, VAT or capital transfer tax.

Bermuda
Personal Taxes: “In Bermuda there is no income tax, capital gains tax,
purchase or sales tax, VAT or capital transfer tax.
Double Taxation: “Since Bermuda does not levy direct taxes, there are
no double tax treaties between Bermuda and other nations.”
http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/bermuda/jbrtax.html#2tax

Cayman Islands
Personal Taxes: “In the Cayman Islands there are no taxes other than
import duties (at varying rates), stamp duty at 7.5% on transfers of
real estate (currently reduced temporarily to 5%), and stamp duty at
rates up to 1% ad valorem on legal documents dealing with valuable
assets or transactions; however issues of securities, mutual fund
shares or units are normally exempt from stamp duty.”


Monaco
Personal Tax: “Only French nationals pay income tax in Monaco.”

Vanuatu
Personal Taxes: “In Vanuatu there are no taxes affecting individuals
other than import duties (at varying rates), a tax on rental income
over VT 200,000 in a 6-month period of 15%, and stamp duty on some
property transactions, share transfers and some other transactions at
rates of up to 1% (minimum VT 2,500). Transfers of land leases attract
stamping at 5% plus 2% registration fee.”

Again, what happens when we have a one world government? What do you argue then?

That's in the far realmm of "what if". I seriously doubt we will. Human nature is too contentious.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You can end your citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes.

No, you cannot. A U.S. citizen cannot renounce his or her citizenship for the stated purpose of avoiding taxes. Also - the U.S. is the only country greedy enough to tax its citizens in foreign countries.

You could go to:

You could stop empowering armed men to control my peaceful, honest, voluntary actions.

That's in the far realmm of "what if". I seriously doubt we will.

Of course, when it would destroy your argument.