Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By your poor analogy, when the government imprisons someone, it is "kidnapping." And when capital punishment is used, it's "murder."
What you are ignoring is that it is that criminals and murderers are guilty (or at least presumed so) of crimes. I would agree that imprisoning people for victimless crimes is also immoral.
What you are ignoring is that it is that criminals and murderers are guilty (or at least presumed so) of crimes.
So you're saying that there is, arguably, justification for actions taken by the government to kidnap someone, deprive them of their liberty and lock them away and/or kill them for those crimes?
If you can buy justification (ANY justification) for the deprivation of a person's life and/or liberty (which is held to be much more valuable than your right to your "stuff"), then you should understand why there is justification and necessity that elevates taxation from "theft" to "necessary confiscation for X reason."
So you're saying that there is, arguably, justification for actions taken by the government to kidnap someone, deprive them of their liberty and lock them away and/or kill them for those crimes?
If you can buy justification (ANY justification) for the deprivation of a person's life and/or liberty (which is held to be much more valuable than your right to your "stuff"), then you should understand why there is justification and necessity that elevates taxation from "theft" to "necessary confiscation for X reason."
Not without violating the principle of self-ownership if you are simply transferring wealth. You may disagree with that principle and have alternative moral standards, but you cannot justify taking from one individual and giving to another without violating the self-ownership principle.
People who can only resort to name calling are the one's whose education should be questioned.
Legalized theft is still immoral, it is still theft. Plain and simple. Raping, robbing immoral, don't matter if it is legal or not. What happened in Saddam's rape rooms with the consent of the government was still immoral.
It is not theft, it is an exchange of money for services, as is anything else.
You see, rich people found out a long time ago that for them to be able to make more money, obtain more things, and carry on a generally healthy life, its better to placate the poor and middle class with some government services.
Not to mention that the rich see direct government gains from services rendered in clean food, clean water, roads, safety in their homes at night, securing the borders from outside invaders, etc.
Your very premise and argument is that rich people get nothing in return for the money that is taxed from them.
That is why I called you a "name", because your argument is based on a false premise and is without merit.
I know nothing I typed will have any effect on a dense skull, not that you have one, but neither have the other 7 pages of posts refuting your debate.
While I am absolutely sure that the modern day use of tax money is absolutely ridiculous I am also absolutely sure that the world is a better place because of the use of tax money to fund collective projects.
The fact is not only do the rich get nothing in return the welfare state actually increases illegitimacy, poverty and crime.
Obviously I will never convince those who have different moral standards that their morality is wrong on a single thread or a thousand threads. Most of the people who post on political forums have their moral and political beliefs carved in stone, as do I.
Civilization is the only reason why you have "wealth" to "tax" to begin with. A lot of conservatives seem to believe they would be "just as successful" or live just as well if there were no roads, no police, no military, no public schools, no colleges, no federally backed loans, no FAA, etc. etc. etc.
Someone has to pay for the maintenace of civilization. Those who constantly obsess over it sometimes don't realize the alternative proposals are not historically sound, and are without example to show how a "taxless society" would operate.
I do not know of one Conservative who thinks this way. That is quite incorrect. Conservatives realize that without roads or police or military, nothing would et accomplished. You work hard to produce something but if there are no roads, how do you transport it to your consumer? If there were no police, what was to stop someone from stealing the things you work hard for?
I have never heard one Conservative say or think such things. What they are against is the abuse of these systems. And typically, the abuse is due to too much government or in so many cases, too much corruption.
If I lived in a place where I felt I was constantly being robbed, I would certainly move.
You'd think that 'the rich' would have the means to move to some taxless paradise.
Could the fact that they don't do so, mean that there is some benefit to living in the US? Some benefit that should be paid for through taxes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
