Taxation is not theft. Private property, however,*could* be. (capitalist, amendment, religion)

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by No_Recess

I don't know anything about god or whatever. Personally, I haven't thought about that stuff in years. I suppose I'm agnostic for myself and myself only.

No collectivism here.

I think the one principle we need to fight the statists with is "don't ask someone or a group to do something on your behalf that you can't or won't do on your own".

It's a variation on the Golden Rule as well as something T0103E touched on earlier: if I can't or wouldn't walk up to Bob and demand tribute at gunpoint that also means that me and another man or 10 million men can't collectively walk up to Bob and demand tribute. I also can't hire someone to walk up to Bob and demand tribute.

Basically statists love bounty hunters with Uncle Sam as their main muscle.

Sure Boba Fett is one of my favorite Star Wars characters but that's a movie. I wouldn't like him in real life.

Then again reality has never been a strong suit of the statist (see agreeing to a social contract after sliding out of a vagina).

Sure. My 'enlightenment' happened bidirectionally, from the bottom up (non-aggression principle, golden rule etc, simple rules for living) and top down (self organization of chaotic systems, etc.), at some point a light bulb went off (much like during Quantum physics where if you just consider everything to be a wavefunction, everything is much simpler), that my two bottoms up and top down philosophies were actually the same philosophy in abstract, bottoms up was just discrete interactions between finite entities, top down was the systemic effects of these interactions. I appreciate the symmetry.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

So you believe that the entire universe self organizes creates everything that you can see and experience without any form of guiding force but some simple rules. Lets state up front there are only four fundamental forces, their interactions are the rules of the universe. Further being atheist you believe there is no need to have a guiding intelligence to achieve this.

Yet... without taxes human society will self destruct, and roads will crumble there being no guiding intelligence to maintain them. Even though everything you do is governed by the same rules that exist in the universe, and it functions just fine (or at least fine enough for the two of us to converse using the products of our technology) without any guiding intelligence.

How can you manage to reconcile the dichotomy. A subset of a set that exists and self organizes (without guiding intelligence) by your logic cannot continue to exist and self organize unless it has guiding intelligence.

You see your problem?

If you said you believed in a creator I could understand your position. Full disclosure I'm also atheist, thus I believe simple processes and rules can create complex structures (the real kernel of atheistic belief).

There is no dichotomy. I am a realist. God is not real, therefore I am an athiest. Wealth and income inequality are very real, therefore I support progressive taxation where people pay for the commons based on their ability to pay rather than an an-cap who supports full privatization, which would HAVE to rely on regressive pricing (everyone paying the same dollar amount), which would cripple the poor, working class and most of the middle class, but be a relief to the upper middle class, upper class and the wealthy

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by No_Recess

Actually it does!

Now you're learning.

It was sarcasm

I hate toll roads, I don't want Blackwater style law enforcement, I want public schools to remain, otherwise we will have about 50% of children not getting educated, and therefore becoming criminals when grown up, and I want a fire department to put people's fires out regardless of their wealth

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

It's only armed robbery if you try to refuse to pay.

Look at the alternative an-cap world you advocate for.

A toll on every road

No public schools

Mercenaries instead of police

Fire department that would refuse to put out your fire if you couldn't pay your regular fee

Sounds like a great world

Police are paid guns to enforce the rules of politicians, so they actually already are mercenaries.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Sure. My 'enlightenment' happened bidirectionally, from the bottom up (non-aggression principle, golden rule etc, simple rules for living) and top down (self organization of chaotic systems, etc.), at some point a light bulb went off (much like during Quantum physics where if you just consider everything to be a wavefunction, everything is much simpler), that my two bottoms up and top down philosophies were actually the same philosophy in abstract, bottoms up was just discrete interactions between finite entities, top down was the systemic effects of these interactions. I appreciate the symmetry.

It's crazy how things align, or fit together like a puzzle sometimes. That's always a sign to me that I'm on the right track.

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

There is no dichotomy. I am a realist. God is not real, therefore I am an athiest. Wealth and income inequality are very real, therefore I support progressive taxation where people pay for the commons based on their ability to pay rather than an an-cap who supports full privatization, which would HAVE to rely on regressive pricing (everyone paying the same dollar amount), which would cripple the poor, working class and most of the middle class, but be a relief to the upper middle class, upper class and the wealthy

Deep as a teaspoon.

Without analysis by what measure can you determine what is real? Was your actual reasoning that an authority determined your atheism for you? If you did not conclude (but were informed of your belief) how credible are your other statements? Are you not just a talking head parroting others opinions (who's intentions may not be in your best interests)?

[petch751]

Originally Posted by AllenSJC

At least, you can make a better argument that private property is theft (as opposed to personal property - the two are NOT synonymous) than you can regarding taxation as theft.

Taxation exists in a legal framework, so the question of whether taxation in and of itself is theft is a purely moral one, not a legal one. Thus, if you're going to make the moral argument that taxation is theft, you're going to have to say that private property rights - the right to acquire private property, that is - are a moral entitlement, or in other words, a natural right. And if that's what you believe to be the case....most cultures around the world, especially historically, might want to have a word with you about that.

There is no "State of Nature" of human morality that justifies private property rights or any other economic regime. There are only legal, political, cultural, and social conventions and arrangements that have justified the historical fact of a very small number of individuals and their legal fictions (corporations) taking by force the land, natural resources, and human labor of the world.

No, I'm not calling for Communism or Marxism or anything like that. I'm just calling for the "taxation is theft" crowd to follow their own arguments to their moral conclusions, since stating "taxation is theft" is necessarily a moral claim, and one that is seemingly non-negotiable. So go ahead - follow your moral compass on this one. You just might be surprised.

When the government “taxes” citizens, what this means is that the government demands money from each citizen, under a threat of force: if you do not pay, armed agents hired by the government will take you away and lock you in a cage. ... That might make taxation a socially beneficial kind of theft, but it is still theft.

I thought the left was into "fairness". Forcing one group to pay a lot more while the other group pays little or nothing, is certainly not fair.
And to continue to expect people to pay more and more because government can't handle money is certainly not good government.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Deep as a teaspoon.

Without analysis by what measure can you determine what is real? Was your actual reasoning that an authority determined your atheism for you? If you did not conclude (but were informed of your belief) how credible are your other statements? Are you not just a talking head parroting others opinions (who's intentions may not be in your best interests)?

Now you're just trying to gaslight me, stop

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by petch751

When the government “taxes” citizens, what this means is that the government demands money from each citizen, under a threat of force: if you do not pay, armed agents hired by the government will take you away and lock you in a cage. ... That might make taxation a socially beneficial kind of theft, but it is still theft.

I thought the left was into "fairness". Forcing one group to pay a lot more while the other group pays little or nothing, is certainly not fair.
And to continue to expect people to pay more and more because government can't handle money is certainly not good government.

We have progressive taxation because of wealth and income inequality, the "fairness" comes in leveling the playing field, by not gouging those who earn less, like regressive pricing does

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by AllenSJC

^Define "ownership."

Ownership is the legal right to something, to do with it as you wish (provided what you do is legal). When you purchase a piece of land, the boundaries are defined and a deed is issued which is a legal document showing you are the rightful owner of said property. The deed is recorded with the county recorder showing the ownership.

That's called "private property." What's you're problem with it?