TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust

[Hennessy]

Would love to hear if any of you guys believe taxation is theft. Have never heard a reasonable support for that

its mandatory separation from labor

assuming the current system has a reasonable standard for measuring the value of different labors

also that labor is an individualistic entitlement

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Would love to hear if any of you guys believe taxation is theft. Have never heard a reasonable support for that

good article on it by one of my favorite philosophers https://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04 ... -authority

the book is also fantastic

The "strangers on an island" analogy, or any variation on it is not moving to me. For one to support it we would have to move into full on an-cap realm, which almost no one wants to. As long as we both agree there is a need for a collective keeper of the peace, maker of laws, and defender of borders then I have the acceptance of enough authority for taxation to be permissible.

Governments are agreed upon by the people, in every situation, a government that does not have the support of its citizenry (in a broad sense) will not survive. They obviously remain for varying amounts of time but eventually they will topple.

However, governments as a construct are (in my opinion) necessary, given a world with no rules and no laws we would naturally search to seek groups for defense and those groups would have rules, those groups would provide a service to those individuals and would therefor require recompense. I see no reason to compel recompense in that instance as it would be extremely difficult to receive payment as the service was performed and after all, anyone who disagrees could in theory leave the safety of the services. Furthermore, these groups are sovereign as there is no other higher claim to the land they oversee (a right given to them by those being overseen) and they could therefore enact any rules they see fit, compelling payment for services seems one of the least oppressive.

Look, I don't expect the social contract argument as it's spelled out here to be any more moving than your original argument, but the fact is governments are sovereign rulers and the agreement to claim the land they oversee is long standing and their sovereignty has been confirmed through many conflicts over said land. Anyone that disagrees with the payment compelled to them is free to leave and even attempt to lay sovereign claim themselves. As long as that doesn't happen the State may pass any laws to outlaw or compel any behavior they see fit, that includes taxation.

I understand hating taxes, I just don't see a salient argument for their classification as "theft"

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Would love to hear if any of you guys believe taxation is theft. Have never heard a reasonable support for that

The argument usually goes something like this:

"People are entitled to keep what they make/earn. When we separate people from the products of their labor by coercive means, it's theft. Taxation only works because the government has given itself license to use force against its citizens; if you elect not to pay taxes, the government employs force to punish you/make you comply. It then goes on to spend the money it took from you on things you may not like or might even actively disagree with. Thus, taxation is theft."

I'm oversimplifying, but that's the substance of it. Of course, I've always found it runs into the problematic question of "how the hell else is the government going to pay for things it actually ought to be doing?". It runs into practical implementation problems completely unrelated to how much you may agree/disagree with it.

For my part, I'm pretty willing to chalk taxation up as an unpleasant but ultimately necessary part of living around other people, that is for the most part worth it, even if I have reservations about some of what my taxes end up paying for.

this is exactly my point. I get hating taxes or thinking we pay too much for things the government needn't provide, but to broach to the classification of theft implies the government does not have the authority to compel the payment, and I just don't see how not.

Like we all want to be lawyers, we all must recognize to some degree the government's authority to pass laws compelling behavior within it's sovereign ground. Taxes fall under that authority.

Now, expat taxes are different story (but you don't really have to pay those unless you intend to return)

[amta]

this is exactly my point. I get hating taxes or thinking we pay too much for things the government needn't provide, but to broach to the classification of theft implies the government does not have the authority to compel the payment, and I just don't see how not.

Like we all want to be lawyers, we all must recognize to some degree the government's authority to pas laws compelling behavior within it's sovereign ground. Taxes fall under that authority.

Now, expat taxes are different story (but you don't really have to pay those unless you intend to return)

How many men? is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the concept of taxation as theft. The experiment uses a series of questions to posit a difference between criminal acts and majority rule. For example, one version asks, "Is it theft if one man steals a car?" "What if a gang of five men steal the car?" "What if a gang of ten men take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it?" "What if one hundred men take the car and give the victim back a bicycle?" or "What if two hundred men not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle, as well?" The experiment challenges an individual to determine how large a group is required before the taking of an individual's property becomes the "democratic right" of the majority.

[amta]

assuming the current system has a reasonable standard for measuring the value of different labors

also that labor is an individualistic entitlement

why must my labor need to be valued to some reasonable standard in order for taxation to be theft, komrade?

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

this is exactly my point. I get hating taxes or thinking we pay too much for things the government needn't provide, but to broach to the classification of theft implies the government does not have the authority to compel the payment, and I just don't see how not.

Like we all want to be lawyers, we all must recognize to some degree the government's authority to pas laws compelling behavior within it's sovereign ground. Taxes fall under that authority.

Now, expat taxes are different story (but you don't really have to pay those unless you intend to return)

How many men? is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the concept of taxation as theft. The experiment uses a series of questions to posit a difference between criminal acts and majority rule. For example, one version asks, "Is it theft if one man steals a car?" "What if a gang of five men steal the car?" "What if a gang of ten men take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it?" "What if one hundred men take the car and give the victim back a bicycle?" or "What if two hundred men not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle, as well?" The experiment challenges an individual to determine how large a group is required before the taking of an individual's property becomes the "democratic right" of the majority.

The man would have to be a part of the group taking the vote (or at least within the realm of the group) and the group must have the ultimate right of sovereignty over the land the vehicle is within.

A gang controlling 6 square blocks in LA does not have sovereign right over the land they control, that's why when they do something the government has outlawed it is a crime. The government has sovereign rights, no body is higher than them. If a group disagree with the current sovereign body over what is or is not acceptable they would have to do something to assert their right as the new sovereign body and most definitely have to defend that right.

I say again, we all recognize that governments exist and that they have authority to compel or restrict behavior. Every day that we wake up intent on reading analyzing and advocating based on the rules they have instilled we give them that right.

So long as that exists they can compel payment for anything, including services. Anyone who attempts to disagree may attempt to assert sovereign rights above theirs.

[Hennessy]

How many men? is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the concept of taxation as theft. The experiment uses a series of questions to posit a difference between criminal acts and majority rule. For example, one version asks, "Is it theft if one man steals a car?" "What if a gang of five men steal the car?" "What if a gang of ten men take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it?" "What if one hundred men take the car and give the victim back a bicycle?" or "What if two hundred men not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle, as well?" The experiment challenges an individual to determine how large a group is required before the taking of an individual's property becomes the "democratic right" of the majority.

Bit of a false equivalence here - a car is not income.

Also bolded seems pretty reasonable, particularly under a system where the car was obtained at the expense of the impoverished man.

Also ideally the impoverished man shouldn't be impoverished; if we're participating in a thought expiriment, it's important to note that we are conceiving of a society with discrepencies in wealth. Why do those wealth inequalities exist?

[amta]

The man would have to be a part of the group taking the vote (or at least within the realm of the group) and the group must have the ultimate right of sovereignty over the land the vehicle is within.

A gang controlling 6 square blocks in LA does not have sovereign right over the land they control, that's why when they do something the government has outlawed it is a crime. The government has sovereign rights, no body is higher than them. If a group disagree with the current sovereign body over what is or is not acceptable they would have to do something to assert their right as the new sovereign body and most definitely have to defend that right.

I say again, we all recognize that governments exist and that they have authority to compel or restrict behavior. Every day that we wake up intent on reading analyzing and advocating based on the rules they have instilled we give them that right.

So long as that exists they can compel payment for anything, including services. Anyone who attempts to disagree may attempt to assert sovereign rights above theirs.

so a group big enough to constitute absolute sovereignty is big enough to steal from individuals?

[amta]

Bit of a false equivalence here - a car is not income.

Also bolded seems pretty reasonable, particularly under a system where the car was obtained at the expense of the impoverished man.

Also ideally the impoverished man shouldn't be impoverished; if we're participating in a thought expiriment, it's important to note that we are conceiving of a society with discrepencies in wealth. Why do those wealth inequalities exist?

1.) a car is an expression/result of income in this experiment. so, yes, it is income. 2.) the bolded is unreasonable if the man didn't want the bike. 3.) not at issue in the experiment and theft isn't necessarily the solution.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

The man would have to be a part of the group taking the vote (or at least within the realm of the group) and the group must have the ultimate right of sovereignty over the land the vehicle is within.

A gang controlling 6 square blocks in LA does not have sovereign right over the land they control, that's why when they do something the government has outlawed it is a crime. The government has sovereign rights, no body is higher than them. If a group disagree with the current sovereign body over what is or is not acceptable they would have to do something to assert their right as the new sovereign body and most definitely have to defend that right.

I say again, we all recognize that governments exist and that they have authority to compel or restrict behavior. Every day that we wake up intent on reading analyzing and advocating based on the rules they have instilled we give them that right.

So long as that exists they can compel payment for anything, including services. Anyone who attempts to disagree may attempt to assert sovereign rights above theirs.

so a group big enough to constitute absolute sovereignty is big enough to steal from individuals?

Size is not a sufficient factor, but a sovereign body may dictate whatever it wants over the land it has authority over. The check on that power being the body itself, a citizenry uprising, or a foreign body's use of force. If the sovereign body says that compelling its citizenry to pay for the protection and services is not theft then it is not theft.

It's not a perfect system obviously, but there is no natural order or law that usurps the will of the sovereign government. Taken to its natural conclusion, the world is chaos and people sacrifice some liberties for safety (with rapidly diminishing returns)

[Hennessy]

1.) a car is an expression/result of income in this experiment. so, yes, it is income. 2.) the bolded is unreasonable if the man didn't want the bike. 3.) not at issue in the experiment and theft isn't necessarily the solution.

I mean, if you set the parameters of the experiment so that it will sound like theft, then it will sound like theft.

The poor man seems like the largest issue in the thought expiriment to me. His impoverishment is not nebulous.

[Rigo]

I'm all for a merit-based society on some level and rewarding those who deserve it but what does that mean? Once you realize that hard work doesn't lead to wealth creation for most people anymore and a huge chunk of wealth in our society is inherited, the whole self-made meritocracy argument for wealth falls apart. When you're born on home plate, you don't really deserve what you have so why are you entitled to keep all of it?

Framing taxation as theft is misleading because it's a loaded word that implies it is wrong from the outset.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I'm all for a merit-based society on some level and rewarding those who deserve it but what does that mean? Once you realize that hard work doesn't lead to wealth creation for most people anymore and a huge chunk of wealth in our society is inherited, the whole self-made meritocracy argument for wealth falls apart. When you're born on home plate, you don't really deserve what you have so why are you entitled to keep all of it?

Framing taxation as theft is misleading because it's a loaded word that implies it is wrong from the outset.

This is exactly the argument I keep trying to make. theft is a word that has a very specific definition. It must be a crime, ergo it must exist in a world with a sovereign body creating laws. The logic then becomes circular, the body creating the laws can make what they do not a crime so by definition not theft.

There are more compelling discussions to be had if we stopped using the word, and then having to adjudicate the definition of, theft

[proteinshake]

I'm all for a merit-based society on some level and rewarding those who deserve it but what does that mean? Once you realize that hard work doesn't lead to wealth creation for most people anymore and a huge chunk of wealth in our society is inherited, the whole self-made meritocracy argument for wealth falls apart. When you're born on home plate, you don't really deserve what you have so why are you entitled to keep all of it?

Framing taxation as theft is misleading because it's a loaded word that implies it is wrong from the outset.

This is exactly the argument I keep trying to make. theft is a word that has a very specific definition. It must be a crime, ergo it must exist in a world with a sovereign body creating laws. The logic then becomes circular, the body creating the laws can make what they do not a crime so by definition not theft.

There are more compelling discussions to be had if we stopped using the word, and then having to adjudicate the definition of, theft

I thought it was pretty clear that the point of that statement is to say "taxation is immoral." and I don't think theft has to be a crime. If we're in Antarctica and you take my game boy, you're a thief, and therefore, have commited theft.

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

[amta]

I mean, if you set the parameters of the experiment so that it will sound like theft, then it will sound like theft.

The poor man seems like the largest issue in the thought expiriment to me. His impoverishment is not nebulous.

okay, then car i.e. ~$30,000.

[amta]

I thought it was pretty clear that the point of that statement is to say "taxation is immoral." and I don't think theft has to be a crime. If we're in Antarctica and you take my game boy, you're a thief, and therefore, have commuted theft.

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

[Rigo]

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

I think you're kind of living in fantasy land here when you look at just how much wealth is inherited and how the rich get even more loaded by doing absolutely nothing. Unless we are calling investing "work" now.

[Hennessy]

I'm all for a merit-based society on some level and rewarding those who deserve it but what does that mean? Once you realize that hard work doesn't lead to wealth creation for most people anymore and a huge chunk of wealth in our society is inherited, the whole self-made meritocracy argument for wealth falls apart. When you're born on home plate, you don't really deserve what you have so why are you entitled to keep all of it?

Framing taxation as theft is misleading because it's a loaded word that implies it is wrong from the outset.

I mean, yes, inherited wealth is inherently anti-egalitarian. But "earned" wealth isn't any more defensible. Our society sets insanely unequal values for different forms of labor.

[amta]

I mean, yes, inherited wealth is inherently anti-egalitarian. But "earned" wealth isn't any more defensible. Our society sets insanely unequal values for different forms of labor.

something something market forces.....

[proteinshake]

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

I think you're kind of living in fantasy land here when you look at just how much wealth is inherited and how the rich get even more loaded by doing absolutely nothing. Unless we are calling investing "work" now.

idk, if people from third world countries can come to the US and thrive, I'm not sure how your statement can be true.

[amta]

I mean, yes, inherited wealth is inherently anti-egalitarian. But "earned" wealth isn't any more defensible. Our society sets insanely unequal values for different forms of labor.

something something market forces.....

follow up question: do you contend that the "government" or some oligarchs or maybe a community group should get together and establish some sort of arbitrary fee schedule of what people should be paid for doing any given job?

[Rigo]

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

I think you're kind of living in fantasy land here when you look at just how much wealth is inherited and how the rich get even more loaded by doing absolutely nothing. Unless we are calling investing "work" now.

idk, if people from third world countries can come to the US and thrive, I'm not sure how your statement can be true.

I mean sure you can cherry pick some fun slumdog millionaires, but the American Dream is harder more than ever to achieve as wages stagnate yet prices keep rising. Meanwhile the 1% stays the 1%, and it's not because they're working harder.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I'm all for a merit-based society on some level and rewarding those who deserve it but what does that mean? Once you realize that hard work doesn't lead to wealth creation for most people anymore and a huge chunk of wealth in our society is inherited, the whole self-made meritocracy argument for wealth falls apart. When you're born on home plate, you don't really deserve what you have so why are you entitled to keep all of it?

Framing taxation as theft is misleading because it's a loaded word that implies it is wrong from the outset.

This is exactly the argument I keep trying to make. theft is a word that has a very specific definition. It must be a crime, ergo it must exist in a world with a sovereign body creating laws. The logic then becomes circular, the body creating the laws can make what they do not a crime so by definition not theft.

There are more compelling discussions to be had if we stopped using the word, and then having to adjudicate the definition of, theft

I thought it was pretty clear that the point of that statement is to say "taxation is immoral." and I don't think theft has to be a crime. If we're in Antarctica and you take my game boy, you're a thief, and therefore, have commuted theft.

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

To jump ahead 4 months; crime or not, the "bad act" of theft is an unauthorized taking(sorry if that's gunnerish, but my other argument would have used the wikipedia definition and I think this one is better). There is no higher body of authorization than the sovereign government overseeing a land. If you sue someone and a judge finds them liable for $1,000 in damages when you go collect that money you are not stealing from them, even though they may not want to give it to you. That authorization comes from the sovereign government using their oversight of the jurisdiction. I see no reason then why the sovereign government cannot authorize themselves to take property that they oversee. So even if we put aside 'theft has to be a crime" (I still think it does, just googling seems to strongly imply it) it at the very least has to be unauthorized, and we maintain that the sovereign government may authorize a taking above the individual in physical possession, so I don't see how this satisfies the requirements of theft.

Also, the entire concept of property ownership above being in physical possession comes from the government. Someone taking your game boy in Antarctica may be a dick move and you may consider them a thief, baring an extra judicial agreement you wouldn't exactly have any recompense for it because you wouldn't have any ownership claim to it besides physical possession in a world devoid of laws. In that circumstance then anyone in physical possession would be the owner and not a thief. You could of course overpower him and take it back, but there's nothing stopping him from doing the same unless you banded together with stronger people and laid sovereign claim. At which point this whole thing circles back....

E: Also if the claim is "immoral" (moving the discussion squarely into the philosophical realm) then what is the benefit to using a different word ie theft

[Alexandros]

and I totally don't buy the "hard work doesn't lead to wealth" argument. that just isn't true.

I think you're kind of living in fantasy land here when you look at just how much wealth is inherited and how the rich get even more loaded by doing absolutely nothing. Unless we are calling investing "work" now.

idk, if people from third world countries can come to the US and thrive, I'm not sure how your statement can be true.

You can be opposed to taxation all you want, but to claim that what Rigo is saying is not true completely defies factual reality. That doesn't hold water for a second.

[amta]

To jump ahead 4 months; crime or not, the "bad act" of theft is an unauthorized taking(sorry if that's gunnerish, but my other argument would have used the wikipedia definition and I think this one is better). There is no higher body of authorization than the sovereign government overseeing a land. If you sue someone and a judge finds them liable for $1,000 in damages when you go collect that money you are not stealing from them, even though they may not want to give it to you. That authorization comes from the sovereign government using their oversight of the jurisdiction. I see no reason then why the sovereign government cannot authorize themselves to take property that they oversee. So even if we put aside 'theft has to be a crime" (I still think it does, just googling seems to strongly imply it) it at the very least has to be unauthorized, and we maintain that the sovereign government may authorize a taking above the individual in physical possession, so I don't see how this satisfies the requirements of theft.

Also, someone taking your game boy in Antarctica may be a dick move and you may consider them a thief, baring an extra judicial agreement you wouldn't exactly have any recompense for it because you wouldn't have any ownership claim to it besides physical possession in a world devoid of laws. In that circumstance then anyone in physical possession would be the owner and not a thief. You could of course overpower him and take it back, but there's nothing stopping him from doing the same unless you banded together with stronger people and laid sovereign claim. At which point this whole thing circles back....

E: Also if the claim is "immoral" (moving the discussion squarely into the philosophical realm) then what is the benefit to using a different word ie theft

wow. i never thought of this before. i think you may be correct.