Create account

replied · 157d
Why are you defending it as a whole?
Of course there are more and less painful ways of doing it.
The entire problem, is the how:
Systematic theft is immoral, unsustainable, and wrong.
replied · 157d
I have yet to see a reason why taxation is theft. I have explained why it is moral, so I have yet to see how it is immoral. There is no evidence it is unsustainable. Quite the opposite
replied · 155d
How isn't taxation theft?
Could you explain again how it's moral?
What is the evidence that taxation is sustainable?
replied · 154d
I have participated in representative democracy myself, and cant help but see the pros outweigh the cons.
replied · 153d
If I and others had the choice to not be included, there would be no problem.
The entire problem is that we are included involuntarily.
Kind of a huge con... game.
replied · 153d
I can see that point of view, but it is due to the way the society has built up over time. It gives the society ownership over that area. Almost like leaving to not pay rent.
replied · 153d
Could you define "society" and explain what you mean by "built over time", that justifies systematic theft, "or leave"?
replied · 153d
Let's use city as society. Construction and establishment of systems take time and effort and money. If you dont like that established system then you should leave the system.
replied · 152d
The system of theft/taxation is worldwide.
Anywhere I go there will be the same system.
So that's beside the point.
But again: Why do the bullies get precedence?
replied · 152d
It isn't worldwide, just found all over the world. If you leave civilised areas no one bugs you about taxes. The precedence is due to a type of ownership. Property rights.
replied · 147d
Property rights?
Oh come on now.
What homesteading does the state do?
replied · 147d
All the properties of the people and businesses. You could also say the city land belongs to the city, state land belongs to state, etc.
replied · 146d
The state is also people. Just taking from one to give to themselves.
replied · 146d
The state is also people. People paying taxes that are given to people, and pay for services for the people. People cant even get into politics. It's not hard to run in an election.
replied · 146d
😂😂😂
replied · 147d
Based on what are "all properties of all people" belong to the state?
replied · 147d
What a misnomer.
Civilized like the indoctrination centers (schools) are called "education".
replied · 147d
Yes, and that would be the positive definition of indoctrination which means education. Same as exploitation can have a positive definition, to make use of.
replied · 147d
Wow. You actually just defended that.
Do tell me more of how indoctrination and brainwashing can be positives.
replied · 147d
It gives people the tools to learn more. Education is the most valuable thig we have in modern society, and anyone with a university education is more privileged than any King of old.
replied · 152d
Could you define city? Are you saying city is people?
"It gives the society [city] ownership over that area."
How does a concept, city, have ownership over an area?
replied · 152d
Those representing the citizens of that city have control over the city, granted by the citizens. Telling the people and organizations and businesses to leave so you can stay is wrong.
replied · 147d
I completely agree, which is why I am defending them against the state, a completely unnecessary parasite middleman that only contributes anti-life self-destructive brainwashing.
replied · 147d
Most of those people want the state though. You are defending them against their own interests.
replied · 147d
Their own interest to be systematically robbed from? Yes, only because they are also advocating and defending that I be robbed too. If it just affected them, I wouldn't care.
replied · 147d
When everyone benefits everyone is asked to contribute. Often the benefits of these services are secondary. Even if you don't have kids it benefits you to fund education.
replied · 153d
It's harder to move the city than for a person to leave. So the person who doesnt want to pay should leave. That city didnt appear overnight.
replied · 154d
To be clear I am not counting it high on the morality scale. It is just a general "hey, we are all paying our share. You should too." I cant help but think we benefit from government.
replied · 153d
Where is the should?
I don't have a choice. If I did, then we could talk "should".
I'm stolen from regardless.
That's the problem to begin with.
replied · 153d
You kind of do have a choice. Black market incomes are not taxable. Some choose that route. Often just undocumented work, and pay under the table.
replied · 153d
Yes, and why should I hide and be forced to go through hoops to be free, to act or feel like I'm guilty, when the entire system that you're advocating, is immoral?
replied · 153d
If people require the transit system to travel they realise they must pay. You then have riders asking why they should be stolen from simply to ride. The paying riders are stolen from.
replied · 152d
If people require a transit system, then unless there's a monopoly on violence, there will be competing services/businesses to meet that demand.
replied · 152d
I was using a transit system as an analogy for city, and paying the fair as taxes. A competing system would be another location with different tax rates. Freedom of movement helps.
replied · 147d
We already have that.
Tax rates already differ.
And are still involuntary.
You think the theft keeps society together and that it's therefore not theft. Right?
replied · 147d
More than it funds the services the people demand. Since the people demand those services the collection of taxes to pay for them is not theft. It is payment for services rendered.
replied · 153d
The system is moral. The only theft is from those not paying into the system. Like some public transit, paying is on the honor system. If no one paid the transit wouldnt work.
replied · 152d
The system is immoral. The theft is from those who do not consent and are included anyway.
If payment was on the honor system, people would not be included without consent.
replied · 152d
The theft from the system is immoral. The theft is from those who contribute, while one decided to not contribute. It is leeching off others.
replied · 147d
I wish I could "steal" by not contributing.
If I could I would not be talking about anarchism. It would be pointless.
replied · 147d
Not entirely pointless. By advocating your position you do exert a small amount of influence on the system. If more wanted thig as you do things would move that way.
replied · 147d
I hope eventually that more, including yourself and others, do too. This nightmare has gone on long enough.
replied · 147d
I use to lean more that way, but since becoming a father, and home owner, I fell much more inclined to let the status quo continue.
replied · 154d
Taxation supports our system of government, and society. Every person receives the benefit of society when within society. Not paying your share while receiving the benefits is immoral
replied · 153d
That was poorly phrased.
How is it immoral to resist the process of getting benefits when they are at the behest of theft, kidnapping, or murder?
replied · 153d
Resisting getting benefits means leaving the benefitted area. That isn't immoral. I feel like I am not fully getting the question.
replied · 153d
Why do thieves and bullies get to lay claim to any area by providing something after theft? To justify that thieves and bullies stay while the abused leaves is morally abject.
replied · 153d
The only thieves and bullies are those trying to take advantage of the system without contributing to it as asked. To steal from the system everyone else contributed to.
replied · 152d
If that were actually happening, you'd have a point.
The entire issue is the inverse:
Money is taken from you regardless of whether you consent, there is no such "theft".
replied · 153d
The benefit of being stolen from under threat of kidnapping and if you resist, death?
How is resisting theft/kidnapping/murder immoral?
Can there be benefit if there is lack of choice?
replied · 153d
Those are quite the false equivalencies. The issue of jail itself is only for the most extreme cases. Often it is more like getting a bad credit rating, and debt collectors after you.
replied · 153d
Could you explain this and give examples of "more like getting a bad credit rating" and "debt collectors after you" in regard to taxes? I haven't heard that before.
replied · 153d
That is the normal experience. I think the IRS is harsher than the Canadian CRA, but often they work as debt collectors instead as well.
replied · 153d
I have an uncle who owes about 2 million in unpaid taxes froma business he owned. He has had credit is the consequence. He doesn't get given any form of tax return anymore.
replied · 152d
That was vague gibberish to me. Did it affect his credit score?
Is he able to get credit cards? Take out a loan?
replied · 152d
No he can't. His credit rating has tanked. Any tax return just gets deducted from the balance owing.
replied · 147d
Where does he live?
How was he avoiding theft by the IRS?



replied · 147d
Not the IRS, the Canada Revenue Agency. He lives in a trailer on a farm and helps manage the property now. He also works a security business.