• abraxas@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are committing what is called a fallacy fallacy, and do not address how they are different

    I actually did address the claim by showing how your logic doesn’t work with anarchism. But if you would like a direct rebuttal, I’d be happy to provide. Here are the reasons that “taxation is theft” is bullshit propaganda.

    You do not have a right to your pre-tax income, or any income for that matter. Private Property is a social contract. The money you are being taxed has no real or implied value except the value created by a single cohesive system that involves the same threat of force to reinforce. If taxation is theft, then money is not property and you don’t own that house you bought with it. In fact, you trying to keep me from walking ont it and taking some food would quite literally be theft.

    The only way taxation can be theft is if you reject the mercantile system. And if you reject the mercantile system, then the money being taxed cannot be seen as property (and therefore it is still also not theft).

    I take it you refer to online piracy?

    Yeah. Record labels started taking to call it “theft” when they wanted to ban it. They started teaching people it was theft. They got this big FBI banner on the opening of all VHS tapes.

    On one hand you are not taking anything away, you are just copying. But on the other hand, to cite yourself, that is of course an oversimplification.

    Thank you for explaining to the audience the exact reason I brought up piracy :)

    As you are stealing potential income

    So is it theft for me to install a lock on someone’s door because I’m stealing another thief’s potential income? I’m objecting to this ever-widening definition of theft to “whatever I think of as theft”. I recently heard an interesting lie: “words don’t have definitions, they have usages”. The idea was to counter all these semantic-seeming battles. The problem is that words most certainly do have definitions, and if you oppose what a word means (like theft) that doesn’t mean you get to oppose others’ meanings of that word automatically.

    Taxation is NOT theft. If you think it’s wrong, find better reasons to think it’s wrong than to use a word with a very clear definition that doesn’t include taxation.

    Here’s some citations for you on the topic:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft#:~:text=Taxation does not take from,has no independent moral significance.

    https://taxjustice.net/faq/is-taxation-theft/

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90636996/taxation-isnt-theft-but-avoiding-taxes-is

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/01/why-taxation-is-neither-theft-nor-slavery

    • frevaljee@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok so you believe that your work input is not worth anything then? I.e. it is ok for a government to make you work a number of hours equivalent to the taxed part of your income? My work is a contract between me and my employer. If I wish to use a part of that work to build roads (muh roads), pay for schools etc, that should be by my own will. Not because I am part of a social contract by default. That is not voluntary. And like I said earlier, yes I can vote, but the minority is ruled by the majority in a democracy.

      Private property, and by extension currency, does not need to be a social contract tied to a state to get value. There are other types of money than fiat (and no I am not saying we should all become crypto bros). It is quite bizarre to claim that we need a massive bulky and expensive state with a monopoly on violence to be able to exchange goods and services.

      So is it theft for me to install a lock on someone’s door because I’m stealing another thief’s potential income?

      Now you are just being silly. I guess your point with that statement is that private property does not exist, otherwise it makes no sense. My point about piracy was that it is difficult to define intellectual property. And therefore theft is a difficult concept to apply to piracy. But you do you.

      “words don’t have definitions, they have usages”.

      Indeed. And the way I use the word theft applies to taxation for the reasons stated above. But it apparently doesn’t for you, which is fine.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think taxation is theft, so I don’t have to deal with any of these logical contradictions that I’ve directed at you.

        I gain work-protection from the government. It’s a social contract, and a fair one. They take my tax dollars as payment, but in return, will shoot you if you try to walk into my house. I have some ethical problems with the way some of that happens, but all-in-all it’s a reasonable exchange. The biggest thing that’s missing is that a critical part of the social contract is that if I can’t walk into your house to take your food, the government needs to guarantee I won’t starve otherwise. Guess what is necessary to close that loop? Tax money.

        And no, I’m not being silly. I’m accurately calling you on defining “things I don’t like” as theft and “things I do like” as not theft. “Loss of value” is an unusable metric for that, and I provided a concrete example to that effect.

        • frevaljee@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, whatever works for you.

          My issue is still with the fact that my work is used against my will, to pay for things I have not chosen.

          If I wish to pay for protection, healthcare, food for the poor etc, that should still be my own choice.

          But I think it is at this point where the core of our disagreement lies: you think it is a fair compromise to give up freedom and have a government solve these issues however it sees fit (as a part of a “social contract”), whereas I see it as a basic human right to be able to choose. I don’t think we will move past it tbh, so we should perhaps leave it at that.

          • abraxas@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            But I think it is at this point where the core of our disagreement lies: you think it is a fair compromise to give up freedom and have a government solve these issues however it sees fit (as a part of a “social contract”), whereas I see it as a basic human right to be able to choose

            But private property isn’t a human right. Are you trying to pretend otherwise? Hell, “work begets profits” isn’t a human right. It’s not even a right under capitalism. You could work your ass off and get nothing. You don’t have the right to the fruits of your work in the first place. If you work hard and get nothing, you don’t think you’re entitled to something. The government creates a framework that increases the odds you’re going to get something, and you ungratefully treat their commission as theft.

            You being able to get anything at all from your work is a social contract. You say taxation is theft, but here’s something I bet you didn’t know. “Taxation is Theft” is a newer concept, perhaps even a response to the older, more defensible concept that “Property is Theft”.

            And with due respect, you DO have a choice. You give consent to taxation every single day you stay in a country that charges taxes. You are consenting to a social contract. Anyone who has ever taken a loan to pay medical bills will agree that consent isn’t necessarily a happy thing, or an uncoerced thing. You could always emmigrate to a country that doesn’t have taxation, like Qatar. Countries that don’t tax have a pretty bad track record of treating people living in them, but at leaste you don’t have to pay taxes. Well, there are a few that are just havens for billionaires, but I don’t think you’re rich enough to go to one of those if you’re arguing with me on lemmy.

            • frevaljee@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Damn you just won’t let it go. I will still not agree with you however more you ramble on. You have not and will not convince me that a government will ever be more competent and efficient at solving these issues than alternatives. And, I repeat, it is not voluntary. If private property is not a right, what gives the government right to dictate my life because I happened to be born on this particular plot of land? And that is rhetorical, I would like to repeat:

              I don’t think we will move past it tbh, so we should perhaps leave it at that.

              • abraxas@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                None of these things you replied with have anything to do with the topic at hand, and I understand. It’s easy to come up with some fancy catch-phrase and just hold to it in the face of rational thought. It’s what governments do all the time.

                You have not and will not convince me that a government will ever be more competent and efficient at solving these issues than alternatives

                This is a topic change and gishgallop. I have opinions on that topic, but why would I pivot to it with how bent out of shape you’re getting over this one?

                And, I repeat, it is not voluntary

                It is “not voluntary” only the same way contracts are “not voluntary” or work is “not voluntary”. It’s hard to get by without those things because the entire world disagrees with you on them. But it’s possible.

                If private property is not a right, what gives the government right to dictate my life because I happened to be born on this particular plot of land?

                They don’t dictate your life. They dictate that a percent of the private property they amplify for you go back to them. If you choose not to take their protection on a piece of property, or use their infrastructure in any way, they can ask nothing of you. With very few exceptions, if you work any job or any land at all, you use government infrastructure in 100 different ways. It is perfectly legal in many countries (including the US) to live in the wilderness and sustain yourself on your own efforts. In such a case, you use no infrastructure and pay no taxes. Win/win. What you seem to want is all the entitlement you already have, but the government providing it to you free of charge. Good fucking luck.

                • frevaljee@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It is not legal where I live, and I assure you that the tax agency where I live will hunt me to the edge of the world if I refuse to pay exactly what they demand.

                  We are just looping around the same arguments here, and do not move anywhere.

                  Let’s try not talking about the binary situation of refusing a government or taxes altogether. I can agree that certain things can be handled by a state (although not in the most efficient way imo). There are still a shit ton of things that governements spend money on that I might not want. For example, where I live a significant portion of my obligatory tax goes to state run “public service”, i.e. state run entertainment. And our process for public procurement is a mess, where things cost insane amounts of money, and most of the time don’t even lead to any actual executed projects.
                  How are such things defensible with an obligatory tax design?

                  What I’m trying to say is that yes in a perfect world taxes are fine and dandy, and we get nice roads and healthcare, but in the reality that at least I live in it is just an expensive mess of things that I mostly don’t want, but am forced to pay for.

                  Edit: a word

                  • abraxas@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It is not legal where I live

                    Does where you live also restrict emmigration? If so, you’re not in a free country in the first place. It’s 100% legal where I live.

                    Let’s try not talking about the binary situation of refusing a government or taxes altogether. I can agree that certain things can be handled by a state (although not in the most efficient way imo). There are still a shit ton of things that governements spend money on that I might not want

                    So? Independent will is not the be-all end-all. If you want to kill people, you don’t get to do that. Not paying taxes is not a victimless act, either. That’s part of the societal agreement. You don’t always get what you want. But you do get to do things that many people think you shouldn’t get to do. As I mentioned “property is theft” to many people. And I reject their opinion the same as yours.

                    For example, where I live a significant portion of my obligatory tax goes to state run “public service”, i.e. state run entertainment

                    Are you a democracy? If you’re a free country, at least some percent of society wants to use tax dollars to that. If you’re not a in free country, well, taxes is a weird hill to die on.

                    And our process for public procurement is a mess, where things cost insane amounts of money, and most of the time don’t even lead to any actual executed projects. How are such things defensible with an obligatory tax design?

                    Private sector inefficiency is pretty horrible in most of the world… and most of the world thinks it’s ok to have private sector inefficiency (aka, profit margins). I tend to fight FOR regulated efficiency in both the private and public sectors… so you have my sympathy, just disagreement that it means taxation is actual theft.

                    What I’m trying to say is that yes in a perfect world taxes are fine and dandy, and we get nice roads and healthcare, but in the reality that at least I live in it is just an expensive mess of things that I mostly don’t want, but am forced to pay for.

                    I don’t know where you live or the details, but it seems you agree taxation isn’t theft :). But more importantly, I’m sorry to hear your government is wasteful (or that you think it is. Though I can’t really guess where you’re from, I find the most effective governments often have the most complaints of government waste).