|
|
#1
08-17-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
Basically, intent matters to me. And I think it does for everyone. There's a reason most people see murder as worse than manslaughter.
Take two scenarios: Scenario A is a person who murdered someone intentionally. It was a specific target and for whatever reason you know there is a ~100% chance he will never be a threat to society. Play along with my hypothetical. Scenario B is manslaughter when someone made a mistake driving (or whatever). Logistically, it seems these things are exactly the same. He killed someone in some freak occurrence and it will never happen again. Personally, I still think much more lowly of person A, and would agree with harsher punishment for him. Because the intent matters to me. About person B, I might think "Jeez dude, be careful when you drive, that's horrible." But it's still entirely possible he is a decent person who just made a mistake or has poor judgment when he drives. With scenario A, I can be much more sure that this is a bad person. Someone who is capable of intentionally killing is someone I think more lowly of, even if person B poses slightly more of a threat to society. Most people who support taxes don't, I don't think, see taxation as theft, even if you can argue why they intellectually should see it that way. So until they do see it that way, I think of them as more misguided than evil. So when you throw around the "theft" word, it's like charging them with murder when really it was just manslaughter. It's not a fair moral judgment. Why does this matter to me? Because it's polarizing, unfair, and counter-intuitive to helping them see the light. I say this not because I want to argue against libertarianism or because I disagree that objectively taxation is theft, but because I think we can make more progress if we work on our approach. Socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different. 
|
|
#2
08-17-2007, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
I see your point, however the comparison isn't great. In both manslaughter and murder, the perpetrator knows what he's done, and the difference is that in the former, he didn't intend to do it.
By your description of taxes, the the average tax supporter doesn't believe he's supporting theft. What he does support however (taking money forcefully from others) is something he fully intends to do, regardless of whether he believes it's wrong. One is a difference of intention while the other is only a difference of definition.
|
|
#3
08-17-2007, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
At best this argument could run that it's not theft from the people who don't think it's theft but it's definitely theft from me. I do not want to pay taxes! There was a great poll on this forum a while ago "why do you pay taxes fear or duty" I think fear would probably win even if you took the poll out to a national level.
|
|
#4
08-17-2007, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
At best this argument could run that it's not theft from the people who don't think it's theft but it's definitely theft from me. I do not want to pay taxes! [/ QUOTE ] But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective. How is this wrong? It seems perfectly valid from a private property perspective. Just because some explicit contract isn't drawn up, doesn't mean there isn't an implicit one. And you CAN buy a property out in the woods somewhere, and produce or trade what you like, without paying taxes. So the argument seems reasonable to me. You use the collective's resources? Then the owners of those resources require you to pay a lump sum for their use. If you don't use them, or don't benefit sufficiently from them, then you don't have to pay.
|
|
#5
08-17-2007, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] At best this argument could run that it's not theft from the people who don't think it's theft but it's definitely theft from me. I do not want to pay taxes! [/ QUOTE ] But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective. How is this wrong? It seems perfectly valid from a private property perspective. Just because some explicit contract isn't drawn up, doesn't mean there isn't an implicit one. And you CAN buy a property out in the woods somewhere, and produce or trade what you like, without paying taxes. So the argument seems reasonable to me. You use the collective's resources? Then the owners of those resources require you to pay a lump sum for their use. If you don't use them, or don't benefit sufficiently from them, then you don't have to pay. [/ QUOTE ] Show me the individual who owns the public roads and I'll negotiate with him. The idea of implicit contracts is obviously completely bogus. You and I have an implicit contract which says I can take all your money as payment for my time spent talking with you. I should be paid for my time right? You're not a slaver are you? Anyway it doesn't matter because you've already used lots of my time already and you know that people get paid for their time so don't try and feign ignorance. I'll take money on stars if it'll make things easier for you cos I'm a nice guy like that.
|
|
#6
08-17-2007, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
Taxation is theft. But is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor justified? Thats your choice to make. Either way one has to acknowledge its theft.
|
|
#7
08-17-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
Show me the individual who owns the public roads and I'll negotiate with him. [/ QUOTE ] So only individual ownership is valid? That doesn't sound like it fits with many of the structures in AC land. [ QUOTE ] The idea of implicit contracts is obviously completely bogus [/ QUOTE ] Implicit is not the same as making contracts up. And the point that's often missed is in AC, there are almost exactly the same implicit restrictions. Any baby born into the world is forced to accept the property claims of those who came before him, whether he knows and agrees with them or not, and whether or not they were valid when first made. He has no "opt out" clause. He has no choice. He must follow them, at the point of a gun, held by AC booted thugs (or their children). At least in a world with public goods, public areas (including private property like supermarkets) are protected by government mandated laws, so he can live a life and travel around without having to pay the whims and costs and profits of whoever "owns" the land.
|
|
#8
08-17-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
I think this might be a good example of an area where language muddys the debate a bit.
A somewhat analogous situation occurs with the term murder. When people say "capital punishment is murder" or "abortion is murder," they, intentionally or unintentionally, used a loaded term. For the most part, "murder is bad" isnt really a debated statement. So, if one says that capital punishment is murder, and everyone agrees that murder is bad, they have defined the terms such that it leads to the conclusion "capital punishment is bad." The situations continue to be analogous, in that, technically speaking, capital punishement is not murder for the same reason taxation is not theft: murder and theft are illegal. However, on philosophical grounds, both share the properties of the acts that are generally considered requirements for the label. The finaly similarity between the two, comes when we realize that what exactly we should call them is far less interesting than whether or not the act should be permitted.
|
|
#9
08-17-2007, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
And the point that's often missed is in AC, there are almost exactly the same implicit restrictions. Any baby born into the world is forced to accept the property claims of those who came before him, whether he knows and agrees with them or not, and whether or not they were valid when first made. He has no "opt out" clause. He has no choice. He must follow them, at the point of a gun, held by AC booted thugs (or their children). [/ QUOTE ] Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently. No child is ever born owning any property other than their own body. Yet miraculously most people (in places where governments aren't too overbearing) seem to do ok for themselves. As I said on this topic before all humans are born owning the most important and valuable piece of real estate they'll ever own the space between their ears.
|
|
#10
08-17-2007, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, intent matters to me. And I think it does for everyone. There's a reason most people see murder as worse than manslaughter. Take two scenarios: Scenario A is a person who murdered someone intentionally. It was a specific target and for whatever reason you know there is a ~100% chance he will never be a threat to society. Play along with my hypothetical. Scenario B is manslaughter when someone made a mistake driving (or whatever). Logistically, it seems these things are exactly the same. He killed someone in some freak occurrence and it will never happen again. Personally, I still think much more lowly of person A, and would agree with harsher punishment for him. Because the intent matters to me. About person B, I might think "Jeez dude, be careful when you drive, that's horrible." But it's still entirely possible he is a decent person who just made a mistake or has poor judgment when he drives. With scenario A, I can be much more sure that this is a bad person. Someone who is capable of intentionally killing is someone I think more lowly of, even if person B poses slightly more of a threat to society. Most people who support taxes don't, I don't think, see taxation as theft, even if you can argue why they intellectually should see it that way. So until they do see it that way, I think of them as more misguided than evil. So when you throw around the "theft" word, it's like charging them with murder when really it was just manslaughter. It's not a fair moral judgment. Why does this matter to me? Because it's polarizing, unfair, and counter-intuitive to helping them see the light. I say this not because I want to argue against libertarianism or because I disagree that objectively taxation is theft, but because I think we can make more progress if we work on our approach. Socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different. [/ QUOTE ] What happens when I 'tax' somebody? How would you feel.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
