Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if someone thinks one is OK and the other isn't, it's mostly because they haven't thought everything through intellectually and just take certain things for granted. It shouldn't necessarily imply that they agree taking things that belong to someone else is generally OK. So personally I don't think it's really fair or useful to call them "thieves." It's just sensational. You can feel free to carry on though if you must.

[ QUOTE ]
But anyway, when I rob a bank, and send the money to starving kids in africa, it's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that led you to jump to this conclusion?

If you robbed a bank and sent the money to Africa, I'd think you're awfully eccentric. But that's different than a systematic corruption because the system becomes the norm, and is a partly a function of lack of intent rather than actual planned intent (which is why I compared it to murder/manslaugher... your bank robbing/send to Africa example doesn't seem to have much to do with what I'm saying).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if someone thinks one is OK and the other isn't, it's mostly because they haven't thought everything through intellectually and just take certain things for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They're both bad. So you recant your OP?

[ QUOTE ]
It shouldn't necessarily imply that they agree taking things that belong to someone else is generally OK. So personally I don't think it's really fair or useful to call them "thieves." It's just sensational. You can feel free to carry on though if you must.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree it's bad, it's stealing, you just don't want to call it that?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But anyway, when I rob a bank, and send the money to starving kids in africa, it's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that led you to jump to this conclusion?

If you robbed a bank and sent the money to Africa, I'd think you're awfully eccentric. But that's different than a systematic corruption because the system becomes the norm, and is a partly a function of lack of intent rather than actual planned intent (which is why I compared it to murder/manslaugher... your bank robbing/send to Africa example doesn't seem to have much to do with what I'm saying).

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the fact that's it's *systematic*, not the intent that convinces you that taxation is OK? I'm getting more and more confused. You're all over the map.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting building up? Because I'm fairly sure it suffers the same problem (given that I would still need the current owner's permission)

[/ QUOTE ]
Not after you've bought it from the owner.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if someone thinks one is OK and the other isn't, it's mostly because they haven't thought everything through intellectually and just take certain things for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They're both bad. So you recant your OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? My OP even specifically said "I say this not because I disagree that objectively taxation is theft." I guess that can be read two ways, but what I mean is I do agree that taxation is objectively the same as theft. I also said I consider people who support taxes to be "misguided." But that isn't my point. My point is it doesn't matter if you or I agree it is the same; if the other people see some moral difference, then referring to them as something they don't agree they are is rude.

I guess the big difference here is that if I think something is red, and I'm 100% sure it's read, but others say it is blue, then to me it's blue (or I guess some shade of purple, depending how many others we're dealing with). To you, it's still red. Not that there's anything wrong with your idea, but this is a basic difference that will force us to disagree here.

I just don't see much good coming from such a loaded word. Unless I guess your point is just to win semantical arguments on the internet.

I didn't realize I even said anything that controversial. All I'm really saying is that I don't think of people who support taxes in the same vein as, say, someone who robs a bank. And, to me, the way people interpret a word matters more than the way I might wish they interpreted it. So I don't feel right calling them that.


[ QUOTE ]
So it's the fact that's it's *systematic*, not the intent that convinces you that taxation is OK? I'm getting more and more confused. You're all over the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being ridiculous. You dream up some analogy that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about, then when I try to clarify you turn this into some semantical debate about my word choice? The "*systematic*" thing was not that big of a deal. All I'm really saying, again, is that people who support taxes are probably otherwise good people who support taxes because some sort of government seems entirely necessary. So supporting taxes isn't a conscious decision to take someone else's stuff (and thus not a great implication of their overall character) as much as it is a belief that "government has to function". So calling them "thieves," which in a casual context implies more than just someone who holds different axioms for the mandate of government, does not seem fair to me.

You can say that people *should* broaden their interpretation of the word "thief" to include the crimes such as supporting taxes, but that's basically saying people *should* realize that government is an unjustified institution, or in other words that you're right. Glossing every argument with a word that basically implies "I'm right" does not seem cool to me. Until people *do* interpret the word to mean what you (we) want it to mean, my personal belief is that it doesn't seem right to call them that.

You can continue to throw your semantical darts all day to try to convolute the issue. But my point is pretty basic. You don't have to accept it, but the disagreement here lies in basic assumptions, and does not hinge on my word choice in some reply to a faulty analogy.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting building up? Because I'm fairly sure it suffers the same problem (given that I would still need the current owner's permission)

[/ QUOTE ]
Not after you've bought it from the owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure you understand the nature of the objection.

The issue at hand isnt so much that we need to make new land (if it were, it would be easy to point out that the state cant claim to solve the problem any better than an AC world).


The issue is that, once all property is owned, there is no way the next person can live without permission of others. The fact this person can, perhaps, build new land WITH THE PERMISSION OF OTHERS, doesnt solve the problem.


Its not so much a practical problem as it is a philosophical problem; though, Id say its very weak, since the state solves the issue only slightly slightly better, if at all.


EDIT: just to note, I dont agree with the claim, and I might even be wrong about the interpretation. This was just what I thought the point was.

[BCPVP]

I understand the the objection, but the "once all land is owned" assumption neglects that more "land" can be created vertically in areas where land is "scarce" and that the incentives to create this "land" increase the more crowded the world gets.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the the objection, but the "once all land is owned" assumption neglects that more "land" can be created vertically in areas where land is "scarce" and that the incentives to create this "land" increase the more crowded the world gets.

[/ QUOTE ]


dude, the objection is based on the idea that at some point, a person will be unable to exist without the permission of others. You cant provide a solution that REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF OTHERS, even if there is reason to believe there would be incentives for them to act in a certain way.


I mean, just say "state doesnt solve either" and this is put to rest. But the idea of building up doesnt attack the actual problem.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the the objection, but the "once all land is owned" assumption neglects that more "land" can be created vertically in areas where land is "scarce" and that the incentives to create this "land" increase the more crowded the world gets.

[/ QUOTE ]


dude, the objection is based on the idea that at some point, a person will be unable to exist without the permission of others. You cant provide a solution that REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF OTHERS, even if there is reason to believe there would be incentives for them to act in a certain way.


I mean, just say "state doesnt solve either" and this is put to rest. But the idea of building up doesnt attack the actual problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing can solve this problem, its the same with everything. All resources are scarce.

[Copernicus]

No reason to read this thread. Taxation isn't theft because there is value received for the taxes paid. Are country club dues theft, even though you only use the pool and not the golf course?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
No reason to read this thread. Taxation isn't theft because there is value received for the taxes paid. Are country club dues theft, even though you only use the pool and not the golf course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cue $100 hotdog analogy.