Cops still take more stuff from people than burglars do
Cops still take more stuff from people than burglars do
Let’s get one thing out of the way: it’s not normal to stuff $100,000 in cash into a suitcase and then check said suitcase on to a domestic flight. It’s extremely weird, in fact, not something you’d expect a typical person to do in their lifetime. However, doing so is emphatically
You're viewing part of a thread.
How are they very distinct? If I am forced to pay someone money against my will, with threat of violence if I don't, how is that not theft? Just because a state does it, does that make it different somehow?
If I didn't vote for it, it is by definition against my will.
You are committing what is called an oversimplification fallacy. I'm assuming you're an anarchist? If not, how is it very different, as you are opposing government's right to run themselves just like an anarchist (do you see what an example of an oversimplification fallacy is?). If so, please understand that arguing definitions is not how you will convince the 99% of the world who think anarchism is nothing but puerile stupidity that it isn't.
That said, you seem to have ignored half my point, that piracy isn't theft. Or are you saying you think it is, as well? Was it theft before it was illegal?
Better than trying to pretend taxation is theft, you should probably just affirmatively attack taxation with real reasons.
You are committing what is called a fallacy fallacy, and do not address how they are different — you simply say that it is an oversimplification and call it a day. But arguing about definitions aside, taxation is not voluntary, at least not by default. And my opinion is that transactions should be voluntary.
I take it you refer to online piracy? It is in some ways a grey area. 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. As you are stealing potential income. But it is virtually impossible to measure that "theft" in currency, since you don't know if you would buy the good if you didn't pirate it. A tax slip, on the other hand, is defined in dollars and cents.
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://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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
With this thinking, getting paid for your work is theft for your employer.
It is called exchange of goods and services. Damn you guys really put the "ML" in lemmy.ml
no because those in power are always right: we must not question authority