And like he said, you have the option of leaving. But if I choose to attend the movie theater, then I have a moral obligation to obey their posted rules and not bring external candy in, because it’s their house and they make the rules.
(I bring candy in anyway, but that doesn’t change the fact that I have a moral obligation not to.)
If the other people were smart, they’d say, “You owe us $10,000 this year, and another $10,000 next year, and so on.” You shear the sheep, you don’t skin it.
Much to agree with here. Likewise with the idea that earning money is different from stealing it from anyone. So stupid shit from the Usual Suspects about how rich people exploit the poor are just as stupid as the idea that taxes are theft.
Regards,
Shodan
Clearly not. You are a member of the rapidly shrinking sane wing of the Republican party.
Believe it or not, liberals think the same thing. The dividing line between a justified and an unjustified program may be different (and not just on the spending side for liberals - see defense) but for the most part taxes aren’t levied for the fun of it. Where the taxes come from is another area of dispute.
Yelling that taxation is theft, which is not validated by any law or court decision, is not debating, it is braying. If you think whoever brays louder wins, you sir, are not a debater. You are a buffoon. Go back to the barnyard with the other asses.
Can we bury the “The gummint can’t do anything right” meme while we’re at it?
For some reason, the Right will never swallow that. The general consensus is that the government can’t do anything right except fight wars, at which it is infallible.
And keep men from buttfucking each other, don’t forget that!
This is received wisdom, it is not subject to cite calls. As everyone knows, if you take a group of people who are operating a business and absorb them as a government entity, they become feckless and lazy the very instant they receive their first government check. That’s a true fact, you can look it up.
At least it’s not going to welfare!
Thank you for creating a straw man and letting him run to it’s logically absurd conclusion.
Why is that a straw man? His point is valid- that we dislike our tax dollars going towards certain things just as much as conservatives do. The difference is we don’t use this as an excuse to question the legitimacy of government.
Damn straight! Men should only buttfuck WOMEN! 
If stupidity was a tradeable commodity none of us would be poor.
However, you’re only partially right; there are a number of specific cases where the rich can be said to exploit the poor, some of which resulted in things like the legally mandated minimum wage. Whereas there are no cases where taxes can be interpreted as theft, outside of those shows where mideval tax collectors come by for the second time in a day to take the last few pennies, kicking over the merchandise as they do so.
I’d definitely claim that SOME rich people act in an unethical and exploitative fashion. Other rich people work hard and fairly and through their labor build up mighty enterprises which provide good livings for lots of other people, raising them up from poverty, and frequently also advance human society. Some rich people do both. Some do neither.
But the question of a progressive income tax for me is not because we want to punish the rich people for their presumed evil deeds. It’s a question of ability to pay and impact of paying a certain amount. But that’s a topic for another thread.
Hey, some rich people exploit the rich also. Look at Madoff. Many are equal opportunity exploiters.
Well, now, hold on just a minute. Let’s not forget Daniel Dennett’s famous plea: “There is nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” There are plenty of bad arguments made about taxation being theft, but not all of them are bad.
The idea — the theory; that is, the fundamental underlying ethical principle — behind taxation being theft is the tenuous association of taxation with authority. In other words, to use something of a reductio approach, the argument FOR taxation involves citations of Constitutional amendments, government authority, and if you want to step into the Way-Back Machine, we can cite the right of kings (which is much cooler, since it includes not just taxation, but jus primae noctis — you get to steal AND rape). And so the ethical argument against taxation is that whatever authority has been established has been either arbitrary in nature, or strongarmed into existence.
I won’t bore you with carrying the principle to its logical conclusion, which you, as a very smart man, are perfectly capable of doing. But it has been said that the only difference between being mugged by a criminal (you know — “Your money or life,” and so you hand over your wallet?) and being mugged by Uncle Sam is that the ordinary mugger merely lacks the statutory authority. And just as the easiest way to create a criminal is to make a law; so it is the easiest way to create a person of authority — such as one authorized to take your money.
I reject the notion that the government owns the country in the sense that the theater owners own the theater. In the former case, it’s just an administrative arrangement - someone’s got to make some rules and organize collective activity. But it’s not like it (the gov) has a personal claim on the space. The people do. By contrast, in the case of a theater, no person has any claim on the theater other than the owners.
Better analogy: the government owns the country in the sense that a theater franchise owns a franchised theater.
Somebody else’s name is on the deed and he gets the profits (or losses) but they can regulate the business in lots of significant ways.
Hate to tell you this, but those people you mention? The ones that own the country? They told the government it could tax you. So yeah. Fish or cut bait.
I can think of another difference: the mugger is not going to spend the money he takes on anything that will benefit you. The point of taxes, on the other hand, is that the money that is taken goes back into the country in the form of roads, schools, national security, health care for those who need it, et cetera.