# Which side champions 'individualism' more - liberals or conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654 "2015-12-17T01:53:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/201 "2015-12-23T04:54:27Z")
> [@GreenElf](#): > > “There are implications that come from the fact that taxation is theft. Maybe taxes are a justifiable form of theft because the alternative would be worse. Maybe there’s an alternative means of setting up a government that’s completely voluntary. Maybe the idea that people need to live under a government at all is wrong. I’ve spent a lot of time deliberating over those issues. I have no firm opinions, so I offer no conjecture.” > > Okay, I think that’s a good summation of your belief, so I’ll leave it at that. You got the last word, dude. Cool. It’s been fun debating with you. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/202 "2015-12-23T05:00:39Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Yes, the syllogism in post 182 is accurate. I was also accurate in post 192 that you’re affirming the consequent. Your reasoning behind this accusation is unclear to me. > [@](#): > > If you want to explain how claiming that all taxation is theft is the same as claiming that all theft is taxation, I’m all ears. Okay… Theft = A Taxation = B The taking of an individual’s property by force = C 1. A = C 2. B = C 3. Hence, B = A, and by the commutative property, A = B Is there a flaw in the above reasoning? It’s _yours_, after all, with that bit about commutation added at the end by me. > [@](#): > > Maybe taxation is a necessary evil. Maybe it’s not. But it’s still theft. I don’t see how you have concluded that taxation is theft but reject the reverse. > [@](#): > > The love it or leave it bit is equivalent to saying, “whelp, I’ve got nothing.” I’m not suggesting you “love it” or anything about it. What I _have_ is straightforward reasoning (the benefits of modern society must be paid for) with the obvious alternative (if paying for those benefits is unacceptable, go without them). Of course, as long as you _pay_ your taxes, feel free to call them “theft” or “confiscation” or “the government’s annual spiked-dildo ass-raping of the citizen”, for all I care. That’s me, somewhat liberal, championing your individual rights of free expression, as the thread topic was originally about in the long-long-ago. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/203 "2015-12-23T05:07:45Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Are you trying to get this wrong? > > My syllogism in symbolic forum is: > > All P is Q. > > R is P. > > Therefore, R is Q. Trouble is, that ain’t what you said. You said (paraphrasing) A is C. B is C. Therefore A is B. Your actual posted argument consists of an invalid syllogism. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/204 "2015-12-23T05:20:52Z")
I note you did not define your terms. > [@Waymore](#): > > Your one year old owns a pair of scissors? Solid parenting. > > One year olds don’t own property. No need to fight the hypothetical. It could easily be a toy at dinner time. But that’s the thing - why can’t 1 year olds own property? Can 2 year olds own property? 3, 4, 5 year olds? At what age does one suddenly possess the faculties and wherewithal to own property? > [@](#): > > So taxation is voluntary as long as you don’t mind not working and earning an income or making purchases. That a ridiculous argument. How is it ridiculous? Even if it were ridiculous, it is factual. And given that it is factual in the examples you provided that taxation is voluntary, it follows that taxation is not theft. You may not like the terms of the deal, but you are free to reject those terms. Just because you don’t like the price doesn’t transform a voluntary transaction into theft. If I begrudgingly pay the $4000 for the curved 80" 4k superHD TV but I really really wanted to only pay $2000, the store where I made the purchase did not steal $2000 from me. You likely enjoy the rewards of a person who works at a job and as a result you’ve chosen to pay income taxes. As the expression goes…that’s just haggling over the price. > [@](#): > > This is just a reiteration of what you posted above, and it’s still puerile. Well yes of course. It’s a summary after all. You make the facile argument that all taxation is theft and you call the rebuttal of your absurd notion puerile? That’s rich. > [@](#): > > Which adult in the US pays no taxes? Surely you can imagine such a scenario. Certain unemployed homeless people for sure. You too can be a person who pays no taxes - there is no way to force you to pay taxes if you truly did not want to do so. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/205 "2015-12-23T05:26:49Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Only if you voluntarily contracted to get that “something.” > > If I show up at your house unbeknownst to you while you’re at work and cut your grass, are you obligated to pay me? That is about the worst analogy imaginable. It makes no sense at all. As others have said, you live in society. The consequence of living in society is paying taxes. You are not actually being forced to live in society, you can (try to) leave any time you like, though it is not easy. Otherwise, stay and pay your taxes. Because we all _do_ get something for it. Perhaps not always the best value for the money, but it is not “theft” because we are not left empty-handed. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/206 "2015-12-23T06:47:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Trouble is, that ain’t what you said. > > You said (paraphrasing) > A is C. > B is C. > Therefore A is B. > > Your actual posted argument consists of an invalid syllogism. That’s not what I posted. Using A, B and C, it would go: All A is B C is A Therefore C is B. That’s a valid syllogism. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/207 "2015-12-23T07:04:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay… > > Theft = A > Taxation = B > The taking of an individual’s property by force = C > > 1. A = C > 2. B = C > 3. Hence, B = A, and by the commutative property, A = B > > Is there a flaw in the above reasoning? It’s _yours_, after all, with that bit about commutation added at the end by me. No, that’s not the syllogism I proposed. The two premises and the conclusion are: All A is B. C is A. Therefore C is B. Let’s say that: A = dog. B = mammal. C = German Shepherd. So, all dogs are mammals. German Shepherds are dogs. Therefore German Shepherds are mammals. Do you agree that saying all German Shepherds are mammals is not the same as saying all mammals are German Shepherds? ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/208 "2015-12-23T07:13:07Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > That is about the worst analogy imaginable. It makes no sense at all. The analogy is spot on. I proposed a situation where a person receives a service that he didn’t choose. So, I’ll ask again. If I cut your grass unbeknownst to you, would you be obligated to pay me? [QUOTE=eschereal] As others have said, you live in society. The consequence of living in society is paying taxes. You are not actually being forced to live in society, you can (try to) leave any time you like, though it is not easy. Otherwise, stay and pay your taxes. Because we all _do_ get something for it. Perhaps not always the best value for the money, but it is not “theft” because we are not left empty-handed. [/QUOTE] It is theft, even if I get something out of it, because I didn’t enter into the arrangement voluntarily. It was forced on me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/209 "2015-12-23T07:13:53Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > That’s not what I posted. Using A, B and C, it would go: > All A is B > C is A > Therefore C is B. > > That’s a valid syllogism. Valid or otherwise, it’s not the syllogism in post 182, which (among other differences) does not contain an “all” reference. If you’re adding an “all” now, fine. I _get_ it, of course; - you think taxation is unfair and want to label it “theft” because that label carries connotations of unfairness that “taxation” alone does not. Good luck with that, sloppy syllogisms notwithstanding. As long as you actually _pay_ your taxes, it doesn’t really matter. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/210 "2015-12-23T07:22:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I note you did not define your terms. > No need to fight the hypothetical. It could easily be a toy at dinner time. But that’s the thing - why can’t 1 year olds own property? Can 2 year olds own property? 3, 4, 5 year olds? At what age does one suddenly possess the faculties and wherewithal to own property? Once one reaches the age of majority. > [@](#): > > How is it ridiculous? Even if it were ridiculous, it is factual. And given that it is factual in the examples you provided that taxation is voluntary, it follows that taxation is not theft. You may not like the terms of the deal, but you are free to reject those terms. Just because you don’t like the price doesn’t transform a voluntary transaction into theft. If I begrudgingly pay the $4000 for the curved 80" 4k superHD TV but I really really wanted to only pay $2000, the store where I made the purchase did not steal $2000 from me. You likely enjoy the rewards of a person who works at a job and as a result you’ve chosen to pay income taxes. As the expression goes…that’s just haggling over the price. It’s ridiculous because you’re literally arguing since I could choose to starve I’m not being forced to pay taxes. If a person puts a gun to my head and says “your money or your life” I’m not being robbed because I always have the option to be shot? > [@](#): > > Well yes of course. It’s a summary after all. You make the facile argument that all taxation is theft and you call the rebuttal of your absurd notion puerile? That’s rich. “You’re not forced to pay taxes because you have starvation as an alternative” is puerile. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/211 "2015-12-23T07:27:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Valid or otherwise, it’s not the syllogism in post 182, which (among other differences) does not contain an “all” reference. If you’re adding an “all” now, fine. The syllogism has been the same throughout. But I’m glad you don’t think all mammals are German Shepherds. > [@](#): > > _get_ it, of course; - you think taxation is unfair and want to label it “theft” because that label carries connotations of unfairness that “taxation” alone does not. Good luck with that, sloppy syllogisms notwithstanding. As long as you actually _pay_ your taxes, it doesn’t really matter. I’m calling taxes theft because they are. Making up motives and ascribing them to me isn’t a proof against that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/212 "2015-12-23T07:28:04Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > “You’re not forced to pay taxes because you have starvation as an alternative” is puerile. Don’t be so dramatic; they’ll feed you in Leavenworth. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/213 "2015-12-23T07:29:42Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > The syllogism has been the same throughout. No, it clearly has not. > [@](#): > > I’m calling taxes theft because they are. Making up motives and ascribing them to me isn’t a proof against that. No, but it’s a good educated guess. Anyway, do you pay your taxes? If you do, call them whatever you want. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/214 "2015-12-23T07:30:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Don’t be so dramatic; they’ll feed you in Leavenworth. Ouch, you got me there. Stay classy champ. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/215 "2015-12-23T07:44:18Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Ouch, you got me there. Stay classy champ. Well, if you’re going to exaggerate, you can expect to be called on it. Your alternative to paying taxes isn’t starvation - becoming a homeless person was just one example of one (admittedly extreme) strategy one could hypothetically adopt to avoid all taxation. You could also just refuse to pay your taxes and fight it out in court (and risk penalties and jail time) or you could leave whatever country you’re now in and give up citizenship thereof in hopes of a tax-free haven elsewhere. Even being homeless doesn’t require starvation, if you’re smart about it. It’s not a _healthy_ lifestyle, to be sure, and not something I’d recommend just to opt out of taxation, but death by malnutrition? Not really likely, in part because of taxpayer-supported social safety nets. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/216 "2015-12-23T07:53:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if you’re going to exaggerate, you can expect to be called on it. Your alternative to paying taxes isn’t starvation - becoming a homeless person was just one example of one (admittedly extreme) strategy one could hypothetically adopt to avoid all taxation. You could also just refuse to pay your taxes and fight it out in court (and risk penalties and jail time) or you could leave whatever country you’re now in and give up citizenship thereof in hopes of a tax-free haven elsewhere. > > Even being homeless doesn’t require starvation, if you’re smart about it. It’s not a _healthy_ lifestyle, to be sure, and not something I’d recommend just to opt out of taxation, but death by malnutrition? Not really likely, in part because of taxpayer-supported social safety nets. Love or leave it. Got it. Any other advice? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/217 "2015-12-23T08:24:02Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > The analogy is spot on. No, it is not. You can protest to your dying breath, but that will not make your analogy valid. > [@](#): > > It is theft, even if I get something out of it, because I didn’t enter into the arrangement voluntarily. It was forced on me. Except, you _did_ enter into it voluntarily. The first dime you gave to the government was your assent. You are free to steadfastly refuse to pay taxes. But, you see, the thing about freedom is that it is not free. Do whatever you will, but do not expect your actions to come without any consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/218 "2015-12-23T08:48:48Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Love or leave it. Got it. Any other advice? Only for myself - to give up any hope of a rational debate with you on this topic. Just pay your taxes and if you want to call April 15th (or 30th, or whatever the relevant date is for you) your annual _get fucked hard with a government-issue strapon wielded by an Affirmative-Action hire straight from the Feminist Studies Department of Wellesley College_, be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/219 "2015-12-23T13:31:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That’s clearly not theft unless your definition is absurdly meaningless His definition is absurdly meaningless. Which is the problem with the syllogism: the premise is ridiculous and exists only so that the conclusion may be reached. Using any common definition of theft, his syllogism fails. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/220 "2015-12-23T13:51:54Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Except, you _did_ enter into it voluntarily. The first dime you gave to the government was your assent. Not exactly. Given the fact that the government made and distributed those dimes, assent would be given upon **accepting** a dime as payment. But I’m not too concerned about assent, and this is why I suggested earlier that holding up individualism as the highest good is silly. Of course there’s something coercive about living under a government. Until people become perfect moral beings, it’s the best option. Calling taxes “theft” is silly wordsmithing, nothing more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654.md?page=12)