So I don’t have to leave, just commit tax evasion. Sounds legit.
I already laid out my feelings about the Constitution and the implications of taxation being theft. At no point have I suggested you leave the country, commit tax evasion, or anything of the sort. I’ve simply laid out my opinion.
If you have anything else you’d like to ask, shoot.
Of course not, I’m the one arguing in defense of liberty in this thread. Say what you want and keep your money if you preferred to keep. Do business with whom you wish, and only with whom you wish.
Besides, the question was directed at Wolfpup, who’s already stated he wants to criminalize certain types of speech.
So, let’s lay out the syllogism yet again and see where your objections lie.
The hair you are splitting is so fine it is invisible.
Let’s go with this for a bit.
There are a few terms you need to define to add clarity to the simple syllogism. They are:
[ul]
[li]Taking[/li][li]Property[/li][li]Force[/li][/ul]
You’ve already given examples of “taxation” so I think that is sufficient for the purpose of discussion. Those examples are income tax, FICA tax, sales tax, etc.
So it reduces to A = B, C = A, therefore C = B where:
A is “taking property by force”,
B is “theft”, and
C is “taxation”.
If either A != B or C != A then your conclusion that C = B fails. Agree?
Let’s look at the examples you gave for C, income tax, FICA tax, sales tax, etc. If either income tax, FICA tax, or sales tax is not taking by force then your conclusion would fail. It’s trivially simple to demonstrate a counter example to the first premise. If I take a pair of scissors from my 1 year old child through my greater strength because it is dangerous, I have taken property by force. That’s clearly not theft unless your definition is absurdly meaningless so your blanket example fails. But we can pursue this further.
Sales tax is voluntary. You agree to pay it as a condition of exchanging goods. There is no requirement nor force involved that requires you to purchase any item and subsequently pay the sales tax. In addition, not all states actually have sales tax. Therefore sales tax is not theft.
FICA tax is voluntary. You agree to pay it as a condition of working for employers that collect it. You are not forced to take employment but if you choose to (voluntary) then the FICA tax is part and parcel of that agreement just as following directions of your employer would be. Therefore, FICA tax is not theft.
Income tax is voluntary. First you agree to pay it as a condition of working in an area that requires it to be collected should you work. You are not forced to take employment but if you choose to (voluntary) then the income tax is part and parcel of that agreement just as following directions of your employer would be. But wait, there’s more. You are not forced to pay it. If you accurately report your earnings, and neglect to pay the associated tax, you will not be sent to prison. Sure, your bank accounts can be seized, your future wages can be garnished, you can have liens placed on your other property, but if you have none of these things there is no way for the government to collect the income tax. Therefore, income tax is not theft.
For the latter two items, there are many that live in the country (no ‘if you don’t like it leave’ arguments from me) and pay zero FICA and zero income tax. All of the things you can conceive where you would pay taxes you consider theft, are in fact voluntary transactions. Your syllogism is defeated.
I wonder how far I can take it if I insist that all items that are red will from this day forward be called “blue”.
Okay, then. I’ve already asked about a dozen times so this is your last opportunity. Elaborate on your theory of how 2.5 million people live together in the same locality without a government or with a government that doesn’t have the power of taxation.
… or do you believe that taxation is a necessary, justifiable “theft” but have coyly refrained from openly stating that belief?
So, are you arguing that, in the scenario I described, I should have no recourse for recovering the damages that have been inflicted on me? Or are you suggesting that some forms of theft are acceptable, in the right circumstances?
A cat is a mammal.
A dog is a mammal.
Hence, a cat is a dog.
You can’t even construct a classical syllogism.
Let’s go with this for a bit.
That’s not what I laid out at all. If you want to rebut my syllogism, you’re going to have to take it as it is, not rearrange it into something it’s not.
Your one year old owns a pair of scissors? Solid parenting.
One year olds don’t 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.
This is just a reiteration of what you posted above, and it’s still puerile.
Which adult in the US pays no taxes?
I’ve already replied in post 154:
[QUOTE=Waymore]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose it might work as straight transitivism:
A = C
B = C
Therefore, A = C.
Of course, the first test that comes to mind is that if by Waymore’s argument “taxation is theft”, is he okay with the equally valid “theft is taxation”, and thus does every mugging, burglary, armed robbery and embezzlement count as an act of taxation?
Are you trying to get this wrong?
My syllogism in symbolic forum is:
All P is Q.
R is P.
Therefore, R is Q.
This thread is thoroughly hijacked.
You’re affirming the consequent.
Anyway, this whole theft/taxation thing is a pointless diversion. To the core question of the OP:
Well, I guess it’s easy enough to find examples of conservative defenses of (and opposition to) acts of expression and liberal defenses of (and opposition to) acts of expression, but on balance, which side of the spectrum is more likely to support actual laws restricting the kinds of expression they don’t like? Is a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning comparable to a court challenge to remove “In God We Trust” from currency, for example.
“Theft” means to have something taken from you, against your will, leaving you with nothing (at least with respect to what was taken from you). Taxes can be described as theft if you get nothing for them. If you fell that way about the exchange, that looks a lot like severe myopia to me.
No, I’m analyzing the syllogism you advanced in post 182 and pointing out its potential flaws. Are you prepared to say “theft is taxation” ? If not, then your reasoning is faulty.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe taxation is theft - taxation is a necessary process to maintain organized government, and I like the idea of organized government (though not occasionally what organized governments do), so the levying of and paying of taxes is a duty, not a crime.
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?
Not all theft is not taxation, I’ve never claimed that. I’ve claimed the inverse.
All taxation is theft, but it doesn’t follow that all theft is taxation any more than it follows that since all ducks are birds, therefore all birds are ducks.
You like being taxed, and I’m tickled that makes you happy. But it doesn’t follow from that that it’s fine to tax some other person against his or her will.
So your syllogism of post 182 is not an accurate expression of your views?
Anyway, fine, you see taxation as a subset of theft, I guess.
No, I wasn’t misstating your position before, but you are definitely misstating mine now. I don’t like being taxed. I do like having paved roads, police departments, fire departments, schools, hospitals, a military and other conveniences and protections that make my day-to-day life easier. Taxation is a necessary process to sustain all of these, so it’s a necessary duty of government to impose taxes and of citizens to pay them. The process is not perfect, of course, but the Somalia-ish alternative is worse.
I’m fine with you being taxed against your will, though. I’m also fine with you seeking various legal means to reduce your tax burden and, if you so choose, leaving the country and abandoning your citizenship altogether.
Yes, the syllogism in post 182 is accurate. I was also accurate in post 192 that you’re affirming the consequent.
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.
Maybe taxation is a necessary evil. Maybe it’s not. But it’s still theft.
The love it or leave it bit is equivalent to saying, “whelp, I’ve got nothing.”
“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.