So in your opinion, is it possible to steal (commit theft) from someone who has not yet reached the age of majority?
Your analogy is not on point. In mine, only yourself is involved - no outside party exerting force. In your example, there is another that is directly asserting force. Can you construct a relevant analogy?
In any case, your only option is not simply to starve. You can beg for the charity of others. There are very few people who actually starve to death in the US. I would say the number of people who pay no taxes, among the ones you mentioned, is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who actually starve to death. Though that is somewhat of a guess.
You could grow your own food, and make all of your own supplies necessary to live. The thing is, if you don’t want to be entirely self sufficient - that is a choice. The requisite taxation involved is part of that choice. An easy choice but a choice none the less and therefore your syllogism is defeated because there is no actual force involved. Which I note you still did not define.
Try to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that they should ban taxation, of course. You might want to come up with some better arguments than “but it’s theeeeeeft!” first.
Okay, I’m going to drop in my thought-bomb in this clown show:
The left’s infringements on individual rights in favor of society as a whole tend to be based on modern, enlightened understandings of science and economics.
The right’s infringements on individual rights tend to be based on some version of Middle Eastern fairytales.
Amusingly, he accused me of “affirming the consequent”, while his argument starts with the premise “All theft is taxation” (which is the idea that he was supposed to be proving) in a clear case of “begging the question.”
Clearly he meant B=A, given Bryan Ekers’s formulation. Folks picking on him for saying that taxation is theft are incorrect: his error is the definition of theft. Nowhere has he explicitly said, and multiply has he explicitly denied, that all theft is taxation.
His syllogism is a valid syllogism stemming from a ridiculous definition. I could use a similar syllogism to show that all corn syrup products are lethally poisonous, just by defining "poisonous " in a nonstandard fashion.
In broad terms, I agree. But there are certainly examples to the contrary. There are a number of leftist “infringements” which are based not on science or economics but on more philosophical grounds.
And there are right wing infringements or attempted infringements (like flag burning laws) which are independent of religious belief.
No, you can only steal from someone who has property. One year olds don’t own property. Typically one can’t contract until he or she reaches the age of majority.
In your analogy there is force being exerted by the government. Live a normal life and pay taxes or be effectively barred from participating in society. It’s foolish to act like an individual isn’t being coerced in that situation.
Nobody said your definition was covered in a light dusting of glitter. Nobody said your definition had faint hints of spice, with a pleasing note of leather on the aftertaste. And nobody said your definition was unique. The fact that it’s silly, uncommon, opposite from normal usage, and specifically designed to reach a specific conclusion is what folks have said.
You were, once more, mistaken. That’s not what I said at all.
He’s correct that it’s not unique: indeed, he’s copied his definition from someone else who was trying to make the tortured point that he’s making. You cannot accuse it of being an original point. That doesn’t move the point into the realm of reasonableness.
Force in the same sense that you’re forced to pay after eating at a restaurant or forced to pay for a car at a dealership rather than just driving off in any one I like. You choose to participate in society, and that comes with certain benefits and responsibilities. Paying taxes is one of those responsibilities. If you don’t like it you’re free to leave - either go live off the grid or find another society that has different expectations of responsibilities. But if you choose to stay and participate, then yes, you are “forced” to pay your taxes, just like if you choose to eat at a restaurant, you can’t balk at paying up when the bill comes.
Out of curiosity, how comfortably can one live in the U.S. while paying no (or at least rock-bottom-minimum) taxes of any kind?
If after divesting all taxable property one has accumulated a nest egg of, say, $500,000… then moves to a state with no sales tax (Delaware or New Hampshire or some parts of Alaska), takes a minimum wage job (assuming an income of ~$10,000/year carries no significant tax burden) and otherwise subsists with hunting and gathering…
Could someone reasonably “retire” for 20 to 30 years?
The word “all” is not present in your original post. You’ve edited what you said, changing it so it now makes sense. But that isn’t what you actually posted. That’s shabby debate technique.