If taxation is theft, what about a court award in a lawsuit? That’s money that someone “doesn’t want to pay,” but is obliged to by law.
If “taking someone’s property by force” is “always theft,” then our civil court system is a den of thievery. Right?
I’m interested in what “society” would be like if any business owner could refuse to do business with anyone based on their own bigotry. :mad: One business owner kicks out gays :mad:, the next refuses to serve “squares” :mad:, the next “libertarians” :mad: and so forth. The country would become segregated then balkanized into the grand duchy of this and the grand duchy of that, certainly not the melting pot that became the world’s premier economy. 
Then I guess the United States was founded by a den of thieves. :o
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”
Yep
A business that refuses to serve XYZ group would find that their competitors have no such compunction. Business that discriminate would lose money. No reason that must develop into a “balkanization”.
Yep
Libertarians are proud statists and most of them are pretty nationalistic, same as the rest of the other mainstream American parties. If it’s just a question of degree you may as well say an caps.
Maybe. Maybe not. It’s a nice idea, but didn’t do much to help blacks in the South, or various other stigmatized minorities around the world. If people flock to your business because those people aren’t there then it doesn’t make sense to canter to the minority.
Discrimination tends to segregation. You concede that?
Just because a discriminatory business loses some potential profit doesn’t necessarily economically prevent them from doing so. You concede that?
Really? :dubious: So how do you think nearly 300 million people share the same geographic space without a government let alone somewhere around 2.5 million in 1776? :dubious:
The case of blacks in the south isn’t analogous. Government mandated segregation interferes with normal market functions.
The modern day case of gay people is more instructive. There’s no Jim Crow segregating gay people from straight people. If a bakery doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding, there’s plenty of others that will.
No. Just because one particular business doesn’t want to serve a certain segment of the population doesn’t mean it’s going to be the case across the board.
Depends on the situation. In a very competitive field it can make the difference between staying in business and failing. In any circumstances it’s bad business.
I don’t follow. You said:
[QUOTE=GreenElf]
Then I guess the United States was founded by a den of thieves.
[/QUOTE]
I agreed with that statement. I don’t deny that there’s currently a government today and that there was one in 1776.
But your one particular business doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It will be one of many of that particular discriminatory tendency.
So how many wedding caterers have closed their doors due to adverse economic (not political or “pc”) impact of their desire not to cater to same-sex couples?
Fine, I didn’t say you denied that :rolleyes:, so please explain your theory of how a government operating without taxation governs nearly 300 million people let alone 2.5 million people.
Why assume there will be a “discriminatory tendency”? Besides, it actually makes economic sense to buck any such tendency if one existed.
None that I know of, that’s not the issue. I object to a caterer, a baker, or any businessperson being forced to do business against his or her will.
I’d be equally opposed to some hypothetical wedding caterer who only wanted to work for gay couples being forced to cater a straight wedding.
I offer not conjecture on that point. I’m just saying that taxation is theft.
So you think there would be only one such caterer like in a vacuum or something rather than a multiple of such caterers like in real life. No doubt it would make economic sense, but the free market economics in itself don’t preclude it nevertheless. Many people care more about their religious belief than maximizing profit.
And that would be hypothetical since there’s not many wedding caterers who discriminate against straight weddings on religious grounds.
You’re not inclined to elaborate on your belief stated above that the drafters of the United States constitution were a den of thieves as they gave congress the power to tax and you say “taxation is theft”.
I don’t know how many there would be. Neither do you. But given that people in general, and businessmen in particular, are money motivated, it’s hard to believe somebody wouldn’t come around to serve a segment of the population that lacks service.
No doubt. But, the principle remains.
What are you asking me? Seems you’re conflating two questions.
Do I think the founders where thieves because they declared they could take others’ money as they saw fit? Yes, yes I do.
How do I think a government could be ran without taxes? I offer no conjecture on that point.
I know there would be much more than one, a multiple. Okay, let’s say the local bus transit owner doesn’t like NFL football fans. So another bus transit company enters the market to cater to NFL football fans? Then another to cater to libertarians since neither one of them likes libertarians?
But you concede that free market forces in itself doesn’t wipe out the discrimination, only forgoes some potential profit maximization that many people would forgo for their religious beliefs.
The second question naturally follows from the first question, unless you care to explain your theory of how 2.5 million people live in the same region without any government at all.
Maybe? Your hypothetical seems hard to parse. What’s the problem with multiple bus lines?
Wouldn’t wipe it out, no. But people would be free, and that’s more important. Besides, I think you underestimate the power of the profit motive.
No it doesn’t. Taxes are a form of theft because it involves forcibly taking another person’s property. There’s no disputing that, not sensibly anyway. But it’s not logically necessary that I know the answer to your follow up question.
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.
Good grief. They contradict because I conceded the point. Honestly, sometimes, this board is ridiculous.
It’s idiosyncratic in the sense that almost nobody uses “theft” that way. It’s a made-up definition of theft specifically for the purposes of attacking taxation. If you didn’t make it up, if someone else made it up for that purpose, that doesn’t strengthen the argument.
That said, if you’re going to do all these line-by-line responses, you’re going to have to expect to be disappointed. I have neither time nor inclination to respond in kind going forward, barely have the time or inclination to do it this once. Pull, as I have, one key point out of a post, and respond to that; don’t expect me to respond to every question you ask.
For one, there’s only so much room in a town for bus stops. If we go through the same process for each industry, there would be a ludicrous amount of urban sprawl.
To the contrary, you overestimate the power of the profit motive. People who don’t want to cater same-sex couples on religious grounds are willing to forgo the lost income from that relatively small percentage of business.
Your opinion that “taxation is theft” seems rather firm. If you feel that way, why don’t you move to another country where the constitution doesn’t give congress the power to tax?
I have no idea why I am wading into this now, but oh wells.
Which taxes? I actually don’t think any taxes are forced. Which ones do you believe are forced?
On a separate meta point, If you insist on defining taxation as theft, that’s fine, but it adds no value to a discussion as it’s not informative, is non-standard, and is in no way actionable. It uses words with given negative connotation in an effort to elicit an emotional response that falls flat because it’s nonsense. Sure, taxation is theft, have a cookie, and I want to call all things that are red, blue instead.
I’m done with it if you are.
Except there’s no reason to think every industry would become incredibly fractured. It’s an unfounded fear.
And people who do want to cater a same sex wedding will be there to pick up the business other people pass on.
Where can I move that doesn’t collect taxation? That’s basically the old “love or leave it” type thinking.
Which should indicate to you that taxation is not theft but a voluntary arrangement; every country has it.