To sophiwookie, laws grant rights; rights aren't protected by laws.

You must've been sarcastic earlier, when you said you were an individualist. (It's hard to tell when you're being serious, when you hold such silly views.)

You assume that during the process of taxation, a person is stealing from themselves, when it is, in fact, other people taking that property -- whether that property be money, land, assets, "taxes", or whatever.

Great! libertarians are fine with having a group-think fallacious motto that doesn't work and that they defend with bellicose and hot air.

lol @ libertarian-type things.

I have not stated that laws grant rights. More straw-manning and violent persuasion from proph.

Attacking the messenger has a fatal flaw, do you know it?

Really?

Politicians, then and now:

"Just throw tariffs in. It'll be for the greater good. Gotta fund it somehow, right?"

< ---- 17 trillion dollars in debt later... ---- >

"Just raise taxes, while cutting the benefits, and everyone wins!"

...Lotto....juss sayin'....

Yes. It. Is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax

a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft?s=t

the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Taxation is the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services

That's just circular logic. It's not theft because we've passed laws that say it's a tax instead? BS. It's still theft. Laws don't change the definition of words. If I grow tomatoes and you come and take 30% of them, that's theft. Your intentions are entirely irrelevant to that fact. Your laws are entirely irrelevant to that fact. Your entire purpose can be to use those tomatoes to fund improvements to infrastructure that end up making my remaining 70% of my tomatoes worth triple what they would have been without you "taxing" my tomatoes, effectively doubling my worth despite the fact you took 30%, but that doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

But if you do have some explanation that somehow magically turns you taking my stuff into "not theft," then the burden of proof is on you to show that, not me, so stop trying to put the burden on me. All I'm doing is saying that you haven't shown your work. You're taking stuff from other people against their will. That's theft. Period.

The worst part is that there's not even any reason to deny that taxation is theft. It simply doesn't matter if taxation is theft or not. Just because it's theft doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. All you do by denying it is encourage semantics discussion with libertarian-types instead of talking about the actual issues and actually working to make the world a better place.

That has nothing to do with anything.

Dude, your lotto idea is ******ed. The only reason people would use the government lotto as opposed to a private one is because the private one is illegal, and if the private one is illegal, that's just a different way that the government is oppressing people. Lotto is possibly the most disgusting form of taxation, since you take the evils of taxation and add in trying to gyp stupid poor people out of their money.

When you won't discuss your views on the subject, all I have is your nonsensical posts to interpret.

That seems like an accurate portrayal of your beliefs. Mind clarifying?

People can't steal from themselves, if other people say it's okay.

What would the private organization spend their money on?

Have you played the lottery?

Do you understand how slim the chances of you winning are?

After not seeing any returns from your wasted money on the private, "tax-free" lotto -- which is likely the extra money you save from absence of taxation, mind you -- you start looking at how the money is being spent. You see the people you're giving it to gamble with it and dwindle it away carelessly. Wouldn't you be more inclined to purchase from an entity that promised to help people? Don't you think this ability to walk away at any point keeps them accountable?

You seem to understand a bit of Austrian theory. Have you forgotten profit motive? Private entities will still want their cut.

Why are private lotteries illegal? Why would you assume this?

There was a very long discussion on this about 10 pages back, I think.

Dude, theft is inherently wrong, we shouldn't do it out of respect for property. Even justifiable theft ( stealing when hungry) is still noted as theft. This is a very clear moral viewpoint. The words have meaning that apply as concepts when simulated in reality.

The entire reason taxation works is that it is not theft and it is not inherently wrong. This is not simply declared by law or by dictionary definition. The logic behind it is not circular. This is apparent by an observation of taxation and taxable events in even a basic simulation.

There is no need to declare tax is theft to make taxes go away, but declaring tax is theft is certainly a wrong way to make taxes go away.

Tax is theft lacks clarity as a moral viewpoint because it tries to equate two words that mean different things at both the level of dictionary definition and in practical application.

Edit- The tax you create does remain partially yours so advocating that tax is theft is advocating stealing from yourself.

Better prizes.

Not in decades. I prefer +EV gambles.

Certainly. So? If I were inclined to burn money on either -EV gambles or on helping others, I would either use a different form of gambling with much better returns or give money to charity. I can't see much reason to combine the two.

The returns are greater payouts.

And governments will still waste a lot more than the corporate cut through bureaucratic BS.

What is the purpose of taxation?

What is the purpose of theft?

What motivates the thief?

What motivates the tax worker?

Also, I forgot to mention, you can defend yourself from a robber.

Try doing that against government thugs.

Plus, a robber doesn't follow you down the street afterwards expecting more, all the while claiming it's to your benefit.

And, the robber takes all the risk. Can't say the same for lawmakers, when they ask others to retrieve "their" funds.

You know, in many ways, thieves are a lot more respectable than politicians!

Go back and re-read it later, when you are less concerned about "being right".

Proposed government lotteries would adapt, just like in any other market.

I still don't know what you mean when you say "Libertarian-type sheeple/marks" because every time you start explaining you just devolve into one of those incoherent KOCH BROS THO rants. You seem to think that what most "normal" humans think of when they hear the word "libertarian" is good, but the idea that the word "libertarian" be associated with those feelings obviously puffs your jigglies.



I mean just look at this bait and switch you pull:

The "dogma" and the "sheeple" are one and the same? Really? In your world view, any discussion of libertarianism can ONLY actually be about one of two things, the sheep or the woofs?

Yes, it is circular. You are forcing yourself to rationalize the idea that taxation isn't theft because you believe that theft is inherently wrong but that government is not inherently wrong. Theft is not inherently wrong. It's simply not black and white like that. It all depends on what point on the scale you're at. A man stealing a loaf of bread as a last resort, to feed his starving children isn't merely "justifiable" theft, it's flat out the right thing to do. Theft is wrong unless you have a damned good reason to do it, and the reasons government needs money absolutely qualify. But it's still theft.

Libertarians see that truth. Where they fail is that instead of rejecting the idea that theft isn't black and white, they instead reject taxation as evil, and they're wrong to do that as well, and it leads to other absurd rationalizations like claiming that a lottery can fund all of government. LOL

But when you reject that truth, due to your need to see the morally ambiguous full range of actions categorized as theft as simply black and white wrong, you create a situation where any time you engage a libertarian on the subject, you both lose. Because that's not black and white either. It's not that one of you is right and one of you is wrong. You're both wrong.

To take money from someone for a purpose that may be right or wrong depending on the people doing it.

To take money from someone for a purpose that may be right or wrong depending on the people doing it.

Wants money.

Wants money.

Can you demonstrated this in a logic simulation of the idea independent from my conduct?

Here is an example of a logic simulation construct

A is a tax.

B is a taxable event

C is a person

D is the actual tax proceeds

E is a decision C makes to do B and create D


When does C solely own D? Before E? During B? After E? Just because C says so? Just because of A?




FYI you really missed guessing my assumed rationalization process.

I disagree.

Is it okay for that person to steal a loaf of bread, if there are 50 people behind him in the same predicament, and it's the last loaf?

Authorizing theft on others' behalf is inherently wrong.

You can't delegate the right to theft to someone else, because you don't have that right, yourself. Lather, rinse, repeat for fines, kidnapping/imprisonment, and executions.

Do you understand the difference between someone robbing as a last resort, and authorizing someone else to do that for you, and why the latter is inherently wrong?

When sentences are too hard, use letters!

Really such a terrible mistake to relate taxation to theft as a moral issue on top of the language fallacy. Moral clarity matters.

What's funny speaking of circular things is that if tax is theft then that is as circular as it gets.

Makes sense you would have problems "stepping outside the box." as we see another purely negative post by proph directed at the poster.

Gosh I need a chart with a circle and the words tax and theft on either side pointing around at each other. No matter which way a libertarian-type looks at it, it is also pointing back at them.

tax=theft
theft=tax

Like a round rock with no roll.

Let's change a few of these things.

A is a protection racket

B is "do business inside the local capo's turf"

D is the actual protection money owed/paid.

What's different in this scenario?

The things for one. Also A would be something like 'a protection racket's codified protection fee' to come even close to a tax.



This kind of exercise is good to discern equivalency.