Change my view

Property is theft

You have stolen my heart. Hypocrite.

My view is that the lack of content in your OP suggests that you are not really that interested in having a conversation on taxation or the state.

You could change my view about that by putting some effort into expanding your OP. Rather than expecting others to be interested in changing your mind (without knowing whether it's worth engaging you at all), you could attempt to make a persuasive argument about why taxation is theft and the state is immoral. I expect you will get more meaningful engagement that way.

Change it yourself, if you dare.

I’ll try to change it if you pay me 250 million dollars.

Otherwise you are stuck with it alone like one brain in a skull.

I’ll negotiate. 250 million dollars is just the opener. *wink*

Great thread about the flexibility of views.

If you do try to change it yourself using this forum, I might watch for free.

#optimism

OK Let's start then. Can you name me one example of a state being formed that didn't made any laws that infringes on an individual rights? Or any abstract example of a state that did the same? Also can you point me out to any law that can't be abused by the authority of the state?

Thanks for the offer, but i'll pass. Thank god you are not the government or else you would say something different, along the lines of "You should change your opinion, I'm going to educate you on this matter, You'll have to pay me 250 million dollars, or else you will be put in a cage and we will take it anyway."

Do you understand what consent means?

How so?

I think my answers are no, no, and no. I didn't put too much thought into it, but I'm willing to go with those answers for the sake of argument.

But, on that note, I suggested that you ought to try to make an argument. Asking me questions is not an argument. The following might count as arguments, but I wouldn't find them very persuasive, personally:

1) All states have infringed upon individual rights at various times, therefore the concept of a state is inherently immoral, and thus we ought to do away with all states

2) All laws may be abused by state authorities, therefore the concept of a state is inherently immoral, and thus we ought to do away with all states.

It's primarily the last part ("we ought to do away with the state") that I think doesn't follow from answering your questions in the negative. I could imagine arguing against the conclusion that states are immoral as well (it seems like an oversimplification), but I think my main objections would be more pragmatic than moral, so even if I largely agree about the immorality of various state acts (I'm sure we disagree about the morality of some state actions, like collecting taxes) it wouldn't lead me to conclude that we ought to do away with the state.

This thread is taxing.

That's what happens when I try to walk on some land and someone comes out and calls the government and says it's "their property".

Individuals don’t have rights without the state.

Those questions don’t address much. Every state has of course made laws that infringe individual rights, but what’s the alternative? If the alternative is pure anarchy (which is what you implicitly suggest by suggesting it’s the existence of states that is the problem), there seems little doubt that many more individual rights would be infringed.

I’m actually the government and your God can’t change that.

You are an insincere inquirer. I made a free offer open in public and you are making insinuations and asking loaded questions about consent. I doubt you can change your views based on your behavior so far.

The state grants rights. Without the state how would you determine what is and what is not a right?

That's not expanding your OP, that's just a bunch of arguments with question marks behind them. An age-old debate tactic which aims to put all efforts on those you debate while you look good for putting the pressure on. It's just lazy rhetoric and the followup is always the same anyway: a) Shoot down anything they answer b) If they don't say anything, accuse them of refusing to answer.

If I'm wrong, change my mind.

What rights?

Can't we just jump right to sky roads and close this thread?

Thats whwre it inevitably ends up, obv

The simple premise is that we need taxation but we should strive at all times to reduce taxation if services are paid for because at the end of the day a dollar in your hand is better than in the government's hand.

The US needs way more taxes.

No it is not, that property could have been acquired by legitimate means. Also if you are his neighbour and proclaim you house as yours and that he doesn't get to steal your money every year by the value of your property he is not going to send you to jail

Individuals have rights ( property, Life, Liberty), politicians making up new "rights" every election cycle doesn't make them new rights. If you are of the position that those 3 basic rights can't be defended without a state, I would say you are worng because there are ways of defending yourself without a state involved. In case you are right doesn't make my initial statement any less true

It is the more moral of all, if pragmatically can't be achieved it's another question. Every day the state gains more power over the individual is a great tragedy to humanity and it's nature itself