I did not ask for and do not want those services. I do not consent.
You grew up knowing you were receiving those benefits, and would be asked go pay your share when you could. If you didn't make plans to leave hen you consented.
"You live in mafia territory and didn't choose to flee your home, your friends, and your family therefore you consented. "
You don't understand consent.
I do. Your analogy also doesn't work. Your family and friends understand the great deal they are getting. You are free to choose to leave. You wont be tracked down like the mafia.
Leave to another tax farm? What a non-option.
Free to go live in the woods. Sometimes you can even benefit from absconded places. Ghost towns and such. The US has some communities like that. It is an option.
My family and friends understand that if they don't pay they get put in a cage. You're not even free to leave. You don't understand what you're talking about.
I know quite well what I am talking about. Not every nation hails people for not laying taxes. The US is pretty hard on the issue though.
Also, why is the impetus on the person objecting to being stolen from, to move?
Why not the bully US move? To Somalia?
One individual disgarees with millions, which means it is on the individual to leave. The millions are not the ones to leave. Even in terms of private property, the individual leaves.
1 individual disagrees with millions?
You must not be aware of the thriving anarchist community. At the least, thousands of people disagree.
Thousands is one in hundreds of thousands then. Not one in millions. As it is the anarchist community is divided and fractured into sub groups, which displays how it cant work.
Your selective attention and idea about how a group of people who associate over the idea that taxation is theft, means that having society based on voluntary interactions can't work?
Do AnComs really agree that taxation is theft? Anarchism doesnt work because it requires a level of agreement that doesnt appear to be there.
That's what you consider as needing agreement? No wonder you think it doesn't work. I wouldn't if I thought all schools of anarchism had to work together, either.
They wouldn't even have to work together. Just work within themselves, which doesnt seem likely.
What do you advocate for?
I advocate for the current system continuing, with a movement toward further globalisation. The establishment of a proper global government would be nice.
What is the current system?
What would globalization look like?
The current system of western democracies. I would like to see globalisation move toward a global constitution that all the worlds nations are under.
Why?
Mostly because of their success. They maximise freedom, and quality of life. They make it more likely for the species to be successful.
What or who is "they"?
Western capitalist democracies.
How do you define success?
Best for advancing our species. I myself see the end goal as being independance from Earth. We could build structures in space for people to live on and avoid extinction level events.
There are extinction level events that happen on other planets also. Leaving earth doesn’t remove the possibility of extinction level events.
Other planets are not a good option either. No need to get trapped in another gravity well after leaving our own.
Advancing our species? What do you mean?
Why independence from earth?
Scientific advancement. If our species depends on Earth then it is doomed to extinction. So I hope we eventually begin advancing toward a K2 civilization.
You think that Earth is doomed to die, regardless of what the human species does or does not do?
It is only a matter of time until an asteroid, or super volcano, or some other event happens. Not an if, but a when.
Why do you think that?
I guess because that is how it has always been. These things happen periodically at a geological time scale. The only species that can avoid extinction is one that can leave the world.
If our specie cannot live about without systematic theft, do we deserve to survive?
Why wouldn't we just reck Mars or wherever else we might go?
We deserve to because we can. To continue life beyond what the planet us capable of sustaining is a kind of ultimate purpose to life. Building structure to live in instead of planets.
Humanity doesn't deserve to survive. If we are to live on other worlds, we must as a species be worthy of survival.
I'm not saying we shouldn't go to Mars, just that humanity needs to learn. We can't run away from our problems. The day will come when humanity will have to face what it has done.
Either we will fix our mistakes and survive, or we will fail and continue a endless cycle of death until extinction. By ourselves or otherwise.
Deserving to survive comes with being capable of surviving. It doesnt matter if we have to destroy the Earth to do it, just so long as we can leave the Earth.
Hold up. Your saying that you would destroy the entire planet if only it meant we were capable of leaving it? Isn't that a bit crazy?
It is of course an extreme case, but if it meant taking life beyond, and ensuring its future, then I would find it acceptable. I doubt that would be required though.
It doesn't matter who finds it acceptable. It wouldn't be allowed.
Allowed by who? I dont think you understand what I was saying. The people alive today are irrelevant to the issue as humanity isn't capable of this yet.
What would make humanity capable of it?
A major emergency I would guess. That or if climate change was set to destroy us. Building habitats that could hold ecosystems would take a lot of collective effort.
A major emergency like what? Climate change set to destroy us?
You're referring to a major kind of catastrophe where we humans are forced to work together or die?
Essentially, yes.
Oh. Well, this seems rather self-evident; I agree.
The people alive today would rather die stopping you than surrender their lives to a future hardly any of them believe in.
I think we also need to fix a lot of problems on Earth before expanding...
We need an entire restructuring of society if we are to live on Mars. Ground up. Pull the pin and start over.
There needs to be more balance on Earth. Currently, the world is not stable.
Yes, but as you'd imagine it would be very difficult to restructure every society on Earth peacefully within human lifetimes, if at all.
We live in a time of unprecedented connectivity on a global scale.
To what I'm aware of - and you? - this has never before been the case.
There's only one problem: our own minds.
We're going to have to try.
There's only one thing that's needed - a systematically voluntary society.
Since maintaining slavery is directly opposed to this, this very simple thing has become very complex.
If i had to guess, fixing and unifying the world peacefully is about, if not more complex than the colonization of the solar system.
That being said, the latter will be easier once the first is done.
It's actually quite simple.
That doesn't mean it might not be very complex in practice, although anchored on a basic idea.
Like BCH - decentralized digital cash.
Building a structure to live in? Can you expound on that idea?
Here is something to help with that more easily than can be typed here:
Thank you. I watched it and am enjoying thinking about the concept.
Likewise, I'm excited to have found a site that reminds me of Khan Academy:
https://brilliant.org/IsaacArthur/
If you can rape someone, do you deserve to because you can?
How is "continu[ing] life beyond what the planet is capable of sustaining[,] kind of ultimate purpose to life"?
It's more about leaving the limitations of the earth, and ensuring the continued existence of life. In a way life was created to allow DNA to propagate.
What of the ancoms? I don't associate with them and actively rally against them.
They are a major part of the anarchist community though, if not the majority of it.
You're right.
It's just like how bitcoin is bullshit because the btc and bch are such split communities. Cryptocurrency is clearly an idealist scam.
Bitcoin isn't a society. An anarchist society would break down into many small communities. Many of those communities going back to non anarchist systems.
Bitcoin doesn't exist without people using it. We are the bitcoin cash community.
Are you arguing for doing what our ancestors did because we originated from them?
My parents gave me shit throughout my childhood, it doesn't create some kind of obligation on my part.
Staying creates the obligation. You may not understand the value of having been born in a stable nation, but that doesn't mean you didn't benefit from it.
It’s voluntary because you can leave
Taxes aren't voluntary. No one ever said they were. They are mandatory, you receive shit from the government that you didn't ask for and are expected to pay.
In a way, it's like those homeless people that put something in your hand and demand that you pay them for it.
Like those guys that randomly come up and wipe your windows without you asking at all, and then they bang on your car and scream at you when you don't pay them.
exactly, love that comparison. like the homeless people who wash your window with a dirty rag then demand payment.
I didn't ask for the war in Iraq, yet I'm still expected to pay for it. NASA? What if i don't want a space program? Still forced to pay.
Do i at least get to DIRECTLY control how my stolen money is spent? No. I have to *elect* some motherfucker who decides for me.
Your money is going to build a wall because Mexico isn't paying for it. LOL.
But do i get to choose whether i pay for it? NOPE
Because apparently informing ourselves when we make political decisions is too hard to do. We simply just have to trust it to people that are more "capable" than us to make decisions.
In a world where anyone can vote, and inform themselves on political matters from the comfort of their home with a internet connected device paired with blockchain security to boot.
But no guys, we can't have direct democracy! Tyranny of the majority!!! Like the majority doesn't get what the fuck they want anyway.
Elected representation is so good that we got stuck with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our only two choices!!! And we didn't even get to pick between the two, not really!
lol - oops typed at the same time.🤦♀️
Taxes are voluntary.
According to which government?
Starting to think this guy is just trolling and he doesn't actually believe a word he says. Posterity will throw him in with ED and LightRider.
What about (un)SilentSam? 😎
This place is such a good uncensorable & immutable microcosm of online opinion shaping and disinformation. It will make a great study someday ✍🏼
Lol, I think ED and LightRider are for real (no offence, you 2. Weagree on lots). TrashPoster, however, is definitely just a master shit-poster.
You couldn't deduce that from the username? ;)
You can always go live in the wilderness. No one is stopping you. That said the penalty for not paying taxes isn't the same everywhere. They dont jail you in Canada.
You could always stop defending mass fraud (taxation).
No one is stopping you.
Why should those contending the fraud be the ones to go?
Yeah, I know what you mean.
I have guns pointed at me all day and that's totally what voluntary means. /s
Except you dont. They will imprison you in the USA for not paying though I guess.
And of you request, you are met with those guns aforementioned.
So yeah, I do. So do most others.
It is harsh that the USA enforces taxes that hard, but the fact that the requirement is enforced does not lead to why you are not obligated to pay in the first place.
What?
It should be a simple concept. At a basic level we are obligated to be good to one another. The fact that we enforce laws people agree upon doesnt mean we are not obligated to be good.
How is systematic theft being good to Anyone victim of such?
Systematic theft isn't good. Systematic theft is people and companies not paying their taxes.
How do you define taxation?
Well not as theft for one. It is part of your contribution to the society you live in. It allows the system to run. You want the Google definition?
I'm asking for Your definition.
Is Google you?
Well I gave you mine.
That taxation is part of your contribution to society?
To be more specific one is obligated to pay for the services rendered. One can choose to leave the society that uses taxation, and no longer be obligated to pay.
"You grew up knowing you were receiving those benefits, and would be asked go pay your share when you could. If you didn't make plans to leave hen you consented." - SILENTSAM
Ah, anarco-capitalists. You should stop arguing that taxes are immoral because they're involuntary. How about arguing that their immoral because it's stealing.
The conversation started with do people consent to taxes.
I mean, involuntary is part of stealing. if stealing were voluntary it would be a transaction.
"anarco-capitalists" LOL.
Yes, and both can leave. Both may not think they can, but they can.
By the same logic if you are held at gun point & asked for all your money, you can choose to not give it up at the risk of getting shot. That does not make giving it up voluntary.
& having the “choice” to not give it up does not make the interaction an exchange instead of stealing.
Even if the robber gives some of the money to charity or buys the victim a drink with the stolen money doesn’t change the fact that it was stolen.
This all of course assumes you agree that money you earn from your own work belongs to you. You could try to argue all money earned/value created belongs to the group.
Can without repercussions?
All actions have repercussions. Good, or bad. That said the repercussions of not paying taxes differs by country. He IRS arrests you and the CRA sends strongly worded letters.
Staying isn't an action or a means of positive assent to some kind of obligation to be imposed on others.
I guess if a woman stays in a neighborhood she consents to being raped?
In the case of taxation it is. It isn't nearly staying, or leaving. It is a matter of receiving the benefits everyone there pays into, while acting as if you dont have to contribute.
Staying on earth (because pretty much everywhere is a tax farm now) validates being stolen from, because you benefitted from previous work not done explicitly for you?
To a certain degree though, yes it does. Humans are social creatures, and we have put a lot of work into civilization. Humans expect other humans to contribute. We are social creatures
It does? Isn't systematic stealing ("contributing") an anti-social activity?
The only theft is by those not paying their taxes while living off of the benefits of them. It is theft from the community. This leaves the society free to reject you.
Doesn't monopolization prevent the ability to make alternatives to use instead, such as the roads? Health care?
Doesn't this decrease efficiency?
Yes, and no. Healthcare is an example how? How is this related to the idea of taxation as theft though? Many different nations have different competing systems over time.
Are you not familiar with the welfare state, Obamacare, and such?
Healthcare related to taxation.
I am familiar with how it helps the system and reduces costs. It made things more efficient. That said Obamacare is a right wing healthcare system. Single payer would have been better.
So, those who reject the idea of taxation based on its involuntary nature and speak out against it as a violation of consent, aren't being stolen from?
No they are not. They are just being dramatic. Especially considering the untrue nature of the premises their argument stand on.
And how it is untrue that they are being stolen from?
It is a trade that the people have agreed upon communally. Attempting to live there without paying taxes would be the only real theft. Leaving would be how you would avoid stealing.
Not everywhere. There are lots of places one can go. Many still within national borders letting you still benefit a small amount for free. Lots of land outside of civilization.
