Create account

replied 2005d
anarchovegan
You can just leave though. There are even means to leave a taxable area, but stay within some nations borders. These people pull mental gymnastics because they like living in society.
1 / 55
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
Why should I leave? Why shouldn't the theft just not occur? Why is the theft the default for you? How aren't you pulling mental gymnastics to defend a morally indefensible position?
replied 2004d
Technically one doesnt yave to leave. People only contribute if they work. You could not work for an income. Leaving is the way to not be morally obligated to contribute to society.
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
What is "contribute to society"? How does working "morally oblige" "contribut[ing] to society"? Isn't being productive and providing services, contribution, directly to those serviced?
replied 2004d
I would think working is itself contributing to society. Part of the reason I prefer a high sales tax to replace income tax. It can be changed. People dont like change much though.
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
If working itself is contributing to society, then systematic theft is not? I thought you were defending taxation, not trading one's effort for money via doing a service for others?
replied 2004d
I am defending taxation as a whole, but each form of taxation has pros and cons. How taxes are collected is another issue. I dont like income tax, and see sales taxes as better.
1
567
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
Why are you defending it as a whole?
Of course there are more and less painful ways of doing it.
The entire problem, is the how:
Systematic theft is immoral, unsustainable, and wrong.
replied 2003d
I have yet to see a reason why taxation is theft. I have explained why it is moral, so I have yet to see how it is immoral. There is no evidence it is unsustainable. Quite the opposite
anarchovegan
replied 2001d
How isn't taxation theft?
Could you explain again how it's moral?
What is the evidence that taxation is sustainable?
replied 2000d
I have participated in representative democracy myself, and cant help but see the pros outweigh the cons.
anarchovegan
replied 2000d
If I and others had the choice to not be included, there would be no problem.
The entire problem is that we are included involuntarily.
Kind of a huge con... game.
replied 1999d
I can see that point of view, but it is due to the way the society has built up over time. It gives the society ownership over that area. Almost like leaving to not pay rent.
anarchovegan
replied 1999d
Could you define "society" and explain what you mean by "built over time", that justifies systematic theft, "or leave"?
replied 1999d
Let's use city as society. Construction and establishment of systems take time and effort and money. If you dont like that established system then you should leave the system.
1
546
anarchovegan
replied 1998d
The system of theft/taxation is worldwide.
Anywhere I go there will be the same system.
So that's beside the point.
But again: Why do the bullies get precedence?
replied 1998d
It isn't worldwide, just found all over the world. If you leave civilised areas no one bugs you about taxes. The precedence is due to a type of ownership. Property rights.
anarchovegan
replied 1993d
Property rights?
Oh come on now.
What homesteading does the state do?
anarchovegan
replied 1993d
What a misnomer.
Civilized like the indoctrination centers (schools) are called "education".
anarchovegan
replied 1998d
Could you define city? Are you saying city is people?
"It gives the society [city] ownership over that area."
How does a concept, city, have ownership over an area?
replied 1998d
Those representing the citizens of that city have control over the city, granted by the citizens. Telling the people and organizations and businesses to leave so you can stay is wrong.
anarchovegan
replied 1993d
I completely agree, which is why I am defending them against the state, a completely unnecessary parasite middleman that only contributes anti-life self-destructive brainwashing.
replied 1999d
It's harder to move the city than for a person to leave. So the person who doesnt want to pay should leave. That city didnt appear overnight.
1
546
replied 2000d
To be clear I am not counting it high on the morality scale. It is just a general "hey, we are all paying our share. You should too." I cant help but think we benefit from government.
anarchovegan
replied 2000d
Where is the should?
I don't have a choice. If I did, then we could talk "should".
I'm stolen from regardless.
That's the problem to begin with.
replied 1999d
You kind of do have a choice. Black market incomes are not taxable. Some choose that route. Often just undocumented work, and pay under the table.
anarchovegan
replied 1999d
Yes, and why should I hide and be forced to go through hoops to be free, to act or feel like I'm guilty, when the entire system that you're advocating, is immoral?
replied 1999d
If people require the transit system to travel they realise they must pay. You then have riders asking why they should be stolen from simply to ride. The paying riders are stolen from.
anarchovegan
replied 1998d
If people require a transit system, then unless there's a monopoly on violence, there will be competing services/businesses to meet that demand.
replied 1999d
The system is moral. The only theft is from those not paying into the system. Like some public transit, paying is on the honor system. If no one paid the transit wouldnt work.
anarchovegan
replied 1998d
The system is immoral. The theft is from those who do not consent and are included anyway.
If payment was on the honor system, people would not be included without consent.
replied 1998d
The theft from the system is immoral. The theft is from those who contribute, while one decided to not contribute. It is leeching off others.
anarchovegan
replied 1993d
I wish I could "steal" by not contributing.
If I could I would not be talking about anarchism. It would be pointless.
replied 2000d
Taxation supports our system of government, and society. Every person receives the benefit of society when within society. Not paying your share while receiving the benefits is immoral
anarchovegan
replied 2000d
That was poorly phrased.
How is it immoral to resist the process of getting benefits when they are at the behest of theft, kidnapping, or murder?
replied 1999d
Resisting getting benefits means leaving the benefitted area. That isn't immoral. I feel like I am not fully getting the question.
anarchovegan
replied 1999d
Why do thieves and bullies get to lay claim to any area by providing something after theft? To justify that thieves and bullies stay while the abused leaves is morally abject.
anarchovegan
replied 2000d
The benefit of being stolen from under threat of kidnapping and if you resist, death?
How is resisting theft/kidnapping/murder immoral?
Can there be benefit if there is lack of choice?
replied 1999d
Those are quite the false equivalencies. The issue of jail itself is only for the most extreme cases. Often it is more like getting a bad credit rating, and debt collectors after you.
anarchovegan
replied 1999d
Could you explain this and give examples of "more like getting a bad credit rating" and "debt collectors after you" in regard to taxes? I haven't heard that before.
replied 1999d
That is the normal experience. I think the IRS is harsher than the Canadian CRA, but often they work as debt collectors instead as well.
replied 2004d
If the taxation didnt occur than many of the services would disapear. The people want these services, and objecticely do better with them. We ask everyone who can to contribute.
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
You think that the only way to provide services is through involuntary means? Services cannot be provided on a voluntary basis?
If people want the service, won't they pay for it?
replied 2004d
Some services do not work by market dynamics. These services are best provided by a public entity. Military, law enforcement, fire protection of all levels, healthcare, sanitation, etc
anarchovegan
replied 2004d

A bunch of other good related ones too:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spontaneous+order
replied 2004d
I watched the first video here. I think all their cases ignore the higher level of order at play in those cases. I like those cases thogh, and think the system should make use of them.
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
Too abstract to be able to reply to. Perhaps you'd be inclined to be more specific about what you mean.
replied 2004d
For example, the intersection without traffic lights works within a system of other traffic laws, and rules for right of way.
anarchovegan
replied 2004d
I'm sorry; I don't understand what you're saying.
Going back: "Some services do not work by market dynamics." Explain?
How does involuntary interaction work better than voluntary?
replied 2003d
Some systems work best when funded by q public entity. Military being an obvious example, healthcare as well. Healthcare doesnt follow supply and demand. You cant compete with life.
anarchovegan
replied 2001d
What do you mean by "work best"?
https://www.yours.org/content/is-public--systematic-theft--better-than-private--personal-funding--ab24fa9ccf23
replied 2000d
By work best I mean work most efficiently in terms of cost benefit analysis.
anarchovegan
replied 1999d
Systematic theft is more efficient than voluntary interaction and trade?
Could you share with me your cost-benefit analysis system?
replied 2001d
Means, works in best interests of the majority of the people, which is good for society and its health in general, also works better for people that work in these public businesses
anarchovegan
replied 2001d
Based on what do you claim that, Ed?
How is systematic theft good for society?
replied 1995d
Systematic theft happens right there in Capitalism itself


About Privacy Terms Stats