276 replies to this topic

[concert andy]

Sorry it is only in theory or model.

 

But the axiom it is based off of is that every one consents.  

 

 

This is where TC seems to go ascew, implying that because the majority says X, you have to abide.  In theory living in a society, you are consenting to these rules.  Unfortunately, the only answer I got for you, is the one you already know.

 

Like it or not.

 

Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remainingrights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect o social contract theory.

[TakeAStepBack]

Right. You're all saying that by staying in the place I was born, for whatever reason, I have consented to the rules that a non-majority majority have created. That because I am tacit, as in keeping to my self and not speaking up or leaving for some place that will not molest me, I have consented. It really is no different than a serf, or a subject of the king. The only thing that makes it more palatable is that you too can join the mob who shouts via the ballot box. You too can press your will onto others and in doing so, we can rename violations of the individual through a legal frame work and make them appear right.

 

Such as compulsory taxation isn't theft because a nonmajority majority voted favorably for the measure. That may have happened 100 years ago, but you're implicated through association and being present. Or, your very life itself gives the consent to be ruled over.

[concert andy]

Right. You're all saying that by staying in the place I was born, for whatever reason, I have consented to the rules that a non-majority majority have created. That because I am tacit, as in keeping to my self and not speaking up or leaving for some place that will not molest me, I have consented. It really is no different than a serf, or a subject of the king. The only thing that makes it more palatable is that you too can join the mob who shouts via the ballot box. You too can press your will onto others and in doing so, we can rename violations of the individual through a legal frame work and make them appear right.

 

Such as compulsory taxation isn't theft because a nonmajority majority voted favorably for the measure. That may have happened 100 years ago, but you're implicated through association and being present. Or, your very life itself gives the consent to be ruled over.

 

 

Not really.  I am saying any country you decide to reside, doesnt matter where you were born (not just the US).

 

 

 

Next time you get paid, make sure you bring lube...

[Depends]

1,001 vs. 1 is a majority.

 

No, the rules were not done by 300 million. Only a majority of those made the rules and everyone else is compelled (through force/violence) to comply. A majority who turned out to secretly cast their voice favorably doesn't even include those who did not. How many people voted in the last election to seat Obama?

 

It looks like around 119 million. Less than half of the total population. You didn't have a majority for that either. It looks like the majority rule argument is crumbling... 

again with the oranges.   In your concept, 1000 people say that you can rob me.  I say no.  You say that a majority rules in this case.

 

My answer is that 1000 people do not overturn a law (in this case, theft).  1000 people is not a majority.  If 119 million say that you can rob me, then I have a choice to either have that challenged in court, or leave the country with laws that do not reflect my morals.  

 

It seems your issue is with democracy.  You would rather live in a society where you can make or follow your own rules.  That is not here, in this country.  But, you do have the option of taking it to court, or electing officials who believe the same way as you.

[concert andy]

again with the oranges.   In your concept, 1000 people say that you can rob me.  I say no.  You say that a majority rules in this case.

 

My answer is that 1000 people do not overturn a law (in this case, theft).  1000 people is not a majority.  If 119 million say that you can rob me, then I have a choice to either have that challenged in court, or leave the country with laws that do not reflect my morals.  

 

It seems your issue is with democracy.  You would rather live in a society where you can make or follow your own rules.  That is not here, in this country.  But, you do have the option of taking it to court, or electing officials who believe the same way as you.

 

I think it is more with how the US democracy is run.  Same as it ever was.

 

2 Party system, politicians out for themselves, killing US citizens without trial, gays cant marry, etc...

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks, more "you can leave."

 

1 person vs. 1,000 people is a majority rule scenario. And it's not robbery because 1,001 of us vs. 1 said it's ok. This is absolutely no different than on a largeer scale and with a middleman.

 

Just like the last presidential election. The voting crowd didn't have a majority, yet claimed majority and then, victory.

 

And the will of those are now pressed onto the rest of us. Regardless of all of this, if a majority votes to steal money from my pocket it is still theft from my pocket. Your argument is basically that it's not theft because the majority voted for it and therefore, no problem. Which is quite laughable. 

[seany]

Propose and alternative, brah...

[TakeAStepBack]

Start a thread on it and I'll propose an alternative. Again, i was looking for a convincing argument that compulsory taxation is not theft. So far (page 5) we have the following:

 

 

• You tacitly signed a social contract to agree to the terms of dwelling and living on this land.
• Who will pay for the roads
• You can leave
• The majority rules and therefore, it's not theft because they said so
• Taxes are the price we pay to live in a "civil" society. (One that requires the use of force and violence for compliance...that kind of civil. )

What did I miss?

[Depends]

Thanks, more "you can leave."

 

1 person vs. 1,000 people is a majority rule scenario. And it's not robbery because 1,001 of us vs. 1 said it's ok. This is absolutely no different than on a largeer scale and with a middleman.

 

Just like the last presidential election. The voting crowd didn't have a majority, yet claimed majority and then, victory.

 

And the will of those are now pressed onto the rest of us. Regardless of all of this, if a majority votes to steal money from my pocket it is still theft from my pocket. Your argument is basically that it's not theft because the majority voted for it and therefore, no problem. Which is quite laughable. 

Yet I continue to drive on the right side of the road.

 

come up with a better analogy than the 1 person to 1000.  The argument is invalid because 1000 people do not overturn a law.  Mob rule is not majority rule...

[wonka]

the icing on the cake is that according to the govt, if they do not take it, you are the thief

[Joker]

IS there an argument that you would find convincing?

[Depends]

what is more convincing?   I don't want to follow the laws of the land?   Im taking my marbles and going home?

 

There are laws.  Whether you agree with them or not is not the question.  There are methods to change the laws you don't agree with.  If you feel that your personal beliefs outweigh the beliefs of the majority, then YOU have a problem.  

 

Slaves used to be property.  Why can't I have a slave?

I found a WWII bomb in my backyard. the gubmint took it away.  its my property.

[TakeAStepBack]

Yet I continue to drive on the right side of the road.

 

come up with a better analogy than the 1 person to 1000.  The argument is invalid because 1000 people do not overturn a law.  Mob rule is not majority rule...

 

You're still arguing this from a point of view of the law. It has nothign to do with whether or not people voted favorably or not. What it does have to do with is whether or not the action is still theft just because a majority decided it IS law. And the answer is still a resounding yes. The anaolgy doesn't need to change. Take that anaology and change the number from 1,001 vs. 1 to 119 million vs. 94 million.

 

It looks to me that is mob rule.

[TakeAStepBack]

You can call taking money from my productivity without my consent a ham sandwich for all intents and purposes, is it a ham sandwich? No. It's theft. Legalized? YEP. No one is arguing that the mob did not authorize the middleman to take the money. The question here is whether or not it is still theft and once again, the answer is yes. it's theft.

[seany]

IS there an argument that you would find convincing?

 

No

[Tim the Beek]

  Mob rule is not majority rule...

 

It most certainly is.

 

You wanna argue that not all majority rule is mob rule, fine. But mob rule is, by definition, a form of majority rule.

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm asking someone to make a convincing argument. So far I haven't seen one that doesn't include basically changing the definition of theft based on a majority rule. Or an imaginary contract.

[Depends]

it most certainly is not.

 

mob rule would be a bunch of people trying to burn down a house of someone.   Majority Rule would overrule that type of action.

[TEO]

Depends on whose house.  

[Depends]

You call the constitution an imaginary contract?

[TakeAStepBack]

[Depends]

Lynching is mob rule.

The Salem Witch Trials were a form of Mob Rule.

 A democratic vote is not mob rule.

[Tim the Beek]

If you feel that your personal beliefs outweigh the beliefs of the majority, then YOU have a problem.  

 

This form of government was based upon ideas in direct opposition to what you just wrote.

 

Slaves used to be property. 

 

Poor argument for the sanctity of the majority.

[Tim the Beek]

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

 

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

[Tim the Beek]

You wanna argue that not all majority rule is mob rule, fine. But mob rule is, by definition, a form of majority rule.

[Tim the Beek]

Now show me where I said democratic vote is mob rule.

 

Show me.

[Depends]

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

 

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

From the same wiki page:

The threat of "mob rule" to a democracy is restrained by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic. Though considering how laws in a democracy are established or repealed by the majority, the rule of law's protection of minorities is questionable.

[Depends]

OK given.  Mob rule is a form of majority rule.  Just NOT the form that we are talking about here.

[Depends]

This form of government was based upon ideas in direct opposition to what you just wrote.

 

 

Poor argument for the sanctity of the majority.

how so?  Democracy and the voice of the minority prevailed.

[Depends]

OK lads and lassies...  Been fun today, but I'm off to even more fun.   Dealing w/ my son's school.....

[TakeAStepBack]

It most certainly is the type we're talking about here. You're telling me that majority rule changes the definition of what theft is based on it. In this case the individual is not protected or secure in his property and effects from the mob rule. This individual who did not consent to having his productivity garnished has one recourse and one recourse alone - leave. And because this individual CAN leave, it's NOT theft.

 

All of which I understand up until it's not theft. Because, it is theft.

[seany]

You're all just pussies. You want to be a rebel? You want to avoid paying taxes?  Work for yourself on a cash basis and forfeit your credit, Medicare, SS, ability to invest in taxable accounts, ability to buy real estate, get an apartment based on a credit report, get a car loan...and all that.  There's your freedom. Plenty do it. For the most part, I do. It's your choice. You can do it. Just don't expect a net when you fall...

[Depends]

Since I fail to agree with your definition of theft, I truly can't answer your question.

 

For the record, I do not consider rent to be theft, nor dues at a country club.

 

 

I would consider a group of people outnumbering me to rob me, and by doing so, breaking a law of the land to be theft.    That is until a majority votes to overturn the robbery statute in the criminal code.

[Tim the Beek]

Yeah, but the majority originally felt that slavery was ok, and imposed a lot of suffering with that belief.

And it surely wasn't just democracy which ended slavery. It might never have happened were it not for the arguably Unconstitutional acts of the Executive Branch.

 

Not a simple issue...and I understood your point, but considering that slavery was codified, or at least referenced, in the Constitution I don't think it's a very good example to use in support of majority rule.

[Tim the Beek]

You're all just pussies. You want to be a rebel? You want to avoid paying taxes?  Work for yourself on a cash basis and forfeit your credit, Medicare, SS, ability to invest in taxable accounts, ability to buy real estate, get an apartment based on a credit report, get a car loan...and all that.  There's your freedom. Plenty do it. For the most part, I do. It's your choice. You can do it. Just don't expect a net when you fall...

 

A wink or a smile or a grin or somethin' woulda been nice to go along with this.

[Tim the Beek]

OK lads and lassies...  Been fun today, but I'm off to even more fun.   Dealing w/ my son's school.....

 

Nice chattin'!

[TakeAStepBack]

Since I fail to agree with your definition of theft, I truly can't answer your question.

 

For the record, I do not consider rent to be theft, nor dues at a country club.

 

 

I would consider a group of people outnumbering me to rob me, and by doing so, breaking a law of the land to be theft.    That is until a majority votes to overturn the robbery statute in the criminal code.

 

The rent or country club dues analogy falls on it's own face. Someone who signs on to a lease of becomes a member of a country club does so voluntarily. That's all the difference in the world from compulsory taxation. Which is not asking you for a voluntary contribution. It's demanding it. This is the part where we go back tot he only argument that is in here regarding this topic - leave. Fuck off. Scram.

 

Now, this argument would make a little bit more sense logically if the only way to leave, wasn't being debilitated by the very same reason one might opt to leave; compulsory taxation on labor. So the argument in telling someone if they do not like the mob rule to (politely, of course) fuck off,doesn't really hold a lot of convincing within in it that we're not talking about theft. It takes a really masterful yoga stretch in logic to make that connection.

[concert andy]

The rent or country club dues analogy falls on it's own face. Someone who signs on to a lease of becomes a member of a country club does so voluntarily. That's all the difference in the world from compulsory taxation. Which is not asking you for a voluntary contribution. It's demanding it. This is the part where we go back tot he only argument that is in here regarding this topic - leave. Fuck off. Scram.

 

Now, this argument would make a little bit more sense logically if the only way to leave, wasn't being debilitated by the very same reason one might opt to leave; compulsory taxation on labor. So the argument in telling someone if they do not like the mob rule to (politely, of course) fuck off,doesn't really hold a lot of convincing within in it that we're not talking about theft. It takes a really masterful yoga stretch in logic to make that connection.

 

What country in the world does not have a compulsory taxation system?

 

I am assuming non, which would mean, every government in the world is a theif.  Is this your feeling?

[TakeAStepBack]

There are countries that do not tax in this fashion. But yes, both a feeling and logical conclusion that governments, whether majority rule, dictated, or other, that use compulsory taxation are stealing. Which in turn, should make them illigitimate.

[concert andy]

End Compulsory Taxation

 

http://www.dailypaul...ulsory-taxation

 

I have a suggestion: Why not eliminate compulsory taxation? Some would argue that taxation is by it's very name compulsory, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's consider it the method we fund public (govt) activities, voluntarily or forced.

 

Libertarian principles suggest that forced taxation is theft. I agree. Instead the govt should prepare a budget which is publicly viewable, and a suggested amount per household or individual to fund that budget. Citizens then send in the figure, or whatever they can afford. They will get as much government as they are willing to pay for.

 

There are a few standard objections to this but they all basically arrive at this:

 

"If people are not forced, they won't pay it"

 

Correct. Some won't. Many don't right now even when it is forced. And I would imagine almost everyone would not choose to fund the current government activities.

 

But consider this: We think it is democratic to go into a voting booth and cast a vote to spend other people's money. This way if a group of people believe that this or that program should be publicly funded, they can be first in line to pony up the dough, write the check and earmark it to there favorite fund.

 

Keep in mind that most people want the legitimate activities of government, protecting life, liberty and property. Government can hardly be in a position to do these things if they are authorized to violate one of it's prime directives (protecting private property), by relieving citizens of their property by force. I also think that a citizenry which needs to voluntarily fund the activities of government would be much more attentive to what that government is doing, and there would be far less ignorance and apathy, not to mention increased prosperity.

 

The bottom line is this, if you do not have the right to steal from your neighbor, you don't have the right to engage another party (govt) to do it for you.

 

Would people voluntarily fund the legitimate constitutional activities of government? I know many would. I would. And there would be enough to ensure that we could run the court system, and provide for the common defense.

 

I'm not attempting to justify this on a practical level, although I think it would work practically, I am justifying this on moral grounds and from the reality that there is no better way to keep government in check than to retain individual sovereignty over the funding of it. In this way government is able to perform it's duties, but is controlled as any other market entity is controlled.

[china cat]

this was just posted on fb. touches on arguments here

 

I'm not educated enough on this issue to argue either side but I'd be interested in people's responses

 

 

 

[TakeAStepBack]

^ video two explains my position almost completely.

[concert andy]

Video #1 states that because the lands were taken, many laws should not be applied since there was no transfer of lands.  Heh, while I understand, in history the victor tells the story, not the defeated.  Same applies to lands in my book.

 

Another note.  I was the one who stated their is a social contract by living in whatever country.   Video #1 point this out, and address those who say the I didn't sign that.  (not to well, but they do).

 

 

Video #2.  TASB, While it states all your points you made earlier in this thread, he does not address "the keyboard commandos".  I tried to "show more" in the comments, but I never saw his responses (and I showed more so that I hit page down 40 times and still not one comment from the poster).  

 

May be he does, but, I can not see it.  So to me it seems like he gives one side of the argument, and doesn't address the other side in the video enough.  Which is where he loses credibility with me.  It is easy to throw out your ideas, but never addressing the other side, is something that NEEDS to be done.  Address the social contract, address the get out if you dont like attitude, address the flaws in your own argument to strengthen it against the keyboard commandos.  Just saying.

 

As for his points, nothing he said has changed my mind or view.  

 

 

A question I believe I asked earlier in this thread.  What is the alternative?  What is an alternative?

 

It bothers me that we pontificate and complain about what is bad in the world, but rarely do we come up with workable alternatives to a deeply flawed and embedded politcal system.  Sometimes I try, or my idea isn't feasible, or so flawed I look like an idiot, but at least I try to put out those ideas.  That is all I ask, too much?  probably, but I feel that is how intellignet discussions start.  With bad ideas to immence problems.

[TakeAStepBack]

The alternative is pretty simple to taxation. Voluntary contribution.

 

I didn't see any viable questions following that video after checking a few pages of comments.

 

I've addressed the social contract and the "fuck off" (politely, of course) rebuttal in here already, no?

[concert andy]

The alternative is pretty simple to taxation. Voluntary contribution.

 

I didn't see any viable questions following that video after checking a few pages of comments.

 

I've addressed the social contract and the "fuck off" (politely, of course) rebuttal in here already, no?

 

 

If it were voluntary, would anyone pay?  See this is the problem.  We are so far in debt, that making it voluntary wouldn't we then be even further in debt as country.  I am just saying doing that now would just compound many fiscal problems we have now.

 

You did address the social contract, but was just stating that was only point video #1 used as the back bone of its argument.  So while you may use the F off argument, I do not think that is a solution, just another problem.

 

 

 

Now, just say, we went with your solution.  Taxes are "voluntary".  How would that work in the real world, with the problems we have already?

 

That is where you lose me.  Cause I do not see that as working in any real world implementation.  It would just make everything worse, IMO.

[JBetty]

Now, just say, we went with your solution.  Taxes are "voluntary".  How would that work in the real world, with the problems we have already?

 

That is where you lose me.  Cause I do not see that as working in any real world implementation.  It would just make everything worse, IMO.

 

 

 

This might have worked in days of yore when people actually cared about their neighbors, weren't so self centered, and didn't think the world owed them a living.

[TakeAStepBack]

If it were voluntary, would anyone pay?  See this is the problem.  We are so far in debt, that making it voluntary wouldn't we then be even further in debt as country.  I am just saying doing that now would just compound many fiscal problems we have now.

 

You did address the social contract, but was just stating that was only point video #1 used as the back bone of its argument.  So while you may use the F off argument, I do not think that is a solution, just another problem.

 

 

 

Now, just say, we went with your solution.  Taxes are "voluntary".  How would that work in the real world, with the problems we have already?

 

That is where you lose me.  Cause I do not see that as working in any real world implementation.  It would just make everything worse, IMO.

 

The solution would work fine at this point, although it would have been a lot better before we got here. The idea, and it is a grand one, is that the government only provides what people pay in. I'm quite sure that people would contribute to the inner workings of our juicial system and legal frame work to protect individual righs and private property. Of course, there are alternatives to that.

 

Governments could sell off assets that they can not maintain to private holders faced with the absence of forced payment from citizens (taxation).

 

The point being that is any government legitimate if it is using violence (yes, theft is a form of violence or aggression...in at least the end result.) for compliance? Can it hold a legitimate claim over a land mass without using violence to assert its authority over a domain?

 

This thread was not really about resolving the issue and finding a passage to an alternative, but instead pushing for recognition that taxation is theft. We can move on to solutions and how they may work in todays world, but first I think it is imperative that people recognize that even state run violence and theft are not legitimate. The same as it is not for me to rob my neighbor. 

[concert andy]

The solution would work fine at this point, although it would have been a lot better before we got here. The idea, and it is a grand one, is that the government only provides what people pay in. I'm quite sure that people would contribute to the inner workings of our juicial system and legal frame work to protect individual righs and private property. Of course, there are alternatives to that.

 

Governments could sell off assets that they can not maintain to private holders faced with the absence of forced payment from citizens (taxation).

 

The point being that is any government legitimate if it is using violence (yes, theft is a form of violence or aggression...in at least the end result.) for compliance? Can it hold a legitimate claim over a land mass without using violence to assert its authority over a domain?

 

This thread was not really about resolving the issue and finding a passage to an alternative, but instead pushing for recognition that taxation is theft. We can move on to solutions and how they may work in todays world, but first I think it is imperative that people recognize that even state run violence and theft are not legitimate. The same as it is not for me to rob my neighbor. 

 

 

Because weeks later, I figured it was ok to now ask, since no one was able to convince you then.

 

I thought that since no one could convince you, may be you can convince us why any alternative would a good idea.

 

 

There are several loop holes to your proposal, but I do not care enough to go into all of them.

 

 

I agree the government should sell off assets.  But again loopholes in that argument.  a simple one is do we sell of Federal Parks?

 

 

 

 

The point being that is any government legitimate if it is using violence (yes, theft is a form of violence or aggression...in at least the end result.) for compliance? Can it hold a legitimate claim over a land mass without using violence to assert its authority over a domain?

 

I agree with your overall point, but it is one evil that we all kind of happily accepted.  

[TakeAStepBack]

Happily? I dont know about that. In fact, I'm certainly not happy with it at all. It goes against the principles of non-aggression, which is the foundation for most everything I believe.

 

If you want to discuss alternatives, can you first accept that taxation is theft and that theft is an act of aggression?

 

It seems difficult to discuss alternatives while we dont care much for "loopholes" enough to point them out and then discuss them.

 

Yes, the government (not we) should sell off land that it can not maintain, improve or make useful.

[deadheadskier]

The solution would work fine at this point, although it would have been a lot better before we got here. The idea, and it is a grand one, is that the government only provides what people pay in. I'm quite sure that people would contribute to the inner workings of our juicial system and legal frame work to protect individual righs and private property. Of course, there are alternatives to that.

 

Governments could sell off assets that they can not maintain to private holders faced with the absence of forced payment from citizens (taxation).

 

pass......

 

I'll stick to be stolen from. thanks