How is Robbing Someone With a Government Morally Superior to Robbing Them With a Gun?

Are there more rich people or poor?

 

Absolutely. Welfare is only a symptom of the wealth disparity, causing a lack of opportunity, which is destroying our consumer-based economy.

Taxation is not violence. Name one society that actually had living quality that did not tax, then we can talk.

 

You are mixing some terms that are not equivalent. You are asking:

• What is fair?
• What is correct (not wrong)?
• What should we do?

And the answers to those questions are not always the same.

Fair means unbiased, impartial... it means equal. We have a pretty fair system, but it's not entirely fair. Never will be. Many of our laws are unfair. I've never heard of a society in all history that was able to come up with completely fair laws for regulating human behavior. Life ain't fair. Our laws can neither change that about life nor ignore all the unfairness of it.

Something is wrong if it's not correct. If it diverges from some standard. I'm sure every law on our books diverges from some standard. Depending on the standard you want to consider any law (every law) can be wrong.

And what should we, as a people, do? That's an entirely different question, and what we should do depends on what goals we have this week. The answer is often something that is wrong by many standards and is not fair to someone.




​

 

I think we should take a vote on whether to implement such a policy.




​

 

A big part of that has to do with being opposed to helping ALL BOATS to float, because some of those vessels happen to be "BLACK" or others.

You can hear that in the overtones of the most vehemently vocal Righties. As President Johnson suggested, keep some people believing that they are just an inkling or mere fraction better or more worthy than Blacks... and you've got a lot of people eating out of your hand.

That is a massive part of what underlies the anti-socialist and anti-government sentiment. Getting people to admit to that, isn't worth trying.

 

You know what happens to people if they don't pay taxes. A credible threat of violence is used to enforce taxation.

As for your comment on other societies without taxes, again, that's irrelevant. At different points in history you could make similar arguments in favor of slavery, child sacrifice, etc.

 

There is no difference. They are both violations of property rights.

 

Obama won two elections because the takers outnumber the makers.

So, yes ... the poor do run the government.

 

Once you are poor, you will get your stuff back from the people we gave it to when we take it from them, so no worries. What comes around goes around

 

There is no difference. It is not morally possible for an individual to pass on a right to a group that the individual did not have in the first place.

 

Precisely. A principle can't delegate to an agent a right that he doesn't have in the first place. You and I have no right to violate the property of our fellow man, so we can't delegate this non-existent right to a third party.

 

What tool, other than violence, does government have to get anyone to do anything?

 

So you're saying that if one opts not to pay taxes no one will inflict violence on him?

 

As far as i have read
The predominant trend of history is that wealthy people have had the power to influence government in their behalf to maintain and enhance their wealth

Certainly the trend of the last 40 years in this country is that the richest have become proportionally richer
So while it is conceivable that in the future the poor might use the gov to steal from the rich
So far, there is more.... Much more evidence of the reverse

 

If that's true then productivity should be sharply rising (output divided by work hours) but the rates of gains look a lot flatter in the most recent five years than the previous five years.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity

Click 10 year chart

 

The way I see it, taxes should be optional. If someone does not wish to pay them, they should be allowed to official opt out of doing so.

However, that should mean offically forfeiting all rights to any and all tax paid services, including use of public roads, use of public police and fire protection, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, and all other services and programs paid for by tax money.

If we could get all of the people who (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about taxes and call it robbery to agree to that, it would be fine, but the vast majority of them would not. They want to keep using public, tax paid services, but do not want to pay for them. Ironically, these kinds of people are also the loudest voices when it comes to condemning welfare use by the poor, and other such things. They call the poor moochers while claiming that they should get everything for free and having everyone else to pay for it.

 

Another Stormfront thread. This site is becoming more embarrassing by the day.

 

Have you ever heard of anyone getting shot by the government for not paying taxes?

I don't know and don't care to inquire about the FEDs, but for local taxes, they just put a lien on your property, if you fail to pay.

Or, if taxes disgust you so much, just become a member of the famous 47% who supposedly don't pay federal taxes, and who you despise so much. Then you'll get a bonus and show the tax man who is boss. I have a feeling though that you'd rather keep paying taxes and whine about taxes=theft, instead of experiencing the supposedly cushy and lazy, mooching life of someone with a family on minimum wage.

 

Good idea. However, someone still has to pay for national defense.

In addition, what are you going to do with many of those "self reliant" tax haters who will fail to put the additional money they save from not paying taxes into savings, eventually being destitute in retirement? I'd rather be forced to contribute to SS than seeing tons of old beggars on the streets.

 

Yep. Nothing like laying around smoking $200 a gram marijuana (I thought it was supposed to be CHEAP after legalization) all day, especially after a leisurely eight hours of digging ditches or working construction. Not even approaching the incredibly demanding work of you guys slaving over your keyboards 9 to 12, (very few of you ever return from your 3 martini lunches)

 

The government doesn't "take money from rich people" but instead imposes a tax on income.

Fundamentally, by law, the government establishes that the person only owns a percentage of income and not all of the income. The rich person that pays $100,000 in income taxes never owned that $100,000 because the tax laws establish that the "income" belonged to the government to begin with.

By the way the "poor" don't authorize federal government spending and, in fact, the "people" have no control over federal expenditures. Everyone in Congress is in an upper income bracket and they vote for federal spending authorizations. As all of us should be aware our votes don't really buy anything from Congress because Congress routinely ignores what the people want.

 

I don't know where you purchase your pot but in WA where recreational marijuana is legal an ounce of pot was selling for about $225 to $250 before I moved the Arizona in June. Of course the high prices in WA are driven by over-taxation and not because of production costs for marijuana. I understand that the state legislature is working on dramatically reducing the taxes imposed on recreational marijuana in Washington because the high taxes are counter-productive.

 

Is getting shot the only form of violence possible in your mind?

And how do they enforce the lien?

I'd rather be productive and take care of my family. As for what I've experienced, you have no idea. I imagine it's nothing like having everything handed to you on a silver platter by your mommy and daddy, as I imagine your life has been.

 

In other words, your morals being forced down the throats of others justifies violence. Get in line with the other authoritarian religious fundies.