Is Taxation Theft?

Serfdom? Nope. The worker is extracting money from the employer.

 

Reasonable is a value judgement. Has nothing to do with economics.

- - - Updated - - -

Money is paper.

 

Yes, and the worker is extracting it from the employer.

 

You signed a contract with your neighbors to agree to taxation when you chose to become a U.S. citizen. If you were a child at that time, your legal guardian signed the agreement as your representative in the same way they may have setup a bank account for your future education. Unhappy about the choices your parents made on your behalf — complain to mom and dad and exit the contract by canceling your citizenship.

The government has declared it's legal to kill homosexuals (or anyone else convicted of murder in Texas). Putting them to death isn't murder, it's execution.

Murder, like theft, is defined as an illegal act. A legal illegal acts are nonsense. If you're unhappy about what a word means, choose another word. But please, leave homosexual, Nazis riding dinosaurs out of it — how you feel about some hypothetical person doesn't change the definition of the word.



​

 

You think a corporation is a part of the government? Does that mean that my home is too because the deed to my land is issued by the state? I'm a government bureacrat. Can I collect my pension now? I want to retire.

 

Serfdom. Works the land of the fief, recieves a certificate to a (now miniscule) portion of own produced goods.

 

That's right. If the government didn't like the deed they could put out a law against certain practices now couldn't they? The state approves the deed, the deed's law is the state's law. if it's not backed up in court, it's at least backed up by the bank - which is to say, the same thing by a different name. Judge and jury, albeit more autocratic. And the corporations pay your representatives for a job well done.

 

No I prefer to simply get rid of all the socialism so the theft by taxation is as negligible as possible.

Nice try. You know what I meant. If the government allowed for the indiscriminate killing of homosexuals that wouldn't be murder because the government sanctioned it?

See you and I disagree on the simple idea that you think that when the government sanctions something then it's acceptable. I disagree.

Government sanctioned theft is still theft.
Government sanctioned rape is still rape.
Government sanctioned murder is still murder.​

 

I would need some clarification from Taxpayer before jumping to this conclusion. I don't think he was saying that any law a government passes is ok just because they pass it.

 

The Founding Fathers can go to hell. We are NEVER taking this country back to the way it was 200 years ago. Get over it.

Populism becomes popular because 300 million people sharing 90% of the same urban land requires populism.

You can leave if you want. No one is forcing you to stay here.

 

He essentially stated that if a government declares killing a group of people is acceptable then it's no longer murder to kill those people.
If the government declares that theft is legal then it's no longer theft according to his position.

 

Theft is a moral judgement.

 

An employer owns a nut and a bolt. The employer gives a worker property (wages) in exchange for the worker attaching the nut to the bolt.

You still haven't offered any explanation for why you think the ownership of the nut and bolt ought to transfer to the worker.

 

He probably means that the terms used are incorrect. Context is key. If an action is legal, a different term is used for that action. I'm fairly certain he would be horrified if homosexuality was made an executable crime in the United States.

 

No we don't. We disagree on what the word theft means.

You believe theft means seizure of property that you don't find acceptable. I believe theft means seizure of property that is illegal.

The dictionary agrees with me. Similarly with murder. And ridiculous hypothetical situations that are never going to happen don't change the definition of the word.


​

 

That's the definition of serfdom.

Do you even listen to yourself?

 

Again, no argument as to why you think ownership of the nut and bold should transfer to the worker.

 

I'd have to see the specific suggestion, but for example if you can find a way to get rid of Obamacare we're on the same page. That said, please stop misusing the word theft. It makes you, and by extension the rest of us who want to reduce government, look like we don't know how to read a dictionary. It's counter productive.



​

 

The nuts and bolts were made by workers in the first place. The capitalist is an overpowered merchant.

 

The employer purchased the nuts and bolts from the workers who made them. That is how he came to own them. They are now owned by him. Why should ownership of the nut and bolt transfer to the worker who attaches the nut to the bolt?

 

When you pay a contractor to build a fence, does the contractor own the fence or do you?

 

The merchandise should be transferred to the corporate entity in exchange for a portion of the profit to the merchant ("employer")..

The contractor (merchant) owns the fence before it is delivered.

 

Huh? What are you talking about?

Simple scenario. I buy 100 bolts and nuts. I employ someone to attach each bolt to a nut. After he's all done, who owns the bolts and nuts?

 

The company, unless you intend to purchase the full product.

 

Neither of these things is true. There are other ways that a government can obtain revenues, and while that may be a very limited capacity, that does not cause civilization to "cease."

And, still, you appeal to the consequences of a belief. Either taxation is theft or it is not. Whatever happens with or without taxation is irrelevation to the answer to the question posed.

I have no trouble comprehending the concept that you present, despite that the fact that it is wild speculation. All I am asking for is simple logic from you and instead you resort to ad hominem.