Likewise I agree with this articles premise Morals differ where as ethics are a different story.

To believe that government does is capable of theft is insane. Government officials are subject to the same passions and misjudgements and greeds as the rest of us. Here is how the government steals: Printing money. Propping up one industry at the expense of another. Believing that some entities are too large to fail and rather than allowing natural economic forces to govern the marketplace, to pick winners and losers and thus skew the game.

The Federal Reserve system is based upon a the fraud of fiat money, and the value of our money is evaporating due to government intervention in the marketplace.

Constantine talks about the public to government flow of money as if “government” was an off-world alien transplant. Representative government are those citizens (the “public”), chosen freely (amongst the available choices; albiet winnowed to the remaining few by a number of factors before they even get to the ballot – which also presumes fair election practices are in place ) in local elections. Their power is based on how far up the food chain they are, dealing with in any given ratio, local and regional issues, and operating within the system hammered out by a group engaged in a social contract long before us. As a social contract, those who came after and who had no say in the original social contract, still had a means of modifying the contract, though within some predetermined limitations. That being said, the framers acknowledged that totally unjust rule was itself a rationale for its overthrow. Time after time, even those citizens under a representative goverment feel that their rights are being restricted by a small but powerful elite, and appeal to populism, or are being tyrannized by the majority, and argue the inalienable nature of their rights.

So my rights as an atheist are often stymied by some crusading Senator, with power beyond the numbers residing in his confederation defined long before by lines on a map, whose constituency insists the senator champions their priorities of “god(s), guns, and gays.” That’s their right, and the system has a few checks and balances to see that their priorites still be in line with Constitutional protections. Nowadays it seems that the side that was crowing about “Shut up, you lost!” prior is now seething with self-perceived righteous indignation and threatening to bring down the government if they can’t be placated. They view their potential insurrection as the highist form of patriotism, and as true believers, anyone telling them otherwise would only raise their level of certitude.

The point about the social contract and representative government is that the contract is in effect and enforced despite the fact that those under it most likely neither help draft it nor signed it it. Contact law usually deals with cases as these in the fine print; such as when the stub given when you pay to park says that YOU parking there establishes an implied understanding that they are not responsible for any loss, theft, or damage to your vehicle.

But, but, but…not compensating you for those losses while the vehicle was in THEIR possesion is theft!, no?

No. It’s in the contract that you didn’t write or sign. When you’re born a citizen or naturalized, you are under the social contract of the confederation in control of the far flung tracts of land that were crafted by those long dead, from regions which projected their power over lands now, though not part of said empire at its inception. The system of governance in place is the one arising from that social contract, making persons within those boundries who are defined as “citizens” subject to the order imposed, which the originators understood came from a timely application of force in the first place.

Those in here braying about theft have said nothing that I can see about how application of force, relentlessly over time (both passively through sheer numbers and aggressively violent and methodical as well; bolstered by those numbers, especially when the taking itself was an incentive to join those ranks of pioneers) and gradually escalating as necessary to produce the desired outcome, which we ALL partake in the fruits of. We did not personally run the original ihabitants off their land, but we certainly profitted from it.

I guess you could say that the Native-Americans were “taxed to death” because we stole someone elses land because our forebears felt taxed beyond endurance, both on the land they might have been run off of previously to come to the ” New World” (yep, nothing but empty open spaces for the taking), or later on the land they claimed for their own by a ruler who declared that the Divine Right of Kings was all the contract he needed though his god gave him no help enforcing the terms of said contract; and force was exactly what would have been required.

And they were also “taxed to death” because funds for the force used to destroy them wholesale, take what they had but could not protect, and marginalize the rest after essentially beating them into submission. The social contract of the group doing this got their power from their collective action, the wealth it provided, and the agreement that money spent in this way would result in a return on investment far beyond the original stake money, all the while ensuring a consolidation of power that would retain the ability to impose their will by force. As long as this force was directed at someone else (the “other”), most saw the value and even justice of it. When force was used on those within the social contract, it was supposed be applied in a consistant and just fashion as per rule of law (the one those of the social contract claim applied to all).

Now there are many, many bad laws, just as there are many idiotic taxes. Some people claim allegiance to a higher power and therefore are only subject to god’s law. Some people claim that they are exempt of their obligations to any social contract for any number of reasons, but the option to form their own country is certainly limited, also for any number of reasons. Bad laws create disrespect for the law and often are changed or repealed (or just unenforced like the laws on the books that once prohibited interracial marrige or sodomy) as enforcement of statutes that generate widespread open civil disobediance are seen as either unjust or impracticle to enforce. Some that fit into those catagories (like marijuana law) are enforced anyway as a method of control that can be brought to bear at opportune times against specifically targetted individuals (I’m sure Tommy Chong on the loose kept many people awake at night from sheer fright).

Now the principle of taxation is said to be theft by at least one scary brilliant mind in here, summarized and codified by the declaration, “(All) Taxation is theft” (the “all” is established by his “yes” to the question “Is ALL taxation theft?”), The imposition of any taxation, let alone the devil in the details of tax law, the purpose of certain specific taxes and how they’re supposed to be spent, the justification for the collection of taxes, and the consequences for non-compliance, don’t even figure into the equation as the declaration is supposed to be enough all by itself.

Though Inky fancies himself a dispenser of knowledge, one who professes one or more “truths” of the universe, he is much more like a carnival barker looking to hook a live one. And as such, the response to not playing his game, rigged by his rules, results in frustration on his part.

“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”

Maybe there are other ways to impress my girlfriend.

“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”

The game looks rigged.

“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”

Maybe I could just buy her one of the prizes. It might be cheaper in the long run.

“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”

No sale, Inky.

Inky mutters, “Loser!” but is actually more angry at himself because he lost the sale. All the other barkers seem to be closers but Inky just seems to chase more business away than he ever entices into the Midway.

The reason to turn the question around is because to declare that “taxation is theft” without offering any alternative for the drastically new social contract that is presumed to be capable, even in the absence of details, of sustaining a functioning society, is a meaningless exercise. The devil is always in the details, so defining the attributes of a functioning society would be helpful to the discussion; without them just a fool’s errand. Just as police commandeering your car in an emergency might in one sense be considered theft, if theft is defined by what the law allows, then it is not, by definition.

Inky wants to bark his platitudes and absolutes without acknowleging that functional systems are rarely perfect systems. To seek to jettison the current system based on a supposed immutable principle apparently is enough. Inky’s arrogance is unchecked and unwarranted and chooses not to offer anything beyond his pet absolute principle. If one accepts that police commandeering is theft, but that is justified under certain emergency circumstances, then maybe you can say the taking of the vehicle was theft in priciple, though with cause.

Inky would argue that it’s never justified, even if the cop said his actions would save Inky’s life as well; Inky would be steadfast that without his assent, the cop can’t take Inky’s car. The cop has no right to the car irrespective of any “greater good” argument without out Inky’s permission.

We all know the end result of such interaction. The cop would be long gone with Inky’s car as Inky stood by the side of the road making his pitch to a fire plug (also, it happens, a “public good”, as is the raod he was driving on before his car got nicked by a copper).

Though Inky seems to define taxation exclusively as a redistribution of wealth, any “public good” argument, regardless if Inky derives direct benefit along with his fellow citizens , is insufficient in his mind to justify his taxation.

Since Inky is so worldly and wise, maybe he owns a sailboat. Upon sailing into a distant harbor, he might choose to pay a docking fee to tie-up and wait out a storm, or to negotiate a price for repairs of his vessel. But on that bill, alongside the sales tax (to which he objects) might be a docking tax or a harbor tax. Inky says tax is taking from those who’ve earned it to give to those who have not, for things he has not agreedto whether they benefit him or not. But though the owner of the dock charges a fee, the viability of his dock business might also dependent on/facilitated by the maintanence of the harbor and by enforcement of basic sailing and safety rules.

Here’s a tax that is optional in that Inky is not required to dock. It’s not a redistribution as much as a user’s fee because the facilities that make his docking possible and the regulations that protect his safety from construction standards to the operation of numerous water craft in a specified manner, is to his benefit whether he accepts that fact or not, or agrees to pay a fee (tax) to contribute to its continued funding.

He can choose not to dock there, but his “ALL taxation is theft” argument is sunk. Considering the amount of willfull ignorance Inky has displayed, it would not be surprising to find that he winds up resting on the bottom of the ocean with it.

And between his delusions of granduer coupled with his certainty his arguments are unassailable regrdless of just how piss-poor they’re crafted (if they’re even offered at all), he could certainly use a rest. I know I’m tired of combing through his nonsense to try to find some kernel of value. It’s like shoveling through a pile of horse manure because Inky says that’s where you will find the pony. If you say that the pile of horse crap does not establish the horse’s continued presence, Inky merely repeats ad infinitum that you can’t have horse crap unless there’sa horse.

Though true on its face, like many of Inky’s truisms, there’s a little more going on than he’s willing/able to let on.

But through his generous nature, he’s still willing to hand out grades for a class I never signed up for from someone so full of himself that he must bottle his own farts, thinking everything that comes out of him is priceless . Thankfully, his grade and the “education” he professes to dispense are worth every penny I paid for it.

Nothing.

Priceless, indeed.

Thanks also for your contributions. Your unique background is an asset to this site.

A: All right
B: Bad
C: Couldn’t do it
D: Didn’t understand the question
F: Failed to show up for the exam (or in this case class)

A C seems a bit to generous since you really didn’t try. At first blush a D seems about right, but on second thought it too is a bit generous. After all isn’t a willful refusal to understand the question equivalent to not showing up for class? Unfortunately I will have to give you an F.

I have done all that I can do. Perhaps some cataclysmic event will start you on the road to reason. If so, I envy you taking those first faltering steps on such a glorious journey. Would that I could relive that exhilarating experience.

In parting, I wish you all the success you deserve.

In the former USSR, where I spent 50 years of my life, many things looked like “free” or almost free – communal housing, education, medicine, phones, electricity, gas, etc.,etc. Our Lefty anti-American Liberasts dream.
A very stinky dream, though.
Officially, were were told that our taxation is flat rate 11% for all low incomes and 13% for high incomes.
After additional obligatory/mandatory union fees, Komsomol and Communist Party membership (if any) fees, and so one, every Soviet citizen “enjoyed” the rest, in a comparable amount – from $20 to $50 a month. Only specially priviliged individuals got significantly more.

In other words, the Soviet Communist government intentionanlly kept the nation “on the galleys” with a firm condition: a step to the right or to the left – shoot.
The nation accustomed to feel happy simply for being not shot.
The nation accustomed to cheat just like government cheated on the public.
The nation accustomed to drown its endless anguish in alcohol and became one of the most if not simply the most drinking nation in the world.
What caused such a national tragedy? The actual 90%+ taxation (if to count both the official low “flat rate” taxation and the actual hidden taxation for all those public services.)

In our today’s situation, when the Obama government seemingly lost any touch with public opinion and is intending to “award” with public money a significant group of people that does not belong to the society only for the sake of getting additional votes to strenghten the power, the unsupported-by-public taxation is definitely an immoral theft, no matter what the PR-prostitutes would try to convince the public of.

And water is wet.

And the Unquisitor is without a model for his Utopia.

—

The Reading of the Rules by the Bruces – w/ Unquisitor as “Bruce”

Second Bruce: G’day, Bruce!

EveryBruce: Amen!

The problem of taxation’s,
a blight upon the land.
You can call it what you want,
it will not give a damn.

Amen!

No Poofters!…um,..I mean, “Taxation is THEFT!”

Is taxation theft? If not, then justify your view.

A simple yes or no will do. A sentence or two of justification will suffice. Why the evasion?

I’ve invested a lot of time trying to teach you to think. I hope you appreciate it.

Your handle notwithstanding, you’re not running a deposition.

You’ve got a concept for a society where taxation is considered theft. How does that society function?

If you can’t even offer what comes next, then you’re stuck in the loop of countering with [in robotic voice] “taxation is theft.” K.I.S.S. is fine but you can’t even support an argument to operate on that principle. What else is theft? Interest on a loan? Muslims think so. Is property theft? Certainly an argument can be made that control over patches of dirt originated with being able to take or retain by force.

Basically what you’re telling me is that you’re gutless. Taxation is theft, you shouldn’t have to pay it, but you bend over and spread your cheeks and get reamed nonetheless.

I guess you’re nick comes from your plaintive cries, “Why? Why won’t you stop?! OW! OWee-owee-owee. WAHHH!!! Why are you doing this too me?!?! Why won’t you stop?!?!”

Inquisitive little bugger, aren’t you? But not even in an interesting fashion, more like a bored child that continually parrots “why?”

You’ve envisioned a society where the argument that taxation is theft has been accepted.

What’s next, wonderboy? Your pretending to have scary rhetorical skills merely masks that you’re embarrassed to show your work, haven’t thought it out that far, and/or have no idea, but are pinning your entire worldview on that notion and you’re willing to let the smarter kids figure it out.

Here’s my TOE (Theory of Everything). Humans evolved from the most aggressive and exploitive of the various species for survival. Even if they coexisted with other species when resources were plentiful, when survivals pressures increased from the competition for shrinking resources, it was that species and those individuals who exhibited the most selfish and aggressive tendencies that crowded out other species. Competition within their own group operated in a similar fashion. Cooperate as long as it benefited you, but always be first to sacrifice other individuals for your gain. We are descended from the distillate of the selfish gene. The history of our DNA is written by the victors. Self-interest and force get you what you want. Cooperation is a means to an end and those seeing the time to stop working for mutual benefit first often wind up in sole possession of the fruits of everyone else’s labor. Even our societal frameworks, from nation states and governments, business entities and corporate powers, all the way down to office and family politics operate in a kind of social Darwinism. The Romans called it “tribute.” Organized crime syndicates called it protection, others “insurance.” Representative governments see it as an “obligation”, the cost of membership in their particular society. Don’t like it? Buy yourself an island and write your own rules. Problem solved, mission accomplished, right? What are you still doing here? OIC. All talk, eh?

OK Inquisitor. For the sake of argument, let’s say taxation IS theft.

So the mean kids at school keep stealing your lunch money.

Stop them.

Your crying hasn’t worked. Maybe if you worked out a bit or learned some self-defense techniques. Maybe a weapon. But that has its own set of consequences. You might not just be able to wave the rock, or stick, or knife, or gun at them. You might have to use it. Then what? You’ve revealed yourself as a threat; a scared one at that. Someone using more force is going to deal with you accordingly.

Maybe because you’re so timid and puny, you just aren’t able to defend yourself, weapon or not, and you’ll get your big brother or tell a teacher or a parent . That might work. Better hope they’re always close by to protect you. You can band together with other similarly bullied schoolmates, but I doubt the power of multiple jellyfish operating collectively will work either. You’ll all just be easier to find for the beat-down. Maybe you can get your mom to home-school you, or give you two lunch monies (one to hide), or you can run away and join the circus.

No, Inquisitor.

It is clear that you will just keep giving them your lunch money, all the while hoping that by sputtering out, “That’s not yours. That’s MY lunch money!” they will cease their torment of you, as your red face and puffy, crying eyes, runny nose, and mouth and chin wet with drool, will have evoked pangs of sympathy. You and I know that’s not going to happen. You are an eternal victim; prey and easy pickens for any and all predators. You might as well have a bulls-eye on your back.

What are you gonna do about it? Cry? I thought so. How’s that workin’ out for you?

You want to keep it simple? Here’s simple.

Joseph Heller defined “Catch-22″ as “People have the right to do to you anything that you cannot prevent them from doing to you.”

That’s some catch.

Since you have demonstrated by your broken record parroting that you are slow on the uptake, I’ll spell it out for you.

Your rights are only those you can defend to keep.

You keep paying your taxes. Doesn’t matter if it’s theft, rape, or assault. You’re too weak/spineless/cowardly/unimaginative to do otherwise.

But your lung power is impressive. Most crying jags that last this long involve someone in a diaper and a touch of the colic.

You might want to empty that diaper.

Oh yeah, and….TAXATION is THEFT!

Is taxation theft? If not, then justify your answer.

That the whole world will blow up if we don’t condone theft is no answer.

KISS