The 14 thousand unemployed in your country claim a little of your pay to support them in their unemployment. — Isaac

I don't have a dispute with those people, as far as I am aware.

Theft is the taking of something owned by another, so if you perceive something to be owned by you it follows that you perceive it's removal to be theft, unless you simply don't know what theft means. — Isaac

Theft concerns a subjective dimension about what rightfully belongs to whom, and that is not relevant to the point I have been making.

It changes why you'd be at all surprised about that. — Isaac

My surprise does not change the nature of things.

I don't know why you keep wanting to make this about me: what my solutions are, why I am surprised, etc. Those things aren't relevant at all to the point I am making.

Ridiculous, there are millions of people in your country alone, all of whom have a claim. This idea of managing an entire country by individual agreement is absurd. — Isaac

No, I think managing one's disputes through individual agreements is a good way to go about things.

Maybe it is countries that are absurd if they are unable to act in ways that are good.

Not in so many words perhaps, but the taking of property one is not entitled to is theft, so to disown the claim you'd have to either relinquish the property claim or agree the government is within its rights. — Isaac

We haven't spoken about entitlements. We have spoken about perceptions, and if those perceptions conflict, the way I solve it is by individual agreement. Theft is not a part of this idea.

Why would they ask you, they don't believe it's your property, you've never put any such claim to them, so why on earth would they ask you first? — Isaac

Why would this change the fact that it has been imposed on me without my say?

If your conclusion is, states are incapable of listening to the individual requests of the people it holds power over, I'd simply chalk that up as another flaw of states.

Everyone who is a beneficiary of taxes then is in dispute with you about who owns the taxed portion of you pay, they all think it's them. — Isaac

No, but people can have an opinion about what belongs to the government. — Isaac

These are just abstractions. Show me the individual that wants to dispute what I perceive as my personal belongings and I'll happily have a chat with them.

Then how can you declare taxation to be theft? — Isaac

I never declared that.

You said that the matter of ownership is resolved by agreement, yet you've engaged in no such agreement with the government. So no agreement has been reached as to who owns what. — Isaac

Indeed, it has simply been imposed upon me without my say. A regrettable state of affairs as far as I am concerned.

It'd be even harder for every person to come to an agreement with every other. This is just fantasist nonsense. — Isaac

I don't have to. Only with those people I have a dispute with, which aren't very many at all.

Governments aren't people. — Tzeentch

So? — Isaac

A government isn't a thinking being with an opinion about what it believes to be theirs.

what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

I didn't have any talks, as they would obviously be fruitless. Ask your questions frankly, and don't play games.

How do you propose the government talks to each and every person to reach individually tailored agreements as to what belongs to whom? — Isaac

They likely can't, it probably comes as no surprise that I view governments as inherently problematic and taxation is only a part of that.

You won't be wanting to take home that portion of your pay that the government believes to be theirs will you? — Isaac

And what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

Governments aren't people.

But I don't have an intention to forcefully take from individuals what they believe to be theirs, no. I reach an agreement with them.

I asked you how we reach an agreement about what belongs to whom. — Isaac

I don't know about any we, but when I have a dispute with someone over what belongs to whom, I talk with them and come to an agreement.

It's the philosopher's job to contemplate the nature of things, not necessarily to offer alternatives.

When a philosopher explains that killing is immoral, one doesn't ask how one can still cause death without killing.

You ask me how one can forcefully redistribute wealth according to their liking and make people part with what they believe to be theirs without having to resort to violence and my answer is simple: one shouldn't want to.

The result of our agreement, about who owns what, (for which we used the democratic system) is that the government owns 20% of the pay you take home. — Isaac

I never agreed to that.

You seem to think that, rather than by agreement, you get to decide whatever you think is your property. — Isaac

No, I don't think I do.

I haven't shared any opinions about what I believe belongs to who. What I have shared are opinions on the nature of taxation and using opinions to justify violence.

Why do you think I am opposed to agreements?

No, not really, the government could simply spy on people, and if it thinks they've not declared work or income in kind, it just takes what it thinks it's owed. — Isaac

If there is no law against circumventing the system the government puts in place, you do not think people would try their best at doing just that?

The rest of your post, as usual, doesn't contain an argument. — Benkei

It sure does.

And I am also sure that you see it, but don't want to see it.

So in your hypothetical it is not just harder not to comply, but it is made impossible, essentially.

A situation in which states have absolute supervision and control of their citizens' wealth reeks of totalitarianism, and I have plenty of objections to that, but even in such a state there need to be laws against avoiding taxation through things like undeclared work and citizens bartering among themselves.

Does the individual still face reprisal when the government decides the individual has taken more than they should have? If the answer is yes, then it still relies on violence to force compliance - it just made it harder to not comply.

First of all, if you're not interested in argumentation, get the fuck out of here. — Benkei

You are responding to me, not the other way around.

I've not argued might makes right anywhere nor does it logically follow from my arguments. — Benkei

Yes, it does.

You have an opinion about what belongs to who and use it to justify taxation. Taxation relies on threats of violence.

Now lets say someone else disagrees with you. What should stop them from using their opinions to justify violence against you?

I am not interested in your argumentation as to why you believe what you believe. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to live in accordance with them.

The issue arises when one uses that opinion as a justification for violence. Because if one permits themselves to use violence based on their opinion, then one permits others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on others? The person with the largest capacity for violence - might makes right.

As I said, many people are fine with this, but only for as long as they agree with the opinions that are being imposed. That is hypocrisy.

Do you believe you are describing an opinion or a cosmic truth?

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case. — Benkei

Approaching the matter from a legal standpoint holds no moral significance. The state deciding it has rights to things just like a feudal ruler decides it deserves a share of the farmer's grain.


This is followed up by an opinion of what belongs to who - it is a perception. As I said, taxation is to force individuals to part with what they perceive to be theirs under threat of violence.

If you accept that opinions can justify violence, then there is no moral framework, only might makes right.

Of course, some are completely fine with that, but only for as long as they agree with those opinions. That is hypocrisy.

I see you as a disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, young tough guy ... — James Riley

This is projection, I suspect.

Page-long personal attacks don't impress me, so I would spare myself the effort in the future.

That you were in the Marine Corps doesn't surprise me one bit. I liked the people I met there, but their worldviews were simplistic. Perhaps a simplistic worldview is required to commit acts of violence with the approval of one's own conscience - until that simple worldview comes back to haunt them.


To bring it back to the subject matter, your essential argument seems to be "If you don't like it get out."

My response is twofold:

- My liking or disliking does not change the nature of things. That individuals do not choose to be born or the society they live in, is a fact. That taxation is to force people to part with what they perceive to be theirs by threat of violence is a fact.

I guess by saying "If you don't like that, go away" you are agreeing with those points.


- Your stance is akin to asking a slave that if they don't like their slaveowners, why don't they swim back across the ocean to where they came from.

I think I need not explain to you why this doesn't make the slightest sense from a moral standpoint. If that is your standard, it is your standard, but then you'll have to apply it consistently.

The suicide rate is off the charts. People do it all the time because they don't want to pay the price of life. — James Riley

Ah yes. Suicide - a simple matter of weighing the costs against the benefits and making a rational decision based on that.

Didn't I recall you posting something about caring for others a while back?

When a child reaches majority and doesn't want to contribute, they can get the hell out of the house. We raised you up right, you can work and pay taxes. Get to it, or get out. This is a family here and if you don't want to be a part of it, if you don't want to help your little sister, or help pay for her education, leave. — James Riley

What you describe is failed parenting. Parents who resent their children for not growing up the way they envisioned. They fail to understand that the child never asked to be theirs, and that children shouldn't be had to fulfill the parents hopes and fantasies in the first place. It is their failure.

But if your point was that bad parenting exists, this I already knew.

The idea that a parent can force existence upon their child, and then present them with a list of things they expect of them holds no moral weight. It's nonsense. (And similarly for citizens and governments)

A parent can always reach for the belt, and force compliance - additional confirmation of their failure. (And similarly for citizens and governments)

States DO give individuals an option to opt out. — James Riley

Yes, and this option is no more tenable than telling a child to run away from home if they don't like their parents.

You sound a lot like a failed parent "It is not my fault you don't enjoy the circumstances I imposed on you" - or is it? Of course it is. It is entirely the parent's fault, and their responsibility.


Also, you seem to be getting awfully personal. Let me assure you I enjoy my time within the state's boundaries just fine for now. But that doesn't stop me from considering the immorality of this whole ordeal.

Bull Shit. You can kill yourself or go to Somalia or swim to Cuba or whatever. — James Riley

"If you don't like it here just kill yourself" holds even less merit.

So you are a child and the state is your parent? — James Riley

A citizen, just like a child, is put under an inescapable authority involuntarily.

That flies in the face of your freedom we honor. — James Riley

Indeed it does.

Well, if you're going to use that analogy, then, by the time you can pay taxes, leave. We relinquish authority over you. — James Riley

Except that citizenship isn't simply relinquished, but even then, this would only make sense if states gave individuals an option to opt out - they don't. They spend the entire duration of a citizen's formative years to make it more dependent of the state - like a mother afraid that her child will one day leave her.

Life nor citizenship is something the individual voluntarily participates in - these are imposed by their parents and the state respectively.

"If you don't like it go away" makes as little sense when said by a state as it does when said by a child's parents.

One key difference is that (good) parents will support their child in gaining indepence and eventually will relinquish their authority over it.

The rise of radicalism was sparked by global powers like the US, Russia, China, etc. to influence the region.

These global powers could send money and arms to the factions they want to see in power, however civilized people are unlikely to go to war simply because a large nation wants them to.

Religious extremism was the spark that was needed for people to take up arms.

As to why: natural resources, military industrial complex, Israeli geopolitics, to name a few.

You can frame it any way you like - it doesn't change what taxation is.

Should people who misbehave in a restaurant be served even though they paid? — Benkei

You are not forced under threat of violence to go to a restaurant.

On another note, I must say it is a bit disheartening to see grand ideals of healthcare for all be dismissed at the first sign of trouble.

healthcare is a privilege not a right and we can and should establish requirements as to when you get that privilege. — Benkei

And clearly then, those who do not receive such a priviledge should not have to pay?

Yes, you have opinions about what belongs to who, and use those opinions to justify the use of violence. A system of "might makes right."

it's a rather clear hypothetical that people on the other side of the argument seem to refuse to want to answer because the answer seems rather clear - ethically speaking. — Benkei

Everything must seem rather clear if you believe your own perspectice is all that exists. Moral flag-waving is not very convincing when it is done with lack of understanding or utter disregard for other people's viewpoints.

But alas, you are free to believe your contrived hypotheticals of perfect knowledge contribute to anything other than your own satisfaction.

Don't mind James. I think he is roleplaying as his avatar, Travis Bickle - a man stuck in a hero fantasy that he himself undermines through his propensity for violence.

It seems to me a moral person would champion universal, single payor health care for 8 billion people and then calculate how much kit and how many health care workers would be required to respond to a pandemic that makes covid look like an inconvenient pimple. — James Riley

As noble as that may sound, that universal healthcare is paid for by forcing individuals to part with their wealth under threat of violence.

In fact, the majority of political opinions are of this nature - opinions about what one believes governments should force others to do.

I don't believe what constitutes a moral person is whether they have opinions of this nature. As far as I am concerned opinions aren't very important at all in that regard, but such opinions seem to sooner contribute to the immorality of a person.

Let's assume you have perfect knowledge and there are two patients, male, 26-years old, both have COVID, one is vaccinated the other isn't. Both need a vent and there's only one vent. Who gets the vent? Is this an obvious case to you? If not, why not? — Benkei

The further we dive into hypotheticals, the more I am convinced the point of this is allowing you to fantasize of the punishment you would so eagerly apply to people whose choices you disagree with.

Maybe, in such a case as you describe, it is enough to consider it a devilish dilemma that I would not wish upon anyone. To have to make such a choice may haunt someone for the rest of their life, yet here you are treating it like you have all the answers - like it is a game.

Was there any attempt made at warning this person?

If not, there is something seriously wrong with the moderation on this site.

PS: Turns out he was warned, so fair is fair.

Of course, it has to do with revenge.

Some consequences ought to be felt. — Benkei

Your disdain for people who make different decisions than you, regardless of their reasons, shines clearly through your posts. You dislike these people, and wish them to be punished for their mistakes. The fact that they were forced to pay their entire lives for collective healthcare - ergo for a large part paid for bad decisions of others - apparently irrelevant.

I've told you before, your opinions seem based on surface level representations of a problem, and you don't make the slightest attempt at looking beyond your own moral framework - apparently even when it concerns matters of life and death.

Like it is a game, it is stated that "people should be booted out of the IC."

Finally, if a hospital is ever faced with a triage situation they ought to boot unvaccinated Covid patients out of the IC regardless of other considerations like age, likelihood of survival, etc. Some consequences ought to be felt. — Benkei

Your idea of "ought to" is for medical professionals to carry out petty revenge fantasies?

What an utterly sick statement you made - I find it hard to believe you really meant it, and I question your sanity if you do.

The Netherlands.

To give further context, the link shows an official communication of the government and primarily summarizes an analysis that was done by a department of the Ministry of Finance.

I've tried to find links that leads to one of the studies this analysis was based on, but was greeted by a paywall: https://esb.nu/incoming/20061414/een-eerste-kwantitatieve-analyse-van-de-nederlandse-coronamaatregelen

This matter was discussed in the House of Representatives, so there is no question as to whether this analysis was made.

Doesn't sound of much use here then? Is it just your word against his, or do you have some sources? — Isaac

To emphasize, the MP did not deny the existence of the cost-benefit analysis that was made - he just claimed to never have seen it.

The document can be found here, when the link to "2 MKBA versie 1 en 2.pdf" is followed, but it is not in English.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17nAOd5mXetuaNqKe9MXLLEQxjjYE1z-s

But since when have we made all our decisions on the basis of which course of action leads to the least risk of adverse health outcomes, and nothing else? — Isaac

And whether those actions lead to the least risk is up for debate.

A while back my government had a cost-benefit analysis done weighing the benefits of the Covid-19 measures versus the indirect consequences.

The conclusion was that the Covid-19 measures were estimated to produce around 100,000 healthy life years, and cost over FIVE TIMES that number; around 520,000 healthy life years.

This analysis was of course ignored and the Covid-19 measures were taken anyway.

This was discussed in the House of Representatives long after the fact, where the MP (predictably) denied ever having seen the analysis. (In a time of supposed crisis, a cost-benefit analysis of measures that infringed upon citizen's fundamental rights was not read by the MP?)

Why do you think there is so much resistance? Because the sacrifices are a lot higher than you care to admit. We've talked about this earlier: you accuse people of not caring about others, but you show not the slightest ability to understand others either. It makes all this yelling from a moral pedestal is very unconvincing.

Even if you would multiply that number by five, it would still leave 99% of people having to make permanent sacrifices in their way of living. That's beyond all proportionality to me.

First of all, we'd have to define "miniscule." 600k dead in the U.S alone, — James Riley

Roughly 0.2%, no?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the miniscule percentage of the population that runs a risk of getting seriously ill from covid to make that sacrifice? I think it does.

Because anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists and other experts have shown that man is a social creature. A pack animal, if you will. Public life has been there since the cave and before. Discos, not so much. — James Riley

Well, even someone who doesn't partake in public life can still be social, but in their private lives.

Why is the baseline at participation in public life? And why is participation not a luxury like discos?

A small bit of information from the country I live in was recently released: a report done for the government to evaluate the effects of a lockdown estimated the amount of healthy life years to be saved by the covid measures to be 100,000. The amount lost was estimated around 520,000.

Perhaps not directly related, but something to think about.