We’re talking about taking the fruits of someone’s labor, their money, their property, which I’ve said countless times. — NOS4A2

And you. Do you breathe clean air, drink clean water, travel on roads, go to the store, use money to obtain goods, and so on and on and on? Do you create yourself or make yourself all of these things? In addition to the particular costs of things, there is the underlying cost of providing simply the opportunity and possibility of these things - which in some cases involves protecting you and your access to them from people who would take them away from you.

But if you can call taxes theft, you must mean that you have a primordial right and entitlement to all of these benefits without contributing to defraying their cost, that you can take "fruit" without paying for them. Clearly there is theft, and manifestly you the thief.

Is this your version of Socratic irony?

Do you intend to answer any of my points, or just whinge?

No I don’t advocate for denying the comforts you and entire generations of people have become dependant on, built as they were from the appropriation of other people’s wealth.

Questions are points now? Did you know you can make arguments in other ways?

No I don’t advocate for denying the comforts you and entire generations of people have become dependent on, built as they were from the appropriation of other people’s wealth. — NOS4A2

And my own. And their own. We - we - enter into this agreement willingly. Particulars and matters of degree may be issues sometimes. But not the substance.

But you don't have an issue here. No substance. Back to kennel.

The imposition of the Euro is like a stealth European war. — synthesis

It is. Actually it looks like the classic Europeans wars back in the past. Nevertheless, even though the euro system a has its flaws, I think it has a good cooperative principle: free market between European and a solid currency.
Imagine not having the euro and then other currencies could go to a random European country and buy whatever they want with no it’s real value. I guess this is one of the strategies the Europeans thought back in the day.

But, of course, inside the European system there are some problems too. This morning I say a brief episode of a random channel which asked: “why the Mediterranean economies are so inestable?” and the someone replied: because the Euro is prepared just to the north European countries.
What a complex debate.

Speak for yourself. I never entered in to it willingly. I have no other choice but to comply. Back to the herd.

Back to the herd. — NOS4A2

Lol! Very good.

Speak for yourself. I never entered in to it willingly. I have no other choice but to comply. — NOS4A2

As a moral person, sure you do. But I suspect you're such a person who rails at the decadence of convenience while asking the waiter for a re-fill.

I reckon you understand the underlying rationale of insurance. Do you not see society as a mutual insurance company constituted of all by all for all? Perhaps not perfect, but better than any alternative?

I do not see the state as a mutual insurance company, or as some social contract. I see it as a predatory institution devised as a means of control and exploitation. As Thomas Paine put it, it is at best “a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world”—and we’ve seen it at its worst. There is no check and balance, no right, or no constitution it is willing to nullify in order to protect its own interests and power.

Paine was practical - finding his razor(s) in considerations of practicality. It seems you are not.

Roger Williams is instructive, here. He was a Separatist - a Puritan - who separated from pretty much everything not as perfect as he thought it should be until he arrived at last at himself. And with that last in view he reconsidered and revalued and thereupon pretty much returned to the world. I commend to you a study and consideration of the methods of this way - inasmuch as you seem well along it.

Questions are points now? Did you know you can make arguments in other ways? — NOS4A2

OK. I'll try...

Property is only defined legally, everything you own you own by the concession of the government who ensures you are protected from those stronger than you who would otherwise just take it. There's no 'natural right' to property. You did not acquire what you have solely by the sweat of your own brow but by standing on the shoulders of giants. It is nothing short of vile, self-serving hubris that you think you own anything that isn't jointly made with the co-operation of those among whom you live. The idea that the giving of some small recompense to reflect that is 'theft' is one a petulant teenager might give to exasperated parents, not one worthy of serious discussion.

I’ll check him out Tim. Thank you.



Maybe that’s where we differ. I believe one has a right to his property and you believe such a right can only be decided by the whims of a government. I believe property precedes law, is the natural extension of ones faculty and labor, and that to appropriate it is evil. So we disagree at the very first premise.

I do not think I acquire all I have without help from others, or that I do not require neighbors to cooperate for the better of our community. The idea that one should be forced to give a “small recompense” to some centralized institution instead of providing charity, labor, protection to his own community is selfish and lazy.

believe one has a right to his property — NOS4A2

At issue is not the right, but what constitutes your property. Is everything you acquire by any means yours simply by virtue of having laboured for it?

If so, then spoils of war and theft both result in rightful property.

As does tax. The government must undergo some work to acquire tax, no?

At issue is not the right, but what constitutes your property. Is everything you acquire by any means yours simply by virtue of having laboured for it?

If so, then spoils of war and theft both result in rightful property.

As does tax. The government must undergo some work to acquire tax, no?

There are two ways by which one can acquire the means for his survival: through the products of his own labor or by appropriating the products and labor of others. I prefer the former and repudiate the latter. I don’t do this because some law tells me to, but because my conscience does. Therefor I afford him the right to his property, and will defend this right instead of violate it. If I wish to acquire his property I do so with common enterprise and free exchange rather than force and coercion.

So no, I do not think stolen property and plunder constitute rightful property and that one has a right to such property simply because he labored to steal it. After all, I’ve been railing against compulsion and appropriation this whole time.

There are two ways by which one can acquire the means for his survival: through the products of his own labor or by appropriating the products and labor of others. I prefer the former and repudiate the latter. — NOS4A2

Those two are the same thing as you've still not answered the question about how to establish rightful ownership of property without law.

Nothing is the product of your own labour alone, you cannot produce even so much as a grain of flour by your own labour alone. You need a field, some seed, sunlight, air, water and nutrients. did you acquire those by your labour alone? No.

Organising a government, maintaining an armed force and setting up a system of taxation using that threat - that's all very much the government's own labour. So why are the taxes thus gained not the product of their own labour?

You see all "products of [one's] own labour" involve "appropriating the products and labor of others" - the field, the seed, the clean air, the good soil, the clean water, the open ground... All the products and labour of others. and that's just to grow a grain of wheat. Multiply that by a thousand for your computer, your fridge, your car...

s not police restraint and eventual imprisonment not a violent reprisal clearly stated in law? — Isaac

It is. Therefore, the threat is clearly stated and no assumption needs to be made.

I'd like to think so too. So the crux of the matter isn't anything to do with legal property, it's to do with the fairness of each person having their needs met. we'd allow the starving man that loaf, regardless of the means by which he acquired it, regardless of his legal rights to it, regardless of the fact that another has a claim on it...rather we'd allow him it entirely on the grounds that he should have it, that it would be inhuman to deny him it.

So how are taxes different, in essence? — Isaac

The fact that I was going to share the loaf of broad, does not changed the fact that I am being threatened into doing so.

What happens when all-benevolent loaf-of-bread-sharing governments turns into something else?

What it comes down to, is governments forcing their inhabitants to act in accordance with subjective moral viewpoints through threats of violence.

That I may or may not agree with said moral viewpoints is, as far as I am concerned, not relevant; the means are unjust.

It is. Therefore, the threat is clearly stated and no assumption needs to be made. — Tzeentch

I don't see what difference that makes.

What happens when all-benevolent loaf-of-bread-sharing governments turns into something else? — Tzeentch

That's a different matter altogether. Not liking what a government is doing and not liking governments are two very different positions.

What it comes down to, is governments forcing their inhabitants to act in accordance with subjective moral viewpoints through threats of violence.

That I may or may not agree with said moral viewpoints is, as far as I am concerned, not relevant; the means are unjust. — Tzeentch

Again, this just assumes the threat of violence is required. when you work for someone, they're required to pay you by threat of violence. So how do you avoid that?

What do you suggest we do (in cases of moral conflict) to resolve those conflicts other than use democratically elected governments to decide which course of action to take and enforce it if necessary?

You established a very important dilema inside this topic and it is interesting. Which course of action should take the government to make us pay taxes? Why do they need it ?
Here we have clearly a moral/ethical problem. Somehow most of all democracies of the world use this system. Pay taxes to use the public services and then, if you don't do so, you will get punish.
But... Whey they control us? Do not they believe in us? I guess it us noticeable that a considerable amount of rich people do not want pay taxes. I guess they are just somehow selfish but here we have the debate itself.
Are we really free with the money/income we earn each month? Because if we do not pay taxes the government will enforce us to do it. So we are not free at all. In this point, you are even more free buying a property than having the money in a bank.

Note: I am not sayin here that not paying taxes is good. But somehow our income is attached to government laws and regulations just to ensure that everyone (or the majority) will pay their portion needed it.

I don't see what difference that makes. — Isaac

An assumption takes place in the head of the assumer. If an individual wants to make assumptions about my reaction to them taking my property, then I am the subject and not the actor.

In the case of taxation, the government is clearly the actor and overtly threatens with violence.

That's a different matter altogether. Not liking what a government is doing and not liking governments are two very different positions. — Isaac

Sure. But I think it is relevant.

Again, this just assumes the threat of violence is required. when you work for someone, they're required to pay you by threat of violence. So how do you avoid that? — Isaac

This is not an action I am undertaking or even voluntarily a part of. It is not my responsibility to avoid it, though I can voice my displeasure at this state of affairs as I am doing now.

What do you suggest we do (in cases of moral conflict) to resolve those conflicts other than use democratically elected governments to decide which course of action to take and enforce it if necessary? — Isaac

Beyond protecting people from physical violence and overt threats thereof (in a more general sense: protection citizens' constitutional rights), I don't see much a role for government in the arbitration of moral conflicts. Let people figure it out for themselves.

Why do they need it ? — javi2541997

By "they" in your context you mean government. Who do you imagine government is? What do you imagine government is for?

Let people figure it out for themselves. — Tzeentch

They did, a long time ago. They came up with government. What alternative do you offer?

Who do you imagine government is? What do you imagine government is for? — tim wood

Yes. I am not saying government is useless. I want to try to point out why the government needs to enforce us to pay taxes by laws. It is interesting because this shows that probably most of the citizens will not do it by their own.
To be honest, I do not know what the government is for but yes we need because it is impossible live in a society without authority. It would be a chaos. I imagine a less aggressive government but I am dreaming.

Nevertheless, I guess issues that important as taxes should depend on law and judges. I mean, more judicial control rather than politicians because it is so easy to change the tax machine when every 4 years a new government is elected.

An assumption takes place in the head of the assumer. If an individual wants to make assumptions about my reaction to them taking my property, then I am the subject and not the actor.

In the case of taxation, the government is clearly the actor and overtly threatens with violence. — Tzeentch

I was talking about the government. It's illegal to steal cars. The government makes the overt threat that you will be forcibly imprisoned if to take a car you don't own. It makes the same overt threat if you take money you don't own. I'm not seeing the difference. Are you saying that the government should protect your property but not it's own, or that it shouldn't protect your property either?

That's a different matter altogether. Not liking what a government is doing and not liking governments are two very different positions. — Isaac


Sure. But I think it is relevant. — Tzeentch

I do too, but I suspect not in the same way. I think it's relevant because most arguments starting "I don't think governments should be allowed to..." end up as "I don't like it when governments...". If you want government, but only to do the things you want it to do, then you're either advocating a retreat from democracy, or you're just being hypocritical, which is a much less persuasive argument.

Again, this just assumes the threat of violence is required. when you work for someone, they're required to pay you by threat of violence. So how do you avoid that? — Isaac


This is not an action I am undertaking or even voluntarily a part of. It is not my responsibility to avoid it, though I can voice my displeasure at this state of affairs as I am doing now. — Tzeentch

You mean you don't work for anyone?

Beyond protecting people from physical violence and overt threats thereof (in a more general sense: protection citizens' constitutional rights), I don't see much a role for government in the arbitration of moral conflicts. Let people figure it out for themselves. — Tzeentch

Except that's not what you're saying is it? Because people did figure it out for themselves. They gathered together, selected candidates, asked others to vote, ceded power to those individuals to make decisions for the benefit of the group and enforce those decisions against those who disagreed. You're now saying they got that wrong. So it's not "Let people figure it out for themselves" at all. It's "People need to do what I want them to do"

Edit - just noticed @tim wood beat me to it.

Are we really free with the money/income we earn each month? Because if we do not pay taxes the government will enforce us to do it. So we are not free at all. — javi2541997

You're perfectly free to spend the money you own in whatever way you see fit. 20% (or whatever) of the money in your wage packet is not yours, it's the government's. So obviously you're not free to spend that however you see fit, it doesn't belong to you. Why would you think you could spend money that doesn't belong to you?

Why would you think you could spend money that doesn't belong to you? — Isaac

Interesting. I didn’t see it that way. You see it as a primary factor the fact 20 % of our income belongs to the State. This is made in a way that our life in a 20 % depends on State. I am not saying here it is bad but somehow impressive it is inflicted by the laws which percent belongs to State. This is somehow modern sacrifices. We have to sacrifice a 20 % to maintain the State and public services. Agree.

But why we have to enforce it by laws? Why is not innate sharing our benefits to others as human behaviour? Probably because most of the people would avoid paying taxes?

why we have to enforce it by laws? Why is not innate sharing our benefits to others as human behaviour? Probably because most of the people would avoid paying taxes? — javi2541997

We live in large enough societies that your actions will affect people you don't even know and will probably never meet.

Most of what government does is resolve disputes between parties who have an interest but who do not know each other (or perhaps don't like each other) sufficiently well to arrive easily at a mutually beneficial agreement. It's much easier, given the sheer scale of such potential disagreements in a country of several million, to have such settlements prepared in advance.

But... Whey they control us? Do not they believe in us? I guess it us noticeable that a considerable amount of rich people do not want pay taxes. I guess they are just somehow selfish but here we have the debate itself.

Are we really free with the money/income we earn each month? Because if we do not pay taxes the government will enforce us to do it. So we are not free at all. In this point, you are even more free buying a property than having the money in a bank.

All of the state’s institutions are directed towards preserving its own life, increasing its own power, and enlarging the scope of its own activity. Our lives, our power, and the scope of our own activity decreases in proportion. We become dependant, not independent.

All of the state’s institutions are directed towards preserving its own life, increasing its own power, and enlarging the scope of its own activity. — NOS4A2

So according to your...

There are two ways by which one can acquire the means for his survival: through the products of his own labor or by appropriating the products and labor of others. I prefer the former — NOS4A2

... the government are fully entitled to the products of all that labour.

the government are fully entitled to the products of all that labour.

That’s wrong and for the reasons I’ve already stated.

We live in large enough societies that your actions will affect people you don't even know and will probably never meet. — Isaac

Well yes. This point can be a good argument about why governments need to enforce the pay of taxes through laws. We live in nations where supposedly we have to help each other but sadly it is not as easy as just the theory. Keep in mind that taxes are always a political debate to start with. So it is not inner in each person give their benefits to help people they will probably never meet

All of the state’s institutions are directed towards preserving its own life, increasing its own power, and enlarging the scope of its own activity. — NOS4A2

This is why sometimes people give up about taxes, justice, public administration, etc... because it looks like governments build the institutions just to help their own interests forgetting the interests of the population.
So... the institutions are not bad at all. It is the selfishness of governors that poison everything they touch.