Apparently the basic function of states wasn't clear to some, and you asked for it so there you go.

Communism proposes the absence of a state and self-governance. That doesn't imply taxes. — Tzeentch

That wasn't the point. It's like a 100% tax throughout.

^{(more of a semantic/dictionary difference, like "state" versus whatever you might call it, not all that relevant in this context)}

You can opt out of the social contract in several ways:
Leave the country and try to find one that has more favourable laws and that will have you.
Be a hermit and live by your wits, off the grid, shunning all transactions.
Become a criminal and acquire money by means in which the state has no stake.
Be so rich that you can get away with tax legal evasion.
Work for cash under the table.
Take holy orders; enter a monastery; found a church.
Give away all of your taxable income.
Don't work at all and hope your fellow citizens take pity on you.
Each "out" has some perks and some risks. Like life.

An observation regarding taxes...

The places I call home have what some would call fairly high taxes. Yet, I know a few ordinary families with, say, more than one car. Societies with public transportation and self-made rich folks. And reasonable general standard of living.

Such like suggests (to me at least) that anti-taxers go by (dogmatic) ideology, but I could surely be wrong.

I suppose the next time someone brings up gun violence in the US I will recommend them to immigrate somewhere with stricter gun laws. :snicker: — Tzeentch

Fair enough.

↪Mikie Apparently the basic function of states wasn't clear to some, and you asked for it so there you go. — Tzeentch

The true anarchist/individualist is always outnumbered. Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? Or will they be alone? Choosing the "least bad" is rational.

An observation regarding taxes...

The places I call home have what some would call fairly high taxes. Yet, I know a few ordinary families with, say, more than one car. Societies with public transportation and self-made rich folks. And reasonable general standard of living.

Such like suggests (to me at least) that anti-taxers go by (dogmatic) ideology, but I could surely be wrong.

Personally I don’t care if your tax money built me a home made of gold and furnished me with every luxury I could imagine. It’s wrong to take fruits of someone’s labor and use it to benefit others, just as it was wrong to do it to exploit the fruits of the slave’s labor, and for the same reasons. So I wouldn’t oppose it because I was told to, or because it furthers my lot in life, but because it is wrong to behave that way towards others.

But compare your tax burden with the tax burden in the UAE or the Cayman Islands or Monaco.

It’s wrong to take fruits of someone’s labor — NOS4A2

Which happens to an extreme degree in corporate America, the “private sector.” Oddly, we never hear you railing against that. It always works out somehow that this kind of exploitation is perfectly justified. :chin:

Which happens to an extreme degree in corporate America, the “private sector.” Oddly, we never hear you railing against that. It always works out somehow that this kind of exploitation is perfectly justified.

Why would I rail against the voluntary activity between consenting adults?

So it has nothing to do with principle. But we knew that already. Which is why your claim against slavery is absurd as well. What of the people who wanted to be slaves? Who are you to interfere with an individual’s freedom?

When it comes to the demands of capital or the prerogatives of the right kind of Americans, Republicans believe, absolutely, in the light touch of a “small” government that stays out of the way. But when it comes to Americans deemed deviant for their poverty or their transgressions against a traditional code of patriarchal morality, Republicans believe, just as fervently, that the only answer is the heaviest and most meddlesome hand of the state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/opinion/republicans-abortion-guns-big-government.html

Reminds me of someone.

So much for someone’s “fruits.”

Why would I rail against the voluntary activity between consenting adults? — NOS4A2

Then why do you?

Laughable, isn’t it? This coming from the same guy in favor of child labor. “What about the kid who wants to work?”

Apparently it’s not just consenting adults. It’s whatever corporate America wants.

The principle is that I rail against the involuntary activity between non-consenting parties, not the voluntary activity between consenting parties. Your principle seems to be the opposite.

Then why do you?

I don’t.

The principle is that I rail against the involuntary activity between non-consenting parties, — NOS4A2

The employer consented to deduct a specified amount of every employee's salary for specified remissions to specified agencies. When you take the job, this is one of the conditions you agree to.

not the voluntary activity between consenting parties. — NOS4A2

So slavery and child labor is fine, as long as it’s done voluntarily. Got it.

The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law.

Great advice. The criminal avenue of course can lead to loss of liberty such as jail or shot by rivals or even police.

Depending on your method of wealth acquisition such as a start up it could parallel that of criminal enterprise. I remember a certain taxi hailing company using bribery to push out rival companies I believe they are called Uber. The ceo being under investigation.

Tax evasion by the ultra rich is a tactic thats essentially untouchable by most government laws as in some cases it’s not even illegal but simply smart …off shoring is very easy. The rich only make the news when they slip up somewhere and some journalist dig up money trails.

Can you blame the rich or even ultra rich for paying as little tax as they can when most governments misspent taxpayers money? That is the question

If you want to call voluntary activity between consenting parties “slavery”, be my guest.

If you want to call voluntary activity between consenting parties “slavery”, be my guest. — NOS4A2

So if a child of 10 wants to work, it ceases to be child labor. If a person voluntarily becomes a slave (as has happened throughout history), it’s no longer slavery.

Cool. So, again, you don’t really give a shit about “taking the fruits of another’s labor.” You’re fine with it, provided it’s “voluntary” (wink wink).

Unfortunately, the use of “voluntary” is complete garbage.

Yea, if someone wants to be a slave, learns to be under the dominion of a master, and have his money taken from him without his permission, like you want, I say go for it.

The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law. — NOS4A2

The employee is forced to work, or else he doesn’t eat. Guess one is voluntary and the other isn’t though.

Keep shilling for corporate America buddy. You’re doing a great job.

Do you think food just falls in someone’s mouth? All food is acquired with work, buddy.

his money taken from him without his permission, — NOS4A2

Oh no, WITH permission. It’s totally voluntary. Just like working for a corporation.

For those who don’t want to obey laws they don’t like— such as paying taxes — they have the same choice a person who doesn’t want to be exploited by an owner has: don’t do it! Just move to a place where they don’t tax, or don’t tax as much.

Seems simple enough to me.

All food is acquired with work, buddy. — NOS4A2

Yeah, so I guess babies, the disabled, children, the elderly, etc., better get off their asses.

Yeah, so I guess babies, the disabled, children, the elderly, etc., better get off their asses.

Until I see you feeding any of those people I will never deny them any means to acquire food. You would.

Until I see you feeding any of those people I will never deny them any means to acquire food. You would. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Yes, I’m often in the habit of pulling babies away from their mothers.

I wonder of the two of us, who is in favor of food assistance programs and who isn’t? :chin:

Oh well, guess that doesn’t count as “means.”

I am not in favor of stealing people’s money so Mikie can say he favors legislation, no.

So you WOULD deny them the means. Got it. Apparently paying taxes is worse than poor children and the disabled starving. Cool.

Your sick worldview never fails to deliver. :clap:

In any case, anyone paying taxes does so voluntarily. Anyone working for a wage — likewise, voluntary. Never mind the nuances. Those who truly don’t want to do either have alternatives: leave the country or become a farmer (or just not be poor), respectively.

I think I get it. I hope I’m made an honorary libertarian.

If you want to delegate your responsibilities to your fellow human beings to someone else, go for it. But I don’t think that favoring a piece of legislation—in other words sitting around and doing nothing—is any sign that you’re helping anyone but yourself. Until I see you out there feeding people or giving them housing, your sanctimony falls on deaf ears.

Communism violates one of the most basic rights of human beings that of ownership such as your own property or farm.

Perhaps the state will want to share my wife too…how abhorrent.

A mildly socialistic government or even a Scandinavian version of socialism would be preferred to outright communism for the simple reason that shelter should be a basic human right in the face of homelessness and the discomforts of natures harshness.

But to strip off someone else’s house/property/farm through no fault of their own strikes me as a cruel blow to his hard work and graft in attaining them.