d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Are Taxes Theft?
Prev1101112131420Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1370Replies: 194Track Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#111
May 26 2021 09:45am
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 26 2021 09:52am)
I'm going to list a few states of affairs and the definition of "rightful ownership" that follows.

1) When there are no other people, or when there is no competition for objects, there is no ownership. There are merely objects and one human making use of them.
2) When there are other people competing for the same objects, then the use of force is what makes the "rightful owner". There is no theft because the ability to protect the items you want to keep is what defines "rightful owner".
3) When those people have formed a society with rules about ownership, then the "rightful owner" becomes dependent on the social contract, as the society will always be capable of exerting more force to reallocate property than individuals.

Any definition of theft must include, either as an explicit provision or as a consequence of its definijtion, that the rightful owner cannot steal an object. In a society, who is the rightful owner is dependent on the social contract, and the law enforcement mechanisms.

Therefore, taxation cannot be theft, as the rightful owner is the entity with the leverage within the social contract to levy the taxes and enforce their collection.

Then, we must enter into a discussion as to whether the social contract is legitimate, as the "rightful owner" will depend on the members of the society being willing and able to levy force against those who break the contract. In this case, there are a few things we can generally agree on. That representation of a group held by the social contract is necessary (taxation without representation being wrong is a founding principle of the country after all), that members bound by the social contract has a right to redress of their grievances (due process), and a few others. It could be said that if these conditions aren't met, such as under a dictatorship where the peasantry is kept in line by force, the social contract becomes void and "rightful ownership" reverts back to the second state. A group of peasants rising up to take back what they see as the wealth they produced is correct because they have a means of force greater than the ones currently holding it.

This is more or less my view on the subject. Oppressed groups are generally in state 2 since the social contract has either been actively worked against them without their involvement, or has failed to redress their grievances in a way that satisfies the requirement for due process and adequate representation.

Ultimately, we have a disagreement on what constitutes "adequate representation". In your view (I think) you would say that anything less than the ability to totally opt out at any time while being able to stay in the same location and keep all benefits up to that point (you don't have to pay back your education, use of services, have your votes subtracted, and still get to keep military protection by staying in the territory) isn't adequate representation. I think that's silly. Both are ultimately opinions.


Premise 2 is preposterous. Competition that arises after the fact does not lend it legitimacy.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#112
May 26 2021 10:08am
Quote (Santara @ May 26 2021 10:45am)
Premise 2 is preposterous. Competition that arises after the fact does not lend it legitimacy.


Its not really a premise.

After what fact? I'm saying that in absence of any agreement or society then the rightful owner is just whoever can maintain posession of the item. Imagine we both want an apple, but you have a gun. In absence of any other circumstance the one with the gun gets the Apple. There is no other basis for ownership. You're going to eat the Apple. We don't have any obligation to each other, no enforcement mechanism, no contract.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 26 2021 10:09am
Member
Posts: 9,155
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
#113
May 26 2021 10:46am
Fed devaluing currency is the greater theft.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#114
May 26 2021 10:47am
Quote (RedFromWinter @ May 26 2021 11:46am)
Fed devaluing currency is the greater theft.


Faster they inflate away my loans the better
Member
Posts: 9,155
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
#115
May 26 2021 10:48am
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 26 2021 11:47am)
Faster they inflate away my loans the better


They want everyone to converge on 0 net worth.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#116
May 26 2021 11:01am
Quote (RedFromWinter @ May 26 2021 11:48am)
They want everyone to converge on 0 net worth.


Who is they?
Member
Posts: 9,155
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
#117
May 26 2021 03:06pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 26 2021 12:01pm)
Who is they?


The federal overlords.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
#118
May 26 2021 05:09pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 26 2021 12:08pm)
Its not really a premise.

After what fact? I'm saying that in absence of any agreement or society then the rightful owner is just whoever can maintain posession of the item. Imagine we both want an apple, but you have a gun. In absence of any other circumstance the one with the gun gets the Apple. There is no other basis for ownership. You're going to eat the Apple. We don't have any obligation to each other, no enforcement mechanism, no contract.


You are wrong insofar as there is no "rightful owner", there is simply one with possession and one without. There is no reason to inject morality into it.

That said, "ownership" and "theft" have been staples of human morality since the beginning. The concept of ownership is one of the most fundamental building blocks upon which social organization is based. If someone can't be sure that the food in their possession is actually theirs, and they need to contest that with violence, we end up in a Hobbesian state of nature.
Member
Posts: 22,440
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 96.11
#119
May 26 2021 06:04pm
Quote (cambovenzi @ May 21 2021 06:51pm)
Sic.


I appreciate your reply, took some time to think, and have only now returned with some thoughts.

I think libertarianism, for me, sounds like idealism due to the emphasis placed on voluntary action. Perhaps this is the result of my own cynicism, pessimism, or ignorance, but I don't believe humans have shown themselves to be presently inclined to voluntary action that supports a society at-scale. That doesn't, therefore, mean that it's an impossibility. It just means that I am not as convinced yet as some libertarians may be that voluntary action will manifest so easily out of human benevolence.

While I agree with you that the USD has no objective, inherent value, I do think that subjective value and the apparatus that the State currently provides is a critical piece for the economics to even exist. It is why that, even though others may view this as illogical, I view the hypothetical of being taxed 10% on $100 as being +$90 in the end, rather than -$10. I suppose the key difference here is whether the taxation feels "just" or not. Personally, I much prefer the language of "just" v. "theft" because it opens up the conversation a lot more. Perhaps for those who view taxation = theft, any amount of taxation is seen as unjust? If that's the case, I find that position easier to engage with, and less likely to devolve into a debate over semantics, which I often feel this discussion typically results in--both here in PaRD, and in real life.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 26 2021 06:21pm
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#120
May 26 2021 06:16pm
Quote (bogie160 @ May 26 2021 06:09pm)
You are wrong insofar as there is no "rightful owner", there is simply one with possession and one without. There is no reason to inject morality into it.

That said, "ownership" and "theft" have been staples of human morality since the beginning. The concept of ownership is one of the most fundamental building blocks upon which social organization is based. If someone can't be sure that the food in their possession is actually theirs, and they need to contest that with violence, we end up in a Hobbesian state of nature.


I am using "rightful owner" in a very loose sense for the second state. In absence of any form of wider agreement there is no true rightful, only people with force. The one who keeps it gets it. End of story.

Your second issue is where we transition from the second to third premise. We secure our ownership, and with it a fundamental building block of society, with the social contract in whatever form it takes. If we have a valid social contract which secures ownership, secures due process, etc. then we are in the third state. When we lose that stability and revert to violence taking things we enter the second. Additionally, we can be in the second and third state depending on which group we look at. Jews in Nazi Germany obviously aren't bound by the social contract when they are escaping extermination, but the Germans with full rights reaping the benefits are.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1101112131420Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact