That's not the argument

'We've all benefited from the provision of public goods so taxation has some justification' is what I was saying

Resorting to strawman arguments on page 1 already...

as always you fail to understand the most basic facts in the world

I'm curious to hear more about your perspective on the piece of taxation that you feel leaves people in a materially worse position. It seems to me that people have an income, specifically 'money', as a result of the State--not in spite of it. Seems like an important part of the puzzle to utilize taxes to protect that apparatus, because without it the idea of 'income', 'money', and the ability to seek recompense over civil/financial matters becomes challenged, if not completely untenable.

As usual you insult instead of engaging.



There's also the issue that the money we all use is dollars, which only exists so it can be used to pay taxes, and part of the agreement of printing dollars is that you will pay taxes with it. So anything you have in dollars can't be theft when it's taxed since that's the only reason your dollars exist.

insult

if that statement is an insult you have a serious snowflake problem

that being said, hopeless leftists like you simply cant understand that their social theories have nothing to do with reality

your statement about property being a concept of a tax funded state protecting it is simply wrong

its a convenient thing we have created, but at the very core my property is whatever i can have access to when i want it

and over like 99% of the history of our race that has been decided by pure force

when i discover that apple tree in no mans land, its mine if i have the skill and power to control how this tree is used

you are free to come around and try to take an apple and i will attempt to drive you away, whoever wins can call that tree his property

these collectivist property ideas that everything belongs to everybody are beyond laughable

When property is decided by force and the state possesses overwhelming force, then property becomes a result of the tax funded state, and since the state has the overwhelming power nothing the state takes can be considered theft.

You haven't contradicted any of my positions. In fact you've shown your position is pretty close to mine. It's just that I was restricting my discussion to the context of an organized society.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 21 2021 04:48pm

Taxation is rape



Capital gains tax is the funniest.

An imaginary tax on something that doesn't even happen in the real world.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on May 21 2021 04:58pm

You answered "NO" its not theft and added something that was an apparent justification for it. Upon clarification I accept that you did not mean that as a justification of your answer (an answer which is unsupported and false.)
I am not trying to strawman you.

I am making the point that your personal feelings(happy) on its benefits, or the benefits of what it was spent on(education/healthcare), do not determine whether or not it is theft.




Taxation is literally taking people's money. They are inherently materially worse off.

The forcible confiscation of wealth by the state(aka theft) is not at all required for the ideas of income, money and adjudication to be a thing.
Income and wealth do not originate with the state. They are the result of trading goods and services with other people.
Money is a medium of exchange, sometimes issued, mandated or manipulated by a state, but the state is not required.

Different challenges arising in the funding or operation of various services in lieu of services funded by taxation/coercion has no bearing on the fact that taxation is theft. There are a number of books etc on the various topics involved in those challenges and on the existence of things like money separate from the state. Gold and cryptocurrency are big examples.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on May 21 2021 05:06pm

But isn't 'wealth' a subjective, and contextual term? Money is indeed a medium of exchange, and currently people are only (or, at least, largely) acquiring wealth in the form of a State-backed currency. I guess I'm confused as to this possibility then, because it means that the State is simultaneously providing wealth (or, at least, the conditions for that 'wealth' to be anything meaningful) while 'stealing' wealth? If I make $100 in a day's work, and the State wants to take 10% of that, then in only looking at it from a singular perspective one might conclude that the State is 'stealing' $10 from me. However, isn't the State providing the necessary conditions for the paper currency to be worth $100 in the first place, and so I'm actually +90$ due to the State rather than -$10? If not, then where does the legitimacy of the currency come from if not backed by the State?

I'm not sure that I understand your example of invoking cryptocurrency, as all cryptocurrency is vaporware without the ability to interact with a fiat off-ramp. For those who aren't quite at the point of off-ramping, we still find that the cryptocurrency space is held together (if not actually inflated) due to the utilization of stable coins such as Tether, USDC, etc.

I appreciate you taking the time to make your posts. I think libertarianism has many interesting ideas, or even general philosophies, usually not espoused within the leftist circles I spin around in. So, it's enjoyable to engage with people who not hold different perspectives, but who also passionate about them. That said, I do agree with you that a State apparatus is not necessary for things like 'wealth' to have meaning, but I just don't see how libertarian alternatives don't just end up reenacting the same power dynamics as those found within the State but just in different words.

Taxes are an attempt to correct the real theft which is profit under capitalism