Wesley Snipes Presents: Is tax theft or is all property theft?

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:No one.

But their military does a good job of ensuring no one else takes it, so I shan't argue with them.

By all means go ahead though.

Ah, so that's what it comes down to - brute force.

Doesn't all ownership?

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:
So you are arguing that simply receiving something in a certain geographical region implies consent to taxation? I disagree. That's an incredibly weak argument for implied consent.

No, I'm arguing that earning something in a geographical location makes you complicit in and consenting to the system of earning of that geographical location.

Taxation included.

I don't think that's a difference that makes it any stronger a claim to implied consent, but it seems we've got down to the exact point we differ. You think taxation is consented to by simply earning within a geographical location, and I don't.

Regginator3 wrote:Who gave this "turf" to the state again...?

In modern times? Us, by not putting forward and then voting for an ancap party. A functioning democracy is what gives the government moral legitimacy to decide what happens in the UK.

OrangeRakoon wrote:You are arguing that taking something without someone's consent isn't always immoral. I agree, but in the situations where it is not immoral, there is qualifying context that justifies the taking without consent. The justifying context is like a moral modifier. The base moral value for "taking something without consent", with no other context, is that it is immoral. I think that's important as it means that in any situation where someone may take something from someone else without consent, it must be justified. It's not okay to take things without consent unless you have a further moral argument for doing so.

I don't agree that it's helpful to assign any moral value to the abstract concept of taking something without someone's consent. Children might need to start out with simple rules, but we as intelligent adults can recognise that most real-life moral situations are complicated and should be thought of as a holistic package of actions and effects and consequences.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:
So you are arguing that simply receiving something in a certain geographical region implies consent to taxation? I disagree. That's an incredibly weak argument for implied consent.

No, I'm arguing that earning something in a geographical location makes you complicit in and consenting to the system of earning of that geographical location.

Taxation included.

I don't think that's a difference that makes it any stronger a claim to implied consent, but it seems we've got down to the exact point we differ. You think taxation is consented to by simply earning within a geographical location, and I don't.

I ask then, what makes the Uk, the UK?

Why is the UK not America? Or Germany? Or France?

And what's to stop any other force from taking over our 'Geographical location'?

Karl wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:You are arguing that taking something without someone's consent isn't always immoral. I agree, but in the situations where it is not immoral, there is qualifying context that justifies the taking without consent. The justifying context is like a moral modifier. The base moral value for "taking something without consent", with no other context, is that it is immoral. I think that's important as it means that in any situation where someone may take something from someone else without consent, it must be justified. It's not okay to take things without consent unless you have a further moral argument for doing so.

I don't agree that it's helpful to assign any moral value to the abstract concept of taking something without someone's consent. Children might need to start out with simple rules, but we as intelligent adults can recognise that most real-life moral situations are complicated and should be thought of as a holistic package of actions and effects and consequences.

I think it is helpful to build up morality from simple axioms. It helps me and everyone else maintain consistency and as such make fair judgements. You must do the same to some degree.

Skarjo wrote:I ask then, what makes the Uk, the UK?

Why is the UK not America? Or Germany? Or France?

And what's to stop any other force from taking over our 'Geographical location'?

Violence and force and/or the threat of violence and force.

I'm not sure why you are asking

Regginator3 wrote:

<]:^D wrote:yeah well done for combining the objectionable part of your argument, with a less objectionable part of another argument. we're not discussing the second opinion: the first opinion is the loony one

"Loony" is a bit much. Referring to the idea that "money taken from me without my consent is theft" as loony is surely a bit much, no? Now we can disagree with the consent, and this is what this debate has centred around most recently. Loony though? Really?

you keep doing this: 'taxes are immoral theft' is a different statement to ''money taken from me without my consent is theft' - stop moving the goalposts

Regginator3 wrote:

<]:^D wrote:youre the one coming out with an uncommon viewpoint, one that has no basis either semantically, or by real-world application so you will need to provide some really good arguments to convince people otherwise, and you havent.

Uncommon - maybe to GRCade. I'd love to see a national survey on the issue though. Care to fund one? Or shall I?

it doesnt matter what the national consensus here is; youre trying to convince a wider audience of your viewpoint, its not very persuasive.

OrangeRakoon wrote:I think it is helpful to build up morality from simple axioms. It helps me and everyone else maintain consistency and as such make fair judgements. You must do the same to some degree.

Are there handy rules-of-thumb that are well worth internalising deeply? Sure. Do they actually define what morality is? No.

I don't regularly face any moral quandaries, but if I did I would try to avoid relying entirely on an 'axiom-based approach' because I think these trite little moral flowcharts lead you to easy answers while letting you dodge having to think about the entire situation contextually.

EDIT: Obviously I'm not saying that the rules I learned as a child wouldn't influence my decision. They form the foundation of everyone's moral instinct. But they're different to moral understanding.

EDIT 2: Also, I didn't really realise you'd done this until I re-read your post, but... the cheek of you trying to claim that someone 'must' agree with your internal model of how morality works! I'm not offended but that's ridiculously presumptuous.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:I ask then, what makes the Uk, the UK?

Why is the UK not America? Or Germany? Or France?

And what's to stop any other force from taking over our 'Geographical location'?

Violence and force and/or the threat of violence and force.

I'm not sure why you are asking

So it isn't just 'a geographical location'; it's a specific geographical area protected by both internationally minded diplomats and politicians and an extensive military.

We exist as a nation because we pay people who's entire job is to maintain that status quo.

So yes, you earn in this country and you have pay to maintain that.

It's not theft, it's at worst a membership fee.

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:I ask then, what makes the Uk, the UK?

Why is the UK not America? Or Germany? Or France?

And what's to stop any other force from taking over our 'Geographical location'?

Violence and force and/or the threat of violence and force.

I'm not sure why you are asking

So it isn't just 'a geographical location'; it's a specific geographical area protected by both internationally minded diplomats and politicians and an extensive military.

We exist as a nation because we pay people who's entire job is to maintain that status quo.

So yes, you earn in this country and you have pay to maintain that.

It's not theft, it's at worst a membership fee.

The threat of violence and force against me is pretty far removed from me giving my consent.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:I ask then, what makes the Uk, the UK?

Why is the UK not America? Or Germany? Or France?

And what's to stop any other force from taking over our 'Geographical location'?

Violence and force and/or the threat of violence and force.

I'm not sure why you are asking

So it isn't just 'a geographical location'; it's a specific geographical area protected by both internationally minded diplomats and politicians and an extensive military.

We exist as a nation because we pay people who's entire job is to maintain that status quo.

So yes, you earn in this country and you have pay to maintain that.

It's not theft, it's at worst a membership fee.

The threat of violence and force against me is pretty far removed from me giving my consent.

Then live somewhere without tax-funded police and military and see how far your belief in purely transactional ethical interactions gets you.

(It's probably murdered).

No, I like paying my taxes and I appreciate the multitude of things they pay for. If asked, I would happily consent to them.

I also think the enforcement of taxation is justified.

I just don't believe I ever consented to them.

So were you unaware that UK earnings are subject to taxes?

so because the UK government won't actually write you a letter saying "Mr OrangeRakoon, do you consent to your earnings being subjected to income tax, et al.?" you think theyre non-consensual?

You could always choose to earn in other countries where your tax burden is lower. Companies do that all the time.

It even has a name. Tax sheltering.

Yea I did that. Hong Kong's tax rate is strawberry float all, it's almost insulting.

To the poor I mean, not to real people.

Skarjo wrote:So were you unaware that UK earnings are subject to taxes?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? We've been round this already, surely.

"Taxation is equivalent to taking something without consent, as taxation applies to more than just earnings in the state currency (and hence that implied consent does not cover all aspects of taxation)."

"You think taxation is consented to by simply earning within a geographical location, and I don't."

<]:^D wrote:so because the UK government won't actually write you a letter saying "Mr OrangeRakoon, do you consent to your earnings being subjected to income tax, et al.?" you think theyre non-consensual?

If the UK government did write me a letter asking for my consent to taxation and I replied in the affirmative, then yes that would clearly be me consenting. Obviously that is not the only way that consent can be given and so clearly the answer to your actual question as framed is no.

I'm not sure why people are objecting so strongly to the idea that taxation is non-consensual.

OrangeRakoon wrote:I'm not sure why people are objecting so strongly to the idea that taxation is non-consensual.

I think it's because most people of a left-leaning mindset do consent to having taxes taken, and furthermore do genuinely feel that others consent implicitly by engaging in a tax-funded society in any way.

None of your arguments have actually convinced me that tax is non-consensual (though I've been arguing on a different front because I don't think Skarjo needs any help!).

Consent is a completely irrelevant concept here, though. One might as well ask whether taxes are happy or sad.

Tax is just a thing that money does, like inflation and interest. Can you meaningfully consent to inflation? What would that even look like?

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:So were you unaware that UK earnings are subject to taxes?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? We've been round this already, surely.

"Taxation is equivalent to taking something without consent, as taxation applies to more than just earnings in the state currency (and hence that implied consent does not cover all aspects of taxation)."

"You think taxation is consented to by simply earning within a geographical location, and I don't.

And you're wrong.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The UK exists as a geographical location within which you can earn money because of forces funded by taxes.

If you earn in that location then you consent to paying towards maintaining that location.

You can disagree that earning inside that location gives you a tax liability but you are wrong.