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

Evil Ted wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Evil Ted wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:Why should the state control land? What gives the state ownership of that land, and the right to decide who can live on it?

The same thing that gives anyone the right to anything.

Well, it's the state that gives things the right to anything. So it's the state that gives itself control. Brilliant.

Yeah. That's what everyone's been trying to tell you.

Regginator3 wrote:

Karl wrote:No, because in my view you agree to it by interacting with society. It's part of the implicit terms and conditions of access to society. If you have any interactions with society at all, in any way, big or small, you have to fulfil the membership criteria: this is your end of the social contract.

Is this just your personal view or an actual contract that has been explicitly accepted by everyone? If the former, why should it have any legitimacy?

Regginator3 wrote:Right. So the state has stolen the land without anyone's consent.

Regginator3 wrote:Right. So the state has stolen the land without anyone's consent.

Karl wrote:It's how society is structured, which is implicitly consented to by the people, via democratic expression. If society as a whole didn't want things to work this way, they would put forward and vote for an ancap party.

No, clearly no-one has 'explicitly' accepted this as a contract. But there are plenty of situations in which existing in a place or performing some action implicitly states your agreement to some form of contract, even if the contract is only 'I will pay you after this meal'.

Regginator3 wrote:

Karl wrote:No, clearly no-one has 'explicitly' accepted this as a contract. But there are plenty of situations in which existing in a place or performing some action implicitly states your agreement to some form of contract, even if the contract is only 'I will pay you after this meal'.

The point here being... consent?

Regginator3 wrote:

Karl wrote:It's how society is structured, which is implicitly consented to by the people, via democratic expression. If society as a whole didn't want things to work this way, they would put forward and vote for an ancap party.

No they wouldn't, because it would be considered a terrorist/extremist organisation whose intention is to "topple the state" (which is what it would do) and would be cracked down upon by the police we pay our taxes with under extremism laws.

Also even if it wasn't cracked down upon, nobody would have heard of it because it wouldn't be able to publish material due to rich donors of the big parties taking all of the advertising space.

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:You're right, you've made your fortune.

I want it.

I've got a gun, a knife, and a copy of 'Why Bitcoins aren't Libertarian Dutch Tulips'.

What stops me from taking it?

Is this assuming you're not a greedy psychopath, or assuming you are? Two very different possible outcomes, here.

If you're not, nothing, because you wouldn't do it. If you are, well - you can do that now anyway! Sure, with a state, there's a definitive consequence, but the actual act of taking it would (and still does) happen under a society with a state. And although I say there's a consequence, if you're not caught, which if you really were a criminal planning to do this you'd make damn sure you wouldn't be, there'd be no consequence anyway.

IF there was no state protecting us, couldn't a consequence be me going after you for revenge with my gun and knife?

(Note: I am not saying I advocate this system )

Skarjo wrote:That's a long and very boring way of avoiding the question if it's theft.

Is it theft or not?

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:That's a long and very boring way of avoiding the question if it's theft.

Is it theft or not?

I didn't avoid the question of if it's theft. Of course it's theft, whether there's a state present or not.

Skarjo wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:That's a long and very boring way of avoiding the question if it's theft.

Is it theft or not?

I didn't avoid the question of if it's theft. Of course it's theft, whether there's a state present or not.

So you think you operate and earn in a system without contributing to the system, right?

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:That's a long and very boring way of avoiding the question if it's theft.

Is it theft or not?

I didn't avoid the question of if it's theft. Of course it's theft, whether there's a state present or not.

Evil Ted wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:That's a long and very boring way of avoiding the question if it's theft.

Is it theft or not?

I didn't avoid the question of if it's theft. Of course it's theft, whether there's a state present or not.

It's not theft. Skarjo has it, so it's Skarjo's now.

Regginator3 wrote:

Evil Ted wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:That's a long and very boring way of avoiding the question if it's theft.

Is it theft or not?

I didn't avoid the question of if it's theft. Of course it's theft, whether there's a state present or not.

It's not theft. Skarjo has it, so it's Skarjo's now.

Why wouldn't it be theft? It was taken from me without my consent.

Evil Ted wrote:Skarjo won it from you with his bravery and power. It's his.

Skarjo wrote:Welcome to four pages ago.

Doesn't matter whether they like it; you being happy isn't important.

You exist and earned your money in a system that requires your taxes so you can keep earning money rather than be beheaded in the street by an invader.

So pay it.

Regginator3 wrote:

Evil Ted wrote:Skarjo won it from you with his bravery and power. It's his.

Doesn't change the fact that it is theft.

Evil Ted wrote:What makes it theft? You don't have it any more so it's not yours.

I'm finding this whole thread needlessly combative and frustrating so I'm going to bow out.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Welcome to four pages ago.

Doesn't matter whether they like it; you being happy isn't important.

You exist and earned your money in a system that requires your taxes so you can keep earning money rather than be beheaded in the street by an invader.

So pay it.

The sliding from third person into second person is unfair, it seems to imply that I am not happy paying taxes and don't want to pay them, which is wrong.

I'm finding this whole thread needlessly combative and frustrating so I'm going to bow out.