lorry

I go yes. Information can not be "created" without work being done. As doing work, infusing labour into a good, is basis of property, i.e. I own my self, thus I own my labour, thus I own that which my labour is infused into (when taken from the state of nature), I can not see how information can not be property by such a definition.

Perfidious Albion here. I dunno OP, are you American? I'd say with Major-Minor Amerikarna-African mix.

Is that for my benefit?

It is a bit more important than that. See, if consent is required for existence of preferences then that means I can't have preferences until I consent. But that means I can't have a preference for something some end until I've acted to achieve it. But that means I can't have preferences, because I'm not making choices, I'm just doing things and then rationalizing after the fact. So if I consent to consent, if I accept your definition, then the implication is that what I consider the rational capacity to make choices is just post hoc rationalization in a deterministic universe.

Involves theft (i.e. alot of people are stolen from!), yes, immoral therein, yes, theft by definition, only in the special case where everyone taxed does not prefer to be taxed, thus, not theft by definition.

Right, because force is defined in relation to preference, i.e. it is only force, and therefore only immoral, if I don't prefer it.

Bit harsh to call it a word game, mate. Taylor Swift bangs on my door and demands I take her out for a nice steak dinner followed by a night of dancing and karaoke! If this demand if not met, force will be used! Has Taylor Swift kidnapped me?

I'm using the moral definition of theft. Theft, to be immoral, must be universally not preferred, i.e. it is always and forever, for all people, not preferable to be stolen from. Is this not straight out of UPB? Preference becomes consent when communicated, i.e. I consent to X over Y because I prefer X over Y (otherwise what is the rational basis for consent?). So using the moral definition of theft, for tax to be theft, it must be always and forever, for all people, not preferable to be taxed. Is it?

Prove it.

By way of analogy, yes, in principle, no. If I benefit from a theft, I am a thief. Reduces to the principle: If I benefit from a crime, I am a criminal. Which would then imply: If I benefit from a murder I am a murderer. So if someone murders a criminal, and I benefit from the criminal being murdered, say because I benefit from there being less crime going forward, I am a murderer?

And you don't consider it ironic that you asked that question by expressing your right to free speech on the internet? Theft is universally not preferred. For tax to be theft, tax must be universally not preferred. Some people prefer to be taxed as, presumably, whatever benefits they receive are preferred to the levy imposed. Therefore tax is not universally not preferred. Therefore tax is not theft.

Shame FDR isn't on spotify. Carlin's hardcore history is.

Did you even read the post you just quoted?

Taxation provisions a benefit for those taxed, unlike theft. In the case where the benefit is preferred to the levy, tax preferable and therefor not theft. In the case where the benefit is not preferred to the levy, tax is not preferable and therefore theft. A system of taxation involves theft but is not in all parts, theft. It is immoral because requires theft but it is not by definition, theft. The Utilitarian aspect is that I can't steal something you want me to take (UPB) is an equivalent statement to theft results decrement in utility. It follows that an increment in utility can not be theft. So a system taxation wherein all those taxed experience a decrement in utility is not preferred for all people and so is theft for all people and so is all theft. But a system of taxation wherein one person taxed does not experience a decrement in utility is then preferred by one person is then not theft for one person is then not theft for all people is then not theft. Prohibited morally? Yes. Reduces to theft one special case? Yes. Theft by definition? No. p.s. I can't see a definition of consent that doesn't involve the concept of communicating, the giving, something. What exactly is being communicated by consent?

Rand - The Romantic Manifesto.

Did you eat too many apples?

Apples contain arsenic, are apples poisoned? Sticking to the facts, tax involves the provision of some benefit and theft doesn't. So it is only theft if you don't prefer the benefit to the tax. But some people prefer the benefit to the tax. So for some people tax is not preferred, theft, and for some people tax is preferred, not theft. So tax is theft and tax is not theft. So tax is redefined as a process which involves theft and it is immoral because theft is immoral. But a process that involves theft is not the same a a process whose only step is theft. So calling taxation theft is an analogy. *edit If I wasn't totally clear I'm making a (sort of) utilitarian argument, but Stefan makes this argument when he talks about someone stealing a washing machine he doesn't want when explaining UBP (I forget where he did that)

I agree it is immoral, but tax is still not theft. If a cake contains an egg, is a cake an egg?

I agree but if duress doesn't exist for some decision, then that decision can't be said to be made under duress. (like if f = ma, holding m constant, change f, obverse no change in a, did f change?) And I agree that isn't to say that duress doesn't exist. And I agree that for the plurality taxation is under duress. My point is that if tax isn't theft for everybody, all the time, then it isn't theft. And that is why I think some people do not accept that tax is theft and I think that that is why Stefan has an against me argument. I suppose the full statement would be that a system of taxation involves a lot of theft and thus the fruit of any such system is immoral, like a fruit of a poisoned tree. I do think the way to concretise the idea that taxation involves a lot theft is to walk through a historical example the taxation and redistribution of the wealth of those who owned the means of production, ie, the Jews circa 19XX. That might drive the idea home for a Normie.

On the one cloud-coin? My sides.

Yeah, but inefficiency isn't immoral. I think the point is that I've isolated the frame of reference of the person benefiting from taxation and you can't do that because those tax dollars are coming from someone (who is probably not preferring to be taxed!) So you have to drive home the existence of this person, ie, against me rhetoric. But then you also can't just look at taxation from the frame of reference of the person for whom taxation is not preferred, for whom the experience must be that of theft, and call it all theft.

If duress does not effect the outcome of the choice, ie, I make the exactly the same decision if a gun is at my head as I do when the gun isn't at my head then the duress does not exist.

I don't think theft is (morally) based on consent because consent is a function of preference. If I consent to some action then the consent is the communication of my preference. Consider that I'm unconscious and dying and a passing Dr needs to cut a hole in my neck with a penknife for me to live. I can't give consent, therefore it is assault? But it goes that it is assumed that if I could give consent to the Dr I would, presumably because the consent communicates my preference to live. My point is that the act of taxation, taken in isolation from the frame of reference of someone preferring the end result of said taxation, which is the say the benefits of taxation, can't be called theft because taxation for that person is preferable and theft, by definition, is (universally) not preferable. This is why a lot of people can't accept that tax is theft, because they experience taxation as preferable to non taxation.

Hi guys, I was just wondering if anyone wanted to make a sentence completion application? I had a plan to pick up a hybrid framework and make one for Nathanial Brandon's sentence completion structure but I can't spare the time to do the whole thing myself (because I am a bit of a noob when it comes to programming and have to finish writing something). I can still contribute 8 hours a week and I figured though there might be those more experienced that I who liked the idea and could take a lead or muck in? I was thinking of a "simple" application, basically some structure for progressing through the completions, some non-jarring alert system for when you miss your daily completion, a bit of UX to communicate progression through the structure (something like a tree growing from a seed and flowering or fruiting as a function of progression through the structure) and a donation request at some point in time (10 weeks in and upon completion? Was going to use it for my FDR donations ) Anyway, let me know if your interested. Best, lorry.

Ok, but if taxation is maintained by force, then what about those people for whom taxation results in such overwhelming benefit that their taxation does not need to be maintained by force. If taxation is then to be theft, ie, by force, then you have to redefine taxation to mean two different things for two different sets of people. Like, I receive in tax benefit $10000000 and I am taxed $0.01. Given that my benefit is conditional upon taxation do I not prefer to be taxed? And if I prefer to be taxed, taxation can't be theft because theft is always not preferred. But that isn't to say that for the overwhelming majority of people taxation wouldn't be theft because it is non preferred, but in the above case? No, right? It does seem to me as those taxation can not be theft in the framework of a behavior because it is not a universally non preferable behavior. I don't think you can break taxation into the part of taking without making account for the possibility of the receiving of benefit. I think what I have just done is redefine taxation? I just checked wikipedia and it defines... (devils advocate)