Jump to content

Help with polarizing conversation with statist

implodewithmaiayan
 Share

Recommended Posts

implodewithmaiayan Newbie

implodewithmaiayan

Posted
Posted

Hi, guys! I had an interesting conversation/debate with a statist today. I'm not an experienced debater and didn't feel that I handled him the way I would have liked to do it. Later in the conversation, I asked him why government has a monopoly on roads to which he replied that they don't have a monopoly there, since toll roads exist. I'm not educated about this. Does the government have a monopoly on roads, or does the existence of toll roads mean it's not a monopoly? Please help me with this. I'm very confused after the immensly unfomfortable conversation with the statist. This is the main point I need help with, but I'd also like you to look through the conversation and see if you find any additional errors or mistakes on my part. It's just a small conversation and nothing special, but it was uncomfortable and I didn't have control and would like your help reobtaining that control and get some clarity.

 

I'd like to post the entire conversation here and I'd like you to let me know what you think of it. I'm the blue text, and he's the grey:

 

I'm interested in knowing what you thought was retarded about the post
 
Well, first of all it's from a group stating tax is robbery...which means they have literally no understanding of economics or how government works. So that makes me first of all think the person running the page is dumb as rocks.
 
Would you mind explaining what taxation is to me!
 
?*
 
Please.
 
Secondly, the statement "there is no such thing as a good cop" states a blanket idea, which is always plain stupid. It's like saying, "all black people are thieves" and should be approached with the same level of descent as that comment. Also stating that laws have been passed through unjustly or immorally is also stupid. Just because you think it is doesn't mean it is, it's a subjective point of view.
 
Now, on to tax. Do you know why taxation was first started?
 
All blacks are not subject to a framework of laws that have to be enforced if you're black, unlike what applies to police officers
 
That's less important. Would you mind answering my initial question about what taxation is?
 
I'd like to understand what you think it is and how it works
 
Well, I'm an accountant, I deal with tax for a living.
 
Right
 
So, do you know why tax was first brought into use?
 
Please, if you don't mind. Just answer the question
 
Why something was done is less relevant when talking about what something is
 
Explaining modern tax law and tax is very complicated, but going through it's means when it was simpler is the best way to teach it to a lay person.
 
Ok then let me put it this way: do you have choice in whether you pay or don't pay taxes?
 
Yes you do.
 
Ok, tell me how
 
Remove yourself from the infrastructure built on tax legislation and remove yourself from the monetary system paid for by taxation. Go live on the land effectively. Grow your own food, don't use public utilities, live without needing the tax paid parts of life.
 
Do you believe you can do that?
 
People did it for thousands of years, why not?
 
You can not do that
 
You will be put in prison for not paying taxes
 
You could, but it would be stupid. Living in a taxed, stable, utilized environment is much better.
 
After receiving letters or complains and extended fees and fines
 
That's because it's effectively stealing.
 
You are using public utilities and services and not paying for them.
 
It's theft, of course you will go to jail.
 
Are you saying that if someone coerces someone to give them money (which is robbery by definition), uses that money to build or buy something, and if the person who was stolen from uses the thing that was paid for or built with by stolen money, he is the wrong-doer?
 
Of course not, that is a business contract, that happens all the time as a mutually beneficial arrangement.
 
It is not a business contract since it's not mutual
 
It is coercion
 
Do you like having running water?
 
What you proposed is not possible
 
The government does not allow such activities
 
You should research this fully
 
Yes they do, it's very clear.
 
I have, I do it for a living.
 
You have no idea what you are on about man.
 
I'm sorry, it's really dumb.
 
People have something against taxes because they are greedy, they don't like that they are having money taken away from them and they can't grasp the reasoning around it.
 
Taxation is coercion
 
No it's not...
 
I just told you how you can avoid it.
 
Which was not possible
 
But you want to live off of tax paid for utilities. So you don't want to do it.
 
It is, stop and think about it.
 
Ok, tell me why you can't do it?
 
You're not allowed to own untaxed land
 
I'm not saying you own the land.
 
I'm saying you go into unowned land, which there is HEAPS of and go live off the land.
 
You just don't want to do it, because it's too hard.
 
Modern civilisation was built on taxation, it's what caused the creation of cities.
 
Without taxation our civilisation is unmaintainable.
 
As I said man, I do this for a living. I know about this shit.
 
It is sad that you think that civilization is unmaintainable without the use of force
 
No it's unmaintainable without the use of cooperation.
 
Coercion is not cooperation
 
IT'S NOT COERCION!
 
It is the initiation of the use of force
 
Stop saying it, it's dumb.
 
Dude, you really need to do some proper learning on this...
 
I'm a bit polarized by you at this point
 
Ok now
 
Because I know what I'm talking about and you keep saying outlandish things.
 
You're saying the government builds and maintains infrastructure and utilities
 
Did you ask for that?
 
You work for the government, Joel.
 
No, but I definitely want it. Otherwise if I thought the cons out weighed the pros I would leave.
 
I work for a private firm actually.
 
And how do they achieved this monopoly?
 
If someone hasn't even asked for it and supported them by wanting and buying their product?
 
By giving people a much better option in life than wiping their ass with a branch. lol
 
No that's not what I'm asking
 
How does the government achieve this monopoly in society since it's not the will of the people since you don't ask for it but it exists anyway?
 
Yes it is, we have option A, stay in taxed civilisation and have a way of life maintained by it, or B, move away from it and live off the land.
 
People did ask for it, that's how taxation started.
 
This is what I was trying to explain to you to begin with.
 
Taxation started as a village fund for paying for mutually beneficial development. Everyone would put money in voluntarily. It would pay for walls to stop attackers or pay for a well for water, etc.
 
Of course people were then born into the arrangement, is it fair for them to say I don't want to pay but I want to keep taking advantage of all the stuff everyone else paid for. NO. So they could leave, or pay and stay.
 
If a firm creates a product that people want and need, people ask for more of it by paying for it, IE, they're voting for more of the product with their money.
 
How would you do that with roads?
 
"Of course people were then born into the arrangement, is it fair for them to say I don't want to pay but I want to keep taking advantage of all the stuff everyone else paid for. NO. So they could leave, or pay and stay."

You say some interesting things here
 
Well, my first question would be: how come government has a monopoly on roads?
 
They don't. :|
 
Toll roads man, privately owned.
 
But you have to pay a fee every time you use them. It's them taxing you for use of what they paid for, just like the government.
 
If you can find a logical argument against it, I would like to hear it. But so far it's been wild accusation on uninformed opinion.
 
Yes. Not just like the government
 
Against what!
 
Actually it is.
 
taxation.
 
You haven't given 1 logical point yet.
 
So far it's been coercion, which it isn't and that's about it.
 
Where as I have shown the origin of taxation showing the peoples demand for it. I have explained the establishment of infrastructure and maintenance of it. I've shown the options outside of taxation.

You're argument has been, "no".
 
Ok, so you're saying there's a demand for it.
 
But you just stated you don't want to pay taxes
 
You don't have a demand for it
 
I do want to pay taxes, what are you on about?
 
I never said I didn't. :|
 
Tax is paying for half my education, tax is paying for the road I drive on, tax is paying for police so I don't get robbed every night.
 
Oh man...
 
*facepalm*
 
Are you just trolling?
 
I feel like people can't actually be this blind.
 
I'm sorry you have this much trouble with this
 
I'm sorry you can't comprehend reason and logic.
 
Dude, you need to go and read something. This is horribly stupid.
 
You haven't given a logical point or a logical retort this entire conversation.
 
This debate can't continue because you think you can choose not to pay taxes
 
I guess this is why I deal with tax for a living and you don't. You don't understand it.
 
You're argument against it was that you can't do it...but you can. :|
 
Okay
 
I told you how.
 
You haven't said why it can't be done.
 
Can you provide some evidence for your claim?
 
Yep
 
Do so
 
My ex girlfriend grew up in a non taxed commune.

I'll bring up the info on them.
 
Actually found a nice little video of an off the grid community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hvVMQu43Y

This is the sort of places people have created improve their life with the side effect of avoiding taxation.
 
Here is an article on another one.
www.theage.com.au
 
Also, do you know what squatters law is? If not here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting
 
Now you have all the tools you need to leave civilisation and finally avoid that tax you so hate. hahaha
 
Thanks for the pages
 
Big tip, make sure you are able to produce something or are able to work in a way that is barterable for premium goods. Otherwise it will be difficult to secure the technical items required to not have a really shit life.
 
Or now you have found out how to do it, you're not going to? :|

And that's it. I'm not going to "do it", by the way, in case anyone's wondering about that. At the point where I said roads are a government monopoly and he responded that it's not, I basically didn't wanna continue anymore since I felt I would be reaching for whatever I could find to prove a point when it's practically a fact that it's completely meaningless to try to convince him anyway. But like I posted above, please fill me in about toll roads and whether the roads are a government monopoly. I undestand that you need to go through government regulation to build a private road and that you get taxed and that roads still are a government monopoly, but please provide me the arguments for this, since my brain is a bit fried at the moment by his extreme statist personality, so excuse my ignorance, but that's why I'm posting here!  :)

 

Thanks!

 

- Gen

andkon Newbie

andkon

Posted
Posted

"Does the government have a monopoly on roads, or does the existence of toll roads mean it's not a monopoly?"

 

Well, does any other organization get to put a tax on gasoline because they built the roads? Why doesn't government fund its operations the same way as the supermarket or a charity?

 

The "leave it if you don't like it" argument is circular. The money the government used was taken from people by coercion to begin with. Imagine people paying for a road voluntarily like they would for a computer. Do they get to go around to gas stations and tax them because they promise to 1) let anyone use the roads and 2) let the taxed vote for the board of directors of the road company? That would be crazy, but why doesn't the state get to be special? Even worse: the original roadbuilders didn't even use their own money, but took it from others!

Daniel Unplugged Newbie

Daniel Unplugged

Posted
Posted

Does the government have a monopoly on roads?

 

Well, yes, but it's not quite that simple and there are few absolutes in this world. There are 'some' private roads, but there is no complete parallel network of private roads. Only occasionly is there 'competition', and it is hardly a free market; you need a whole bunch of permits to build a private road. Even where there are public and private roads side by side, it is not particularly accurate to say there is competition. Government roads are not businesses, and they do not compete. Government roads are free to use and you must pay for them whether or not you use them.

 

Hope this helps.

implodewithmaiayan Newbie

implodewithmaiayan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks, guys. Thanks for clearing up the details. Yes, I get it. The problem I was having was rather how this guy caught me off guard of being a statist with enough fallacies to make your head spin a bit. I actually felt as if I was having an aneurism talking to him, and I just wanted to be shed some clarity to recover from the "conversation". It was not possible to convince this guy, and his dominant, completely assholery way of "debating" created a polarizing, "defeated" feeling in me temporarily. While it would have felt better to more actively having tried to defeat him using deeper and more clear arguments, I didn't want to since I didn't feel I was in the right mind, nor could explain it at that point as eloquently and clearly as I would have liked to, so I withdrew. Not a negative thing to do, I think, but uncomfortable given the circumstances and how he treated me.

 

Exactly, Daniel. That's what I had in mind as well.

 

Patrick: Yes, of course. He's an idiot for saying that. I blocked this asshole statist's ass away. We're not friends or anything like that. I had him on my friendlist for advice on something specific. No way I would ever continue communication with an asshole as big as that. Thanks. :)

implodewithmaiayan Newbie

implodewithmaiayan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

One very almost hilarious, but scary, "point" he makes is when he defines using something that was built or bought using tax/stolen money (which he doesn't think is theft) is itself theft. That is to skip the initial theft, which is the only theft in the equation, ignore it, put focus on the things or services "provided" as a result of the theft and call the act of using those things theft. I mean, how do you even explain this? I've never been so taken off guard by a statist in my life! The feeling I had was so weird. I was mentally gaping. I think I should've laid down at that point and just blocked him.

So, he thinks by opening your door and going outside and taking a walk on the pavement, or taking the car for a ride is theft. This is some mind-bobbling stuff, to say at least, and I feel at this very moment that that part of my brain is starting to feel healthy and open again after this guy treading on it with his alien magic fallacies.

jloch86 Newbie

jloch86

Posted
Posted

Check out Stef's "Handout for Statists" for help with this. Here it is:

 

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong ' except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a 'social contract,' that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a 'social contract.' Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a 'contract,' then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it 'charity.'

Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept