Sabras Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 Hey all! So I've been having discussions about issues such as government and taxation. I often hear a claim that governments cannot steal and taxation is not a theft. However, when I apply the exactly same reasoning to a different scenario, for example a person or a different organisation doing exactly the same as the government (enforcing taxation through the initiation of use of force) suddenly the reasoning reverses and such a thing becomes theft in the eyes of the person I am debating. I attempt to reason through rules of non contradiction (something cannot be and not be at the same time) but I usually get the following responses: "government is different" - Therefore theft only applies to individuals or private organisations. "the extraction of money is voluntary" - You don't have to work if you don't want to. You actually want the government to spend the money on roads, education etc. "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" - (This is the case in the UK where you don't do your own taxes but rather the employer pays them from your salary before you get a chance to sniff them). So if you don't get the money in the first place it isn't theft. "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" - Therefore taxation is morally good and not theft, whereas extraction of property without consent by something or someone else than a government is theft. Is there a way of combating such claims or have I entered a realm of sophistry from which there is no return? What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" -Is it true that there is no truth? Is it right to believe there is no right? "government is different" -Government steals so that it can give it back after taking a portion of it to itself (ideally, but I hear they actually just spend it all and print it back) "the extraction of money is voluntary" Can you say no? What happens if you refuse? "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" It's theft for the company. -- "What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction?" Do you really think that if the people you are arguing with realized the contradiction they would become voluntarists? Are they really just one argument away from leaving behind all they've ever believed in, educated themselves on, and forged relationships and friendships around? People don't become government apologists because they reasoned into it. It's Stockholm Syndrome to the tenth degree. Their brains literally find it impossible to think outside their world without encountering a wall of anxiety and panic. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" -Is it true that there is no truth? Is it right to believe there is no right? "the extraction of money is voluntary" Can you say no? What happens if you refuse? I love this guy! Nice, concise answers. One of my favorite things about becoming a rational thinker is the ability to spot a contradiction just like this. People don't become government apologists because they reasoned into it. And if somebody didn't reach a conclusion by way of logic, reason, and evidence, then they won't be convinced otherwise by logic, reason, and evidence. I've talked with people you could see they understood the truth. They were so mindful of what their friends and family might think, they dared not to admit it. This is the momentum of the past. There will come a point, after a very long intellectual battler where 51% of people will accept that self-ownership is universal. At this point, most of the rest will agree just because that will be the point where supporting institutionalized violence will become unfashionable. Until that time, all we can do is plant the seeds. One thing I like about debating online is that it's public. You may not convince the person actively resisting you, but you never know whose reading it or how far down the road their mind will no longer be able to deny the truth. Just like when people believed Earth was at the center of the solar system: They will kick and scream and do whatever they can to make you agree with them. But you cannot hide the truth forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts