A rational proof that taxation is theft.

[M.2]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

What benefit do I derive from taxation that justifies taking my resources from me without my consent?

Quote

Reside or tread? Those are radically different conditions. For example, I did not choose to reside in the United States, I was born here. I did not choose to go somewhere else with more or less acknowledgement of the consent of the governed, I stayed with my culture, my language, my relatives, and my friends. I foolishly believed the lies I was told in being able to grow more free as the nation matured. Etc.

Yes, I reside n the United States and I expect it to follow its own rules (it doesn't). I'm not so foolish as to believe it is in capable of altering the bargain as a plurality of whims of the voters may sway. I'm not so foolish as to ignore what it threatens are my obligations to it, even if it claims I've earned some kind of reward from it. But, I would probably have it worse if I tried to go somewhere else, especially with a different language, culture, government, religion, etc.

I carried over our conversation from the other thread, because I thought it fit here more appropriately.

You went on to talk about rebublic, which was not what I was making an argument for. I would actually agree with you that in a republic, democracy, rule of the people country, that taxation is indeed theft, because your land is supposedly yours, and you have every right to be there, and you are supposedly a free citizen.

But in the case of a monarchy, your land is not yours, and therefore you must abide by the owner's rules, and pay taxes for using his land. Is this common sense or not?

If one of your tenanants gives birth to a child in your apartmennt, the baby only gets to stay if you allow it. And if you give permission, the baby also has to follow your rules.

[shirgall]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I carried over our conversation from the other thread, because I thought it fit here more appropriately.

You went on to talk about rebublic, which was not what I was making an argument for. I would actually agree with you that in a republic, democracy, rule of the people country, that taxation is indeed theft, because your land is supposedly yours, and you have every right to be there, and you are supposedly a free citizen.

But in the case of a monarchy, your land is not yours, and therefore you must abide by the owner's rules, and pay taxes for using his land. Is this common sense or not?

If one of your tenanants gives birth to a child in your apartmennt, the baby only gets to stay if you allow it. And if you give permission, the baby also has to follow your rules.

In the case of a Monarchy an asshole with an army claims the land is theirs, often as ordained by God. False premises do not yield valid conclusions. I can imagine trying to avoid getting put to death by such a delusional megalomaniac, but not consenting to their rule without such duress.

The baby gets to stay unless you specifically disallowed it in the agreement, which is why boilerplate leases have all sorts of forbidden activities and blocks of text related to otherwise common or natural activities. I have never seen one where a lessor is forbidden from procreating, but I suppose it is possible. 

Everyone in human history is born into conditions they have to deal with. That's does not imply consent. When they start making decisions on their own, that's the first time consent can alleged. There's a reason there is an age of consent in most of the world.

[M.2]

5 hours ago, shirgall said:

1. In the case of a Monarchy an asshole with an army claims the land is theirs, often as ordained by God. False premises do not yield valid conclusions. I can imagine trying to avoid getting put to death by such a delusional megalomaniac, but not consenting to their rule without such duress.

2. The baby gets to stay unless you specifically disallowed it in the agreement, which is why boilerplate leases have all sorts of forbidden activities and blocks of text related to otherwise common or natural activities. I have never seen one where a lessor is forbidden from procreating, but I suppose it is possible. 

3. Everyone in human history is born into conditions they have to deal with. That's does not imply consent. When they start making decisions on their own, that's the first time consent can alleged. There's a reason there is an age of consent in most of the world.

1. There is always a force that is necessary for the assertion of ownership. It can either be the force of 2000 nuclear warheads in the case of Tsar Putin, or the military might of Switzerland in the case of the Prince of Liechtenstein, or a shotgun and a sidearm in the case of the average american citizen. It is the first rule of geopolitics that if you can't defend your land, you don't deserve it. But of course this is not too philosophical.
I hope I am not strawmanning, but to me it sounds like you claim that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is a delusional megalomaniac asshole for having received a spit of land from the Emperor 800 years ago. Luxembourg hardly even has a platoon, much less an army by the way.

2. If in the contract, you only allowed for 2 people to reside (most contracts tend to specify the number of people allowed), then having 3 entails either a renegotiation or termination. Where am I wrong?

3. Consent can be given by the guardian, and it is indeed given. But I don't see how this is relevant.

Riddle me this though: How exactly the land that you are standing on your land for sure? I am pretty sure some time ago it was fought over and killed over. So the one who won it was definitely not a rightful owner. And then who becomes the rightful owner along the line?

[shirgall]

1. Just because it worked doesn't make it right. It might be better that nobles arranged things in such a way in the past, but that's not a moral principle.

2. I just said that going to 3 is okay unless specifically disallowed in advance, and then you just said going to 3 entails breaking the contract. These situations are different. In the lease I wrote for a rental property, I said everyone of age to consent to a lease had to sign to it, and that all residents had to abide by it. If they have a baby nothing changes. If a child gets old enough to sign a lease, they have to sign it and abide to it by consent. No conflict, as the choice to join the lease or move out is based on the ability to consent, not existence.

3. Consent given by a guardian ceases when one comes of age. Even so, a guardian cannot consent to your rape, or your understanding of morality is wrong. This is why I think guardians consenting to sex change operations for minors is abuse. Such life-changing decisions (especially since some operations lead to sterility) should not be done to those who cannot consent.

4. The very fact that I have to pay property tax indicates to me that the powers that be think they own the land and can charge me rent for my deed of ownership, and therefore my deed is only worth just how much effort the government goes to to prevent open revolt. I'm under no delusions that they'd take as much control as possible just short of widespread civil disturbance.

[lorry]

18 hours ago, shirgall said:

What benefit do I derive from taxation that justifies taking my resources from me without my consent?

Did you even read the post you just quoted?

[Sir Exotic]

18 hours ago, shirgall said:

What benefit do I derive from taxation that justifies taking my resources from me without my consent?

Addition:

A forced benefit is necessarily defined as beneficial by someone other than the person it is forced upon.
 

Meaning:

Even if the person is really benefiting from it, that does not make it consensual.

 

[shirgall]

6 hours ago, lorry said:

Did you even read the post you just quoted?

Yes.

[M.2]

10 hours ago, shirgall said:

1. Just because it worked doesn't make it right. It might be better that nobles arranged things in such a way in the past, but that's not a moral principle.

2. I just said that going to 3 is okay unless specifically disallowed in advance, and then you just said going to 3 entails breaking the contract. These situations are different. In the lease I wrote for a rental property, I said everyone of age to consent to a lease had to sign to it, and that all residents had to abide by it. If they have a baby nothing changes. If a child gets old enough to sign a lease, they have to sign it and abide to it by consent. No conflict, as the choice to join the lease or move out is based on the ability to consent, not existence.

3. Consent given by a guardian ceases when one comes of age. Even so, a guardian cannot consent to your rape, or your understanding of morality is wrong. This is why I think guardians consenting to sex change operations for minors is abuse. Such life-changing decisions (especially since some operations lead to sterility) should not be done to those who cannot consent.

4. The very fact that I have to pay property tax indicates to me that the powers that be think they own the land and can charge me rent for my deed of ownership, and therefore my deed is only worth just how much effort the government goes to to prevent open revolt. I'm under no delusions that they'd take as much control as possible just short of widespread civil disturbance.

1. I agree it is not moral. But with the fallen nature of humanity, it is what is. And I don't see it going differently anytime soon. Human nature simply doesn't allow for it.

2. I was never talking about existing or not existing. In the case of a country, a renegotiation is absolutely the case. You have to prove that the new human is yours, or was born in a specific location at a specific time in order to expand the contract. 
Sometimes, only only person's signature is enough, like that of the head of a family (I have seen such lease contracts). Which of course makes him liable. Actually I don't think we disagree on this fundamentally, but for some reason you insist on it.

3. Age of consent is beyond my expertise. But it is very hard to make the case that you do not consent to living in America, since you can very well afford to move out anytime you please. Its not like you are in North Korea or Cuba.

4. Ok, getting back to my favourite example: Is the tax that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, being a private land owner and a government, "impose" on his citizens theft or not?

[shirgall]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. I agree it is not moral. But with the fallen nature of humanity, it is what is. And I don't see it going differently anytime soon. Human nature simply doesn't allow for it.

2. I was never talking about existing or not existing. In the case of a country, a renegotiation is absolutely the case. You have to prove that the new human is yours, or was born in a specific location at a specific time in order to expand the contract. 
Sometimes, only only person's signature is enough, like that of the head of a family (I have seen such lease contracts). Which of course makes him liable. Actually I don't think we disagree on this fundamentally, but for some reason you insist on it.

3. Age of consent is beyond my expertise. But it is very hard to make the case that you do not consent to living in America, since you can very well afford to move out anytime you please. Its not like you are in North Korea or Cuba.

4. Ok, getting back to my favourite example: Is the tax that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, being a private land owner and a government, "impose" on his citizens theft or not?

3. Did you know how much they charge to renounce US citizenship? https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/exposing-the-hidden-tax-costs-of-renouncing-us-citizenship.html

4. If everyone in Luxembourg expressly and universally agrees to the antics of the Grand Duke then I guess they consent. You have to ask those poor souls. If they tolerate it that doesn't count as consent.  Just because there exists a complicated avenue of redress of grievances does not imply consent if people don't avail themselves of the process. Open rebellion is not required to indicate lack of consent, either. Heck, there is personal risk in just expressing your disavowal in public, even in countries that claim to support free speech.

The problem is that government systems are not an algorithm that produces a provably correct result, they are a heuristic intended to produce a good enough answer in good enough time. Heuristics are easily tuned to subjective desires but not to universal moral principles. Command economy advocates are the most notorious for getting this wrong. There have to be checks, balances, limitations of power, and alternatives to produce the widest tolerance of what is going on. Since nations do a bad job of increasing these limitations because of the iron law of bureaucracy, specific government systems are never going to last forever. They must be constantly remade and reinvented over the centuries.

[RamynKing]

20 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Addition:

A forced benefit is necessarily defined as beneficial by someone other than the person it is forced upon.
 

Meaning:

Even if the person is really benefiting from it, that does not make it consensual.

 

is it bad etiquette to agree with you, but also advance a metaphor just for the hell of it?

i wake up with my arm in bandages, and i find a note that reads: "sorry i cut your skin off, but you'll be happy to find i made you a very unique lampshade from it. happy birthday!"

~~also~~

how many times do i have to see the same flawed argument against the NAP???????????????

the one that goes "but sometimes we have to agress on property in order to save our own lives etc, therefore you can shoot me? the NAP is barbaric!"

Holy hell, if you are coming in here expecting folks to constantly defend obvious stuff like "Taxation is theft," then you might just be an enemy of the west or something. one of those nitpickers that stef warns about from time to time. look it up!

 

 

 

[lorry]

16 hours ago, shirgall said:

Yes.

 

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.

[RichardY]

 

So eventually without homesteading and Freedom. A small group of people could eventually acquire all the land by purchase or force doesn't really matter, maybe like in Ireland. The whole Pareto distribution thing perhaps. For example say an oil billionaire buys up large chunks of land in Texas or southern Norway, gradually adding to familial land holdings(Coneheads), maybe like bracken or a particular sort of tree that poisons all competition by denial of terrain, bit like placing minefields or the family favourite boardgame Monopoly. I guess in reality in the past when that was tried large landowners like Dukes ended up being inbred and often promoting from the general population managers of their estates. Sexual selection perhaps being a big factor in freedom long term, thinking of inbred middle easterners and in contrast the book Rob Roy "  For why?--because the good old rule Sufficeth them, the simple plan, That they should take, who have the power, And they should keep who can.

What will you do without Freedom? Uhhh Beer and TV............. No beer and TV OMFG#@?!!!!

[RamynKing]

If you receive more tax money than you paid out, its still theft. You've just become a looter yourself.

[lorry]

4 hours ago, RamynKing said:

If you receive more tax money than you paid out, its still theft. You've just become a looter yourself.

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?

[Sir Exotic]

11 hours ago, RamynKing said:

is it bad etiquette to agree with you, but also advance a metaphor just for the hell of it?

That is exactly what I did with shirgall's reply.

It would be hypocritical of me to shame you for that 

[shirgall]

15 hours ago, lorry said:

 

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.

You are not using the definition of theft. Theft is the taking of another's property without consent. Your second premise is not valid. Instead, for tax to be theft it has to be the taking of another's property without consent. It is if anyone does not consent to the tax.

[shirgall]

17 hours ago, RamynKing said:

is it bad etiquette to agree with you, but also advance a metaphor just for the hell of it?

The essence of discussion is listening to what others are saying and then building upon it.

[GSTARR]

It seems to me that if you're going to treat taxes as something to opt into, then you also should treat the outcome of taxes as something to opt into as well. And your decision in one leads to the same decision in the other.

i.e. If you're not willing to pay taxes, then you should not use any roads but dirt roads and toll roads, you shouldn't have access to anything researched and developed through taxes etc. etc. in all areas of life

It's not theft, it is creating a revenue of money to generate easier access between people and cities (yes, most likely for more revenue and therefore more taxes, but the fact of the matter is that everybody grows because of it) and add small quality of life changes to society. Taxes are the reason we're here talking on the internet right now about how they're theft.

 

At the end of the day, the people who think it's not theft for the most part will always outweigh those who think it is. And thank goodness too.

The only thing in my mind to argue about is how long it's going to take to get people that will do taxes honestly and a government that will do the same all the time.

 

 

 

 

[RamynKing]

1 hour ago, GSTARR said:

It seems to me that if you're going to treat taxes as something to opt into, then you also should treat the outcome of taxes as something to opt into as well. And your decision in one leads to the same decision in the other.

i.e. If you're not willing to pay taxes, then you should not use any roads but dirt roads and toll roads, you shouldn't have access to anything researched and developed through taxes etc. etc. in all areas of life

It's not theft, it is creating a revenue of money to generate easier access between people and cities (yes, most likely for more revenue and therefore more taxes, but the fact of the matter is that everybody grows because of it) and add small quality of life changes to society. Taxes are the reason we're here talking on the internet right now about how they're theft.

 

At the end of the day, the people who think it's not theft for the most part will always outweigh those who think it is. And thank goodness too.

The only thing in my mind to argue about is how long it's going to take to get people that will do taxes honestly and a government that will do the same all the time.

 

 

 

 

Wow! Thanks for signing up to post in this thread! Would it be fair to say that you are a socialist?

Could you expand a bit on that last point, about what you think is actually a problem, and what to do about it?

 

 

[Tyler H]

5 hours ago, GSTARR said:

It seems to me that if you're going to treat taxes as something to opt into, then you also should treat the outcome of taxes as something to opt into as well. And your decision in one leads to the same decision in the other.

i.e. If you're not willing to pay taxes, then you should not use any roads but dirt roads and toll roads, you shouldn't have access to anything researched and developed through taxes etc. etc. in all areas of life

 

That’s all we ask, let us opt out. Oh yeah, and don’t shoot the competition.

So why do you think that’s not an option?

[shirgall]

6 hours ago, GSTARR said:

It seems to me that if you're going to treat taxes as something to opt into, then you also should treat the outcome of taxes as something to opt into as well. And your decision in one leads to the same decision in the other.

i.e. If you're not willing to pay taxes, then you should not use any roads but dirt roads and toll roads, you shouldn't have access to anything researched and developed through taxes etc. etc. in all areas of life

It's not theft, it is creating a revenue of money to generate easier access between people and cities (yes, most likely for more revenue and therefore more taxes, but the fact of the matter is that everybody grows because of it) and add small quality of life changes to society. Taxes are the reason we're here talking on the internet right now about how they're theft.

At the end of the day, the people who think it's not theft for the most part will always outweigh those who think it is. And thank goodness too.

The only thing in my mind to argue about is how long it's going to take to get people that will do taxes honestly and a government that will do the same all the time.

Taking things from you without your consent is theft. Giving you things without your consent is, what, exactly? Gifts (rewards, memento) and presents (donations) are given without anything expected in return. That's not the case with government services. They want obedience, allegiance, and respect, at a minimum. It's a transaction, but you are given no choice by to give what is asked and receive what is thrust upon us, thus, an imposition.

"Easier" doesn't make something right. Slavery was easier for some. It was wrong. Modern taxation is a new form of slavery, a more insidious form based on the complacency and acceptance of the populace. Socialists don't understand consent. Most have have it taught out of them for decades. Paid for with money stolen from their ancestors.

People who accept it outweighing people that don't completely misunderstands the importance of consent. Is it right if all the frat brothers vote which gal that passed out at the bar to rape just because they outnumber her?

Taking things from people without their consent is wrong. What we do with that information is what matters. The United States was a better country when they knew things were wrong. "A standing Army is wrong, but we have a hostile nation at our doorstep." When everyone involved knows that something is wrong, but a crisis has to be handled, that's fine. When they forget it is wrong, or invent crises that live in perpetuity, they become tyrants.

[GSTARR]

36 minutes ago, shirgall said:

Taking things from you without your consent is theft. Giving you things without your consent is, what, exactly? Gifts (rewards, memento) and presents (donations) are given without anything expected in return. That's not the case with government services. They want obedience, allegiance, and respect, at a minimum. It's a transaction, but you are given no choice by to give what is asked and receive what is thrust upon us, thus, an imposition.

"Easier" doesn't make something right. Slavery was easier for some. It was wrong. Modern taxation is a new form of slavery, a more insidious form based on the complacency and acceptance of the populace. Socialists don't understand consent. Most have have it taught out of them for decades. Paid for with money stolen from their ancestors.

People who accept it outweighing people that don't completely misunderstands the importance of consent. Is it right if all the frat brothers vote which gal that passed out at the bar to rape just because they outnumber her?

Taking things from people without their consent is wrong. What we do with that information is what matters. The United States was a better country when they knew things were wrong. "A standing Army is wrong, but we have a hostile nation at our doorstep." When everyone involved knows that something is wrong, but a crisis has to be handled, that's fine. When they forget it is wrong, or invent crises that live in perpetuity, they become tyrants.

     Well the unfortunate part that you probably won't like is that, you are given a choice. You can move.

     I personally do not and will not view it as theft because when you enter a country, when you become a citizen, you sign a contract. When you grow up, and decide to stay in a country, you are agreeing to abide by that contract. It is not a crime when in a time of war your country forces you to fight is it? No, it's not. Because you know that there is a draft, if you are in America over the age of 18 you have already signed up for Selective Service.

     If you truly think it is theft, then you need to accept that the majority of people view this "theft" as beneficial to the majority (which is to say, it will not be stopping anytime soon) and you need to go somewhere where you feel your rights aren't violated. I don't say that passive-aggressively, but seriously. Taxation is always going to be present, and if it really bothers you to the point you think you are being robbed, you should go to where you don't feel like that. If I felt like I was being robbed, I would be extremely angry. If I was "robbed" all my life, I would feel oppressed, and honestly I can't even imagine how bad that feels. If you feel like you're truly being robbed, you need to go somewhere where people agree with you.

The only thing you could possibly say about moving is that it's inconvenient. But how could it possible be more inconvenient than feeling like you are truly being robbed your entire life.

[GSTARR]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

That’s all we ask, let us opt out. Oh yeah, and don’t shoot the competition.

So why do you think that’s not an option?

Well I don't know, there was so much attitude in your response I just stopped trying to figure it out.

[GSTARR]

5 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Wow! Thanks for signing up to post in this thread! Would it be fair to say that you are a socialist?

Could you expand a bit on that last point, about what you think is actually a problem, and what to do about it?

 

 

I don't know what I am. I know what I think is right and what I think is wrong.

The sole reason I added that last sentence was because I was fearful of people degrading my entire argument just by saying that sometimes governments aren't truthful with what they do about our money. So I pointed it out that dishonesty, embezzlement, etc. does occur, before somebody could point it out as if my entire statement hinged on it.

[Tyler H]

4 hours ago, GSTARR said:

Well I don't know, there was so much attitude in your response I just stopped trying to figure it out.

Do you think it’s possible you inferred a tone or meaning that I did not imply? I admit it was a tad flippant, but not meant to mock.  I apologize if that was your experience.

 

4 hours ago, GSTARR said:

Well the unfortunate part that you probably won't like is that, you are given a choice. You can move.

And a slave is given a choice between servitude and death- but that isn’t really a choice is it?

It’s a few thousand dollars to expatriate, and if one were to do that where could he move where he would not be stolen from in the same manner or worse? And even if such a place did exist, why should he abandon his home just because thugs with guns say he has no right to his property? 

 

4 hours ago, GSTARR said:

I personally do not and will not view it as theft because when you enter a country, when you become a citizen, you sign a contract. When you grow up, and decide to stay in a country, you are agreeing to abide by that contract.

I signed no such contract. 

 

4 hours ago, GSTARR said:

It is not a crime when in a time of war your country forces you to fight is it? No, it's not. Because you know that there is a draft, if you are in America over the age of 18 you have already signed up for Selective Service.

Yes it is, a crime worse than slavery. Slaves have no rights and work for another man’s benefit, the conscripted are forced to commit evil themselves- murder or die, possibly both. If Walmart ran the education of the young for generations, what would you think of contracts people signed beneficial to Walmart? Do you think there would be a conflict of interest in those contracts?

 

4 hours ago, GSTARR said:

If you truly think it is theft, then you need to accept that the majority of people view this "theft" as beneficial to the majority (which is to say, it will not be stopping anytime soon) and you need to go somewhere where you feel your rights aren't violated. I don't say that passive-aggressively, but seriously. Taxation is always going to be present, and if it really bothers you to the point you think you are being robbed, you should go to where you don't feel like that.

Yes the majority is told this is true and they believe it, our goal is to show people the truth.

 

4 hours ago, GSTARR said:

If I felt like I was being robbed, I would be extremely angry. If I was "robbed" all my life, I would feel oppressed, and honestly I can't even imagine how bad that feels.

Is it possible the avoidance of these feelings is at all related to your position vis-à-vis taxation? I’m not saying it is, I’m just proposing a possibility for you to ponder. 

Allow me to ask you this as well: would it not be preferable for all human interactions to be voluntary instead of coerced? 

[shirgall]

15 hours ago, GSTARR said:

     Well the unfortunate part that you probably won't like is that, you are given a choice. You can move.

     I personally do not and will not view it as theft because when you enter a country, when you become a citizen, you sign a contract. When you grow up, and decide to stay in a country, you are agreeing to abide by that contract. It is not a crime when in a time of war your country forces you to fight is it? No, it's not. Because you know that there is a draft, if you are in America over the age of 18 you have already signed up for Selective Service.

     If you truly think it is theft, then you need to accept that the majority of people view this "theft" as beneficial to the majority (which is to say, it will not be stopping anytime soon) and you need to go somewhere where you feel your rights aren't violated. I don't say that passive-aggressively, but seriously. Taxation is always going to be present, and if it really bothers you to the point you think you are being robbed, you should go to where you don't feel like that. If I felt like I was being robbed, I would be extremely angry. If I was "robbed" all my life, I would feel oppressed, and honestly I can't even imagine how bad that feels. If you feel like you're truly being robbed, you need to go somewhere where people agree with you.

The only thing you could possibly say about moving is that it's inconvenient. But how could it possible be more inconvenient than feeling like you are truly being robbed your entire life.

The cost of moving is huge and also under duress. And, there's no place to move to where your consent is respected. Thus, you make the best of a bad situation, but that does not mean you consent.

[M.2]

14 minutes ago, shirgall said:

The cost of moving is huge and also under duress. And, there's no place to move to where your consent is respected. Thus, you make the best of a bad situation, but that does not mean you consent.

So getting born is basically human trafficking since nobody asked me if I wanted to be in this world in the first place. And now I could just killed myself and go back to whatever else there is, but doing that may be more painful that being alive. So I might just remain here. Right?

About "no place"... Come on. Do you want me to buy you a one-way ticket to the Gobi desert? Literally nobody cares whether or not you live or die there. You can dig for gold or even uranium if you wish, since the govenment doesn't have the means to monitor you anyway. I personally know people who live that lifestyle, and yes, that is why I love Mongolia... freedom.

The fact that no libertarian or anarchist cares to research where freedom actually is, tells me how much you actually care. I am not either of those, but I have written multiple threads researching where the smallest government is, including countries that most people here don't even know exist. You are all just playing your mental hobbies as far as I know.

(I am only a 20 year old with an attitude, so please read my words as of such)

 

[RamynKing]

Actually I'm fully on board with the love-it-or-leave-it argument.

Show me a place on this earth where I can homestead land and never be taxed against my will, and of course have the freedom to defend my land how I see fit. Show me the place free of Government thuggery, and I'll show you a legion of men ready to pack up and go, and my family wouldn't be far behind. People would travel at a great cost to get to such a place.

The fact is, there is no place like that. Because as soon as it was allowed to happen would be the end of the whole government paradigm. The reason governments claim all lands is to maintain the illusion that government must always be at the root of society.

[Tyler H]

I’m not going anywhere. This is my home. I want the world to be free, not just myself. I’ll stay and fight.

Regardless, none of this has any bearing on the fact that taxation is theft. You can try and avoid that fact by appealing to the majority or some illusion of consent created by prior violations of person and property, but the logic is inescapable. Taxation is taking property through force or the threat thereof; taking property through force or the threat thereof is theft; therefore taxation is theft. 

[Sir Exotic]

.

[Sir Exotic]

On 9/18/2017 at 11:04 PM, GSTARR said:

I personally do not and will not view it as theft because when you enter a country, when you become a citizen, you sign a contract.

 "I personally do not and will not view it as theft" > "because when"
Is a completely subjective statement and not based on principles. "because when" implies subjectivity. Universality means "for anyone, at any time, in any place" and not "when".
Your statement could also have been "I personally do not and will not view rape as non-consensual sex because when you consent to it, it's not rape."
By not consenting to the sex, it automatically becomes rape. The same goes for theft: the moment you don't consent to your money being taken, it becomes theft.
 

On 9/18/2017 at 11:04 PM, GSTARR said:

When you grow up, and decide to stay in a country, you are agreeing to abide by that contract. It is not a crime when in a time of war your country forces you to fight is it? No, it's not.

Deciding to stay in a place where you are born does not automatically equate to consent. I don't even have to bring up a situation where a person is being held hostage and cannot leave, so let's forget about that right from the start.
It costs money, time and effort to leave a country, and on top of all that, permission. Besides that, you shouldn't have to leave a place if you're being stolen from. You certainly can if you wanted to, but morality doesn't require you to. And not doing so does not necessarily mean that you consent.

Simply, deciding to stay in the place you're in after being put there (being born, for example) does not necessarily equate to consent. (unfortunately I feel the need to keep repeating this)
If you live in a city in the US, there is a small chance you will fall victim to rape. However, being aware of the fact that there is a chance of being raped and staying in that place, does not mean you consent to the chance of being raped, and makes it therefore consensual.

[shirgall]

22 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

So getting born is basically human trafficking since nobody asked me if I wanted to be in this world in the first place. And now I could just killed myself and go back to whatever else there is, but doing that may be more painful that being alive. So I might just remain here. Right?

About "no place"... Come on. Do you want me to buy you a one-way ticket to the Gobi desert? Literally nobody cares whether or not you live or die there. You can dig for gold or even uranium if you wish, since the govenment doesn't have the means to monitor you anyway. I personally know people who live that lifestyle, and yes, that is why I love Mongolia... freedom.

The fact that no libertarian or anarchist cares to research where freedom actually is, tells me how much you actually care. I am not either of those, but I have written multiple threads researching where the smallest government is, including countries that most people here don't even know exist. You are all just playing your mental hobbies as far as I know.

(I am only a 20 year old with an attitude, so please read my words as of such)

 

That's a straw man. I'm just pointing out it's not so simple to "love or it or leave it". Your analysis about how much I really care is even more shallow than your assessment of how much I really care. I ran for office. I helped others run for office. I taught people how to defend themselves. I have engaged in debate for decades. I have supported the development of methodologies that leverage reason, logic, and real-world data. I have raised a family.

None of what you said changes my conclusion that consent is a mystery to socialists.

[M.2]

3 hours ago, shirgall said:

That's a straw man. I'm just pointing out it's not so simple to "love or it or leave it". Your analysis about how much I really care is even more shallow than your assessment of how much I really care. I ran for office. I helped others run for office. I taught people how to defend themselves. I have engaged in debate for decades. I have supported the development of methodologies that leverage reason, logic, and real-world data. I have raised a family.

None of what you said changes my conclusion that consent is a mystery to socialists.

No, I am genuinely taken aback by the thought that one would willingly expose their wife and children to theft while there is an option not to. Under the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, millions of people moved to places where the enforcers could not reach, just to escape the tax they imposed on christians, which some inhabitants found to be robbery. That is either to the Habsburg Empire or to the mountans. To me it sounds like you care more about fixing a broken system than you do about your family. You have the choice to give your children a place where they could grow up and work without being stolen from, yet you deny them that just as you have been denied.

There are still such places in the world where government does not reach, yet you have made a statement to the contrary. When I tried to correct you, you completely disregarded it, and called my assessment shallow. Which by the way not an argument.

[shirgall]

45 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

No, I am genuinely taken aback by the thought that one would willingly expose their wife and children to theft while there is an option not to. Under the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, millions of people moved to places where the enforcers could not reach, just to escape the tax they imposed on christians, which some inhabitants found to be robbery. That is either to the Habsburg Empire or to the mountans. To me it sounds like you care more about fixing a broken system than you do about your family. You have the choice to give your children a place where they could grow up and work without being stolen from, yet you deny them that just as you have been denied.

There are still such places in the world where government does not reach, yet you have made a statement to the contrary. When I tried to correct you, you completely disregarded it, and called my assessment shallow. Which by the way not an argument.

I didn't disregard it. It was specious. The Gobi Desert is part of a country that has massive taxes, so your emotional reaction is unwarranted.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/mongolia/paying-taxes

Where was this place that had no theft in it that I could go to again? Especially a place where moving there would not cost me most of my assets? I've looked into it, and every option sucked. So, instead, I made do.

[M.2]

3 minutes ago, shirgall said:

I didn't disregard it. It was specious. The Gobi Desert is part of a country that has massive taxes, so your emotional reaction is unwarranted.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/mongolia/paying-taxes

Where was this place that had no theft in it that I could go to again? Especially a place where moving there would not cost me most of my assets? I've looked into it, and every option sucked. So, instead, I made do.

You really think the police go hunting for you in the Gobi Desert? Mongolia is the most sparsely populated country on the planet. Trust me. Nobody gives a damn.

"Every option sucked" is a very vague assessment. I am not sure what your assets are either, so I guess I can't help you. Yet I try...
There are unclaimed territories in Antarctica, if you like the cold.
There is an unclaimed territory between Serbia and Croatia, but I don't suppose you would be willing to potentially pick a fight with two balkan nations.
There is also a piece of land between Egypt and Sudan.
Australia has a history of recognising micronations, where you could found your own country.
...But I am sure you mean to say these places "suck", and that you prefer comfort over freedom. I get it, but please don't claim there aren't unclaimed or tax-free territories on the planet.