Morality of taxation

>>3048018
Taxation is rent. Move out of the country you cheap faggot.

>>3048018

There is no way for society to function without taxation, therefore taxation is moral through necessity. Actions necessary for the continuance of civilization cannot be considered immoral.

File: 1479603478708.jpg (47KB, 500x417px)

47KB, 500x417px

>>3048039
Civilization itself can be seen as immoral, and thus your argument doesn't hold water.

Property is theft.

>>3048048

>Civilization itself can be seen as immoral

Yes, but that's primitivism which is distinct from anarcho-capitalism.

>>3048057
Land belongs to no one before it is owned, and thus is not theft.

>>3048074
It doesn't change the fact that taxes benefiting civilization is not a proper reason as to why taxation is not theft when the morality of civilization is subjective itself.

Do you also not support roads, bridges, or police? What's keeping you from just building a shack deep in the woods and living there?

I mean, any forested area you go to will be government land, but you could surely hide yourself well enough in a fuckhuge national park.

>>3048076
If you "own" a piece of land or property you are in effect denying its use to others.

>>3048105
Only police. Roads are intentionally half assed as to squeeze dimes from tax payers and serve no grand purpose other than slightly faster transportation which is entirely unnecessary in regards to anything but medical emergencies.

I would definitely love to go deep into the woods and build a log cabin, but eventually the government will expand suburbs until they find and proceed to rape me with taxation.

>>3048116
You can deny its use to others because you have earned it as your property.

File: Exhibits_FBI_Unabomber_G38924.jpg (392KB, 1000x1147px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1000x1147px

>>3048097

If you're a capitalist then you obviously believe in the concept that civilization is a good thing. Civilization requires taxation to function (to a certain extent) therefore taxation must also be a good thing (to a certain extent). If you take the view that civilization is itself a bad thing, then you can say that taxes are also bad because they are an aspect of civilization. However, once you go down that road, you're no long a capitalist, you're a primitivist like this guy.

I feel as though the people who lament the welfare state don't want the kind of enormous social reorganization & general upheaval of society that would be required to accommodate its dismantling. They just want to complain about how their taxes are spent.

>>3048018
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Taxation Theft Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Country Like Nigga Just Leave Haha

>>3048156

This. People forget that welfare came out the realization that it was actually cheaper to just give poor people small amounts of money every now and then than to have to deal with communist uprisings all the time.

if only there was some way to control the laws, some sort of organization that could change them...

>>3048018
You're ignoring the social contract part of society. By living in civilization you agree to civilization's rules. If the civilization you live in believes in taxation (and nearly all of them do) you either put up with it because you agreed to it, or you fucking leave and go eat berries in the woods or whatever the fuck uncivilized people do until they get conquered or stormed out by construction companies.

>>3048105
Roads can be private, there are many private or semi-private (property of the state, maintenance and control done by a private company, sometimes by using tolls) roads around the world where in certain parts you pay a toll of 1 to 5 € for going to point A to point B, this is very common in many countries. Also very common for tunnels.
Same with bridges. You want to pass a private bridge? Pay a toll to compensate for its construction and maintenance done by X private company.

The biggest problem here is that prices might be abusive if it's the only road/bridge/whatever. Hardly a place where competition drags the prices down.

Private security forces would still work only inside the legal framework, the amount of abuse and corruption wouldn't necessarily be bigger than today, mall cops are not usually more abusive or corrupt than police officers.

I'm not an Ancap but most of the arguments people use against it are pretty simplistic and easily refutable.

File: the godfather of economics.png (183KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 500x282px

>>3048018
growth for the sake of growth, without regard for the health of the host, is the philosophy of a cancer cell.

The needs of the nation must be considered above ambitions of individual characters.

>>3048123
>slightly faster transportation which is entirely unnecessary in regards to anything but medical emergencies

Ah yes, I forgot how things like "getting to work" or "going to the store to obtain food" are unnecessary.

>>3048126
That's only your opinion that you have "earned" it. Why should others respect that claim? We could also start to fight over land/territory like wild animals which would happen anyway.

>>3048181
>mall cops are not usually more abusive or corrupt than police officers
Maybe, just maybe because they are still under state control (police). Remove it and you will see Stanford prison experiment-tier.

>>3048439

>Roads are so important to society that no one is willing to pay for them.

Really gets the noggin joggin

>>3048468
>Roads are so important to society that no one is willing to pay for them

I believe those are called "taxes". Although ancaps can call them "licensing fees" or "rental" if it'll curb their autism.

File: 1471771303735.png (643KB, 720x602px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 720x602px

taxation is rape, not theft.

>>3048386
>>The needs of the nation must be considered above ambitions of individual characters.
says the betas indeed.

>>3048386
>The needs of the nation must be considered above ambitions of individual characters.
You've isolated the sentiment that allows countries to turn into oppressive hellholes.
>I guess we can rob and murder this rich guy. After all, the GREATER GOOD is more important than one man.
>sure, let's ban all of this dissenting speech. After all, it's dividing our people, and the GREATER GOOD is more important than the voice of a few malcontents.
>of course we should make these peasants into slaves of the state. Without them, the cost of defending against our enemies is unpayable. And isn't that what the GREATER GOOD demands?

>>3048486
>>3048493
Ultimately, the countries with people who think like you will be destroyed by countries with people who don't.

Nothing and no one can stop it.

File: 1473729331341.jpg (72KB, 1127x1015px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1127x1015px

>>3048168
>By living in civilization you agree to civilization's rules.
that's false. When a human is born in your ''''''''''''çivilization'''''''''''''' people around will impose a nationality and an education and later on, the people belonging to the ''''''''''''çivilization'''''''''''''' can refuse the human to be nation-less or even to have another nationality

>>3048168
>you either put up with it because you agreed to it, or you fucking leave and go eat berries in the woods


yes, you are free to leave where I live and go construct your self proclaim ''''''''''''çivilization'''''''''''''' far away from me and leave me alone.

also, people who take the ''''''''''''çivilization'''''''''''''' seriously, like cops and other paper pushers, will not let a few humans gather and live on ''''''''public land'''''''''' for several month, and if they do let them live, they will demand a tax under the threat of putting those few humans in trials and some punishment.

>>3048018
Its called compromise, you don't always get what you want, and neither does the person opposite you. If you don't like the arrangement society has set up for you you have three options. Leave, change it (by vote or by force), or kill yourself, you unappreciative faggot.

>>3048386
>The needs of the nation must be considered above ambitions of individual characters.
only liberals care about nations

Society is based on the principle that a multitude of people band together to form lives which are safe and fulfilling. The collective is there to help the individuals and vice versa.

Thinking of going full individualist in the woods and making yourself independent of society, existing by your own means, is a funny thought-experiment and a freedom that might be enjoyable. Personally, however, I'd say it's a more rational route to enjoy the benefits (and endure the costs) of a collective.

Then, as others have pointed out, taxation is not only a necessary step towards maintaining societal function towards common goals, but is also a direct expansion of the collective ideal; for each individual to sacrifice so that other individuals in turn can sacrifice.

>>3048123
>Roads are intentionally half assed as to squeeze dimes from tax payers and serve no grand purpose other than slightly faster transportation which is entirely unnecessary in regards to anything but medical emergencies

Have you tried not living in a corrupt third world country?
Also have you ever driven off-road?

You can always go to some tax-haven micro-state, certain islamic theocracies, or Somalia, if you consider yourself so violated and raped by paying taxes.

File: shlurp.png (12KB, 330x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 330x400px

>>3048018
The country is owned by voting citizens.

Rather like a corporation where shareholders can vote in members of the board, except "shares" can't be bought or sold, everyone can only have 1 "share" and "shares" are distributed to citizens turning 18.

>>3048123
>which is entirely unnecessary in regards to anything but medical emergencies.
Retard status: full throttle

>>3048163
You can't walk away from it because it's everywhere. It's like you im locked in a cage with rapist and you're telling me to just change the cage and a rapist, if i don't like the current one.

File: 1483844272564.webm (2MB, 264x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 264x480px

reminder that state kuks claim that taxes are important to have public services


reminder that policemen are regularly BTFO and you are left with damaged gods

>>>/pol/132726935

>>3049412
This is a black swan event. When was the last time left wing extremists committed arson enmass?

You would be far more BTFO without them.

all of this because liberals refuse to think that non-policemen should watch and control people

>>3048018
A society that has private property needs taxation to survive.

If taxation is theft then so is private property

>The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

>>3049408

You benefit far more from taxes than you lose.

>>3048028
But rent is also theft

Taxation at least is done by a government whose soverignty ostensibly comes from you and the people around you and not random bankers tho

>>3049412
Bitch please the fact that so few governments have fallen to such minor protests is due to the police.

>>3049486
no it is because liberals fear the most a coup d'état from a few plebs which they avoid by telling over 20 years the plebs that a dictator or tyrant or despot is bad for the ''human rights'' since those lolberals can produce en masse everything but not their fantasy of the enlightened despot.
The liberal police is just here to watch and scare the population which does not follow minor democratic rules, like driving rules and tax rules and assault of one individual by one individual. the liberal police is ineffective for anything else

>>3049520

do you check under your bed for liberals before you go to sleep?

also really funny that you think dictators and tyrants are good things

File: 0000095_valnoir-le-demonarque.jpg (128KB, 999x1280px)

128KB, 999x1280px

>>3048018
>classical liberalism
Yuck.

>>3048018
>is able to see that taxation is theft
>is not able to see that property itself is theft

File: c2382d8aa055743521dbc67c8edf0603743e1733e1fd4b285a2e43d019529a6d.jpg (82KB, 614x1499px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 614x1499px

>>3048018
>it is another ancap thread
Post ancap memes

>>3048123
>Oh yeah I'm just gonna walk the 30km I need to drive every day sure

>>3048018
>I don't like where my tax money is going
Then become involved in your community, speak to your representative. Or take your money and move to one of those beautiful ancap paradises in Africa, they're doing so well for themselves.

>>3048018
>People argue taxation isn't theft since your tax money goes to the land you live on to get you all the things you like and need
They usually argue that it isn't theft when talking about democratically decided upon taxation.
>What if I don't support firefighters and Liberal arts colleges among other things?
Then vote for someone who represents that.
>Then it's theft/rape
No, it's majority rule.

>>3048018
That's hot. I have a fetish for taxes now.

>>3049408
It's more like, you're renting an apartment and he's telling you to go rent a different apartment if you don't like the current one. The fact that the entire planet is divided up into various "apartments" isn't the fault of your current "landlord". It's just how things developed historically. If you don't like it, you're free to try to challenge it by force - however, if you ever manage to conquer your own bit of land, in order to defend it you will almost certainly have to collect taxes (rent) from the people who live on your land in order to be able to afford a modern military. And it is because of this sort of logic that the entire planet is divided into "apartments" to begin with - everybody who tries to follow a different paradigm on their own land is forced to crate an organized taxing state simply in order to maintain sovereignty. However, this state of affairs cannot be blamed on your current "landlord", nor does it make "him" a rapist.

>>3049451
This is a very important point. Most "taxation = theft" people don't understand this.

>>3049520
You obviously have no idea of how horrible populist authoritarianism (whether the "leftist" or the "right-wing" variety) has been historically. The liberal fear of pleb revolution is well justified. Such revolutions have led to the deaths of millions of human beings.

File: 1493824390528.jpg (44KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x640px

>morality of theft

Theft is never moral. Taxation is theft.

>>3049425

There are cars burning every week around Europe. Namely in France, Belgium and Sweden.

Not a black swan event.

File: 1311583617232.gif (495KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 350x263px

>>3048018
>Taxation is theft
>Hourly pay is freedom

#woke

>>3048057
Property rights are a prerequisite for theft you turbo nigger.

>>3048028
rent is a mutual agreemen between two parties though while taxation is something that is forced on you just because you are over a certain age and living in the place you were born in and might not even have the opportunity to move out from

i'm not supporting tax evasion, i'm just saying it's not the same at all

>>3051898
>rent is a mutual agreemen between two parties
Sure if you put the cost of living against the cost of being homeless. But does that make it reasonable? I'd say it's about equally as tenuous. The cost of not paying rent is constant struggle for survival, and the cost of not paying taxes is either a constant paranoia and evasion of law or making enough money to leave the country no strings attached.

>>3051963
it's true people agree to pay rent based on how needy they are for a house and they pay according to the value the market dictates but in the end they sign a legally binding contract. in taxation you don't even do that

also taxation only benefits you when the state is run by decent people. i doubt people in congo benefit from paying taxes

>>3051963
I see alot of stupid shit on here but whenever anyone tries to imply that voluntary exchange to fufill a mortal need, not enduced by one of the parties to the exchange, is exploitative I get violently angry. It's so fucking entitled and retarded that even when people meme about it my gears get grinded. Nobody has an obligation to fufil your needs you fucking peices of human garbage. If you want something from someone, then usually you have to compensate them. It's that fucking simple.

File: received_10154363016566324.jpg (278KB, 1440x1920px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1440x1920px

The state makes private property possible. It prevents other parties stronger than you from simply stealing your land by force.

The state needs tax to exist and function.

Therefore, tax is necessary for private property to exist. No tax = no private property.

>>3052004
in civilized socities in order to prevent abuse of power and to maintain stability and progress there is a limit to how much you can squeeze money from other people for certain services that are critical for society. water food electricity etc are all under some sort of regulation

> no one owes you water
and no half functioning state will let water be sold for one million dollars a bottle

>>3052011

More than that. Private property is the primary function of the state.

>>3052004
The struggle of being homeless is far more than the struggle to have a roof over your head.

You worry about getting raped/robbed/murdered without any possible recourse. You worry about being blamed for crimes you did not commit. You worry about the constant threat of violence from any and all human beings since nobody likes a homeless person near their house or business. Just being homeless means you are the lowest caste of creature. You are even treated worse than illegal immigrants by people who feel they are morally justified to do so.

You are a child who has never once struggled in his entire life.

>>3052023
I wasnt talking about taxation. I was talking about his example of rent. And your water bottle argument only makes sense if theres only one place to obtain water period

>>3052036
I'm an adult who's been homeless before you dumb motherfucker! Kill yourself. Unironically! Nobody owes you anything!

>>3052053
Whoa dude, I totally believe you on this Indonesian knitting circle. Especially when your entire argument sounds like it's based on middle school logic that doesn't even understand how market forces work.

>Nobody owes you anything!!!! >:(!!
Nobody in this entire thread is saying anybody owes anyone else, why are you so fixated on this idea? Do you even know how to formulate an independent thought?

>>3052046
>And your water bottle argument only makes sense if theres only one place to obtain water period

Where does one obtain productive land?

>>3049408
>ancaps can understand this but can't understand that employment is slavery under the exact same logic

>>3052146

Except signing a contract to work is mutual you dumb fucking marxist cuck. No one is forcing you to work.

>>3052178
without income you'll starve to death eventually dumb cunt

>>3048018
>want to live in peaceful and orderly society
>give money to maintain it because the alternative is shit
>everyone has to give so that people can't freeload

Seems fair to me.

>>3052184
>nature is slavery

File: eagle.png (108KB, 504x566px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 504x566px

>>3052233
>Wage slavery is natural

File: 1483317547047.png (134KB, 644x598px)

134KB, 644x598px

>>3052246
>getting everything for free from others is natural

>>3052352
> when you have billion and your children won't work a day in their entire lives and you pay your wageslaves a pennies for salary that will never leave them enough with to rise the social economical ladder because the market is "free" and no one owes you anything stop being entitled™

>>3048097
>Morality is... subjective
GOOD LORD THESE FAGGOTS ARE EVERYWHERE

If taxes are unethical because they're involuntary, surely all forms of work are unethical until a person's food, water, health, and shelter are provided for.

>taxation is coercive because you will go to jail if you don't pay taxes.
>you agree to pay taxes, but that doesn't stop it from being involuntary

>working is coercive because you will die if you don't work
>you agree to give your labor for money, but that doesn't stop it from being involuntary

>>3052379
>your children wont work a day

And why is that a matter of mine, yours or anyone else?

>pennies for salary

If you feel like you can get paid more for your work then go look for another job that satisfies your wants and needs.

>>3052409
following your logic

>if you feel like you can live without taxes, then move somewhere without taxes

>>3052381
>you agree to pay taxes

You're forced to pay taxes or you are treated as a criminal, getting robbed of your freedom and sent to jail.

You agree to work for money because you want to be productive/would rather control your own economy rather than have the state do it for you/want to amount to something/have freedom.

No one is forcing you to work. You don't become a criminal if you don't work. No one punishes you if you don't work.

>>3052416

What does that have to do with some billionaires children?

>>3052409
> If you feel like you can get paid more for your work then go look for another job that satisfies your wants and needs.

you assume salary always reflects people's skills when in reality it has much much more to do with people bragining ability. some government bureaucrat can get crazy amount of money just by sitting on the right valves while other highly skilled workers won't get shit if all companies in that particular field join hands to keep wages down

unless you are some super special mathematical genius cyberhacker your employer has much more bargaining power than you do. it's easy for them to keep wages down even when they have craploads of money to pay with

>>3048018
Property rights are codified and enforced by the state. The state defines what is theft and what isn't.

>>3052426
>You agree to work for money because you want to be productive/would rather control your own economy rather than have the state do it for you/want to amount to something/have freedom.

No, you agree to work because in this society, you need work to continue living. Money is a requirement for most things.

>No one is forcing you to work. You don't become a criminal if you don't work. No one punishes you if you don't work.

You become dead, or imprisoned by your inability to do anything without money.

Face it, you have a choice in both matters.

You pay taxes or lose your freedoms to jail
You work or you lose your freedoms to death

>>3052435

It completely depends on your job. Some jobs, salesmen for example, earn their money mostly through their own skill.

Others, say cashiers or fast wood chefs earn what the company can afford to pay them since their jobs require no skill what so ever.

If you feel like you should earn $15/hour for flipping hamburgers at Burger King then go find a Burger King that is willing to pay you $15/hour, or even better, start your own fast food joint and pay your hamburger flippers $15/hour.

Your employer has more bargaining power over you in the case of the Burger King scenario because literally anyone else can do your job, and if you don't accept whatever they pay you, there are a thousand other people ready to accept their offer. Whereas as a skillful salesmen, not everyone can replicate what you do, hence you become worth more to your employer and they also have less bargaining power, finding someone that performs at least as good as you do and for equal or lower pay is very hard and certainly not worth the time.

>>3052457
>you need to work

And yet all western countries waste endless of tax money on welfare :thinking:

You pay taxes because you're threatened by violence and imprisonment. You work because you agree to work, after all this isn't communist Russia or todays North Korea, no gulags in sight.

>>3052473
without regulation there is nothing that stops companies to combine hands and hold wages down together

you can have PHD in compsci and if all big tech companies decide to keep wages down you won't be able to bargain with them for shit. these abusive tactics are not imaginary scenarios

>>3048018
So you don't support the internet, the roads, the cheap food, the electricity, the government, the elections, etc?

>>3052485
>there is nothing that stops blablabla

Except you know, the very people these companies need to employ. Regulations more often than not help corporations rather than workers, the very thing you mongoloids claim you are trying to help.

Stop with the "what if" scenario bullshit arguments.

There are a hundred reasons why these companies aren't going to hold down wages, the first one is competition.

Yes, 10 big companies can keep their wages low and then the 11th company will not, and this talent of yours (the PHD holder) will go work there.

File: 1486236292510.jpg (125KB, 535x510px)

125KB, 535x510px

>>3052504
> Yes, 10 big companies can keep their wages low and then the 11th company will not, and this talent of yours (the PHD holder) will go work there.

the american telecommunications market is owned by a very small amount of gigantic companies, this fucks both consumers and workers in the ass. not every market even has that much variety of competition to begin with dumbass. regulations are stopping huge companies from being complete monopolies that rape your ass for their service because they can

the wealth doesn't trickle down when the game is rigged, people today are more educated and skilled than in any other time in human history yet purchasing power is weaker than it was 50-60 years ago. big sharks are replacing you with chinks,pajeets and soon artificial intelligence while the rest of us will cannibalize each other for the scraps that remain

>>3048493
Yes, but the need of the country is the greater good, and those countries in your examples will be more successful because they thought about the whole.

>>3052504
>Except you know, the very people these companies need to employ.
I remember being a naive college student and believing this spurious reasoning.

Do you know why divide and conquer tactics work? Because an organized minority can make life living hell for an unorganized mass by playing them off of each other.

>>3052352
funny you say that when you defend rent

>>3052381

The choice is taxes or a personal security force. Taxes are always cheaper when the society is egalitarian, personal security becomes the cheaper option when society is unequal.

File: 1476507007552.jpg (146KB, 654x539px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 654x539px

>>3048018

Taxation is voluntary.

You are free to move to another country or take up arms and overthrow the current one.

Or you can move to another country and overthrow them as well.

>>3052539

Purchasing power is weaker because of government interference, mainly central banking. It has nothing to do with large companies.

As for certain markets not being as vast as others, that's natural. Not every market is the same. Also you seem to forget the part government plays in all this.

>>3052662

Of course you, a statist, doesn't believe in the people.

>>3052672

What's wrong with rent again?

>>3052457
You can't go to prison for not having money. You can go to prison for lying about having money when you don't or the reverse.

>>3052758
the markets crashed in 2008 because the government wasn't involved enough and let the banks free pass to fuck shit up. get your basic facts together this is embarrassing

>>3052766
>government wasn't involved enough and let the banks free pass to fuck shit up

Contradictory. They decided to bail out the banks, not the mortgage holders.

File: pepebjorn skalkeson.jpg (9KB, 332x152px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 332x152px

>>3052758

True. If there were no government, my purchasing power would become very large because everything I wanted would be free like in the good old days of 800 AD northern Europe.

>>3052786
they didn't regulate the banks from giving mortgage to every retard that things he can afford a condo because the banks wanted everyone to owe money to them and put pressure on the government not to interfere fucktard

>>3052420
I do, and I hate every day of seeing these people brush aside something that challenges them with that argument.

>>3052794

That part doesn't work unless they know they also get bailed out afterwards.

>>3051898
>And living in a place
Literally just move out

>>3052806
of course they'll get bailed out afterwards when banks crash it makes things worse than they already are. doesn't change the fact the government should've stopped this madness

free market is a good thing. people who treat free market as a god like religious force that fixes all shit up as long as no one sins against the holy forces of the market aren't a good thing. this system kills itself without checks and balances

>>3052823

So of course they'll give out loans that they know will not be repaid.

They should have been let go bankrupt. The government could have stepped in to stem the number of new loans by making it so you didn't have to pay more than the house was worth ever, ever.

>>3052766
>>3052794
>being this misinformed on the financial crisis

The reason financial companies did sign so many sub prime mortgages was exactly because government got involved, not only did the government encourage this by announcing policies such as giving people who doesn't qualify for a mortgage a loan anyways (subprime), they were actually buying these up in bulk. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought, resold or guaranteed some 50% of mortgages made. Now, I'm not claiming that the financial companies didn't do something wrong, certainly some of them did, but to blame the financial crisis on "too little government" is false, dishonest and not factually true.

And then of course, the government in collusion with these banks also bailed them out, and here we are in 2017 still feeling the disaster, still in a NIRP/ZIRP environment just waiting for the next (real) crash that is very near.

The financial companies did what they did because government guaranteed the loans.

In many African countries they have poor ability to collect taxes as long as you pay bribes which isn't really taxes.

So why don't you just move to Somalia or something?

>>3052834
All the people with savings accounts would be screwed.

Banks should've been (temporarily) nationalized and the admnistrators should've been jailed, left penniless and blacklisted.

>>3052865

They could guarantee savings up to a certain amount. They don't need to give money to the banks to do that.

>>3052758
>Of course you, a statist, doesn't believe in the people.
Of course you, a profoundly self-centered individual, doesn't understand how the world works.

"The people" only works when they are educated enough to know better than to vote for showmen, comedians, and religious demagogues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

>>3052854
there was too little government where there should've been and too many government where there shouldn't of been. you'd expect private companies to be more intelligent and competent than a government that is always run by shadow and populist interests yet it didn't happen. which proves checks and balances are needed

incentives =/= checks and balances

>>3052885
>"The people" only works when they are educated enough to know better than to vote for showmen, comedians, and religious demagogues.

Yet you are for a very small group of people deciding everything for everyone else?

>>3052893
you assume this isn't the case even in most democracies. which is both funny and sad

>>3052889

But they were very smart, they made billions and billions of dollars in profit and lost nothing since the tax payers paid for their losses.

>>3052893
>Yet you are for a very small group of people deciding everything for everyone else?
Yes, for the same reasons why if I ever marched to war, I'd want to be led by an officer corps who were competent in their jobs and had a realistic understanding of what it would take to achieve victory, or why I'd believe it if a bunch of dermatologists told me that the spot on my skin was cancer.

Granted when it comes to matters of public ordinance, elected officials are better because it gives us a place to address grievances: at the ballot box. But I'd want to be electing people who were competent, not people who's defining trait was their ability to amuse me, personally.

>>3052801
That's because it's easier to argue that morality is subjective rather than objective. I agree though that using it as some kind of trump card in a debate because you can't think of any other response displays nothing but a profound lack of erudition.

>>3052898

I know that's the case, hence the argument.

>>3052921

So you're nothing but a filthy statist then.

>>3052947
>That's because it's easier to argue that morality is subjective rather than objective.

It is subjective.

>>3048018
Tax is the oldest scam by the upper class in history.

>gibs us money so we can use to make kingdom better hehehehe

Its a socially acceptable form of stealing.

>>3052962
>So you're nothing but a filthy statist then.
I'm not filthy. Every day public water is piped through the public waterworks and into my home, where for a modest sum I get enough water to handle all of my cleaning and drinking needs, more than enough to take daily showers. I wave politely when my public garbage man swings by to take my garbage to a place where it will either be recycled or incinerated. I am totally fine with my taxes going towards those things and if I wasn't, I'd go live somewhere without them.

But guess what? In places with weak states, or states which don't have a mandate to provide for the people, don't have those things. The rich build walled mansions and everyone else languishes in a filth ridden slum. And it's not like there's even a successful example of anarchy that you can point too, there are just various types of government and when one dies, another simply buys them out and life goes on under new management.

>>3048018
Without taxation, there can be no government. Without government, there can be no law. Without law, there can be no property. Without property, there can be no theft.

When you pay taxes, you're basically paying for the support of the institutions that make it possible for you to own anything. The legal concept of property is basically a subscription service you pay the state to maintain so that any old dindu can't just walk up and take what you consider to be yours.

>>3051996
Would you be ok with taxation if the state asked you to sign a formal contract? It seems to me that the presence or absence of a contract is just a minor implementation detail.

>>3052178
Being on your state's territory is also mutual. You're free to give up citizenship and leave, assuming that you don't live in North Korea or some similar shithole.

>>3048018
>The world isn't fair and I have to make compromises I don't like

Is that pretty much the entirety of ancap arguments?

>>3052766
Are you fucking retarded the government forced these banks to hand out loans to people that would normally be denied for an inability to pay, the banks were threatened with being labeled racist and losing good ratings if they didn't
The banks got the last laugh after they forced the government to bail them out

>>3052865
The politicians behind Fannie and Freddie should have been jailed

>>3053152
Do you...actually believe this? You're just joking, right? No one is this agonizingly stupid in real life, are they?

>>3052381
This.
>>3052426
>You're forced to pay taxes or you are treated as a criminal, getting robbed of your freedom and sent to jail.
In the US at least, you're free to make less money than the taxation threshold - then you won't get taxed. The idea behind sending you to jail if you make more than a certain amount of money and don't pay taxes is simple: if you made a lot of money and paid no taxes, you stole resources from society/the state because without society/the state, you would not have been able to make and secure that money. That is why you are treated as a criminal if you don't pay taxes.

>>3053152
pls be trolling

>>3052485
Well, regulation isn't the only method. There's also employee organizing/collective bargaining/etc.

>>3053171
organizing and collective bargaining without government protections is just asking for you company to fire you and everyone who strikes and replace them with scabs who really needed the paycheck

>>3053207
In many cases, that's true. One problem is that while producers sometimes organize, consumers rarely do. Ideally the company that treated its employees like shit would be boycotted by customers. As information becomes more and more accessible due to technology, we might start to see more of this.

>>3053214
>Ideally the company that treated its employees like shit would be boycotted by customers.
If you've ever worked in the service sector you'd fucking laugh at the feasibility of that. Consumers don't give a shit about the employees of the companies they shop at, they care about low, low prices and feeling superior to some one. Your job as an employee is to provide them with both things until you go off the clock, and then it's your turn to walk around buying things and feeling superior to all the dead-eyed service sector drones in jobs even shittier and low-paying than yours.

You have to elect someone to care for you.

>2017
>people think government would've averted the 2008 crisis and that they didn't play a big part of it

Leftism is seriously dangerous.

>>3053268
Sure, I get all that, which is why I said "ideally".

>>3053162
>you're free to make less money than the theft treshold therefore theft is no longer theft

kys

>>3053162
but there is no need for punishment. Get your money that you crave on voluntary basis.

Wanting to punish is natural to the hypocrites state cucks who think they ''help society'' by clinging to their spook of theft. The real desire behind those cucks is not to help by sending to prison the people who do not share their spooks, but just to reject people who do not share their spooks because they become upset just by thinking that a few people disagree with them. A state cuck is too emotional to confront reality.


also, you can give more money than what the state cucks demand, if you really want to help society. And this is on voluntary basis. Oddly enough you have no problem for this

>>3053032
yes you crave comfort and whine when you do not get it. None of this necessitates the apparatus of the judgement and punishment once you do not get the money to get your comfort to fulfill your hedonism.

>>3048135
State=!Civilization

>>3053270
>revising history this hard
The US government tried to implement a policy to make citizens home owners and Wall Street exploited that flawed policy to make massive profits.

Was the US government implicit? Yes. Don't confuse incompetence for malice between the government and Wall Street

[spoiler] And yes there were a lot red flags and doomsayers to warn the coming storm but Wall Street didn't want to listen [/spoiler]

File: 1489545565845.jpg (29KB, 331x334px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 331x334px

>>3048446
Shut up, my property.

File: 1487604827851.gif (537KB, 300x167px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 300x167px

>>3048018
>implying paying taxes so the government can provide things like roads and emergency services is any different than paying rent so the landlord can maintain the building you're living in, just on a larger scale

Really activates my almonds.

>>3048097
>Moral relativism as an argument for why your system is better

>>3052146
it's a lot easier and more common to start your own business than to found your own country

>>3053589
1997 ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS

NEVER FORGET

>>3053373
>taking showers and having access to clean drinking water is hedonism
Man, and people say liberals are smug and out of touch

>>3054880
It is the liberals who dream of showering people with goods claiming that people with satisfied desires will be nice to each other

>>3048468
If roads were privately funded, then there would be no incentive for the owner of roads to allow people to use them without paying. Which means poor people would be effectively denied the use of the roads, same deal as the current net neutrality issue. It would just result in the poor staying poor.

>>3049408
So then you admit that the free market leads to tyranny and elimination of freedom? Because that's effectively what it is, governments are essentially private entities owning all the land, you can't just start your own country if you don't like the way all existing ones are run, since the needed natural resources (land) is already in private hands.

>>3051894
Yes, but the "property rights" in question need not be EXCLUSIONARY property rights.

>>3051898
So if I'm born in an apartment, is it theft that I'm expected to pay rent once my parents die if I don't move out? Countries are no different, you consent to rental terms by remaining there. You're free to move out. Sure, there is no free land left where you can live without paying rent, but that's just a consequence of the market system: inevitably, all public resources will become private, leading to the creation of land-owning elite who hold effectively absolute power over all people.

>>3052004
The point is someone has to be literally insane to decide that they'd rather die than violate somebody else's property rights. The only difference is that the exploiting party does not CREATE exploitative conditions, but merely takes advantage of them.

>>3052178
So then, you'd be okay with taxation if, upon becoming a citizen, you must sign a contract in which you consent to pay taxes to the government on your property, and if you fail to do so you're forcibly removed from the country?

>>3052233
Essentially, yes, because everyone has certain needs that must be met in order to survive. You can't just "do nothing and leave other people alone" and survive, since you require a source of food and so on. The ONLY way for one to be truly free is for them personally to have complete control of the resources they need to survive, which basically means owning sufficient arable land to feed themselves. And since land ownership is exclusionary, it's easy to see how a "free market" can result in people being un-free.

>>3052426
>You're forced to pay taxes or you are treated as a criminal, getting robbed of your freedom and sent to jail.
The same happens if you refuse to pay rent. If you try to live in an apartment without paying rent, you get kicked out, possibly having the police called on you, because merely by occupying an apartment without paying rent, you are essentially taking the landlord's property without paying for it. Same deal with taxation - the government IS the landlord, we say private entities "own" land, but really all that they own is an exclusive license to USE the land, provided they obey the government's laws. The government is the one with actual sovereign ownership over the land. So if you don't want to pay taxes, then you better get off the government's land. And the fact that all land is owned by governments, well, that's just the free market in action.

>You agree to work for money because you want to be productive/would rather control your own economy rather than have the state do it for you/want to amount to something/have freedom.
Except it's NOT freedom, and you DON'T control your own economy, because you don't personally have control over the means of production - your employer has the right to fire you at any time for any reason, since it's their property you are using - which means you're the one without power in that agreement.

>No one is forcing you to work. You don't become a criminal if you don't work. No one punishes you if you don't work.
Yes, "no one" is forcing you to work. But you are still BEING FORCED to work, because to not do so means death (which is probably WORSE than the consequences for not paying taxes, or for theft). You're saying that the morality of exploitation is dependent on the INTENT of the exploiter, not on the EFFECT it has on the one being exploited.

>>3052763
Yes but you really can't do anything without money either. You can't own land, obtain food, etc. So your actual practical freedom to do as you wish is dependent on money being available.

>>3052758
rent is you having a perfectly good piece of property that could be used to supply goods or services to make the lives of a person and those around them better but demanding a personal cut to allow it to be used

now, that's obviously wrong from an efficiency standpoint by letting property go unused, but also, if it weren't for the violence you or the law command (both of which are coercion and thereby illegitimate), they would ignore your autistic desire and use the property anyway without giving you anything. but because of that violence, they give you the fruits of their labor despite you not doing anything for it; in other words, they give you shit for free.

File: one of these cities is significantly more segregated than the other two.png (121KB, 1050x550px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1050x550px

>>3055159
No, it's simply acknowledging a reality that people whose needs are met don't revolt. You think paying for welfare is expensive? Counter-revolutions are even more expensive, and those violent, disenfranchised, angry young men are not not going to be swayed by your incessant moralizing about the non-aggression principle.

Even the Romans, who didn't even think that they should be made to pay the salaries of soldiers and were totally cool with slavery, found that it was cheaper and less of a hassle to just pay for a bread dole and state-sponsored entertainment than it was to be at near continuous war with their own working class. It may be all be just a cynical ploy to control people, but it works better than treating them like the rational beings that they aren't.

>>3053660
I don't need roads nor do I want emergency services.
That's the difference.

>>3055787
Yes, you do.

>>3055787
So what do you do criminals turn up at your house and leave you in a pool of your own blood?

>>3055807
If they somehow managed to get past my measures and wound me, I'd fix my own wounds. If I died anyway I deserved to and go to valhalla.

>>3048165
it wouldn't even be "communist" uprisings, just uprisings of every sort.

>nationalist/regionalist uprisings,
>theocratic uprisings.
>other populist uprisings.

The welfare state is a lubricant for the machinery of modern society.

>>3048018
>implying theft is wrong

File: Ancap State.jpg (59KB, 720x781px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 720x781px

>>3048018
Taxation is rent therefore if you are against taxation then you are against rent. I'd say that would make you a pretty rubbish capitalist.

>>3055941
saved

You own a private neighborhood. You ensure that power and water are at what you believe everyone will believes is fair prices for everyone living there. You provide routine maintenance on the properties as well as either hire or contract out jobs for expansions on community benefits such as a park, a community gym, and a community pool. The contract that has you perform these duties requires that the residents there provide one sexual favor a year per resident, so long as you, the owner, doesn't use this privilege recklessly. This contract is inherited from parent to child as well, so even if the parent dies the child is still able to live in this community. Every resident, from Joe in building 114 to Grandma Bertha in 004 has done their sexual act for the year in exchange for your services. Dianne, however, has refused to have sex and it's December 31st. She's had several notices and is reminded that it is part of the contract her mother signed, so she has to uphold it. As punishment, you lock her up in the community cell for breaking the contract.

Maybe everyone who thinks taxation is theft should go off together and overthrow some African or Central/South American country and establish a country without taxation to see how well true anarchy would work without any sort of social structure. Protip: It won't,
anyone living there would organize themselves over time under some heirarchy.

Stop trying to be edgy with taxation is theft. Blame your migrant ancestors who moved to whatever country you live in now who have locked you into a social contract with that country's government. Whether it's moral or not is irrelevant, since a government can't have morals. It's the people that participate in it that are either moral or amoral.

>>3055941
>>3049329 here
that was MY idea

>>3056151
>Maybe everyone who thinks taxation is theft should go off together and overthrow some African or Central/South American country and establish a country without taxation
I actually know a person who did this, to some extent. He's a dealer of exotic animals and plants that got pretty rich because that field is surprisingly lucrative if you have the right contracts. He got sick of having to pay taxes to live in a western European country, so he moved to Madagascar and built a private compound. In order to not get robbed and possibly murdered, he had to install a bunch of security systems and hire a small security force. Now he bitches about how much it costs to maintain a decent life supposedly tax free.

>>3055941
This is Robert Nozick's take-down of anarcho-capitalism, in a nutshell.

>>3048018
Because the voters consent to taxation.
The whole system of representation provides that any taxation is directly or indirectly consented to by the will of the people.

If you disagree with the decision you have the right to compete for votes and try to sway people, or to leave and go somewhere else.

ez

>>3055787
It's not just about roads that you personally drive on. Most of the stuff that you consume comes to you over roads. Without roads you would probably live having a much poorer quality of life.

>>3056268
>>Because the voters consent to taxation.
no the voters are threaten into taxation

>>3055941
who rent what to whom and under the consent of whom?

>>3055807
criminals exist only once some guy create a rule stating that people who do not follow the rules are criminals. no laws = no criminals

>>3048018

> Taxation is theft
> End taxation
> No military or police
> Actual thieves come and steal your shit

Good job, good effort

>>3049451
>If taxation is theft then so is private property
it does not follow

>>3048504
""""""""""Kill yourself""""""""""

>>3048018
Taxation goes to some things you support and some things you don't. The things you don't support others do and vice versa. You're fucking retarded.

>>3058202
>I am upset

go to tumblr

This is a troll thread, right?

>>3057629
b-b-b-but muh private home defense

File: 1477972030594.jpg (136KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1920x1080px

>>3057629
>>3058801
if this ''''''''''''''threat'''''''''''''''''''of being robbed where true, the few people who choose to manage a palpation would not be forcing taxation. they could do it on a voluntary basis, and since you claim that your fantazy of being robbed is a reality, then people would embrace this voluntary taxation

oddly enough, the people who want to control a population love also to create rules and to recruit people to punish the population.

File: 1475180436178.jpg (344KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1280x720px

bumpq

Anclaps really are the useful idiots of rich capital.

It's funny how they don't get how they would be smashed under the boot of a private army if they ever got what they wanted.

>>3060375
you don't get it, if someone is powerful enough to be able to kill be, they should be able to kill me!

>>3048018
>but what if I don't like where my tax money is going? What if I don't support firefighters and Liberal arts colleges among other things?
Vote for a different party or create your own, and if you're sad that you're party isn't able to compete with larger ones due to their larger economic base, then guess what sunshine, you just figuredd out the failure of anarcho capitalism.

>>3053151
Yes, it's why they never have an answer to the social contract, because what they're complaining about is the tyranny of being born, of which nobody decides for themselves to exist.

If we were in an ancap society what DOES prevent me from buying a nuke(assumung i got the means to do so) and nuking someone because i feel like a dickhead

>>3056192
God sounds like exactly every libertarian and ancap ever if they got their paradise. Hope the faggot is as miserable as possible.

>>3057608
I'm not aware of any recent case in the civilized world where people are threatened with state violence for voting against taxes.

>>3057611
>to whom
To the state, which owns the land on which you live.
>under the consent of whom
You consent to it, by remaining on the land owned by the state. To remain on the land WITHOUT paying rent would be a violation of the state's property rights.

>>3057618
Okay, so when they say "criminals", assume they mean "people who intend to use violence to deprive you of your personal belongings".

>>3059277
In an ideal society you would have the option of not paying taxes, and losing the benefits of tax-funded services. But, those services do amount to quite a lot, and even if you think getting robbed is unlikely, you'd likely end up regretting it if you DID get robbed because you'd have exactly zero recourse (unless the person who robbed you ALSO did not pay taxes, in which case you could legally seek revenge). Most people aren't bothered enough by taxes that they'd be willing to give up all those services and benefits it provides.

>>3060525
An ancap society probably would require SOME form of government to enforce property rights and punish NAP violations like theft and murder. Though how exactly it would fund itself is unclear - ancaps seem to see property rights as something "natural", rather than a service provided by the state, so they probably wouldn't be willing to fund it via taxes.

Taxation is theft is a really basic axiom for anyone that isn't mentally retarded, sure. But most people are retarded. Specifically, they are conditioned to be so as soon as they're born.

The state saturates its presence around everyone and convinces them it can't not exist. You will never convince people like this to get rid of the government because the concept of living without one is frightening.

>>3060917
>>>/somalia/

>>3060525
100% of people who have been nuked completely deserved it

ergo, anyone who gets nuked deserves it

no moral quandary for you anon

>>3060525
YOU WOULDN'T NUKE ANYONE BECAUSE NAP AND IF YOU BROKE IT THEN EVERYONE WOULD GANG UP ON YOU

>>3060917
every objection that can be had against taxation can also be had against rent but at least with taxation there's potential you might have a democratic, transparent government where you can take a stand against your cash being used for stupid shit, whereas with rent you're fucked no matter what

>b-but rent is voluntary, taxes aren't
it's probably harder to move to somalia than it is to move to somewhere where rent doesn't exist desu

>>3061054
*easier

File: 5f7a726a.gif (264KB, 229x194px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 229x194px

You argue against taxation and say you're being exploited by the state
However, capitalism is based upon the exploitation of workers by both the state and capitalists (bourgeois)
It's merely a shift from a pound of lead and a pound of feathers to two pounds of feathers. At least from the majority's perspective
The problem with anarcho capitalism is that it's also not good from a bourgeois perspective. The state upholds and legitimizes business through law, police, protective tarrifs, and roads and even pursues business interest oversees with military. As well, along with police and central intelligence, the state can use nationalism and blaming minorities through politicians to keep workers in line.
Without the state, the bourgeois would disolve, as capitalists can't use these tools

File: 64ebf7b606ca5f40150bc2641c05c2afae5e3037a806f52052178da15fd87749_1.jpg (63KB, 640x980px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x980px

>>3061054
>it's probably harder to move to somalia than it is to move to somewhere where rent doesn't exist desu
There's nothing stopping you from living in a tent out in the woods or under an overpass if you don't want to pay rent that badly.

But if you like living in a building compliant with modern safety codes and stays relatively climate controlled throughout the year, you have to pay for nice things

>>3061605
>There's nothing stopping you from living in a tent out in the woods or under an overpass if you don't want to pay rent that badly.
there are people who feel entitled to destroy a settlement in the wood

>>3055787
Anon roads are what your mom drives on when she goes to pick up your tendies. Even if you don't use them you need them.

>>3060536
>Hope the faggot is as miserable as possible.
I don't know if he's miserable or not, but he does complain about how much living there safely is costing him (especially security and bribes to the local government). At this point, he's sunk so much money into his house, I doubt he'll ever leave, but it's obvious he's disappointed that he has to spend more money in not-taxes than he was expecting.

>>3048018
>posts on /his/
>doesnt understand what the Social Contract is

back to /pol/

>>3048028
The government doesn't own the country, even if they think they do.

>>3064610
>doesnt understand what the Social Contract is

A metaphor that doesn't hold up under scrutiny?

I'm not going to pretend anarchism (of any kind) makes sense but the social contract is fucking stupid.

>>3065105
The government was there policing that property before you were born, and will be there after you are dead and have sold it to someone else.

So if the government doesn't own the country, it's an even bigger hubris to think that you do.

>>3048018
I calculate the money I should be paying in taxes and donate it to the children's research hospital instead. I'll get jailed sooner or later but honestly no regrets.

>>3065155
how do you avoid the taxes?

File: humannature.png (101KB, 461x437px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 461x437px

>>3052246

>>3055217
This guy gets it

File: Trashman speaks.png (1MB, 2258x458px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2258x458px

questions?

>americans go apeshit if they see their flag, clapping chanting USA USA USA
>but muh government is a thief

hopeless, this nation is doomed to die out due to idiocy

>>3066685
You moron, don't you realise that America is filled with people with all sorts of different opinions and beliefs just like any other country.

As this is a morality of taxation thread, lets hear it.


Is it moral to pay your tax so it can help out those who are disabled or those who are completely poor?

>>3063307
>Bribes
Those are called Taxes.

>>3048123
Ah, so you don't leave the house. It all makes sense now...

>>3066726
If you want to help the poor you can still do it in ancapistan by giving money to charities.

>>3048018
Individual morality is a meme. Humans are a social species and the good of society comes before '''''human rights'''''.

>>3066742
>the good of society comes before '''''human rights'''''.
I'm sure Mao or some other violent socialist said something like that before he executed thousands of innocent people.

>>3066741
charity is paying for a clear conscience
>make their life hell
>here have a meal on my money

disgusting

>>3066722
your whore of a mother is a moron sharter, you are all emberrased millionaires who WILL NOT make it

>>3066762
Jokes on you, I'm not American

>>3066758
>It's my fault some people are irresponsible and waste their money on drugs and hookers

>Taxation is Theft
And why should others defend you from theft for free?

>>3055787
That's interesting.

Please greentext your average day for us.

>>3066685
>americans go apeshit if they see their flag, clapping chanting USA USA USA
>but muh government is a thief

That's the thing, this creates the perfect balance of patriotism and skepticism of the government. Yin and yang.

Can I unsubscribe from my State package and simply stop paying taxes as long as I live on my property which I rightfully bought and do not use any services the state provides?

Why should the state own land? The state is a collective of people which proclaim the state within the borders of the land which they individually or communely own. If I own land and do not wish to partake in that state why should my land still be considered part of the state?

The fact that the state uses force to extract taxes from those using its services is entirely legitimate. But the states claim to land which is not owned by one of its freely subscribed citizens is illegitimate. The use of force to extract (((taxes))) from those individuals is theft.

>>3067179
>Why should the state own land? The state is a collective of people which proclaim the state within the borders of the land which they individually or communely own. If I own land and do not wish to partake in that state why should my land still be considered part of the state?

Because they hold military power and use it in order to protect their land, for living on that land, receiving an education, healhcare, policing services, firefighting services etc, in exchange you pay an amount of currency, (created and maintained by the state) in order to fund these things, in democratic countries, you can vote against parties who you feel do not give an adequete balance between the taxes you pay and the services you receive, places with this form of order do far better than "societies" without any form of hirearchy or such service, in addition, the existence of the state defends against the possiblity that dictatorial power rises through conquest, living standards under dictatorial systems are lower than their non dictatorial counter parts, so it's a case of taking the devil you know.

>>3052011
>The state makes private property possible. It prevents other parties stronger than you from simply stealing your land by force.
>Robbers rob you so that other robbers can't rob you more
so we agree that the State is actually a gang?

>>3067224
You have the readingcomprehension of a frogposter on /pol/. Please read the post again regarding the legitimacy of force if I want to profit from the services thw state provides and the illegitimacy of thw state forcing me to subscribe to said services via its military power. If I unsubscribe and am then killed due to the absence of a state protecting me Im an idiot. But why shouldnt I be free to be an idiot?

I cannot get out of the state while within the supposed "territory" of the state.

Work isn't slavery because you voluntarily work to fulfill your natural needs. Your natural needs are and always will be there and are a part of every single human being's life. Tax is theft because you either pay or suffer aggression.
So it follows like this
> You don't work = no other human being should violate your property
> You don't pay taxes = other human beings violate your property
Not working results in probable death, unless somebody is paying for your life costs. However, no other human being is responsible for such death besides yourself. Not paying taxes may result in death, and necessarily because another human being is responsible for it. Any analogies between work and tax are idiotic.

>>3052705
Your freedom to do something should not be related to your need to respond to aggression. If somebody got a bomb stuck on your leg and said: "go rob a bank", the robbery has not been done in free will.
>you are free to cut off your leg and get away from the bomb instead of robbing the bank
That is not freedom nor free choice, because you are under the current, objective and factual threat of aggression.

>>3055217
>The point is someone has to be literally insane to decide that they'd rather die than violate somebody else's property rights. The only difference is that the exploiting party does not CREATE exploitative conditions, but merely takes advantage of them.
!?!?!?!?
low IQ

>>3067179
Why should corporations own land? The corporation is a collective of people which proclaim the corporation within the borders of the land which they individually or communely own. If I dont own and do not wish to partake in that corporation why should any land still be considered part of the corporation?

>>3067224
>ou can vote against parties who you feel do not give an adequete balance between the taxes you pay and the services you receive
yes this vote changes nothing towards what I want

>>3067362
This is the only problem this offers imo. How to structure an organisation which holds the power necessary to enforce private property for all. ANd at the same time limit it in such a way that it cannot abuse this power. A god would be needed. Impartial and omnipotent. Here is where ancap fails. Currently working on a solution to this.

The main point stands though. It is theft. It is shit. Do we have a better system available? None that wouldnt succumb to the same bullshittery the current system is subject to. Should this make us give up and simply subjugate ourselves to this piece of shit system we have? No. Because it is still theft. No matter how reasonable.

>If I dont own and do not wich to partake in the corporation
THE FUCK are you on nigguh? Of course it should be theirs. If its yours its yours. If its theirs its theirs. Whata are you smoking?

>>3066772
>people can't be poor unless they're stupid enough to waste money on drugs and hookers
I'm pretty poor and I've never been anywhere near drugs or hookers.

>>3067337
Are you describing yourself?

File: Sumerian tax tablet.gif (50KB, 250x235px)

50KB, 250x235px

>>3057659

Both exist because of abstract agreements and laws that society has come up with long before we were born and they defend these laws with coercion if one refuses to acknowledge them based on whatever rationale.

>b-b-but I worked my property so I'm entitled to it

And the security and benefits the existence of the state has granted you has improved your life ever since your waking moment, so they're entitled to some compensation

The existence of the concept of private property and that of a state rest on the same principles and are interdependent. Primitive nations lacked both and they were governed by far more repressive, collectivist and immobile social constructs than anything in a state based on the social contract.

Ancapism is based on outdated and flawed logic based on idealistic Lockean view on the natural state of man, which has long been proven to be unscientifically sound to say the least. It's no different from Marxism in trying to reason away the realities of human societies in order to achieve some utopian goal.

>>3067635
If you weren't poor, you'd be doing drugs and hookers like I do. So thats not my fault.

Taxation is necessary for the formation and preservation of the State, and thus, for the achievement of human greatness and potential.

If a world without 'rape' means a world without the moon landing or the extinction of smallpox, then I want to live in the world WITH rape. There's going to be suffering either way, but the current acceptance of taxation allows for the formation of powerful legacies and civilizations.

File: 1444600358121.jpg (24KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x250px

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

muh taxation

muh lost cause

>>3067830
Private property = nobody gets anything taken away from them. I simply claim ownership of that which has no owner yet.
Taxation = somebody gets something taken away. The state claims ownership of that which already has an owner.

How are those even remotely the same? Of course the state deserves compensation for what it offers. The only question is, why is it compulsory to subscribe to the benefits? It is not about wether or not I should pay taxes if I enjoy the benefits. The state shouldnt be able to FORCE me to be part of it. If the state didn't have that power it would automatically splinter. I should be allowed to not partake in certain benefits. Now if the state says: Take all the benefits or get none, that is fair to do. But those states that offer flexible arrangements would always outcompete the others. Who would subscribe to a state which forces stuff onto you? Everybody has some problems with their state. Nobody wants the whole package. So why should anyone get the whole package? You want roads? You pay for roads. You want welfare? You pay for welfare.

Free and uninhibited cooperation of free agents. What is so complicated about that concept?

>>3069138
Something which has "no owner" may be used by anyone. Once you claim ownership of it, that's no longer true. You're causing something which was formerly public property to become private property. Your mistake is assuming property cannot be utilized unless under exclusionary private ownership.

>>3062621
Woods aren't yours. You would be disturbing the local ecosystem and fucking up a forest meant for everyone's enjoyment. If you really wanna escape, you have to go to British Columbia or some shit.

Property is theft friendo

>>3067273

If there is no democracy or rule of law, then yes. But if there is then the state is accountable to those which it administers and cannot act except within the law.

>>3066631
>>3069225
>>3048057
>commietards proving once again they are actually dumber than ancaps
That takes effort.
No one cares about your failed highschool tier ideologies.

File: Ben Franklin.jpg (146KB, 533x600px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 533x600px

>>3069287
>>3069138
>Private property
Laws create private property. With out a centralized agency enforcing property rights, those property deeds are just fancy, but worthless slips of paper.

And if that centralized agency does not have a means of generating income, it can't uphold your property rights, it fails as a state.

Sure, you could make the argument that if you can physically defend it it's yours, which of course is the philosophy of the backwoods gun-toting redneck, but for 99% of the economy well enforced property rights means you don't need to devote your every waking hour to policing your territory, you can own hundreds of properties and manage them as needed, and if someone does something to injure one of those properties you have a universal arbitrator to whom you can take your grievances and who will administer judgement in as fair and impartial a manner as possible.

>>3069260
Do you truly believe that any State is within the grasp of the people it "represents"? Let's think up a situation here. Say the majority of a country's population doesn't want the State to exist anymore. Do you believe that it would actually stop existing? Or it would fight for it's maintenance?
States only seem accountable to those they administer insofar they believe their existence is maintained. It's similar to any capitalist corporation. The customers happiness is only important while it keeps profit coming, only the State doesn't care about profit, it cares about it's own existence (and obviously the continued money income for the minority it enriches). But while corporations and any sort of free market institution is (or at least should be) surrounded by competition and therefore should continually strive for the customer's good avaluation, the State isn't, and only needs to work to maintain the ideology that keeps it alive. In third world countries, it doesn't require a lot, and that's what you see as a "lack of rule of law or democracy".
In fact, you don't even need to come up with an imaginary situation in which the majority is anarchist. Let's say a certain part of the country wanted to separate themselves and form a separate State. Even if 100% of the people in that area wanted separation, even if the majority of the people in the entire country believed that would be for the best, can you honestly tell me that any State in the world would gladly accept the majority of it's "representees" opinion and alow the secession to happen without going for some sort of violent repression first or at least strongly fighting against it? I can't remember any historical example of such a thing happening, nor do I believe it will ever happen, because that's not the State's true nature.

>>3069287
He has a point though, if "taxation is theft", then you can use the exact same sort of broad, vague rhetorically spurious reasoning to argue that property is theft.

>>3069344
I was looking for this quote a while back and couldn't find it. Thanks for posting it.

>>3067589
If there's a factory sitting out that no one's using, I should be able to use that to make things, as long as I make sure it remains in good condition to be used in the future. But if private property exists, then I can't do that.

>why would I leave the factory empty when I could use it to make things?
Plenty of reasons (all sorts of factories, houses, and plots of land go unused under the current system) but even assuming it is being used, why exactly do the workers who are actually operating the factory need to give a portion of what they make to you?

>>3069372
Oh no, I definetly agree.
That's why I said ideologies, plural.
This whole thread belongs in /pol/ though, it's literal politics.

>>3069359

no, but so what? how does this change the fundamental role of the state in allowing for the existence of private property? these are ancillary considerations which have no bearing on the issue at hand, that is, the validity of taxation and the role of the state.

>>3069541
I'm just showing that the State represents nothing but it's own interests and can only be seen as "representative of the people" through the eyes of ideology, just like any other corporation. So it's actually just an overestimated gang. Private property exists prior to statal organization because it requires only mutual human consent to exist. "I see your property as yours because I believe you have made it yours, and I want you to see my property as mine". The State is literally just a 'dignified gang' that defends private property as it sees fit, just like any other ghetto gang defending people's property when the State doesn't do the job it classifies as solely his. The State can only exist in a society where private property has gained enough importance that people give up their personal freedoms to defend it, but it's by no means the only way to defend it, neither is it the institution that gives legitimacy to private property in the first place. That's what ancaps believe: that the State has ideologically made itself to be the origin of law and private property, when it can actually only "usurp it" - it's because people invented law and private property and gave it importance, that the State appeared, not the other way around. The "logical conclusion" would be that a society with private property and law, but without the State, is entirely possible, and ancaps believe it's actually more efficient and morally defensible (some reinforce more the former, some the latter, but that's another story).

>>3069443
fair enough, though sometimes it's possible to frame these sorts of discussions through a historical lens. For example, ancient Romans were always loathe to see their taxes raised to pay for anything but another war, and even then they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into raising taxes just to pay for the soldiers' wages and equipment, but they shot themselves in the foot when they drew a line in the sand regarding a pension, and made it so that soldiers were more loyal to their general than to the state because he was the guy who had most say in the quality of their after service life.

And if they were that stingy with the soldiers, you can imagine how tightwad they were when it came to spending money on the common rabble. But sooner or later they discovered that it was cheaper to just give free food and entertainment to the masses to keep them complacent than it was to deal with an underclass which was in a near continuous state of violent uprising and needed to be constantly put down.

>>3069663

>I'm just showing that the State represents nothing but it's own interests and can only be seen as "representative of the people" through the eyes of ideology, just like any other corporation.

this is a critique of representative democracy, not the state. answers to this critique have been formulated in the form of direct democracy or deliberative democracy.

>Private property exists prior to statal organization because it requires only mutual human consent to exist. "I see your property as yours because I believe you have made it yours, and I want you to see my property as mine"

"and now i changed my mind and will steal your land because i am more powerful, and there's nothing you can do to stop me. oh shit, the state has intervened and prevented me from doing so and thus assured the existence of your private property"

>That's what ancaps believe: that the State has ideologically made itself to be the origin of law and private property, when it can actually only "usurp it" - it's because people invented law and private property and gave it importance, that the State appeared, not the other way around.

there are 0 historical examples where that is the case.

>The "logical conclusion" would be that a society with private property and law, but without the State, is entirely possible, and ancaps believe it's actually more efficient and morally defensible (some reinforce more the former, some the latter, but that's another story).

so in this system what regulates relations between individuals, property, and law? some sort of mutual voluntary federation of interested members? kind of like a state by another name?

>>3069344
>judgement in as fair and impartial a manner as possible.
yes liberals believe this. oddly, the judgement is just the opinion, of an appointed person who demands money and privileges for the work, about the validity of an action, speech or materialized intention of somebody with respect to the rules that a few people decide to create and who create the rules that they are not responsible for the consequences of making people behave according to their rules.

>>3069138
>Private property = nobody gets anything taken away from them. I simply claim ownership of that which has no owner yet.
How do you know that there was no owner? Did you ask everyone's approval first? And if others had the same right as you to ownership, how do you justify becoming the owner and why would others accept your ownership?

File: 1484623290026.jpg (66KB, 391x960px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 391x960px

>>3066679
>anarchist society is so advanced roads are superfluous and all are free to travel the way they want

File: 1477868489376.jpg (60KB, 478x731px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 478x731px

>state cuks claim to know how you should live your life

I think libertarians forget that security isn't free.
You don't want to pay taxes? Fine
But then you can't demand the state to protect you from robbers, or from their own police force

>>3071122
Of course I do, why wouldn't I?

enlighten me on how NAP would realistically work

>>3071122

that's a prank you dip

>>3066679
>when you don't have the remotest clue what capitalism, communism, and anarchism are
síck post

"Anarcho-"capitalism isn't anarchist since there are still hierarchies oop