Taxation is theft. Can you refute this?

>>127538216
It is but I don't see you doing anything about your money being stolen.

>>127538369
What would you suggest I do that would actually have an impact?

It's the price for civilization.

When someone steals something from you they don't pave roads and educate your children with the money they stole.

The logic behind "taxation is theft" is an extreme reduction that only considers the actual act of having to pay taxes outside of the greater context of what happens after.

>>127539864
So if I steal $100 out of your wallet and buy you a $2 cheeseburger afterward, I'm not a thief?

File: 35500-charli-xcx-1680x1050-celebrity-wallpaper.jpg (244KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1680x1050px

Without taxes there can be no courts and therefore no legally recognized property rights

>>127538618
Don't pay your taxes.

member subscription is theft

>>127538216

stealing≠compulsory contribution to state revenue

If you don't want to be taxed, don't work.
If you don't want to be stolen from you're out of luck.

>>127538216
taxation without representation is theft
taxation is otherwise just being forced to buy shit you may or may not want, but at least you have a share in the company to influence decision making.

>>127538216
It's part of the agreement you have for living in a taxed area, which is in turn serviced by your taxes.

>>127540108
>hur dur context doesn't matter
>look at me i'm smart guys

File: S3RpyAO.png (336KB, 897x920px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 897x920px

>>127538216

>It's part of the social contract

Contract = 2 parties involved in mutual voluntary agreement. Anyone here sign a contract?

>We need taxes to pay for stuff.

We need MONEY to pay for stuff. It doesn't mean someone should force people to give up their money or else throw them in a cage.

>Cost of living in society for roads and stuff

and for bombs, spying, debt, failing education system, bombs, highest prison population in the world, 138 military bases in 80 countries, corporate welfare, ghetto welfare, bombs.

Freedom works you teen bopping faggots. Stop parroting your dumb fuckastani teachers and chomsky cuck-sucking youtubers. If you can't imagine a society without an income tax better than this debt crisis war-ridden 1984 we're in now, then die. Because that's what will happen one way or another. Either live free or mother fucking die. Welcome to reality.

>>127538216
It's not black and white. The issue is not should we pay taxes, it's what should our taxes be used for. Just become some are wasted, doesn't make the whole concept bad

>>127543398
>Anyone here sign a contract?
Usage is the contract. You don't always have to sign something.

File: 1382162148302.png (319KB, 356x515px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 356x515px

>>127540750

Do you want him to die?

>>127543294
No, you can't do that. You can't just drop the word "context" as if it's a magic wand that makes the definition of theft go away. Just because you are friends with the men who point guns at people and steal their property doesn't mean context changes what that actually is.

>>127543936
It's not theft, though. If you choose to stay in a taxed state and make use (directly or indirectly) of tax funded services, you're not being robbed.

>>127544146
It is theft. All that is transpiring is men, individual men, who are using violence against other men to take their property from them. That doesn't change no m atter how you dress it up. You can give members of this gangs titles, and uniforms, you can put them on TV shows in suits to talk about whatever they want you to hear this week, but it's still men stealing things from other men. Telling me to vacate my property that I acquired through fair, voluntary exchanges because the gang of men with guns that violently claimed dominion over my property are doing things you believe are "good" with my property.

They're thieves. You just admire those thieves and think of them as Robin Hoods, I suppose. But they are thieves. Violent ones.

>>127538216
theft is a social construct
you need to build a concept of property, ownership, and the rules governing it
and the conception that exists in the society you have elected to live in does not define taxation as theft
therefore it is not

>>127544402

Your property rights don't exist in a vacuum and are guaranteed by those same "Robin Hoods" you seem to despise. What if someone were to actually steal your property, who would you call? Who would try to get it back? Who would punish the thief? Stop being so self-centered and whining about upkeep costs.

>>127538216
I saw some bridges being built yesterday, and roads getting repaired. I don't mind chipping in for that.

Taxation as wealth redistribution is state mandated theft from the productive by the NEETs and unionized government employees.

>>127540108
>equating essential public works/other govt systems with a burger

>>127538216
it's theft if you aren't represented

>>127543721

You don't use government, it uses you.

>>127544402
Contract for exchanges aren't theft, libtard. You give and you get. If you longer want to give/get, then you have to leave.

>>127544742
They don't guarantee shit. They give and take what they call "rights" at their leisure. They've been doing it for thousands of years, and their supplicants have always found ways to justify it. You're all welfare addicts that think you're part of some "greater good". What nonsense. You just enjoy the fruits of others labor by having strongmen violently take it and redistribute it to their power base.

My rights are enforceable by nobody, because they are impossible to defend with these extremely powerful gangs about. That's all they are. The most powerful of all the gangs.

>>127544985
im 14 and this is intelligent

>>127544985
You do use it to enforce your "rights." Plus, government services such as law, trasport, and protection.

>>127544146

Your dad doesn't rape you because you can just leave!

Your husband didn't hit you because you can just leave!

The government doesn't steal from you because you can just leave!

>>127544986
I'm not a liberal you mouthbreathing convict. There is no contract between me and the gang you're advertising for. If I could, I'd end all of their lives. But I can't do that. Instead, they have me over a barrel because they are violent extortionists and cutthroat thieves who wield control over nearly every facet of my life. You can call it a contract, but the word means nothing when you diminish it to a definition of one-sided, unreciprocated violent force.

>>127545178
Nice false dichotomy. Or perhaps you're a feminist who thinks all sex is rape.
You agree to taxation by staying put and using what it provides. If you don't agree to it, then sod off elsewhere.

i agree that the majority of taxation is unnecessary bullshit but it is a necessity for everyone to live equally under the law, it shouldn't be determined by wealth or status and I dont see a world where everyone who doesnt do their part to maintain that lasting very long.

File: 1486882412139.jpg (71KB, 600x656px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x656px

>>127538216
No I cant


Now where is your argument?

hmmmmmmmmm?

>>127545248
>There is no contract between me and the gang you're advertising for.
By gang, you mean society, you edgy nigger?
>You can call it a contract,
Because it is, and it isn't one sided. You only feel that way because you're a sponge, rather than a contributing member.

No because render unto caesar the things that are his

>>127544642

>theft is a social construct

Take that PoMo bullshit back to the coffee shop. Your worldview is snake oil. You're going to be a slave forever.

>>127545000

>They give and take what they call "rights" at their leisure

Not true, see: U.S. Constitution

Now sit down, beta bitch.

>>127544968

I'm 14 and they taught me this in history class.

>>127545500
>see: U.S. Constitution
You mean the thing which gives you rights from the government?

>>127538216
No taxation as it presently is would be nothing more than theft. But that itself diminishes the state of the issue quite a bit. To ask a slightly different question is taxation that goes toward causes you believe in and agree to theft?

>>127545376
It's not society though. That's the abstraction these thieves have used to obscure their gang for centuries. You haven't stolen from me. Men with guns did. If not for them, you wouldn't get one penny out of me. They do the theft, you do the taking. You rationalize it because you have to. This century it's some form of "liberal democracy". A few centuries earlier it was something. In a few more centuries it will be a new bag of tricks. It's all just theft and violence though, by men who are willing to take money to shoot other men and steal their property for gang leaders. You supporting them in this criminal conspiracy doesn't make it "society". It means you're under the thumb of these violent men.

>>127545116

Rights aren't enforced, they are protected. Read. And if you think the government provides services such as law and protection, I have some bad news.

>>127545274

Why shouldn't the people who can't build a society without stealing money sod off elsewhere? Seems like you're the one with the false equivalency. Glad you learned that phrase, though.

>>127545599
>It's not society though.
It is. The government isn't some alien body who took over your humble nigger kibbutz. Society wanted to be more organised to get shit done, and it has evolved into the varying governing bodies we have.
> If not for them, you wouldn't get one penny out of me.
And you wouldn't be able to partake of this society. It used to be that anyone who couldn't contribute was culled, or left to die.
So basically, you're an historically and socially illiterate sponge who pretends he doesn't need society.

>>127545500
kek.

The gang leaders don't obey the constitution. They have a racket for dealing with that problem. They fill their courts with men they educated in their universities and then groom them to strip our rights away and, like they do with their theft, obscure the subversion of your rights with a bunch of rationalizations.

How bluepilled are you? Do you not think the constitution has been shot through with holes by these judges?

>>127545551

This is how we know you are government educated. That isn't what the Constitution does at all. It doesn't give anyone rights, tweener. Learn to read before you write.

>>127545820

>The gang leaders don't obey the constitution

Yes they do

>shot through with holes by these judges

Like where, you dumb fuck?

>>127538216
no

>>127538216
The US government owns America, Americans own the US government, therefore paying taxes is maintaining and investing in your country.

>>127545646
>And if you think the government provides services such as law and protection
It literally does. You can't dispute that just because you don't like the way it's done.
And rights are given, no matter what your autographed charter says.

>>127545794
>Why shouldn't the people who can't build a society without stealing money sod off elsewhere?
Because it's their society? Besides, as we've established, it's not stealing. Would you have no concern if i moved into your house, paid no rent, and then complained about the way you ran it? Would i be justified to then tell you to piss off elsewhere because i'm butthurt at your rules?

>>127545908
>It doesn't give anyone rights
It does. It pretends it doesn't, but that's simply not the case. How's that propagandist kool-aid taste?

>>127538216
Taxation is tribute. Tribute is not theft, because it is willingly given.

If you don't pay your tribute, then you pay the consequences.

Taxation is extortion, not theft.

>>127545816
Bootlicking nonsense. You keep supposing that without these violent thugs you admire, there would be no society, or exchange between people, and organization Like we'd all just wither and die. This is how beaten by these violent men you are. People would still do people things. They'd still talk, and covet, and produce, and form agreements. Those agreements need not necessarily be violent in nature, as most agreements aren't.

It's all just empty rationalization.

Tax definition
A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

Theft definition
The action or crime of stealing.

Stealing definition
Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

There taxation is not theft because it is legal and agreed upon and represents the populations desires on how to run the land though a democratic system. Being born in a country with tax means you agree to abide by it's laws because you are a citizen. If you say you didn't agree to this contract then you have no legal protection for me to not blow your head off and you are to be exported from the country because you just renounced your citizenship.

>>127545816

I still don't see why thieves get to "partake" in this society. I thought you were government educated but after reading this I now realize you are a government educator. Australia has coerced voting, doesn't it? No wonder you worship the state. They've convinced you that government is what makes you free. Society is not the government any more than society is the mafia.

>>127546052

You either have not read or do not understand the Constitution. It literally does not give anyone any rights at all.

It isn't their society.

The bad news is this: it doesn't protect you at all and will not prevent harm to you. It will only investigate afterwards. Use your mind.

>>127545911
No they don't. Like everywhere. There's not a single aspect of the constitution that has not been undermined by activist "judges".

They follow some of the protocols in the constitution that facilitate their power, but anything that obstructs it gets tossed aside. Including your rights.

Tell me, do you truly believe you're as free as the average American man in 1791?

>>127546075
>You keep supposing that without these violent thugs you admire, there would be no society, or exchange between people,
Not at all what i'm saying. I know 100% those things would continue. You just don't seem to understand the function of central governance. Without it, you'd be making roads and bartering for things yourself. And you'd always be at the mercy of a group who it more organised.
Like i said, aliens didn't come down from space and put government over all of us. Society formed it. Just because some are shit now doesn't change that.

>>127546352
>I still don't see why thieves get to "partake" in this society.
Because they're not thieves, and they're you. Anyone can run for office themselves. Besides, they partake by giving and distributing. You benefit from trade networks, defense, law, medicine, and so on.
> Australia has coerced voting
Yup. The idea is that everyone has their say. Unless (((someone))) abused that system.
>No wonder you worship the state.
Hah! Australians hate our government. All (((elected officials))) are media puppets.
>They've convinced you that government is what makes you free.
Nope. That sounds like America.

>>127546543
>It literally does not give anyone any rights at all.
Aight then. What does?

>>127546636
>Without these violent thugs threatening your life everyday, you'd be free to build things you can't now, and barter in terms you can't now.

How is this an argument against the theft being perpetrated by these men?

>>127546565

>No they don't. Like everywhere

Holy fuck you're an idiot

>Tell me, do you truly believe you're as free as the average American man in 1791?
>Free: able to act or be done as one wishes

More so

>>127538216
Subsidies? Anyways. Bible says "give to Caesar that which is his and to God that which is His"
/thread

>>127546779
Pretty bluepilled stuff. You just get in from The_Donald?

Let's talk about the commerce clause, bluepill. Do you think the Supreme Court's current interpretation of it is correct? Let's start there.

Only retarded edgy teens dispute the need for taxes, the rate of the taxes is another dispute

File: quote-government-is-good-at-one-thing-it-knows-how-to-break-your-legs-hand-you-a-crutch-and-say-see-harry-browne-213828.jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>127546636

>It literally does not give anyone any rights at all.
>Aight then. What does?

Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty would ask "Then what does it do?" not "Ok, what gives you rights then?" You ain't derailing this train with that bullshit, NickJr.

>>127540108
that depends if you were empowered by a democratically elected government to do so within the laws enacted by said government and enforced with impartial justice to all citizens

>>127546772
>these men
Lol.
>Without these violent thugs threatening your life everyday
They aren't, though. It's like how trade guilds worked in medieval England.
You became a member, and paid your annual dues. With that, you were afforded certain protections. The leaders worked for you, and you worked for them. They gave you greater bargaining power, the same way tribesmen would join together to till land or attack other tribes. Because you can achieve more with more people working together. But those people then need organising.

>>127546951
>Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty would ask "Then what does it do?"
I know what it does. But wow, the wheels came off your train of thought pretty easily, huh?

>>127546917

What does this have to do with my freedom, monsieur red pill?

>>127547045
kek. Democracy? Which in our form is what? Some people going to elementary schools and churches once a year to check a box next to a name on a form drew up by the gang we're talking about, to choose the next gang leaders for a little while.


None of this circumvents the result. Which is men being hired to shoot people and take their property from them to give to the gang leaders. Who gives a fuck if you think you "elected" them in one of their dirty corrupt elections with rules that you had no part in crafting and are violently disposed of if you disobey? They are still violent thugs that take things from others. Why else did you hire them? Because you know nobody would play by their bullshit rules if not for the violence they routinely employ against us.

You're a bootlicker. I understand that's a tough pill to swallow, and you'll engage in any nunber of mental acrobatics to avoid it, but it's still true.

>>127538216
You owe it to your civilized state that's allowed for your comfy lifestyle. You have no real reason not to pay your fair share of taxes. If you hate it so much then go innawoods, faggot.

>>127538216
>having people to save your house if it's caught on fire
>having people to save your life if you are injured
>having people to deal with niggers for you and keep your shit safe
>having clean water
>having roads that are well-made and maintained
>having fireworks and decorations for events + holidays
>having trash and vermin removed from your vicinity
>having public transportation
>having parks for your fat ass to walk in(unlikely)
>GIB FREE PLZ

You use these services- therefore, you pay for them. The only things that are not of direct benefit to you are shit like medicare/social security, and that's only because that should be self-funded.

File: uD5rWxMg.jpg (23KB, 720x675px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x675px

>>127546927

I remember being jealous of the older kids, too.

>>127547113

>I know what it does.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>127547113
I don't give a fuck how medieval guilds worked. I'm talking about the gangs you call "military" and "police" and "government". They employ violence against people and take their possessions away by force. That is what they do. If that's not theft, then theft doesn't mean anything as a word. It becomes nebulous and pointless.

>>127547163
The subversion of the commerce clause is how they snuck in all sorts of federal controls over your life, from regulations, to federal drug laws, to federal gun laws, all that shit comes from commerce clause subversion. The founders' federal government couldn't do any of that shit.

>>127547511
>No argument
Lol.

>>127547525
>I'm talking about the gangs you call "military" and "police" and "government"
Military has nothing to do with it, and police are a function of the government along with fire department and ambulance service.
>They employ violence against people and take their possessions away by force.
Only contract breakers. Funnily enough, that's something which benefits you. Unless you're a dindu, i suppose. Otherwise, would you want actual gangs to be able to accost you with no repercussion? Because in such a case you'd have no way of getting treated afterwards, or defending yourself during.

>>127538216
Taxation is voluntary payment for services rendered. I say voluntary, because if you don't want to pay them, all you have to do is stop using government services (in other words, fuck off somewhere else)

>>127547373

When they say people see the state as a religion, your list is a perfect example. Government as healer, provider, protector. Pathetic.

So what if it's theft? It's a necessary evil.
No country survives based on morality alone.

>>127538216

Haven't you faggots always wake up only when shit hits the fan so hard it's irrepairable, there would be no taxation.

Also, what's your opinion on charities? How many charities you've participated in?

>>127547913
Again, there is no contract. You can say the word all you want, but it is not a magical wand. What you are describing is not in any meaningful sense contractual, it is violent force. It has to be. That is the only way you will get the things in my possession that I would otherwise not surrender to you. You can't get it any other way than to violently take it from me. Which is why these men do it. How else are they to get it?

>>127547979
>Government as healer, provider, protector.
So you're able to do all those things yourself?

>>127538216
without representation, yeah.

moron

File: 35902346349683.jpg (148KB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1067x800px

>>127545434

>>127548106
>Again, there is no contract.
There is. Contract = agreement.
>What you are describing is not in any meaningful sense contractual, it is violent force
I mean, all agreements are. Otherwise it's just a donation.
>That is the only way you will get the things in my possession that I would otherwise not surrender to you.
Like a child, only thinking of things in your possession, not the things you're paying for.

>>127547913

There's no argument to be made with someone who claims to know the Constitution and yet says it gives people rights. That's less than not an argument. It's ignorance. Read it maybe?

>>127538216
Taxation that is allowed by the people is not theft. Taxation in excess of what the people have agreed to or taxation at the poibt of a gun/sword/spear is tyranny and theft.

Not all taxation is theft.

>>127543398

>Freedom works you teen bopping faggots

Citation needed on that.

>Either live free or mother fucking die.

How about we live free, and you die? That's what "hurr durr, le stronk survive, no taxes" communities tend to do when people get pissed.

>>127547633

1. Doesn't affect my freedom

2. Regulations, drugs and guns aren't guaranteed by the constitution so the current regime aren't whimsically depriving us of fundamental rights, ergo you're butthurt and completely detracted from the original point of discussion because you just want to feel persecuted like a feminist/black lives matter activist. All of you complaining cucks are the same; you're dissatisfied with your life and rather than introspecting and taking initiative you wildly fling your shit.

>muh you get free health-care
>muh build road

>>127545794

>Why shouldn't the people who can't build a society without stealing money sod off elsewhere?

Make them. Only don't whine about your ass getting shot, you fucking pussy. Expecting other to piss off for your wet fantasies of "freeduhm".

>>127548310
No, contract does not just mean agreement, there is more to contracts than mere agreements. Which is why we have the word contract. Also, it's not an agreement. I agree to nothing. I am simply being robbed by violent thugs who are threatening to kill me if I assert my claim over property that I hold and acquired in exchanges with other parties. That's all it is. All you do is keep adding spices and dressing to it. But it's just violent men looking down the barrel of their guns and saying, "hand it over." That's not paying. That's submitting because your life means more to you than your property.

>>127538618
Obey the law and pay your taxes.

But you can vote for elected officials and engage them. You should also explain to other potential voters to do the same. Educate them on how their taxes are spent and if they really want them to be spent that way.

The only time you should reach for your weapon is if you or others in your charge are in immediate danger.

>>127540750
Funny that if OP doesn't pay, the government has the ultimate recourse of violence to enforce the law. We, as citizens give the government a mandate to use this force appropriately.

Ultimately taxes and any other kind of law carryy the implicit threat of violence.

>>127548113

>Government as healer, provider, protector.
>So you're able to do all those things yourself?
You mean go to a doctor, get a job, and buy a gun?

WTF, Anon.

Taxation is theft. Only traumatited people aren't able to see that.

>>127548398
It does affect your freedoms. Just because you don't care about those particular freedoms doesn't mean they're not freedoms. Or would be freedoms if the government didn't strip you of them. It doesn't actually matter what the constitution guarantees or doesn't. That presupposes the government doesn't subvert the constitution, which they do.

no it's just a monopoly that you're mandated to pay for, no matter how overpriced and malfunctioning it is

im not advocating for removing government just significantly reducing the capital it manages and thereby its responsibilities/powers

big government won't solve your fucking problems. Grow the fuck up.

>>127548503
A contract can be written or verbal, you realize that right?

>>127548180

With representation, too. Think about who taught you "No taxation without representation" and who teaches you "yes of course you are represented in government" and you'll see who really is the moron is real quick. It's theft either way, bro, because it isn't voluntary. Your representatives do not represent you. Realize this sooner and life is better.

>>127547373
He expects that some altruistic rich faggot will come and do it for him without asking everything in return.

That being said, you really should just make one state free of taxation, move all those fags there and watch how they will work for themselves.

Make them outlaws only.
After all, law is the tool of evil government.

>>127548333
>yet says it gives people rights.
It doesn't say that. But that is actually what it does.

>>127548503
>Which is why we have the word contract.
Because legal terms.
>Also, it's not an agreement. I agree to nothing.
It is, and you do.
> assert my claim over property that I hold
By leave of the government.
>ut it's just violent men looking down the barrel of their guns and saying, "hand it over." That's not paying.
No, but it is paying when they give you roads, hospitals, schools, water, food, law, fire protection, and myriad other things for it.
>That's submitting because your life means more to you than your property.
No, apparently the comfort it affords is worth enough to you that you don't piss off to an island or somewhere in Africa. You bitch, but you still make use.

>>127548573
I mean without government, are you able to do those things?

>>127539864
>pave roads

they have an additional tax for that here, it's called "annual vehicle tax". Also all fuel sales are taxed with VAT and an additional tariff.
You would think will all these taxes (and with EU funds) the roads will be perfect... yet they are not, far from that. There are talks about introducing paid roads now. So you pay taxes and will have to use paid roads too. Worst of both worlds.

>educate your children

I'm not in school anymore, but when i was there parents were constantly asked to give/donate certain amount of money to school, for school repairs, for extra-curriculum activities etc.

How about i keep my paycheck and instead of paying 30+% of it in direct taxes to the state (and more in indirect payments) i just sent kids to private school of my choosing instead? Probably will be cheaper too.

Not to mention the people who are too poor to start a family/have kids or have a car.
Whew, must be nice to pay that flat tax rate despite not receiving anything in return.

>inb4 muh police

Uh, don't even mention that...

>>127548793
That changes nothing.

>>127548113
You mean like starting wars in the Middle-East and inviting migrants? Thanks for nothing.

>>127548391

>Citation needed on that.

The citation is at your fingertips, dipshit.

>How about we live free, and you die? That's what "hurr durr, le stronk survive, no taxes" communities tend to do when people get pissed.

Yeah, Washington and company sure did just lay down, didn't they? Do you hear yourself?

>>127547396
>unironically believe that rich fag will share his money with anyone like Billy Gates, for his altruism, instead of buying another yacht/stashing it in the bank.

How much of a cuck are you, matey? Bill Gates is not a rule, he is an exception.
As was Henry Ford.

>>127538216

>Can you refute this?

Yes, provided we are talking about a functioning democracy. People can elect how their state be run and be elected to run it themselves. In a transparent government a yearly budget is public, thus one can see where his taxes are being spend and use his vote to change that provided he disagrees. For ones taxes a working system of control is issued and maintained providing fair and lawful exchanges within society.

Smaller taxes and thus smaller government can indeed maintain a stable society but that relies on the said citizens discipline. Thus more unruly are people, the higher are the taxes and bigger and more oppressive the government.

>>127548663

No it doesn't you dumb cuck

Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

>>127548936
Meh, that's a function of representation. That does benefit some people because it gives cheap oil and labour.
Not saying it's a good thing, but you have to analyse all sides.

>>127548503
Well what is the alternative its easy to complain but the fact of the matter is exchange for a portion of your earnings big strong men by virtue of being better than you cant simply just ream your ass everyday with impunity

>>127548873
You're not even really arguing anymore it seems. You're just saying, "Nuh-uh." But ya-huh. There is no agreement because of the guns. Without those guns, without the men wielding those guns and threatening my life, I would do no business with them. I wouldn't acknowledge their existence, or your claims to my stuff. It all comes down to men with guns violently taking things from me. You can claim I'm wrong and that is not an accurate description of the transactions that take place to achieve taxation, but you're going to have to give me more than "nuh-uh."

>>127548941

>The citation is at your fingertips, dipshit.

So no citation besides your wet fantasies.
Ok.

>Yeah, Washington and company sure did just lay down, didn't they

Mate, if you so love 1776, throw away your fucking computer and join Amish community, you inbred fuck.

>>127548557
>Ultimately taxes and any other kind of law carryy the implicit threat of violence.

Damn, sounds like you might want to kill those people who wish to do you harm if that should ever happen. There are plenty of places on this planet where you can live a tax-free lifestyle, but I don't see you packing your suitcase anytime soon.

Why not?

>>127549005
Yeah, and the government restricts the way you can act, by having subverted the commerce clause to establish laws that the commerce clause the founders intended would not have permitted.

Are you truly this stupid?

>>127548480

Expecting others to piss off for stealing from me? Isn't that what government is supposed to protect me from? They are doing such a great job. Income tax was 2% to support war. Was supposed to go away after. Never did. Went up. Call me the pussy while you use tumblr tropes. Cute.

>>127549095
What makes you think I think there's a solution? The powerful are always going to steal from the less powerful. Especially if people keep making excuses for it and trying to dress all of this naked violence up in prettier clothes.

>>127549121
Because he expects everyone to piss off without paying a single penny (not to mention draw a little bit of his the blood) for this, expecting others to do that.

That's the true nature of these folks. "Gibsmefreedum! Taxistheft but I won't pay for my liberation! GIBS GIBS GIBS!"

Faggots are parasites worse than commies - commies at least made something for the country. These fags will let the country burn as long as their ass feels good.

>>127549189

>as one wants

>>127538216
Its a necessary evil to prevent even greater evil.

>>127549432
Yeah. You going to make a point soon?

>They therefore reject the state, seeing it as an entity which steals property (through taxation and expropriation), initiates aggression, has a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, uses its coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, creates artificial monopolies, restricts trade, and restricts personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like.

wew

>>127538216
Theft is illegal taxation, rather than taxation being legal theft.

>>127549101
>You're just saying, "Nuh-uh."
It fits the level of response you're giving.
>There is no agreement because of the guns
>muh gunz
And yea, there is the agreement. You agree to make use of x, in exchange for y, otherwise you also agree that z will happen to you. If you cease agreeing, you're free to leave.
>Without those guns, without the men wielding those guns and threatening my life, I would do no business with them.
That's lovely, but there are people who want that, so it's on you to find somewhere without it if you can't abide.
>You can claim I'm wrong
Because you literally are. Like, in every legal definition.
>but you're going to have to give me more than "nuh-uh."
First you'll have to explain why you should be free to take without giving back.

>>127548959

You didn't get my joke so much, you put words in my mouth. You can call me a cuck all you want but I heard strawmen make great bulls. Have fun watching him do his thing... m-m-m-mate.

>>127549257

>Expecting others to piss off for stealing from me?

You are literally throwing that "We must teach them not to rape argument" - tier argument and calling me tumblr? How fucking delusional are you, american cunt?

>Isn't that what government is supposed to protect me from?

Government is made up of cucks, unfortunately, instead of letting people like you piss off and declaring that laws don't protect you, they are trying to treat you as other citizens.

Quite sad, really.

>>127549525

The government is not restricting the way I act or the way I want want to act therefore it is not depriving me of any freedom.

>>127549536
You're just arguing in circles because you don't actually have an argument of any kind. You keep presupposing that without violent thugs taking things from me by force, I would have nothing to take by force, but there's no evidence of that. None. It's an unfalsifiable claim. You can't base your misdefinition of "agreement" on this unfalsifiable claim.

I WOULD have things if violent men weren't robbing me. Because nobody would rob me of the things I have.

idk, I'm kinda fond of having roads and not getting murdered in my sleep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-jhmkcOGAA

>>127549189
Your obviously arguing with someone who hasn't read the constitution or understands how it works.
Save your breath

>>127549005
>shill

>>127549344

It's funny how angry you sound about people not wanting their money stolen while having a Latvian flag. The memes write themselves.

>>127549785
Your speech is violence.

>>127549724
It sure does. What you're saying is, "I agree with everything the government does to limit my actions, and therefore I am free" but your actions are still limited. Right now in this very second, you claim all laws are perfect and you agree with everyone of them and do not wish to do the acts proscribed by them, but laws aren't written for this second, they're written for as long as they are enforced. What you want now can and will change tomorrow, and eventually you will rub up against the government.

>>127549584
Doesn't matter you less of a cuck, mate.

If you weren't a cuck, faggot, you wouldn't be bitching about "le ebul government", you would take fucking arms, and take your fucking freedom with them from government. Like Founding Fathers that you jerk off to so much, did.

But that would require responsibility, risks and sacrifices, and you cannot make them. So all you can do, is write posts on the Mesopotamian ouija board about how ebul government takes your money.

Now piss off. Come back when you will have fucking balls to stand up for your freedom and accept responsibility for your political position.

>>127549744
>You're just arguing in circles
Well, no. This is just how shit works.
>You keep presupposing that without violent thugs taking things from me by force, I would have nothing to take by force
No? Why are you lying like this?
You're in an area owned by a society, so that society has rules. Deal w/it, negro.

>>127549706

Teach them not to rape argument? What are you even talking about? Did I say laws don't protect me? This is about government theft. Why do you statists always have to derail a conversation when your arguments get blown about? It's deflection, conflation, anger, and misdirection.

>Quite sad, really.

You do actually sound like an emotional person. I will concede that.

>>127550018
No I'm not. I'm on my own property. Violent men with guns do claim to have partial dominion over my property, but that arrangement is violent in nature. I agreed to nothing. None of it. It's all violence. All you're telling me is that a lot of people agree that men with guns should use violence against me and steal the things that I have from me. That doesn't make what they're doing any less true.

>>127538216
The second the government disappeared all of you anons would be screaming and crying and begging for hlep. You'd be wallowing in filth screeching at the top of your lungs pleading for assistance.

>>127550183
You never owned your property, since it was part of the united state's territory long before you were born.

What you claim as "your property" is, in fact, property of the united states that you are privy to certain, extended, exclusive rights, which the rest of the populace (and the government itself) is not privy to.

However, you do not have sovereignty over your property. Sovereignty rests, and always has rested, with the state.

>>127550183
>I'm on my own property.
False. You lease it from the government. If it was entirely your own, you would have seceded like Hutt River.
>but that arrangement is violent in nature.
Only if you break the agreement. In which case, deal w/it.
>I agreed to nothing.
You do by staying, AND when you bought (leased) the land.
>All you're telling me is that a lot of people agree that men with guns should use violence against me and steal the things that I have from me.
Yup. Except for the stealing part. That's called society. Just like a lot of people agree that we want those people with [guns] enforcing what we want. And then we want those people enforcing our contracts, and protecting us according to our laws, and so on...

>>127549785

Yes, we have a plenty of such folks here. I don't really know what it is, but i've encountered people here who literally think that if you don't pay taxes you are not even worthy to live.
They really believe that the only purpose in life is to pay taxes to the state, to be a "good citizen" and to create new taxpayers for the government.
On one hand is kind of admirable, but on the other hand it's far too extreme form of patriotism. Especially if people can't tell that government =/= country and government abuses these feelings all the time.

File: seriously.jpg (34KB, 600x524px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x524px

>>127538216
Privatization is theft, because then your money goes straight into the pockets of Corporate Investors.
So asshole, where the hell were you when they started all the "Privatizing".

>>127549785

>people not wanting their money stolen

And doing nothing about that. You behave like a fucking woman who gets beaten regularly and expects that her husband will stop on himself, instead of taking a frying pan and smacking him across the head so hard he would have difficulty to remember his own name afterwards.

Now piss off, you cowardly shit.

>>127538216
taxation for the good of the nation, and not for the good of niggers and kikes, is good. you libertarian nupol faggots should leave already

roads won't maintain itself

>>127550183

>No I'm not. I'm on my own property.

Wrong. At the very least, you are on the property of United States.

At the very most... well, look, how all this "property" thing went for Heemeyer. When the guys who trampled on him just built around him and cut all communications by not allowing it to go through THEIR property.

>>127550106
>Did I say laws don't protect me?
Those laws have to be paid for, hoss.

>>127550106
>This is about government theft.

Forgot I'm talking to an especially retarded burger.

There is ONE way to deal with government theft, and that's not posting on 4chan. Until that your argument of "hurr durr taxation is theft government is oppressing me" is as useful as feminist parades of "I want to wear what I want and not be raped".

As them, you expect the violating party to suddenly stop behaving that, while doing nothing yourself. In real life it doesn't work that way.

So yes, your arguments and your position are the "teach them not to rape"-tier.

I have more respect for a fucking Unabomber, than for you. The fucker, at least, has done something more than bitching.

>>127549744
Then move out. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU. Buy an island where there is no government in the Africas or some shit.

>>127538216
I can't.

>>127538216
Income taxation is theft, sales tax is needed

>>127538216
P1: Theft is the unlawful taking of another person's property
P2: Taxation is not unlawful
C: Taxation is not theft

Libertardians bee tee ef o

>>127538216
Usually I'd argue that taxation is collective effort to maintain public services that while not being profitable provide great value to the society.

But guess it's easier to just say that your goverment has claimed a large area of land for themselves and taxation is a way the inhabitants of the area pay for the use of the said area. You could think of it as a very large Mafia which is basically just a family business that provides "security services".

Having a lot of private property doesn't really mean all that much if you can't protect it.

>>127551121
>>127550510
>>127550449
>>127550437
Jesus Christ so many bootlickers in this thread. You are all missing the point, his argument is that the government takes his property away without his consent and uses it for shit he doesn't want and you can't opt out of it or he'll go to jail. Now you can make the argument of
>b-b-but muh security you have to pay for it
It's still theft even if the current government makes it a law

>>127553216
>his argument is that the government takes his property away without his consent
Which is wrong.
>and uses it for shit he doesn't want
I bet a lot of it he really does. But that's just too bad. Other people would be paying into things they don't want, but i do. It works on a huge scale to the benefit of all.
>and you can't opt out of it
You can, though. That's the biggest lie he's pushing. He's free to leave where that contract isn't enforced.

>>127551121
the point of this thread is if taxation is theft or not , it is not whether he will do anything about it. You keep circling the around the argument without refuting it, scratch that you don't even have any understanding of what we are discussing why don't you try to read something instead of debating using ad homs or you can go back to plebbit where you came from.

>>127549785
Ted knew what to do
Tim knew what to do

The only way to stop taxation is to stop paying taxes and then when they come for your taxes, let them come and try and take them

Form a libertarian collective and defend it with your life, that is what is required

Hyper violence

>>127545551
Read the Constitution faggot. The state/govt are not that from which our inalienable rights descend. God alone grants us these rights which are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Considering you come from an English system of govt I'd assume you'd know that in our Systems God grants our rights and not the state.

But you probably didn't finish grade school with much more than one or two contemptuous friends and thousands of hours wasted on porn and vidya

>>127540150
sh...sh...shut up bitch ANCAPS RISE UP HOPPOE WILL END TAXES AND MAKE US RICH, BIG CORPORATIONS WILL DIE AND IT WILL MAKE ME RICH IN THE FALL OUT OF FREEDOMMMMMMM!

>>127553216
>It's still theft even if the current government makes it a law
That's not how it works. There is no valid concept of property without a law. There is no valid concept of a law without some kind of state or state-like entity. The current governments definition of theft is therefore the only one that is acceptable.

>>127554370
>God alone grants us
Finally. Like pulling teeth to get you to say that.
>The state/govt are not that from which our inalienable rights descend.
You see, they are. God gave us the world. It's up to us to do what we will with it. He didn't put in the rule book, "right to bare arms, right to free speech, etc." The state lets you have those things and pretends it comes from God, so that it can itself look like God. And it's a fun thing when studying law, that if someone says, "God did X", you're meant to take God out of the statement and see how things fare.

>>127553352
He owns property in the US, he bought it using his own resources, what right does a bunch of people in a parliament (or congress) have to his property? if his land is completely of the grid he still has to pay taxes to prop up shit others want and he doesn't , and don't come at me with false argument that it is the price of society when that is completely false , you can live without police and firefighters, we don't want them and and you do, the government takes my money without my consent and uses it in you how is that not theft

>>127538216
theft is not taxation

Oh its this shitty thread again.
Fuck off OP you ancap fuck

>>127553216

>It's still theft even if the current government makes it a law

So what?

>>127553758

>the point of this thread is if taxation is theft or not , it is not whether he will do anything about it.

So, the point of this thread is to whine about ebul government.

>You keep circling the around the argument without refuting it,

Why should I refute it? I am all for option to opt out from "social contract". Don't pay taxes, don't get protected by law, don't use governmental structures, simple as that.

What is in it for me that some retarded burger stops believing in "Freeman of the land"-tier shit? Will I get richer from that? Will he kill himself? No. Then what's the point?

>>127554548
Your property is what you can keep and hold

>>127554740
Keyword is "keep and hold".

>>127554606
>He owns property in the US
Yup. On the terms of the US government. He never seceded, so it's still part of the USA.
>what right does a bunch of people in a parliament (or congress) have to his property?
Whatever they say they do, as representatives of the people, including him.
> if his land is completely of the grid he still has to pay taxes to prop up shit others want and he doesn't
Yup. Because he's a citizen of the USA on US land.
>you can live without police and firefighters, we don't want them and and you do,
That's fine. Go somewhere without them. If you rent a room from someone, you have to abide by the rules of the contract you establish. If you don't want those rules, it's up to you to leave, not them.
>the government takes my money without my consent
No, you consent by staying there, my Moorish friend. Like how you consent to 4chans ToS by posting here.

>>127554548
The concept of theft can vary from state to state yes, but does that make the government taking your money justified.

>>127554841
Precisely, property is not for the weak and those unprepared to fight for what is theirs

File: IMG_2804.png (849KB, 1219x717px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 1219x717px

>>127538216
You're paying for the privilege of living and working in the country that you live in, if you don't like it then just leave.

Ok, if that is so. Surely you would want to have a socialist government to get the most return on ((paid)) tax.

when residing on someone's property, you either live by their rules on that property, or you leave

a state's territory is their property, as they defend it from others

this means that the state has the authority to do whatever it wants, be it levy taxes or otherwise


if you don't like it, leave

>>127553216
The point is that it was never "his" property, as he never had sovereignity over it in the first place!

There is no natural law which defines "theft"; theft is only defined in the context of a state, whether that state be a singular man defending what he believes to be his own, or whether it be a conventional government.

He can opt out of it; he can leave the nation and it's jurisdiction, and thus no longer be subject to its law or force. He's not a sovereign man amidst millions of other sovereign men, he is a CITIZEN. He is SUBORDINATE to the state, that's literally what a citizen is!

If he wants to opt out, he has about three choices.
He can find a state which is more in line with his wants and desires under which to live.
He can find some unclaimed territory (terra nullius), lay claim to it as a sovereign, and live there.
Or he can declare sovereignty on the land he resides on now, coming into conflict with the claim that it is the United State's territory, and thus coming into conflict with the United States.

The first is impossible for anyone who finds the very concept of a state beyond the individual antithetical.
The second is impossible as there is NO terra nullius left on Earth, save for some patches of desert in the ME. He could always go rough it in the woods, but this relies on the state not caring enough to actually enforce its authority out that far.
The third is basically what it all comes down to; might makes right. If he doesn't want to live on someone else's land, he needs to make it HIS land.

>>127554740
That definition is fine. But it is a fact of life that the state is the strongest actor in this game right now, and it can set the rules as it sees fit.

>>127554891
But it does, unless you are strong enough to hold on to your property by force.

>>127547373
>>having people to save your house if it's caught on fire

what is insurance (also firefighters usually arrive when there's nothing to save - from my personal experience)

>having people to save your life if you are injured

what is medical insurance. Also every time i had to use medical services i paid for them myself.

>having people to deal with niggers for you and keep your shit safe

Same as with firefighters, the response is usually too late. That why we have so many private security companies here, you can't really rely on the police to protect """"your"""" property.

>having clean water
I have to buy bottled water (tap water is too hard). And even if i didn't, i pay for consumed water anyway. Private company sends me a utility bill every month. Same goes for electricity garbage collection, etc.

>having roads that are well-made and maintained
There is triple tax in effect already (annual vehicle tax, VAT on fuel sales + additional tariff on fuel) = roads are NOT well-made and NOT well-maintained.

>>having fireworks and decorations for events + holidays

Fireworks and decorations? Lol, are you even serious? What if i'm not a kid anymore?

>>having trash and vermin removed from your vicinity
Same as electricity - i receive a bill from a private company every month. If i had vermin infestation problem i would have to hire a private company to deal with it.

>having public transportation
It isn't free, i have to pay for the tickets.

>>127540108
>>127543936
>>127544402
if you don't like the state you live in, maybe you should leave their property

>>127547373

>>having parks for your fat ass to walk in(unlikely)
Well, i do like parks (haven't been in one for a long time though). But are you sure maintaining parks would warrant 30%+ in direct taxes + more in indirect payments?

Conclusion: some taxes might be necessary, but in it's current way taxation got out of hand completely. Moreover, most governments create huge debt, which they won't pay themselves - it will be paid by future taxes. So basically they are legally selling future generation into debt slavery.

>>127554606
He doesn't own property; he owns the deed to the property, which guarantees him certain rights above that which other citizens are afforded for that particular plot of land.
He is not the sovereign of that land, and he does not own it; he is simply afforded extra rights to it.

It doesn't matter if he benefits or not from paying taxes; it's still the state's land, and they charge for it. If anything, they'll hopefully charge less because it's so far out of the way.

>>127543398
the state has a monopoly on the property within their territory

you are effectively a squatters

you have no rights aside from the rights they give you

if you don't like that, you should move

>>127554883
That is not the argument here. His property is in the USA and he must abide by its rules , my position is that of which the government should have as little intervention in people's lives as possible but the current government makes so you can't live without it or you will go to jail, do you understand my argument now aboriginal friend?

Also, just something I'd like to put forward

>A defense of taxation as not being immoral, violent, wrong, or whatever buzzwords you want to attach to it
>necessarily a defense of rampant overtaxation, any or all current inefficient government agencies, and so on and so forth

Welfare is fucking shit as of now, and it's shit for a lot of reasons, but welfare being shit doesn't mean that taxation is bad you barbarian fuckwits.

>>127555659
That has -nothing- to do with the argument about whether it is or is not his property, stop shifting the argument you moorish rapebaby.

>>127555366
>insurance
You know that insurance works much like taxation, right? Lots of people paying into something only a few might need.
>Same as with firefighters, the response is usually too late.
That's a training problem. The service itself is good.
> i would have to hire a private company to deal with it.
So your concern is just that you're not subject to warlords of your choosing, rather than a central government?

>>127555659
>my position is that of which the government should have as little intervention in people's lives as possible
Agreed.
>but the current government makes so you can't live without it or you will go to jail
Too bad? Vote or get out.

Either way, you're missing the point.

>>127554606
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

>>127555334
That is what guns are for friend , now most european countries make it really really hard for the people to have guns to defend yourself, it being from the government or whatever else you need to defend yourself from. How are current european governments not fundamentally tyranical?

>>127555993
>You know that insurance works much like taxation, right?

Only when it's mandatory. Oh, and referring to the "training problem" - in case of insurance i can actually choose from different providers. If one company fucks up i will not use its services anymore. In case of taxation i have zero leverage.

>So your concern is just that you're not subject to warlords of your choosing, rather than a central government?

How exactly do you equate a private company and warlords? It's not like they sell me their services by threatening to kill me (like warlords) or put me in jail (like government) if i don't choose them. Also i can deal with infestation myself. In any case i have a CHOICE. In case of taxation i have no choice.

>>127556723
>Oh, and referring to the "training problem" - in case of insurance i can actually choose from different providers.
True. But nothing's stopping you from having a different fire department provider right now.
>How exactly do you equate a private company and warlords?
My bad, used to AnCap threads.
> It's not like they sell me their services by threatening to kill me
For which you can thank central government.

>>127556723
Do keep in mind that all your experience with private companies has been in the context of rule of law, headed by an established state.

>>127556223
owning guns does not stop a government being tyrannical if they have more guns than you

>>127538216
Yeh.
I like having an army that will actually fight because they have the nation to lose instead of starting to lose, saying, "Fuck that", taking whatever they were paid and fucking off without being killed by the rest of the army like they ought to be for doing so.

>>127556980
>But nothing's stopping you from having a different fire department provider right now.

Maybe in Australia there are multiple fire departments you can call in case of a fire. Here, after receiving a call the dispatcher will just send a team from the unit that is closer to the location of the fire (or from unit, which isn't not on assignment atm, in case when the closest unit is busy). The point is - you don't get to choose. Unless your home burns down and you'll relocate to other city. But then again it will be the same system.

>>127557521
>Maybe in Australia there are multiple fire departments you can call in case of a fire.
I was about to say, "no, that's my point!" but we actually have regular FD and rural FD which is mostly volunteers here.
But anyways, your complaint is that there isn't another one to choose, not that you can't choose.

>>127538216
>Taxation is theft.
>Can you refute this?

If I pay it willingly it isn't theft.

If I thought it was theft, I'd leave the country.

Simple.

>>127557521
And why would you even want multiple different departments to call? It's an emergency service for fucks sake, not pizza!

In a properly developed nation, there are enough fire departments to deal with the expected number of fires in their area, and having a centralized monopoly to deal with organizing all of it, rather than worrying about competing departments, is better simply for the fact that it's an emergency utility.

I swear, the only thing dumber than communists are idiots who swear by the invisible hand like it's God.

File: pursuid of burger xDDD.png (77KB, 592x554px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 592x554px

>>127540108

>>127557206

True, but i don't argue for complete abolition of any form of government and all form taxes completely. I don't mind if government exist, but its power should be limited to specific functions (because i can't imagine completely private courts for example). There is still job for public servants, just not for so many of them.

Don't you agree that in their current form taxation and government power is far too bloated and they are getting bigger and bigger? It's not very far away from centralized planned economy at this point.

>>127557891

As I said - in MY experience the response of fire department was too late. There wasn't anything to "save from" fire. You said it's just a "training problem". Well if it is just that then yes, i would actually want multiple departments. In case if I would want a response from a better trained unit for example. Having a choice is always better as having none.

>I swear, the only thing dumber than communists are idiots who swear by the invisible hand like it's God.

Sure, bringing ad hominem makes your "argument" so much convincing to me. I bow down to your statist wisdom.

>>127557975
I agree that SOME parts of taxation and government are too big, and that others aren't big enough. I'm not a minarchist, I don't believe that that government should be reduced to solely defense and law, but there ought also be other public duties of it in the interest of further developing the nation.

>providing and maintaining a common currency upon which all business within the nation is conducted with
>scientific and technological research and development, both short term and long term
>national infrastructure
>education
>governance and regulation of limited and industry critical resources
>regulation of markets and incentives in the interest of fostering optimal long term development
>fostering nascent industries in the interest of long term development
>among others that are less important than those listed

>>127558379
I'm not the Australian, anon, I'm a different poster.

I ask you to consider this; two fire departments are in the same area, both servicing the same people.
One is slightly more effective, and so more people use it; in response, the other department increases its efficiency.
After some time, both reach parity and are equally used; the region is now effectively split in two.

The problem, of course, is that each fire station is now working an area HALF that of which it was designed for.
Should they downsize to no longer be inefficient, you now have the original issue of having a singular service provider of a given area which may not be sufficient for residents.
It is an issue of reduction and absolute waste of resources.

The better solution, in this case, is to have a singular, optimally spaced department that is held to some sufficient standard by some external oversight.

Failure to implement a system properly is not a failure of the system itself.

>Sure, bringing ad hominem makes your "argument" so much convincing to me. I bow down to your statist wisdom.
It wasn't meant to be part of my argument, I just felt like insulting "muh free marged :-DDD" faggots.

>>127557975
>Don't you agree that in their current form taxation and government power is far too bloated and they are getting bigger and bigger?
No one is disagreeing there, homie.

>>127558379
>You said it's just a "training problem"
That was a bit oversimplifying, i admit. But with something like fire, even the best trained department, private or public can only get to the fire so fast. Not always going to be a happy ending.

>>127558480
>>providing and maintaining a common currency upon which all business within the nation is conducted with

So, would you argue for abolition of the Federal Reserve in it's current form or not?

>scientific and technological research and development, both short term and long term

This is already partially financed through private grants. Instead of government distributing tax revenue to their favorite research programs (voters have no influence over this), private investors will be way more motivated, focused and result-oriented. They risk with their money, so they will be personally interested in seeing good results. Public officials don't give a shit about the results. They don't have responsibility and in any case they will keep their job, salary and pension. That applies to public tenders in many other areas as well, like building roads for example.

>national infrastructure
Yes, elaborating on the previous point here. Government issues a public tender and private companies send their offers. It falls to the particular government employee (or a group of employees) to choose the company that will do the job. Is this employee actually interested to give the job to the best company and NOT accept the kickbacks from the participants?
The government employee doesn't have any real responsibility in the end as well.
What, the road/tunnel/bridge crumbled after just 2 years? Oops, that employee isn't working in public infrastructure department anymore (because he can afford to retire now, after receiving a kickback)! It's the engineers from the company who are responsible for everything!
(again i speak from sort of personal experience, shit is corrupt af)

Basically the same thing for almost all your items. You somehow trust government employees that they will have your best interest at heart. When it's not guaranteed in any way.

>>127560663
>You somehow trust government employees that they will have your best interest at heart.

Employees, who are appointed, not elected i might add. So taxpayers have little to no influence here.

>>127560663
Your problems are mostly bureaucratic, due to the unaccountable nature of democratic systems. Not purely a government flaw in of itself. It wouldn't be too different with private companies.
>You somehow trust government employees that they will have your best interest at heart. When it's not guaranteed in any way.
Again, same with private companies. It's in their best interest to get you hooked.

>>127558874

>The problem, of course, is that each fire station is now working an area HALF that of which it was designed for.

You assume that they were designed to work in entire area from the very beginning. It's usually the case with the central planning, but private enterprises expand as they are more successful/shrink when they fail.

Private security companies react faster than police (that why they are in demand), so why can't fire departments?

>>127561209
>Private security companies react faster than police
Some times.
But yea, what's stopping you from making a private fire department?
>but private enterprises expand as they are more successful/shrink when they fail.
Ideally, but it's not always the case.

>>127561022
>Again, same with private companies. It's in their best interest to get you hooked.

Sure, but again, i can choose between different providers. I know, it's also kind of ideal case scenario and doesn't cover cartels, monopolies etc.
But in case of a corrupt gov't employee who does disservice - what i'm supposed to do? Wait 4 years for another elections and HOPE that he gets removed when new administration is in office. And what i'm (as a voter and a taxpayer) supposed to do if the new administration doesn't remove him or just sends the corrupt official to another department? Wait 4 more years?

>our problems are mostly bureaucratic, due to the unaccountable nature of democratic systems

Yes and the only solution i see is redirect some of the functions of the government into the private sector. Until a system with more accountability is in place.

>>127561568
>But in case of a corrupt gov't employee who does disservice - what i'm supposed to do?
Also ideally, they'd be given the boot. What are you supposed to do with a private company?
>Until a system with more accountability is in place.
Private companies are the ones who don't want that. They can use it as a veneer, with all the control and benefit, but no accountability.

>>127539864
white people, getting stuck with the bill while their government replaces them with brown people

>>127538216
I believe that taxation is a reasonable price to pay for a few government services. However, I believe that the relationship should be voluntary. Citizenship should be something you choose.

Citizenship should require you to accomplish some kind of civil service and pay taxes. In exchange, you get certain legal protections and the ability to vote.

>>127538216

Legal name fraud refutes it.

>>127538216
Theft is not inherently bad.
Can you refute this?

>>127562158
>Citizenship should be something you choose.
it is, you can relinquish it at any time past 18 if youre not a criminal

File: against_me.png (294KB, 795x531px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 795x531px

>>127564390
Theft isn't universally preferable.

Using the government services, including police and army, is theft too if you don't pay for it.

Go out and kill 1 criminal and 1 terrorist then you can claim moral superiority.

>>127540108
If you make 100 dollars the govt takes 10 and gives you back 1
If you make 10 dollars the govt takes nothing and gives you back 1
And everyone gets to use public services
Thats taxes.