Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

...

You benefit from the nation in which you live.
You are sitting confortably on your computer whilst police protect you from real violence, national policies ahve provided you with protection against disease; provided you with schooling, and much else besides- roads, bridges, public health policy, town planning, patent protection, regulation that keep you safe from bad products, poisous and harmful substatnce ad infinitem. You life is extended way beyond your natural span.
None of that would have been possible without taxation.
If you do not like it, go off the grid and pay no tax.
Live somewhere else where you can agree with their policy.
But all the while you pay your taxes and recieve no violence you are consenting to eveything you nation does and reaping far more benefits than you could ever get by paying for them piecemeal.

[Sculptor1]

You pay your taxes. That is consent.

By that absurd logic, if I hand my watch to a bank robber because he demands it, threatening to do violence if I fail to comply, then it is consensual not violent robbery.

false analogy.
The watch was not provided by the bank robber, your money was.
The bank robber did not send you to school or protect you from foreign invasion.
The bank robber did not write the legislation that meaks sure that you electrical equipment does not kill you.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Using your definition bringing lawbreakers to justice is violence, (either as robbery if money is garnished/fines levied, or kidnapping if incarceration is performed).

I don't know what you mean by "justice" but other than that, yes, of course it is violence.

For a clichéd example, if one was arrested or killed by a Nazi government for illegally hiding Jews in their attic, for instance, then of course it would be violence.

Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.

Here is a great article in the Washington Post about the violence of laws, at least those outlawing peaceful victimless crimes:

Don’t support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce

Okay, you are free to create that definition as this is your thread. So, by that definition your OP is correct. Of course, breaking any law would therefore qualify too. Thus jaywalking is violent robbery too (I once received a $10 ticket for crossing in the middle of the street). Walking Down the Street is Violent Robbery. Whoo hoo. Sounds controversial, yet isn't.

It can certainly put the horror of mass incarceration into new light, but I agree it seems like something that would be common sense.

Although, I don't know how common such common sense is. For example, some people would indeed argue that the war on drugs is not violent, despite how mindbogglingly absurd that might seem to the rest of us.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

You pay your taxes. That is consent.

By that absurd logic, if I hand my watch to a bank robber because he demands it, threatening to do violence if I fail to comply, then it is consensual not violent robbery.

false analogy.

It's not an analogy. It's a clear proof that the logic of equating paying with consent is utterly absurd.

[Sculptor1]

You pay your taxes. That is consent.

By that absurd logic, if I hand my watch to a bank robber because he demands it, threatening to do violence if I fail to comply, then it is consensual not violent robbery.

false analogy.

It's not an analogy. It's a clear proof that the logic of equating paying with consent is utterly absurd.

No, you are right it is not an analogy because the comparison is so poor that it could only be called a very bad analogy.

[Sculptor1]

...with consent is utterly absurd.

Did you go to state school?
Have you been on a raod recently?
Have you bought any electirical goods?
Maybe you have had your covid shots?

[Robert66]

'I'd literally rather see my money ripped up and literally flushed down a toilet than go to the United States federal government for the horrendous violent things it does with the robbed tax-dollars.'

The ripped up money would literally flow through tax dollar funded pipes to a tax dollar funded treatment plant. In places where that would not be the case, what becomes of all the human waste is a massive problem - a problem solved by the tacit consent of citizens living in modern societies in which tax is paid and the proceeds spent, by and large, appropriately, on sewerage systems among many other things. As soon as you become aware of your tacit consent, and assuming you are unhappy with that situation, you may leave.

[LuckyR]

Using your definition bringing lawbreakers to justice is violence, (either as robbery if money is garnished/fines levied, or kidnapping if incarceration is performed).

I don't know what you mean by "justice" but other than that, yes, of course it is violence.

For a clichéd example, if one was arrested or killed by a Nazi government for illegally hiding Jews in their attic, for instance, then of course it would be violence.

Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.

Here is a great article in the Washington Post about the violence of laws, at least those outlawing peaceful victimless crimes:

Don’t support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce

Okay, you are free to create that definition as this is your thread. So, by that definition your OP is correct. Of course, breaking any law would therefore qualify too. Thus jaywalking is violent robbery too (I once received a $10 ticket for crossing in the middle of the street). Walking Down the Street is Violent Robbery. Whoo hoo. Sounds controversial, yet isn't.

It can certainly put the horror of mass incarceration into new light, but I agree it seems like something that would be common sense.

Although, I don't know how common such common sense is. For example, some people would indeed argue that the war on drugs is not violent, despite how mindbogglingly absurd that might seem to the rest of us.

So we are in agreement, I accept that if one stipulates that punishing lawbreakers is violence, then tax evasion and all other crimes are subject to violence. So what? What part about lawbreakers being punished is noteworthy? What part of this is new information?

[Steve3007]

However, if I don't pay the town of Manchester, I won't be put in jail. It's a civil matter.

My understanding (correct if wrong) of your definition of violence is that it is anything done to you against your will. It doesn't necessarily involve physical injury. It's not specific to being put in jail against your will. So if a person refuses to pay that surcharge on their property which funds local public services (schools, police, etc) is nothing done which is against their will? If I were to buy a house in Manchester Connecticut and refuse to pay that surcharge, would the answer be "No problem"?

When you sign your employment contract with your employer, you freely enter into an agreement to pay income tax.

I've never signed such a contract in my life, and I haven't been employed since 2014.

OK. I have. Whenever I sign an employment contract it either explicitly or implicitly tells me that I must not break the law.

Many of my customers pay me via methods other than USD. I still legally have to (and do) report those on my taxes, and pay taxes on that income.

I guess they pay in currencies like euros, yen, pounds, Aussie dollars or cryptocurrencies. Do you pay your taxes in those currencies or do you exchange them for US dollars and pay taxes in that? If you did something for somebody in exchange for them doing something for you, with no money of any currency changing hands, would that involve taxation?

[Steve3007]

And the Manchester town has no income tax at all but collects $5,000 per person on average via surcharges on property ownership, which are used to fund the local schools, fire departments, and police

If somebody tells you this is a tax (and is therefore violent robbery) you could argue that it's not violent robbery in that it's consensual in that they aren't forced to buy those houses.

I would argue that it is consensual, but more importantly non-payment would be handled civilly not criminally. Worst case, I think the town would auction the land if the taxes aren't paid in a very very long time, and then it would be up to the new private owners to evict any non-paying tenets or squatters, which is not easy or quick to do.

But in these topics, it seems to me you've made it clear we're talking about black-and-white, all-or-nothing principles aren't we? When people challenge your view that taxation is violent robbery you don't concern yourself with details of the precise nature of the violence or the robbery. You simply point out the bald fact that taxation involves using threats to do something to the person against their will (threat of violence) in order to persuade them to hand over money. The method and timescale is irrelevant. If I don't pay the surcharge on my land in Manchester and as a result of that my land is taken from me against my will and sold off, that, by your definition, is violent robbery isn't it? Violent robbery delayed is (surely) still violent robbery?

No pacifists are in jail or prison for refusing to pay money to the Town of Manchester.

OK. Are there any Mancunian pacifists in jail for refusing to pay federal taxes? You've talked before about armed police busting into people's houses and hauling them violently off to prison for not paying taxes. And of course you refer specifically to this happening to pacifists to (I propose) emphasise the injustice you see in it. How often does that actually happen to those pacifists? Does it happen as soon as they miss a tax payment or is there a long legal process first?

However, it is a moot point for the topic at hand, because I am not arguing that small local violent governments cannot exist or do not exist. I am not arguing that legalized violent robbery cannot occur on local levels by small local groups or small local organizations or small local governments. It can and surely does happen.

The point I'm interested in is whether you, like other posters here (e.g. me), are in favour of violent robbery. I've got the impression from past comments that you like the way that schools and police are funded in Manchester. Is that impression accurate? If so, then, like me, you're in favour of at least some forms of violent robbery.

[Steve3007]

Worst case, I think the town would auction the land if the taxes aren't paid in a very very long time, and then it would be up to the new private owners to evict any non-paying tenets or squatters, which is not easy or quick to do.

Just to clarify this point: If I refuse to pay that surcharge on my land in Manchester CT, with the result that it's sold out from under me and I then become a squatter on the land I once owned and the new owners start eviction proceedings against me, what happens if I refuse to leave? Will armed police eventually come and force me to leave? If this only happens after a very very long time does it not count as armed robbery?

[Sculptor1]

Worst case, I think the town would auction the land if the taxes aren't paid in a very very long time, and then it would be up to the new private owners to evict any non-paying tenets or squatters, which is not easy or quick to do.

Just to clarify this point: If I refuse to pay that surcharge on my land in Manchester CT, with the result that it's sold out from under me and I then become a squatter on the land I once owned and the new owners start eviction proceedings against me, what happens if I refuse to leave? Will armed police eventually come and force me to leave? If this only happens after a very very long time does it not count as armed robbery?

Are you a monarchist?
If not what are you doing about it?
Do you contribute to the democractic process by more than voting?
If not, why not?
If you are thrown off the land, that would be because you are in an arrangement of consent with the nation you call your home.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Using your definition bringing lawbreakers to justice is violence, (either as robbery if money is garnished/fines levied, or kidnapping if incarceration is performed).

I don't know what you mean by "justice" but other than that, yes, of course it is violence.

For a clichéd example, if one was arrested or killed by a Nazi government for illegally hiding Jews in their attic, for instance, then of course it would be violence.

Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.

Here is a great article in the Washington Post about the violence of laws, at least those outlawing peaceful victimless crimes:

Don’t support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce

Okay, you are free to create that definition as this is your thread. So, by that definition your OP is correct. Of course, breaking any law would therefore qualify too. Thus jaywalking is violent robbery too (I once received a $10 ticket for crossing in the middle of the street). Walking Down the Street is Violent Robbery. Whoo hoo. Sounds controversial, yet isn't.

It can certainly put the horror of mass incarceration into new light, but I agree it seems like something that would be common sense.

Although, I don't know how common such common sense is. For example, some people would indeed argue that the war on drugs is not violent, despite how mindbogglingly absurd that might seem to the rest of us.

So we are in agreement, I accept that if one stipulates that punishing lawbreakers is violence, then tax evasion and all other crimes are subject to violence. So what? [...] What part of this is new information?

That's it. There is no so what. That's the conclusion. It seems obvious to me too.

I'm not saying that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery, so XYZ. There is no so what. In this forum topic, I am saying that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery. That is all.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Worst case, I think the town would auction the land if the taxes aren't paid in a very very long time, and then it would be up to the new private owners to evict any non-paying tenets or squatters, which is not easy or quick to do.

Just to clarify this point: If I refuse to pay that surcharge on my land in Manchester CT, with the result that it's sold out from under me and I then become a squatter on the land I once owned and the new owners start eviction proceedings against me, what happens if I refuse to leave? Will armed police eventually come and force me to leave? If this only happens after a very very long time does it not count as armed robbery?

Presumably, what would happen would depend in large on what the new land owners want to happen. If you weren't dirt poor, they would probably prefer you squat illegally as long as possible so they could sue for more once you finally do leave. Alternatively, if the landowner wanted you out and wanted minimal conflict and property destruction, they would probably just change the locks on you when you are fetching your groceries or something.

Your question, I think, is when a private landowner evicts a non-paying tenet who absolutely refuses to leave, is it (sometimes) violent robbery? I don't know. Presumably, the most violent it would legally get is if the squatters was arrested for trespassing, but could that be construed as violent robbery; I don't know. If the squatters aren't already wanted by the police for some other crime, or otherwise illegally carrying pot or something, my best guess is that the evicting cops would probably offer the squatter a ride to the homeless shelter or something. I have no idea what would happen, how it would play out, and whether in the most exceptional of imaginable cases it could be reasonably construed as violent robbery.

Likewise, you could ask me what happens if you refuse to pay credit card debt and get sued in civil court and lose the title to your house? Is that armed robbery? I don't know. Likewise, you could ask me what happens if you refuse to pay your mortgage and the bank forecloses and you lose your house. Is that armed robbery? I don't know.

If you rent a room in my house, and then stop paying and I kick you out at gun point, is that armed robbery? I don't know.

If you don't pay the car loan on a car, and the cops come up and force you out of the car, is that violent robbery? I don't know.

Presumably, it would likely depend on the many very specific details of the individual cases.

The countless complexities involved in those kind of small-scale, local, and arguably consensual interactions, which tend to be non-violent, except in very exceptional or highly theoretical situations, are outside of the scope of this forum topic and more importantly outside the scope of my one tiny human brain.

A related topic to address those complex gray areas is this topic: Time and Consent

I am sure many would call armed repo men taking their stuff robbers, but if and to what degree that's a valid accusation in any given very specific circumstance, I don't know.

Nonetheless, I would draw an important distinction between (1) criminally enforced debts, such as those that lead to one going to debtors' prison, meaning it is criminally illegal not to pay the debt, versus (2) the kind of civil proceedings to which have been referred above involving one losing the deed to one's house. If someone is fined for prostitution, for instance, I think it's very different if (1) one can go to jail simply for not paying that fine in itself versus (2) if the fine is only civilly enforceable (i.e. treated more like credit card debt).

Philosophically, I would define taxation as necessarily being criminally enforced not merely civilly enforced (i.e. treated more like unpaid credit card debt).

In this forum topic, for philosophical simplicity, I am isolating my comments to taxation by big non-local governments.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

'I'd literally rather see my money ripped up and literally flushed down a toilet than go to the United States federal government for the horrendous violent things it does with the robbed tax-dollars.'

The ripped up money would literally flow through tax dollar funded pipes to a tax dollar funded treatment plant.

It's interesting that you assume I don't have a septic tank, and it is worth noting the United States federal government is not the organization funding or providing pipes to me. However, neither issue nor your comment are relevant to the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.

If a bank robber gives me a cupcake in exchange for the money he takes from me against my will at gun point, whether or not I choose to eat the cupcake in no way changes whether the interaction was consensual, or violent. It also doesn't matter how incredibly delicious the cupcake turns out to be.

So, please, let's stay on topic.

I quote the OP:

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.

If you disagree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery, please specify clearly which of the 5 numbered statements are the ones with which you agree and the ones with which you disagree.