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

[Belindi]

In a democratic country there is a welfare state such that the poorest man gets an education that frees him from ignorance, and health care and legal care that are free at point of use. There are also media free from political or commercial corruption. In a democratic country there is also the right to associate for peaceful political demonstrations.

Thanks for explaining democracy. I am however more interested in what you have left out of the picture. Reading your last few posts here is like being told all about the advantages of some advanced automobile - it has an automatic gearbox, cd player, etc - but not hearing that the car has been resting at the bottom of a lake since 1996.

Do you think some of your statements about democracy could be examined? How would they hold up under scrutiny?

Is the poorest man receiving an education that frees him from ignorance in India, or Indonesia, or the USA?

Is health care, free at the point of use, then financially crippling for the rest of the user's life, such a great idea?

How well cared for within the legal system are the majority of low-income earning and poor citizens of democracies?

'There are also media free from political or commercial corruption'? And the moon is really made of cheese.

And just to rewind a little: 'Ownership is conferred by power to retain and to attain and the freedom to select.' Do you think that statement might appear as a slap in the face to the dispossessed and colonised now residing in the glorious democratic new world?

I don't disagree that democracy is preferable in many ways, however trite statements such as 'Under democracy if the taxation system is too burdensome it can be changed' should be examined through the lens offered by reality.

Preferable to what?

"...democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried..."

As Lucky quoted. Citizenship pertains to a nation not to the whole world.

[Robert66]

In a democratic country there is a welfare state such that the poorest man gets an education that frees him from ignorance, and health care and legal care that are free at point of use. There are also media free from political or commercial corruption. In a democratic country there is also the right to associate for peaceful political demonstrations.

Thanks for explaining democracy. I am however more interested in what you have left out of the picture. Reading your last few posts here is like being told all about the advantages of some advanced automobile - it has an automatic gearbox, cd player, etc - but not hearing that the car has been resting at the bottom of a lake since 1996.

Do you think some of your statements about democracy could be examined? How would they hold up under scrutiny?

Is the poorest man receiving an education that frees him from ignorance in India, or Indonesia, or the USA?

Is health care, free at the point of use, then financially crippling for the rest of the user's life, such a great idea?

How well cared for within the legal system are the majority of low-income earning and poor citizens of democracies?

'There are also media free from political or commercial corruption'? And the moon is really made of cheese.

And just to rewind a little: 'Ownership is conferred by power to retain and to attain and the freedom to select.' Do you think that statement might appear as a slap in the face to the dispossessed and colonised now residing in the glorious democratic new world?

I don't disagree that democracy is preferable in many ways, however trite statements such as 'Under democracy if the taxation system is too burdensome it can be changed' should be examined through the lens offered by reality.

Preferable to what?

"...democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried..."

As Lucky quoted. Citizenship pertains to a nation not to the whole world.

A Churchill quote and a little more 'splaining, this time about citizenship. Is that all? FFFFFFFS!!!

[LuckyR]

Thanks for explaining democracy. I am however more interested in what you have left out of the picture. Reading your last few posts here is like being told all about the advantages of some advanced automobile - it has an automatic gearbox, cd player, etc - but not hearing that the car has been resting at the bottom of a lake since 1996.

Do you think some of your statements about democracy could be examined? How would they hold up under scrutiny?

Is the poorest man receiving an education that frees him from ignorance in India, or Indonesia, or the USA?

Is health care, free at the point of use, then financially crippling for the rest of the user's life, such a great idea?

How well cared for within the legal system are the majority of low-income earning and poor citizens of democracies?

'There are also media free from political or commercial corruption'? And the moon is really made of cheese.

And just to rewind a little: 'Ownership is conferred by power to retain and to attain and the freedom to select.' Do you think that statement might appear as a slap in the face to the dispossessed and colonised now residing in the glorious democratic new world?

I don't disagree that democracy is preferable in many ways, however trite statements such as 'Under democracy if the taxation system is too burdensome it can be changed' should be examined through the lens offered by reality.

Preferable to what?

"...democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried..."

As Lucky quoted. Citizenship pertains to a nation not to the whole world.

A Churchill quote and a little more 'splaining, this time about citizenship. Is that all? FFFFFFFS!!!

Still waiting for the alternative...

[Robert66]

This from www.Churchill.org:

'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Churchill answers Lucky R's question for me. I say again democracy is preferable in many ways, but note I do not say democracy is preferable in every way, nor is it necessarily preferable to other forms of government. With the right person wearing the crown or controlling the military, an absolute monarchy or green dictatorship could be way better then corrupted democracy. Ditto socialism even communism minus greedy hogs in the Kremlin.

As far as getting needed stuff done, democracy could be the worst form of government. When Xi Jinping orders coal-fired power stations to be closed they are gone by the end of the week. When the world cries out for an end to coal, some democracies especially Australia choose instead to shove a massive, ridiculous "spanner in the works" for decades - decades which really cannot be wasted. But the many voices in a democracy must be heard, even or especially those of expatriate media moguls.

[LuckyR]

This from www.Churchill.org:

'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Churchill answers Lucky R's question for me. I say again democracy is preferable in many ways, but note I do not say democracy is preferable in every way, nor is it necessarily preferable to other forms of government. With the right person wearing the crown or controlling the military, an absolute monarchy or green dictatorship could be way better then corrupted democracy. Ditto socialism even communism minus greedy hogs in the Kremlin.

As far as getting needed stuff done, democracy could be the worst form of government. When Xi Jinping orders coal-fired power stations to be closed they are gone by the end of the week. When the world cries out for an end to coal, some democracies especially Australia choose instead to shove a massive, ridiculous "spanner in the works" for decades - decades which really cannot be wasted. But the many voices in a democracy must be heard, even or especially those of expatriate media moguls.

Everyone agrees dictatorships and monarchies are much more efficient than democracies. If Xi's government is preferable to you, I have to respect that, though I prefer to live in the West. To each their own.

[Belindi]

This from www.Churchill.org:

'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Churchill answers Lucky R's question for me. I say again democracy is preferable in many ways, but note I do not say democracy is preferable in every way, nor is it necessarily preferable to other forms of government. With the right person wearing the crown or controlling the military, an absolute monarchy or green dictatorship could be way better then corrupted democracy. Ditto socialism even communism minus greedy hogs in the Kremlin.

As far as getting needed stuff done, democracy could be the worst form of government. When Xi Jinping orders coal-fired power stations to be closed they are gone by the end of the week. When the world cries out for an end to coal, some democracies especially Australia choose instead to shove a massive, ridiculous "spanner in the works" for decades - decades which really cannot be wasted. But the many voices in a democracy must be heard, even or especially those of expatriate media moguls.

If human nature was such that the ruling elite was always altruistic then democracy would be less efficient. Not to prefer democracy is to risk all on an absurdly optimistic view of human nature.

[Robert66]

To repeat myself - democracy is preferable in many ways, but note I do not say democracy is preferable in every way, nor is it necessarily preferable to other forms of government. Just how such words translates into me being absurdly optimistic by not preferring democracy escapes me. Do we now live in a world where all nuance is discarded, and where it is impossible to even discuss (on a philosophy forum even) the ways in which democracy has been bent out of shape.

Nowhere have I said that I prefer Xi's government.

[Sculptor1]

An example of a tax free economy..

Please go to Youtube
and type "Why Isn't Congo as Rich as Saudi Arabia? Massive Tax Evasion"

[Sculptor1]

Meanwhile Jeff bezos is making $400 million per second.
And not paying his fair share.

[Magnus Anderson]

It seems clear to me that taxation is violent robbery, at least when it is done by big non-local governments.

Can you define "robbery"?

I take it that what you mean is "the act of forcefully reducing someone's control over something". In that case, taxation is indeed robbery because it involves forcing someone (via threats) to give you their money. It's a protection racket.

The more relevant question is whether or not such an activity benefits them and whether or not it benefits us.

It's worth noting that words like 'robbery', 'rape', and 'murder' tend to equivocally have both a statutory sense and a non-statutory sense. In the statutory sense, murder is only murder if it is illegal, and thus the Nazi government didn't murder any Jewish people in that sense, but that is not the sense in which I use the words. In the statutory sense, martial rape of a wife by a husband was not rape for most of history since it was only very recently criminalized in most jurisdictions, but that is not how I use the word. The way I use the words even legal murder is murder, and even legal robbery is robbery. In the sense in which I am using the words, legality is irrelevant to whether something is murder, robbery, etc.

Thanks for clarifying. That's what I presumed.

[Marvin_Edwards]

It seems clear to me that taxation is violent robbery, at least when it is done by big non-local governments.

That isn't to say small local governments cannot commit violent robbery, but it tends to be more of a gray area. For instance, the so-called governing board of a condo community with a shared community pool is typically viewed as a consensual arrangement. Self-government is the antithesis of big government.

Likewise, four roommates sharing a house might each pay 1/4th of the utility bills (electric, gas, etc.), perhaps even under written signed contract such that non-payment would allow other roommates to evict the non-paying roommate. Again, to reiterate, self-government is the antithesis of big government.

Thus, this topic is not meant to discuss arguably consensual pseudo-taxes used by agreement at the local level to fund shared local services such as a community pool, a local fire department, or a local elementary school.

For example, I live in Manchester, Connecticut, USA.

The USA government spends over $12,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison, and one cannot avoid them even by moving to the woods or overseas. The total amount spent by the USA government is over $4 trillion per year. A trillion is one million millions.

The Connecticut government spends over $8,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison.

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 someone doesn't pay these, it's a civil not a criminal matter, and I believe the debt is attached to the land not the person. It's mostly moot since few people own their land/house outright and instead a private bank pays the pseudo-taxes to the town and builds the cost into the private contractual consensually signed mortgage. In other words, these are consensual, literally to the point of generally involving actual signed contracts, signed before one moves in and agrees to pay.

It's worth noting that words like 'robbery', 'rape', and 'murder' tend to equivocally have both a statutory sense and a non-statutory sense. In the statutory sense, murder is only murder if it is illegal, and thus the Nazi government didn't murder any Jewish people in that sense, but that is not the sense in which I use the words. In the statutory sense, martial rape of a wife by a husband was not rape for most of history since it was only very recently criminalized in most jurisdictions, but that is not how I use the word. The way I use the words even legal murder is murder, and even legal robbery is robbery. In the sense in which I am using the words, legality is irrelevant to whether something is murder, robbery, etc.

If we need a specific definition of big, let's arbitrarily define it as a government that spends both more than $1 billion USD per year and more than $1,000 USD per person per year.

If we need a specific definition of non-local, let's arbitrarily define it as a government that violently rules over more 100 square miles of land.

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.


To be clear, this topic is not about whether taxes are 'necessary', whatever that might mean, whether they are immoral or morally good, whatever that might mean, or whether they are subjectively desirable. In theory, it's possible for someone to acknowledge that taxes are violent robbery, but still think that violent robbery is necessary for some purpose, or that it is desirable or such.

You should view your taxes as rent. If you are a citizen of the U.S.A., you have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed, and to pay your rent.

So, no, it is not at all like robbery. You've agreed to be taxed.

[Belindi]

Some taxes are used to fund violence towards colonised peoples, normally overseas E.G. the circumstances surrounding the Boston Tea Party and American independence, or e.g. the US in Vietnam. Sometimes taxes fund oppression of native citizens.

Taxes are used by the Iranian dictators to fund the moral police who have just killed a girl.
Violent robbery is often involved in how the ruling elite spend our money and without taxation ,or some other dues to the ruling elite, legitimated violent robbery could not happen.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

you have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed

I absolutely 100% have not agreed to that, tacitly or otherwise.

So, no, it is not at all like robbery. You've agreed...

I have not agreed.

And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd. With such reasoning, every single horrific murder or act of non-defensive violence committed by a government against people who happen to be within its self-proclaimed borders would be considered consensual, which is clearly absurd. No Roman citizens were ever crucified by their government against their will, such absurd logic would have us conclude.They agreed to be crucified; it was consensual crucifixion, such absurd logic would have us conclude.


Never forget that everything Adolph Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighers did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.”
― Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Robert66]

Got no response from Scott , so I repost:

You might argue that you lack the means to be a dissenter - you cannot simply "up and leave" the U.S., or wherever you find yourself in vehement disagreement with an evil state. You might quote David Hume (‘Of the original contract’, Essays, 1748): ‘Can we seriously say that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her.’

Of course such a "walk the plank" analogy is a drastic simplification, given that soon after your birth a Certificate was signed ( a Birth Certificate kept by yet another branch of the Hydra-like, evil, bureaucratic state, The Connecticut Department of Public Health’s State Vital Records Office) which conferred considerable rights and advantages upon you, albeit without your consent, and that if you seek to deny such rights and advantages you would have an uphill battle ahead of you to say the least. You may not have freely consented to the dominion of the master, however your parent's saw it fit to do so on your behalf, and it would be hard to reasonably find any fault in them for having done so.

But let's say fair enough, Hume makes a good point, and come at the issue from a different direction.

It is unfair, arguably a form of violence, if people aren’t paying for benefits they receive, if their enjoyment of those benefits is secured by the payments of others. If too many such free-riders exist in a society, it will be impossible for sufficient benefits to be provided to all who need them, and the most needy are likely to miss out.

[Marvin_Edwards]

... And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd. With such reasoning, every single horrific murder or act of non-defensive violence committed by a government against people who happen to be within its self-proclaimed borders would be considered consensual, which is clearly absurd. No Roman citizens were ever crucified by their government against their will, such absurd logic would have us conclude. They agreed to be crucified; it was consensual crucifixion, such absurd logic would have us conclude.


Never forget that everything Adolph Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighers did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.”
― Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are two courts. One is established by social agreements, such as a Constitution, which provides citizens with the means to select their legislators, so that they can choose those likely to create the laws they like. The other court is Conscience. And the judgements of these two courts agree on most things, but occasionally disagree.

Conscience generally supports a government's laws, because there is a moral benefit to having a general agreement as to the rights of individuals, such as the right to own property, and a right to live safely in an orderly society. Government is one of the means by which we guarantee these rights for each other.

And a democratically elected government assures that our own views of what is right and wrong have a hope of becoming the general view.

So, government has moral value. And to provide that value, we all pay taxes, because one of those rights we all enjoy is the right to pay our fair share of the costs, and no more than that.