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

[LuckyR]

I don't get the difference between sizes of governments

Sorry, I don't know how to explain the difference any better than I did in the OP, as quoted above.

Since this topic is only about what I have labeled big non-local governments as defined above, if the above definitions are unclear to you, then I politely ask you to not participate in this particular forum topic.

Sorry, what I meant is "I don't get the importance of the difference between the sizes of government as pertains to the issues you identified".

I'm not sure anyone alleged that the difference you mention is important (to/for something specific since importance of any kind is always relative to or to something else). Whether that thing to which or for which it would be allegedly important, and whether it's important for that thing, or what things it might important for is presumably all irrelevant to the actual topic, which is the question, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?"

Should I take your nonresponse to the rest of my initial post as agreement?

I'm not sure what you mean by "should".

I don't use the word, and find the way others use it is very equivocal and/or utterly meaningless at best. I wrote about it in 2007: The Clarity of Amorality

I'll rephrase: you didn't address the majority of the points I put in my previous post. One interpretation of this is that you agree, another is that you can't find a cogent countetargument. What say you?

Regardless, I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained universal consent to tax each citizen.

Question for you though: did the government get universal consent to pave roads, form the police force or provide clean drinking water?

Or to put it another way, please justify why universal consent is important and/or relevant.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm identifying 4 different varieties of non-consent:

Presumably, any variety of non-consent would be non-consent.

I take taxation being non-consensual to mean that people only submit to it under duress (e.g. under threat of imprisonment or worse).

So the question amounts to whether people would pay tax if that threat were removed.

I agree, and the best indicator that they wouldn't is that the threat exists and has been formally made.

Once one party puts a gun to the head of the other and says out-loud if you don't kiss me I'll shoot you, it' s generally extremely implausible to argue that it is a consensual kiss on grounds that the kisser would have kissed anyway even if they hadn't been threatened with being shot.

Of course, it's no longer a generality or hypothetical if the person still refused to kiss (or pay taxes) after the threat is made and the threat is realized. So all we need to is find one person in prison for refusing to pay taxes, and we have our answer.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'll rephrase: you didn't address the majority of the points I put in my previous post. One interpretation of this is that you agree, another is that you can't find a cogent countetargument. What say you?

Those are two possible interpretations of countless.

If you make a numbered list of individual points you would like me to directly respond to, be they re-posts of earlier points or new ones, I am happy to respond to each one by number to avoid missing any.

Regardless, I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained universal consent to tax each citizen.

I am glad we agree on the specific topic of this forum thread, namely the titular question, but unfortunately that also means then there may be little to no room for on-topic discussion between the two of us about that specific topic. As I bet you will also agree, disagreement is more fun, and more enlightening to discuss/debate. So I look forward to hopefully disagreeing with you about other topics and discussing those disagreements in the forum threads for those other topics.

Question for you though: did the government get universal consent to pave roads, form the police force or provide clean drinking water?

I am not sure what you mean by "the government". Is that a reference to a specific government? If so, which one? And, if so, is it reference to any and all roads they built (etc.) or just a specific one road? And if the latter, which specific road?

Maybe it will become more clear if the specific government and specific road is specified, but I struggle to see how consent would be inherently involved in building a road. It's kind of like asking if I obtained consent to mow the lawn. Granted, if we know what's meant by the lawn, it would help give meaning to the statement, but even then we still need to know who's consent is being asked about, because surely we wouldn't want to know if the grass gave me permission to cut it, or pave over it.

Or to put it another way, please justify why universal consent is important and/or relevant.

Important to/for what?

Relevant to/for what?

In any case, I am pretty sure I never said that "universal consent is important" or that "universal consent is relevant", especially not without using the word 'to' or the word 'for' to specify to what or for what it is allegedly relevant or important.

[GE Morton]

Or to put it another way, please justify why universal consent is important and/or relevant.

Important to/for what?

Relevant to/for what?

In any case, I am pretty sure I never said that "universal consent is important" or that "universal consent is relevant", especially not without using the word 'to' or the word 'for' to specify to what or for what it is allegedly relevant or important.

Well, asking the question, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?," assumes that you attach some importance to the answer. Lucky is asking what importance, significance, you attach to that answer.

Also, you seem to agree that taxes are not consensual, regardless of whether the governments imposing them are small and local or big and non-local. But your question suggests you attach some special importance to (non-consensual) taxes imposed by big, non-local governments that taxes imposed by small, local governments lacks. What would that be?

[LuckyR]

Or to put it another way, please justify why universal consent is important and/or relevant.

Important to/for what?

Relevant to/for what?

In any case, I am pretty sure I never said that "universal consent is important" or that "universal consent is relevant", especially not without using the word 'to' or the word 'for' to specify to what or for what it is allegedly relevant or important.

Well, asking the question, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?," assumes that you attach some importance to the answer. Lucky is asking what importance, significance, you attach to that answer.

Also, you seem to agree that taxes are not consensual, regardless of whether the governments imposing them are small and local or big and non-local. But your question suggests you attach some special importance to (non-consensual) taxes imposed by big, non-local governments that taxes imposed by small, local governments lacks. What would that be?

Kudos to you for stepping in and making it unnecessary for me to take on the role of Captain Obvious.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Or to put it another way, please justify why universal consent is important and/or relevant.

Important to/for what?

Relevant to/for what?

In any case, I am pretty sure I never said that "universal consent is important" or that "universal consent is relevant", especially not without using the word 'to' or the word 'for' to specify to what or for what it is allegedly relevant or important.

Well, asking the question, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?," assumes that you attach some importance to the answer. Lucky is asking what importance, significance, you attach to that answer.

Also, you seem to agree that taxes are not consensual, regardless of whether the governments imposing them are small and local or big and non-local. But your question suggests you attach some special importance to (non-consensual) taxes imposed by big, non-local governments that taxes imposed by small, local governments lacks. What would that be?

I believe these questions are off-topic for this forum topic. The topic of this forum topic is: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

Feel free to make a separate new forum topic to ask and discuss other questions such as but not limited to:

"Is it important to Scott whether taxes are consensual?" / "Does Scott attach some special importance to (non-consensual) taxes imposed by big, non-local governments that taxes imposed by small, local governments lacks?"

As for the actual topic of this forum topic, I suspect we all have come to an agreement that the answer to the titular question is that taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual. If that's the case, then it seems there may simply be nothing more to discuss in this particular topic.

[InfinityMuse]

Or to put it another way, please justify why universal consent is important and/or relevant.

Important to/for what?

Relevant to/for what?

In any case, I am pretty sure I never said that "universal consent is important" or that "universal consent is relevant", especially not without using the word 'to' or the word 'for' to specify to what or for what it is allegedly relevant or important.

Well, asking the question, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?," assumes that you attach some importance to the answer. Lucky is asking what importance, significance, you attach to that answer.

Also, you seem to agree that taxes are not consensual, regardless of whether the governments imposing them are small and local or big and non-local. But your question suggests you attach some special importance to (non-consensual) taxes imposed by big, non-local governments that taxes imposed by small, local governments lacks. What would that be?

I believe these questions are off-topic for this forum topic. The topic of this forum topic is: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

Feel free to make a separate new forum topic to ask and discuss other questions such as but not limited to:

"Is it important to Scott whether taxes are consensual?" / "Does Scott attach some special importance to (non-consensual) taxes imposed by big, non-local governments that taxes imposed by small, local governments lacks?"

As for the actual topic of this forum topic, I suspect we all have come to an agreement that the answer to the titular question is that taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual. If that's the case, then it seems there may simply be nothing more to discuss in this particular topic.

1) What is big non local government?

2) What is local government?

If you could better define these. "Big" refers to corporate veteran affairs corruption by law in comparison to the removal of local taxation to farm land for the ARMY. (Psssst- it is all corruption). But I do not know what you mean by "big". The question is legally subversive or preverse.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

1) What is big non local government?

2) What is local government?

If you could better define these...

I believe they are both very explicitly and clearly defined in the OP:

To effectively discuss it, let's use some semi-arbitrary definitions--


A big non-local government would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdictions span more than 10,000 square miles
- jurisdiction covers more than 10 million people
- annual budget is greater than $100,000,000,000 USD ($100 billion).


A small local government (or pseudo-government) would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdiction spans less than 100 square miles
- width from border to border is no greater than 20 miles in any direction (meaning no matter where you are inside of it you would only need to walk about 10 miles at most to escape its borders, and only 20 miles at most to escape its borders in your preferred direction)
- jurisdiction covers less than 100,000 people
- annual budget is less than $1,000,000,000 USD ($1 billion)


A medium-sized government and/or semi-local government would be any government that doesn't fall into one of the above two categories (i.e. any government that's size and/or locality is between the two categories above).

(Please do take note of rule G.2. in the Forum Rules.)

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Regardless, I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained universal consent to tax each citizen.

I am glad we agree on the specific topic of this forum thread, namely the titular question, but unfortunately that also means then there may be little to no room for on-topic discussion between the two of us about that specific topic. As I bet you will also agree, disagreement is more fun, and more enlightening to discuss/debate. So I look forward to hopefully disagreeing with you about other topics and discussing those disagreements in the forum threads for those other topics.

Hi, LuckyR,

I hope all is well with you.

I am confused because in another thread you seemed to me to claim that taxation by big non-local governments is consensual.

But, in contrast, in this thread you seem to me to agree with me that taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual.

Which is it?

Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

If a pacifist is in prison for refusing to pay taxes to a huge aggressively violent government, is his imprisonment consensual?

Was so-called "slavery" in the USA consensual? In other words, do you think the name "slavery" is a misnomer for it? Personally, I think it was not consensual; so I think it was, in fact, absolutely slavery. I think calling it slavery is not a misnomer at all. What do you think? Do you think it was actually slavery, or do you think it was consensual?


Thank you,
Scott

[LuckyR]

Regardless, I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained universal consent to tax each citizen.

I am glad we agree on the specific topic of this forum thread, namely the titular question, but unfortunately that also means then there may be little to no room for on-topic discussion between the two of us about that specific topic. As I bet you will also agree, disagreement is more fun, and more enlightening to discuss/debate. So I look forward to hopefully disagreeing with you about other topics and discussing those disagreements in the forum threads for those other topics.

Hi, LuckyR,

I hope all is well with you.

I am confused because in another thread you seemed to me to claim that taxation by big non-local governments is consensual.

But, in contrast, in this thread you seem to me to agree with me that taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual.

Which is it?

Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

If a pacifist is in prison for refusing to pay taxes to a huge aggressively violent government, is his imprisonment consensual?

Was so-called "slavery" in the USA consensual? In other words, do you think the name "slavery" is a misnomer for it? Personally, I think it was not consensual; so I think it was, in fact, absolutely slavery. I think calling it slavery is not a misnomer at all. What do you think? Do you think it was actually slavery, or do you think it was consensual?


Thank you,
Scott

No confusion. I commented on two concepts in two different ways.

On topic one: UNIVERSAL consent, (what I addressed in the OP of this thread) I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen. I repeated this in my post yesterday in the other thread.

On topic two: the concept of the Consent of the Governed, as described in the Declaration of Independence, (which I didn't address in the OP of this thread, but did yesterday) universal consent is not required for the government to exercise authority. For example is universal consent (including from Pacifists) required for the government to create the Armed Forces?

Essentially Universal consent only makes sense for small groups, say a family, or a small business. It is completely impractical for jurisdictions with hundreds, thousands or millions of people.

As to the tax dodger, he consented just as when you walk into the supermarket you consent to pay for the products you take out of the store. If you shoplift instead of paying, that's you violating the agreement you consented to. Thus going to jail is reasonable. The tax dodger is similarly violating the agreement that citizens (as a group) have with the government (as a large, nameless, faceless entity), and there are consequences to such action, just like the shoplifter.

Your slavery idea suffers from sloppy wording. Slavery WAS consensual between the government and it's slave owning citizens (concept of Consent of the Governed). However the slaves were not citizens and obviously did not consent. So to the question you posed, slavery was not universally consensual (obviously), was consensual under the concept of the Consent of the Governed which excludes noncitizens.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

Sorry, I don't understand your answer.

Are you saying taxation by big non-local governments is consensual? Or are you saying taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual?

On topic two: the concept of the Consent of the Governed, as described in the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence was written by sexist racist slave-owning rapists. I would not be surprised if they denied obvious reality by claiming somehow that their victims "were asking for it".

In that context, "Consent of the Governed" seems to be an obvious oxymoron, much like "Consent of the Forced" or the "Generous Gift-Giving of the Violently Robbed".

universal consent is not required for the government to exercise authority

Of course consent is not required. If consent was required for authority to be exercised, no rapes could ever occur ever at all. The question isn't whether consent is needed for X (e.g. rape, slavery, taxation) to happen because obviously it's not. If consent was required for something to happen, then nothing non-consensual would ever happen. The question is simply whether X is consensual; and in this case X is taxation by big non-local governments.

I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen.

[...]

If you shoplift instead of paying, that's you violating the agreement you consented to. Thus going to jail is reasonable.

#1 -- The topic and question is not whether "going to jail is reasonable" whatever that means. You might think using non-consensual non-defensive violence is reasonable. That's not the topic. The topic is whether it is consensual, not whether it is reasonable.

#2 -- One doesn't consent to not stealing when one enters a grocery store because one doesn't need to. I don't need you to consent to not steal from me in any circumstance for you to be a stealer who I want charged with stealing if you steal from me. People don't have to consent to not steal (or rape or murder). Consent is not really involved in your shoplifting example at all. If I let you in my house, that doesn't mean I thereby give you permission to murder me or take my stuff from my house (i.e. steal from me), and thus I don't need you to consent to not do that. If while in my house, you want to buy something from me, that's a transaction of its own which is what transfers the property consensually such that then you can take it with you when you leave without it being stealing. Most likely, the consensual transaction will be reflected on a paper receipt of some kind. Nonetheless, to fix up the grocery store example to get it to involve consent somehow, we could imagine there is a sign out front that says "if you eat grapes without paying, you will owe us 10x the retail cost of the grapes you eat", and then one could indeed argue that a grape-eater consented to paying the excessive fee by entering the store. Then if the grape-eater can only afford to pay the retail cost of the grapes, but not the inflated fee for eating them in-store, it would raise the question of putting the grape-eater in prison. It's similar to when little kids buy non-refundable digital upgrades on kid games on their parents' mobile phones, but the parents technically affirmatively consented in writing to paying for such non-refundable purchases, even accidental ones by children, when they agreed to terms and conditions on the device or such.

#3 -- The shoplifting analogy appears to be a false analogy, since (according to you, ex hypothesi) the shoplifter allegedly consented to something upon entering (i.e. the grocery store obtains consent about something from each and every person who enters somehow), but as you say, "the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen."

An accurate analogy would need to involve a group of people who are being charged money or forced to do labor or forced to do sexual acts or such, in which at least some of the people have clearly absolutely not consented.

A non-false analogy might instead be something like this: 7 people are on a boat in the ocean. 1 person says he wants to have a 7-way orgy. 4 others say, "oh that sounds great, let's do it." 2 say they don't want to. Most of the other 5 say they don't want to do it if it's only 5 people, so one of them pulls a gun on the other 2. The gun-wielder says, "you have to do our orgy because we want to have a 7-person orgy not a 5-person orgy. If you don't join us for a 7-way orgy, I'll shoot you." 1 of the 2 verbally protests, "I don't want to do it. I don't consent. I never agreed to that. I never agreed to go along with what the majority vote on this boat say." The gun-wielder says, "this is not rape because might makes right, and I'm governing you, so, via consent of the governed, you consent." The gun-wielder shoots him. Did the shooting victim consent to being shot?

You could probably re-write that to be about buying groceries instead of having group sex, but whether or not it's consensual would be the same.

I think it would clearly not be consensual. What about you?

The same goes for so-called "marital rape" in the USA, which was not fully illegal in some states until 1993 (30 years ago). Even though it was legal and the women who were being forced to have sex were citizens, I think it was not consensual, and thus I think it was indeed rape. What do you think? Do you think it was consensual? Do you think it was indeed rape, or do you think it was consensual and that the label "marital rape" is a misnomer?

The tax dodger is similarly violating the agreement that citizens (as a group) have with the government [...]

I have no such agreement with the USA government. I've never agreed to any such thing.

It's not the hard to get large groups to give unanimous affirmative consent via affirmatively and freely consented to written agreements, such as the shareholders of a company or corporation using a board of directors and/or CEO to represent them via written bylaws that are affirmatively agreed to in writing without duress at the time a person of legal age chooses to become a member or shareholder. I worked previously (as an unpaid volunteer) on the board of a non-profit charity in the state of Connecticut, for example. Like the President and rest of the board, I was elected by the dues-paying members of the organization. We collected member dues from chapters and people all over the state, which is bigger than some countries. It was all consensual, with lots of paperwork to back that up. Large groups can easily give power of attorney and such to individuals or small representative groups via unanimously consensual agreements that have been truly voluntarily agreed to. It's easily possible for a large group to be organized in which all the members unanimously affirmatively consent in writing to abide by what the majority wants according to written bylaws. It happens all the time in the NGO sector.

Slavery WAS consensual between the government and it's slave owning citizens (concept of Consent of the Governed). However the slaves were not citizens and obviously did not consent.

So you agree, at least, that taxation of non-citizens is not consensual then? For you, you think it's only when non-citizens are forced to pay money or do labor that it's non-consensual or slavery; correct?

Can you provide a precise definition of the word "citizen" as you use it? In terms of precise definition and denotation alone, what exactly and specifically is the difference between a "citizen" and a "non-citizen" such that we can know when an instance of would-be slavery is in fact slavery, versus some kind of consensual but forced labor at threat of imprisonment that is somehow consented to by what you call "consent of the governed" even though it is seemingly also not consented to since as you say "the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen"? (It seems contradictory to me, in any case.)

And, to be sure I understand you, the only reason you think the slavery of black people in the USA was not consensual is because the victims did not happen to be called "citizens"; correct? So if it was restarted today now that they are citizens, it would be consensual according to you; correct?

And you believe anything Hitler's government did to citizens of Germany was consensual; correct?

What's typically called "marital rape" was not illegal in all 50 states in the USA until 1993, and was legal in some for for most of USA history. Woman were citizens, though, for much of it at least. So, am I right to understand that according to you, the label "marital rape" is actually a misnomer according to you, and that according to you the sex was consensual even when the would-be victims screamed and cried and begged their husbands to stop and not do it and stated they didn't want the sex?

[Slavery] was consensual under the concept of the Consent of the Governed which excludes noncitizens.

Then--much like with the case of legal marital rape of citizens--it seems via reductio ad absurdum this thing you call "the concept of the Consent of the Governed" is clearly nonsense. It seems to be the equivalent of a rapist saying, "She was asking for it."

In other words, the idea that you call "consent of the governed" seems to be like the saying "might makes right" except replacing "right" with "consensual". Accordingly, it leads to all sorts of nonsense and contradictions: Forced things are consensual because they are forced, such a contradictory concept claims.

Consent isn't that complicated.

It's really not that complicated to figure out whether something is consensual, whether it be forced labor based on skin color, or taxation, or pacifists sitting in prison, or legal marital rape. It's not that complicated.


Thank you,
Scott

[LuckyR]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

Sorry, I don't understand your answer.

Are you saying taxation by big non-local governments is consensual? Or are you saying taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual?

On topic two: the concept of the Consent of the Governed, as described in the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence was written by sexist racist slave-owning rapists. I would not be surprised if they denied obvious reality by claiming somehow that their victims "were asking for it".

In that context, "Consent of the Governed" seems to be an obvious oxymoron, much like "Consent of the Forced" or the "Generous Gift-Giving of the Violently Robbed".

universal consent is not required for the government to exercise authority

Of course consent is not required. If consent was required for authority to be exercised, no rapes could ever occur ever at all. The question isn't whether consent is needed for X (e.g. rape, slavery, taxation) to happen because obviously it's not. If consent was required for something to happen, then nothing non-consensual would ever happen. The question is simply whether X is consensual; and in this case X is taxation by big non-local governments.

I agree with you that the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen.

[...]

If you shoplift instead of paying, that's you violating the agreement you consented to. Thus going to jail is reasonable.

#1 -- The topic and question is not whether "going to jail is reasonable" whatever that means. You might think using non-consensual non-defensive violence is reasonable. That's not the topic. The topic is whether it is consensual, not whether it is reasonable.

#2 -- One doesn't consent to not stealing when one enters a grocery store because one doesn't need to. I don't need you to consent to not steal from me in any circumstance for you to be a stealer who I want charged with stealing if you steal from me. People don't have to consent to not steal (or rape or murder). Consent is not really involved in your shoplifting example at all. If I let you in my house, that doesn't mean I thereby give you permission to murder me or take my stuff from my house (i.e. steal from me), and thus I don't need you to consent to not do that. If while in my house, you want to buy something from me, that's a transaction of its own which is what transfers the property consensually such that then you can take it with you when you leave without it being stealing. Most likely, the consensual transaction will be reflected on a paper receipt of some kind. Nonetheless, to fix up the grocery store example to get it to involve consent somehow, we could imagine there is a sign out front that says "if you eat grapes without paying, you will owe us 10x the retail cost of the grapes you eat", and then one could indeed argue that a grape-eater consented to paying the excessive fee by entering the store. Then if the grape-eater can only afford to pay the retail cost of the grapes, but not the inflated fee for eating them in-store, it would raise the question of putting the grape-eater in prison. It's similar to when little kids buy non-refundable digital upgrades on kid games on their parents' mobile phones, but the parents technically affirmatively consented in writing to paying for such non-refundable purchases, even accidental ones by children, when they agreed to terms and conditions on the device or such.

#3 -- The shoplifting analogy appears to be a false analogy, since (according to you, ex hypothesi) the shoplifter allegedly consented to something upon entering (i.e. the grocery store obtains consent about something from each and every person who enters somehow), but as you say, "the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen."

An accurate analogy would need to involve a group of people who are being charged money or forced to do labor or forced to do sexual acts or such, in which at least some of the people have clearly absolutely not consented.

A non-false analogy might instead be something like this: 7 people are on a boat in the ocean. 1 person says he wants to have a 7-way orgy. 4 others say, "oh that sounds great, let's do it." 2 say they don't want to. Most of the other 5 say they don't want to do it if it's only 5 people, so one of them pulls a gun on the other 2. The gun-wielder says, "you have to do our orgy because we want to have a 7-person orgy not a 5-person orgy. If you don't join us for a 7-way orgy, I'll shoot you." 1 of the 2 verbally protests, "I don't want to do it. I don't consent. I never agreed to that. I never agreed to go along with what the majority vote on this boat say." The gun-wielder says, "this is not rape because might makes right, and I'm governing you, so, via consent of the governed, you consent." The gun-wielder shoots him. Did the shooting victim consent to being shot?

You could probably re-write that to be about buying groceries instead of having group sex, but whether or not it's consensual would be the same.

I think it would clearly not be consensual. What about you?

The same goes for so-called "marital rape" in the USA, which was not fully illegal in some states until 1993 (30 years ago). Even though it was legal and the women who were being forced to have sex were citizens, I think it was not consensual, and thus I think it was indeed rape. What do you think? Do you think it was consensual? Do you think it was indeed rape, or do you think it was consensual and that the label "marital rape" is a misnomer?

The tax dodger is similarly violating the agreement that citizens (as a group) have with the government [...]

I have no such agreement with the USA government. I've never agreed to any such thing.

It's not the hard to get large groups to give unanimous affirmative consent via affirmatively and freely consented to written agreements, such as the shareholders of a company or corporation using a board of directors and/or CEO to represent them via written bylaws that are affirmatively agreed to in writing without duress at the time a person of legal age chooses to become a member or shareholder. I worked previously (as an unpaid volunteer) on the board of a non-profit charity in the state of Connecticut, for example. Like the President and rest of the board, I was elected by the dues-paying members of the organization. We collected member dues from chapters and people all over the state, which is bigger than some countries. It was all consensual, with lots of paperwork to back that up. Large groups can easily give power of attorney and such to individuals or small representative groups via unanimously consensual agreements that have been truly voluntarily agreed to. It's easily possible for a large group to be organized in which all the members unanimously affirmatively consent in writing to abide by what the majority wants according to written bylaws. It happens all the time in the NGO sector.

Slavery WAS consensual between the government and it's slave owning citizens (concept of Consent of the Governed). However the slaves were not citizens and obviously did not consent.

So you agree, at least, that taxation of non-citizens is not consensual then? For you, you think it's only when non-citizens are forced to pay money or do labor that it's non-consensual or slavery; correct?

Can you provide a precise definition of the word "citizen" as you use it? In terms of precise definition and denotation alone, what exactly and specifically is the difference between a "citizen" and a "non-citizen" such that we can know when an instance of would-be slavery is in fact slavery, versus some kind of consensual but forced labor at threat of imprisonment that is somehow consented to by what you call "consent of the governed" even though it is seemingly also not consented to since as you say "the government has NOT obtained consent from each and every citizen"? (It seems contradictory to me, in any case.)

And, to be sure I understand you, the only reason you think the slavery of black people in the USA was not consensual is because the victims did not happen to be called "citizens"; correct? So if it was restarted today now that they are citizens, it would be consensual according to you; correct?

And you believe anything Hitler's government did to citizens of Germany was consensual; correct?

What's typically called "marital rape" was not illegal in all 50 states in the USA until 1993, and was legal in some for for most of USA history. Woman were citizens, though, for much of it at least. So, am I right to understand that according to you, the label "marital rape" is actually a misnomer according to you, and that according to you the sex was consensual even when the would-be victims screamed and cried and begged their husbands to stop and not do it and stated they didn't want the sex?

[Slavery] was consensual under the concept of the Consent of the Governed which excludes noncitizens.

Then--much like with the case of legal marital rape of citizens--it seems via reductio ad absurdum this thing you call "the concept of the Consent of the Governed" is clearly nonsense. It seems to be the equivalent of a rapist saying, "She was asking for it."

In other words, the idea that you call "consent of the governed" seems to be like the saying "might makes right" except replacing "right" with "consensual". Accordingly, it leads to all sorts of nonsense and contradictions: Forced things are consensual because they are forced, such a contradictory concept claims.

Consent isn't that complicated.

It's really not that complicated to figure out whether something is consensual, whether it be forced labor based on skin color, or taxation, or pacifists sitting in prison, or legal marital rape. It's not that complicated.


Thank you,
Scott

If you reject the concept of Consent of the Governed (as I acknowledged in the other thread that some will), and only recognize Universal consent, then nothing involving large groups of people is consensual. Certainly nothing an entity like a government would do. There's nothing special about taxation, in this regard. In this particular view of the world, consent only exists between individuals and very small groups, say a nuclear family.

Thus for the purposes of this thread, "taxation" is too fine a distinction, it would be more intellectually honest to ask: is anything done by any government consensual? With a trivial, but true answer of: NO. You're very right, not complicated.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

If you reject the concept of Consent of the Governed (as I acknowledged in the other thread that some will), and only recognize Universal consent, then nothing involving large groups of people is consensual.

With politeness and respect, I disagree, for the reasons given in my previous post:

It's not the hard to get large groups to give unanimous affirmative consent via affirmatively and freely consented to written agreements, such as the shareholders of a company or corporation using a board of directors and/or CEO to represent them via written bylaws that are affirmatively agreed to in writing without duress at the time a person of legal age chooses to become a member or shareholder. I worked previously (as an unpaid volunteer) on the board of a non-profit charity in the state of Connecticut, for example. Like the President and rest of the board, I was elected by the dues-paying members of the organization. We collected member dues from chapters and people all over the state, which is bigger than some countries. It was all consensual, with lots of paperwork to back that up. Large groups can easily give power of attorney and such to individuals or small representative groups via unanimously consensual agreements that have been truly voluntarily agreed to. It's easily possible for a large group to be organized in which all the members unanimously affirmatively consent in writing to abide by what the majority wants according to written bylaws. It happens all the time in the NGO sector.

To expand on that, assuming no fraud is taking place and ignoring the corporate welfare they have received, I think that companies like Google and Apple and Samsung can function via universal consent, both in terms of their dealings with their voting shareholders and their customers. In principle, there is no need for anything to happen non-consensually in terms of the business dealings and functioning of huge companies like Google, Apple, and Samsung, which are bigger than some nations.


All of the above is presumably moot in regard to the titular question. In regard to the titular question, it appears we completely agree: Taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual.

more intellectually honest

That seems to be at least a borderline violation of Rule A.2. of the Forum Rules.

Thus for the purposes of this thread, "taxation" is too fine a distinction, it would be [...] to ask: is anything done by any government consensual? With a trivial, but true answer of: NO. You're very right, not complicated.

Certainly the same argument that applies to taxation applies to forced labor by the government and forced sex, since they really three aspects of the same more general category. Stealing the money someone gets paid for labor at gunpoint is effectively the same as slavery at gun point. If the worker is a sex worker (e.g. a porn star or prostitute) then the overlap and lack of differences becomes even more revealed.

I'm glad to learn that you also think most or even everything that governments do is not consensual, though I'm not sure I agree.

I'm not sure you can expand it to a anything and everything a so-called government does. If the King of England spanks himself on the butt, is that consensual? Maybe, maybe not, but I certainly don't have a problem with it.

If I buy a postage stamp to mail an envelope through USPS instead of using FedEx is that non-consensual? I don't see why it would be, but maybe. It's certainly not "dishonest" in any sense of the word at all remotely for me to not include things like the King spanking his own butt or me buying postage stamp from USPS or any of countless other things in my question. It seems off-topic, ad hominem, and rule-breaking to even have slightly speculated such a thing. No hard feelings, though.

In any case, I'm glad that we seem to firmly and absolutely agree that taxation is not consensual.



Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

It's not the hard to get large groups to give unanimous affirmative consent via affirmatively and freely consented to written agreements, such as the shareholders of a company or corporation using a board of directors and/or CEO to represent them via written bylaws that are affirmatively agreed to in writing without duress at the time a person of legal age chooses to become a member or shareholder.

Hi Scott,

You'll have come across websites that can't be accessed without clicking a button that says "I Agree" (to the Terms & Conditions).

And also websites that dispense with the button, but merely show you a sentence that says "by continuing to use this site you agree to the terms and conditions" .

Would you consider those mechanisms to comprise obtaining consent ? Is there a morally significant difference between them ?

As I understand it, the argument for taxation is that the core services of government (such as defence of the realm against foreign invasion) are of a nature that they are necessarily "consumed" (benefitted from) by everyone within the territory so governed.

So that living in a state without consenting to pay one's share of the costs of defence is akin to going into a supermarket and eating one of the bananas on display and then protesting that one has not consented to pay for the banana. It may be technically correct in that no consent form has been signed, and no explicit terms and conditions of entry to the supermarket have been posted... But the banana has been consumed.

Is your proposition about tax not being consensual similarly "technically correct" ?

Which may have been what LuckyR was getting at with their supermarket analogy.

(Not denying, by the way, that governments do things which go beyond "core services" and which could be run on an opt-in or opt-out basis rather than being funded by taxation).

[Ecurb]

If you buy something at a store, you consent to pay the store both the price it charges and the sales tax. That seems consensual to me.

When you buy a house you sign a mortgage agreement that includes payment of property tax. Nobody is forcing you to sign (except, perhaps, your wife). That seems consensual.

When you get a job, you agree to perform certain tasks in exchange for a paycheck from which taxes and social security are deducted. Did anyone force you to take the job?

All contractual agreements involve consent, but, of course, force may be used to assure compliance. and some people might shoplift to avoid the sales tax. So it's a little more complicated than my paragraphs above suggest. But that is true not only for taxes, but for everything else in life. Property is non consensual in general. It gives one person non-consensual control over other people. Taxes alleviate some of that non consensual control.