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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It is true that we are not born agreeing to be taxed by the national government. At birth we are in no position to consent to anything.

I agree.

I understand that some people do not consent to being taxed and pay only to avoid punishement. That is up to them.

I agree.

Others who believe strongly enough that taxation is robbery are free to refuse to pay their taxes and suffer to the consequences.

Please be careful not to contradict our agreed premises. Whether or not one chooses to pay is totally independent of the agreed premise and fact that it is not consensual and thus is robbery.

If bank robbers are in a bank pointing a gun at all the people in the bank telling them to hand over their money or else, whether or not someone chooses to pay has essentially nothing to do with how strongly enough they believe the bank robbers are in fact robbers who are committing robbery.

Generally speaking, everyone can agree fully and equally that it is robbery.

That belief (or lack thereof) is not the difference that results in some people giving the robbers what they demand and others refusing.

[The victims could do their best to] organize politically so as to change the government to one that will not tax them. That has never worked in any large society that I know of. It has not worked because without taxation a large society would fall apart.

I disagree that the reason the victims have been unable (or unwilling) to get the violent leeches to stop robbing them is because of the reason you have given. However, that is moot to the topic at hand since the topic isn't why people haven't ended large-scale legal robbery, so I instead suggest you create a whole new forum topic about that other new question, which is, "Why throughout history did taxed people (i.e. those suffering from mass large-scale organized robbery) never successfully rebel against the kings/queens/empires/tyrants/governments that taxed/robbed them in a way that eliminated, or at least nearly eliminated, the mass robbery?" If you do create such a topic, let me know, as I will be happy to reply with the reasons I believe to be the cause.

Nonetheless, I did touch on why all governments throughout thousands and thousands of years of human history have had some of the same exactly qualities (e.g. using legal theft/robbery to make the richer):

Never forget: Jeff Bezos is a welfare queen...

Taxes make the rich richer...





With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

The sun rises in the east, without your or my consent. Bears crap in the woods, without your or my consent. Billions of humans are born, marry, reproduce, and die, without your or my consent.

Non-consent is only worthy of note where there is some sort of expectation or possibility of consent.

For similar reasons (if not the exact same reasons) as to why I don't believe in morality and moralizing judgementalism, I also don't believe in expectation. For more on that, I suggest reading the following other topic of mine::

Letting go of expectation | How clinging to the superstitions of expectation and blame disrupts your inner peace


With that said, I do agree that it is incoherent or at least usually not noteworthy to talk about consent of someone to something when either (1) that someone lacks the ability to meaningfully consent (e.g. they are in a long-term coma, or have a blood alcohol content of 0.20%, or are a 2-year-old child, etc.) or (2) the someone (and their property) is not affected in a noteworthy was by the something, meaning the person is not involved in the interaction of which the consensuality is being discussed. For example, typically, unless there was some atypical extenuating circumstances, it would be incoherent or not noteworthy to wonder or ask whether Charlie consents to Alfie and Bob having gay sex with each in the privacy of their own home, especially assuming he has never entered into any kind of written contract with Alfie or Bob in his life.

In other words, whether or not the sex between Alfie and Bob is consensual has nothing to do with whether or not Charlie consents, and, in fact, it's generally even incoherent to talk about Charlie consenting or not to the sex that Alfie and Bob are having with each other in the privacy of their own home. I agree with you about that.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Lagayascienza]

I can only speak for myself. I consent to paying taxes. I do not see it as robbery. I do not see myself as a victim giving in to robbers. I get something in return for the taxes which I consent to pay and I am, by and large, happy with what I get in return. I think of this as part of the social contract which the vast majority of us consent to, if only implicitly, because we understand that taxes are necessary for civilization.

I imagine that the majority do not see themsleves as giving in to robbers, but rather see themselves as willingly funding our civilzation.Thus, I do not believe that taxation by big non-local governments is non-consensual. This is so even though we have not signed a paper contract. Contracts do not need to be in that form. In law, contracts can be implied. We demonstrate consent by performing our side of an implied contract. I think that is what the vast majoity of us do.

I guess that those that do not see things this way have a problem. I have no idea what they can do about it. But, then, as you rightly point out, Scott, that is not the issue here. All I can say is that I, and probably most others, implicitly consent to paying taxes.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It is true that we are not born agreeing to be taxed by the national government. At birth we are in no position to consent to anything.

I agree.

I understand that some people do not consent to being taxed and pay only to avoid punishement. That is up to them.

I agree.

I do not believe that taxation by big non-local governments is non-consensual.

Oh no, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to me to have directly contradicted yourself in a way that is totally and utterly illogical.

Now I'm confused whether you agree with me that taxation by big non-local governments is theft (i.e. non-consensual) or whether you somehow think that taxes by big non-local governments are consensual.


Regardless, to better understand you, let me ask, would you pay the exact amount you pay in taxes even if you were not legally required to and there was no legal penalty for not paying. If your tax bill started coming with a disclaimer that said, "Paying this is voluntary. This is just a suggested donation. There is absolutely no penalty to not paying", would you still pay it in the same amount?

Likewise, please do post a reply in the following topics of mine too:'

1. Was the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust consensual? Was it murder or merely consensual assisted suicide?

2. Is so-called "legal marital rape" actually rape, or is it consensual because it is legal?

3. Did Martin Luther King consent to being arrested and jailed?


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Lagayascienza]

Scott, I would pay. And I would urge others to agree to do likewise. Perhaps if people thought for a moment about the need for taxation, and about what their taxes provide to them that they could not provide for themselves with their share of taxation, but which becomes available given economies of scale, then they would consent to being taxed. At least I hope they would. Civilization depends on it.

But I cannot speak for others. All I can say with certianly is that I consent to being taxed by our national government.

I shall check out those other topics and try to reply.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It is true that we are not born agreeing to be taxed by the national government. At birth we are in no position to consent to anything.

I agree.

I understand that some people do not consent to being taxed and pay only to avoid punishement. That is up to them.

I agree.

[...]

Regardless, to better understand you, let me ask, would you pay the exact amount you pay in taxes even if you were not legally required to and there was no legal penalty for not paying. If your tax bill started coming with a disclaimer that said, "Paying this is voluntary. This is just a suggested donation. There is absolutely no penalty to not paying", would you still pay it in the same amount?

Scott, I would pay. And I would urge others to agree to do likewise. [...]

But I cannot speak for others.

It sounds like these would be a good analogy for what you describe:

A person goes into a bank with a gun and says, "Everyone give me all your money and jewelry, or I will shoot you."

Some of the people refuse to give their money and get shot.

Some of the people give the gun-wielding person money but explicitly state they do not consent and that they are being robbed.

Then you and a couple other people say, "I would have given him my money even if he didn't threaten to shoot me and even if wasn't being threatened with violence or such. This is totally consensual. I consent to giving him my money. Even though their is a literal gun to my head, this is a consensual transaction."

I'd still say the person was committing robbery and that what happened in the bank, especially overall taken together, was not consensual. What about you?

Likewise, please do post a reply in the following topics of mine too:'

1. Was the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust consensual? Was it murder or merely consensual assisted suicide?

2. Is so-called "legal marital rape" actually rape, or is it consensual because it is legal?

3. Did Martin Luther King consent to being arrested and jailed?

I shall check out those other topics and try to reply.

Great, I saw your reply to the topic about the Holocaust (#1). I look forward to reply in the other two topics (#2 and #3).


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott