Philosophy Discussion Forums

[Moderator's Note: The below posts were removed as off-topic from the topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?[/i]

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 1:24 pm

heracleitos wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 10:13 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 8:43 am Therefore, taxation by the Federal Government is consensual.

Yes, that is why I believe that the ones who want to pay it, should not hesitate to freely do so.
In the end, the best definition for the term "consensual" is that each person who individually consents, can liberally go ahead with what he consents to.

But I do not consent to paying your share as well as my own. That would be unfair to me and would give you a free ride. If you get a free ride, then everyone else would also choose the free ride, and there would be no funds for public goods, such as roads, bridges, courts, and prisons. So, your solution to the problem seems impractical.

Well, in the meanwhile I have left to SE Asia.

It is not just that I do not want to pay for all that sh-it, or for any other such fake justification.

That is not even the worst.

As a man, you cannot have a normal family life in a western country, because you would also have to forcibly pay for the divorce-rape courts to stab you in the back. They do not just force you to pay taxes -- which of course I have never paid -- but they would even try to force you to pay for an ex-wife, for her to move in with her new boyfriend in the house that you have paid for.

As an individual, all you can do, is to leave.

In terms of collective action, however, I'd rather give the money to Vladimir Putin, for him to build some extra Sarmat-2 ("Satan-2") intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. In terms of honor, dignity, and self-respect, I'd rather join Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping as to fight this war till the last Ukranian. In the end, the only solution to the problem will have to come from the battlefield. Believe me that we will never surrender.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 8:57 pm Yes, it would. But you can't claim that taxes imposed by democratic governments are "consensual." They certainly are not. If you wish to justify them you'll need different grounds.

I do not see the West's largely futile attempts at levying artificial taxes as a particularly important matter.

But then again, these so-called democratic governments of the West are doing something else that I consider to be an infuriating casus belli.

If they believe that I would ever hand over my assets, my house, my income, and/or my children to an ex-wife and her new boyfriend, then they are dreaming. That is no longer a matter of mere money but one of honor, dignity, and self-respect.

If they want to force people in that manner, then let them at least prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

The Ukraine war will surely turn out to be a fantastic opportunity to hit home a few lessons that they clearly need.

Either NATO dismantles all military bases located east of the Yalta demarcation line, as originally agreed between Roosevelt and Stalin, or else, NATO will at gunpoint and under a rain of missile and drone attacks be made to dismantle them.

This problem of lack of respect can only be solved with a hell of a lot of dead bodies. Therefore, I agree with Zelensky that there will be no negotiations, and that we do not want peace. On the contrary, as far as I am concerned, may the severed arms and legs start flying around in the air.

heracleitos wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 9:57 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 8:57 pm Yes, it would. But you can't claim that taxes imposed by democratic governments are "consensual." They certainly are not. If you wish to justify them you'll need different grounds.

I do not see the West's largely futile attempts at levying artificial taxes as a particularly important matter.

But then again, these so-called democratic governments of the West are doing something else that I consider to be an infuriating casus belli.

If they believe that I would ever hand over my assets, my house, my income, and/or my children to an ex-wife and her new boyfriend, then they are dreaming. That is no longer a matter of mere money but one of honor, dignity, and self-respect.

If they want to force people in that manner, then let them at least prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

The Ukraine war will surely turn out to be a fantastic opportunity to hit home a few lessons that they clearly need.

Either NATO dismantles all military bases located east of the Yalta demarcation line, as originally agreed between Roosevelt and Stalin, or else, NATO will at gunpoint and under a rain of missile and drone attacks be made to dismantle them.

This problem of lack of respect can only be solved with a hell of a lot of dead bodies. Therefore, I agree with Zelensky that there will be no negotiations, and that we do not want peace. On the contrary, as far as I am concerned, may the severed arms and legs start flying around in the air.

Peace is a matter of agreements, and honoring those agreements.

heracleitos wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 9:57 pm ...
If they believe that I would ever hand over my assets, my house, my income, and/or my children to an ex-wife and her new boyfriend, then they are dreaming. That is no longer a matter of mere money but one of honor, dignity, and self-respect.
...

Sounds like you needed a better lawyer.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 7:12 am

heracleitos wrote: ↑October 21st, 2022, 9:57 pm ...
If they believe that I would ever hand over my assets, my house, my income, and/or my children to an ex-wife and her new boyfriend, then they are dreaming. That is no longer a matter of mere money but one of honor, dignity, and self-respect.
...

Sounds like you needed a better lawyer.

No need for a lawyer, because the automatic shields that I had set up to neutralize possible attacks from the tax department -- which by the way never came -- suddenly started sounding the alarm bell for incoming missiles, which happened to come from the ex-wife.

I was on a trip in Eastern Europe when I had to switch to drawing cash straight from offshore accounts, because the small balance of less than a thousand dollars on my onshore EU account was frozen.

I had never bought a house or any other confiscatable assets, because of the tax department. I was just sitting on a pile of offshore cash back then. Nowadays, I only have bitcoins and nothing else. Confiscatable assets are an illusion. They are seemingly yours until they aren't anymore.

I left a bit less than a month later to SE Asia. I am quite wealthy, while she has been on welfare handouts ever since and has had to adjust to living in subsidized council housing.

In terms of biting the hand that feeds you, she has certainly learned her lesson. Of course, she never managed to find another man of comparable financial means. So, in terms of poetic justice, I think that it was pretty much instant karma.

Concerning the feminist State, if the opportunity arises, I won't hesitate to extract vengeance. For the time being, just let Vladimir Putin bomb the hell out of them first.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 7:10 am
Democratic governments are us. We constitute such governments to serve public needs that private interests are unable or unwilling or inappropriate to serve. This requires work. Work costs money. Thus, taxes are justified.

Some taxes are justified. Namely, those paying for services from which the taxpayer derives some benefit.

And be sure not confuse "public needs" with private needs. No taxpayer has any obligation to meet someone else's private needs.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 10:30 am Some taxes are justified. Namely, those paying for services from which the taxpayer derives some benefit.

We cannot agree to have a law prohibiting robbery without assuring that everyone can survive without robbing others. By assuring that no one needs to rob to survive, we protect your property. Providing food stamps for the poor benefits you personally, even if it is not obvious to you.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 10:30 am And be sure not confuse "public needs" with private needs. No taxpayer has any obligation to meet someone else's private needs.

The source of all public needs is the real needs of the individual people who make up that society.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 12:19 pm
We cannot agree to have a law prohibiting robbery without assuring that everyone can survive without robbing others.

False premise. We certainly can have such a law, providing that anyone who robs goes to prison and stays there. No one has any duty to assure anyone else's survival. Securing the means to survive is the individual responsibility of every animal. In a human social setting you have to do it without inflicting harms or losses on others. If you can't or won't, and no one cares enough about you to help you out, you don't survive.

The source of all public needs is the real needs of the individual people who make up that society.

Er, no. The only public needs are for "public goods" --- goods that cannot be provided privately because they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, e.g., public rights of way, environmental protection, police and courts, a common defense apparatus, etc. The private needs of individuals (for food, shelter, health care, etc.) are not "public needs."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 12:19 pm By assuring that no one needs to rob to survive, we protect your property. Providing food stamps for the poor benefits you personally, even if it is not obvious to you.

That's like saying handing over my money to the highwayman who sticks a gun in my ribs and demands, "Your money or your life," benefits me, because I avoid being shot. You're just advocating that the State do the robbing, on behalf of the highwayman.

As someone once said (Proudhon, I think), "At least the highwayman has the courage to commit his own robberies."

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 12:59 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2022, 12:19 pm
We cannot agree to have a law prohibiting robbery without assuring that everyone can survive without robbing others.

False premise. We certainly can have such a law, providing that anyone who robs goes to prison and stays there. No one has any duty to assure anyone else's survival. Securing the means to survive is the individual responsibility of every animal. In a human social setting you have to do it without inflicting harms or losses on others. If you can't or won't, and no one cares enough about you to help you out, you don't survive.

The source of all public needs is the real needs of the individual people who make up that society.

Er, no. The only public needs are for "public goods" --- goods that cannot be provided privately because they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, e.g., public rights of way, environmental protection, police and courts, a common defense apparatus, etc. The private needs of individuals (for food, shelter, health care, etc.) are not "public needs."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp

And who pays to feed, clothe, and shelter them in prison? Seems to me the food stamps would be a cheaper option. In any case, you seem to have already assented to provide for their private survival needs.