Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:58:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5215 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> Christopher Weeks writes:
>
> > I have yet to hear you or any other
> > liberal disprove my assertion that taxation is thievery. (Or even to • address
> > it beyond mocking it and me.) Why should I fail to call taxation theivery? • I
> > think quite honestly that it is the most objective assessment of taxation
> > possible.
>
> I'm not calling myself a liberal, but to address this would require that one
> knows what you mean by taxation and thievery.
OK. That seems fair. I started to just answer, and then I went and looked tax
up in m-w. It says that a tax is "1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by
authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on
members of an organization to defray expenses." I basically agree. I would
say that taxation is the mandatory collection of money from the populace to
fund public projects.
Thievery is the taking property (including money) through the use of force or
stealth.
> I agree that taxation
> without representation is thievery, but I doubt that is what you are saying.
No, that's not. But I would say something close. Taxation without
volunteerism is thievery. I think that if the people want something important
done, they can get together voluntarily and do it.
As an aside, what does representation mean? I believe quite firmly that I _am_
in fact subject to taxation without representation. And so is everyone else
who lives in a district where the representitive votes differently than the
citizen themself would. The fact that on paper I am represented at the state
and national level, doesn't mean that my opinions are being represented to
those legislative bodies. And if you think the current system is good enough
to count as representation, then why not just have the representitives
appointed by the president? They would still not represent me, but doing away
with all this election mess would at least save money.
> What if there were a tax referendum and you voted for it.
Actually, I have. I have voted for school and library bond issues.
> Would you call that thievery? If so, why?
Yes. The test for whether the collection of money is thievery consists
of analyzing the result of refusal to participate. If when the nice men come
to your door and tell you that you owe the organization $x, and you say "no
thanks, I'm a bit strapped, but maybe next month" and they shoot you as a
response and take the money anyway, then it counts as thievery.
> What if a tax were being used for something that benefited everyone and
> there were no practical way to restrict the benefits only to those who
> paid the tax.
The those engaging the project should either make the tough decision of whether
it's worth it to go ahead anyway, or figure out how to make the users pay. And
I think that we can figure out how to make the users pay for just about
anything.
And there are lots of examples of when projects that benefit 'everyone' are
undertaken freely by some subset of the people. I have been involved in
highway cleanup programs. That was for the good of everyone who drives by. It
feels good to participate in stuff like that. I didn't only do it once I
secured proof that everyone else would do it too. I have also donated money
and goods to a no-kill animal shelter, as well as occasional other charitable
donations. It happens all the time.
> For example, a war tax during wartime.
I don't think that's an example. Those benefitting should have the right to
pay or not pay. Help fight or not help fight. And the army that assembles for
said war, has no obligation to protect those who don't pay up, if its a matter
of a protective action.
> Further, suppose there were a national referendum on it, and you voted
> against it, but it passed. Would you call that tax thievery?
Absolutely. Whether or not I voted against it.
> If so, why?
Because it would be collection by force.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I'm not calling myself a liberal, but to address this would require that one knows what you mean by taxation and thievery. I agree that taxation without representation is thievery, but I doubt that is what you are saying. What if there were a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
