Subject:
|
Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:57:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
261 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
Yes, this *is* old ground. It's a fundamental difference in premise about
what the proper form of society is, actually.
> Apologies if I'm plowing old ground here, I spent a while looking for the
> original source of this discussion but couldn't find it (possibly due to the
> fact that I'm using an NNTP reader - does it thread in the web version?).
>
> Assertion: "Taxation can be referred to as theft." and that "using taxation
> to implement welfare is subsequently immoral".
>
> These assertions sound, to my ears, ridiculous. Theft is the taking of
> possessions without right or permission (paraphrased from dictionary.com).
> Why does the government need "permission" to tax you?
This is the root of the question indeed. The conventional answer is that
"legitimate governments govern with the consent of the governed".
As a very first step, let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose Australia
is suddenly invaded by a hostile foreign power and this power institutes a
government. Is that government legitimate? Does it have consent of the governed?
Suppose that government (it *is*, after all, the defacto government of
Australia, instituted by force) institutes a 100% taxation policy. Is that
taxation theft? If so, why and if not, why not?
Think about that for a while, and I'll move with you to the next step (or
Chris or Frank can).
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
