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 15:59:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
283 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry handled the first step well, but I do have a couple questions.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
> Assertion: "Taxation can be referred to as theft." and that "using taxation
> to implement welfare is subsequently immoral".
>
> ...Theft is the taking of possessions without right or permission..
> Why does the government need "permission" to tax you? Isn't the "right" to
> your possessions defined/upheld by laws given by the government?
> Although
> the Old Testament states, "thou shalt not steal", does it define how to
> ascertain "right of possession", and if so, does this really apply to the
> tax you pay? Most biblical references I can recall involve a king (i.e.
> government) making the decision as to who owns what, which leaves the
> decision on tax a rather obvious one :-)
Hi Paul,
In reverse order:
Why refer to the Old Testament?
And substituting words, you ask "Why does organization-x need permission to
steal from you?" In any instance of distribution of my wealth, if I have given
permission, it is not theft. But I think that anyone who wants my wealth
should ask, rather than seize.
You state above that the "right" to possessions is defined or granted by the
government. I don't think so. And the government under which I live didn't
think so when it was created either. To reuse an idea from an earlier thread
on this topic: I believe that if I strain clay from the mud at the riverbank
(assuming I'm not stealing the mud, of course) and form a bowl from the clay,
that I, and noone else, has a right to own that bowl. This is kind of a
fundamental precept of mine. Now, if I exchange that bowl for a basket that
someone else makes, I still have sole right to own that basket.
In our society, we don't mostly make goods from mud. And we don't mostly trade
those goods for other goods. We mostly provide services and we use a medium of
exchange. But the logic is still there. Now the only justification that my
reasoning leads to, for anything resembling taxation, is that the medium of
exchange we use is based on a reputation, and it is plausible to claim that the
'owner' of the reputation -- as the issuer of the medium of exchange -- should
be able to impose a user fee for the priviledge of using that medium.
So it wouldn't be theft, it would be my option to use it or not. As long as
competing issuance was allowed. If the only option is to use ours and pay our
50% upcharge, or live like a barbarian, then there really isn't a choice.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Chris (trying not to point-by-point so much :-)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
| (...) Can it not be argued that by participating in the monetary system deployed by a government (in accordance, in the US, with the Constitution) a tax is simply a "service charge" for using goverment property (money)? That is, if you don't want to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
