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 18:36:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
349 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
Do they not ask you each and every time there is an election in the US?
Sure, I expect you were out-voted - but that is democracy for you!
Did Gore and Bush not present pre-election spending plans to your nation?
Will your elected representative not get a chance to debate/alter W's budget
in the new year. In that context, how can taxation be theft?
>
> 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.
But what if the land the river is on is not your own? What if your/my
forefathers took that land by force? What if they legally exploited slaves
to work it? What then? What is the basis of your wealth? Is it not your
state which provided the laws which mean your countrymen can call their
property your own?
Scott A
>
> 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 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
