To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8342
8341  |  8343
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 18:43:45 GMT
Viewed: 
286 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
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?

It is not hypothetical, Britain did this in 1788. They stopped paying their
tax to the UK a while back though... we keep a tab. :-)

Scott A


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 is in Reply To:
  Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
 
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. (...) This is the root of the question indeed. The conventional answer is that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

29 Messages in This Thread:









Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR