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:
|
Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:33:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
272 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
> >
> > > 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".
>
> And a fine answer it is too. It follows that consenting to be governed by a
> government which demands tax is giving permission to be taxed by that
> government - ergo, taxation is not theft.
Yes, I agree, taxation of those who consent to be taxed is not theft. Where
we differ is on how one gives consent and how one goes about withholding it.
Stick with my example here...
> > 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?
> >
> Whether it has consent of the governed comes down to whether there are a
> group of individuals who accept new citizenship (i.e. acknowledge the new
> government), in which case any amount of tax _they_ pay isn't theft.
So in a country of millions of people, as long as one group, no matter how
small, consents, that's all that's needed? I don't think that's what you
meant. Consent is an individual decision, isn't it? Each person has to consent.
> Those
> who _don't_ acknowledge the new government may be deported, imprisoned or
> executed, but they subsequently don't pay that government any tax, so they
> aren't relevant to this discussion.
What about people who don't acknowledge the forcibly imposed government but
go along because the government has bigger guns? Did they consent? If so,
are you saying that you can be *forced* to give your consent, your only
choice is to die trying to withhold it? That's not much of a consent, is it?
Going along isn't the same as consenting.
What about the people who get put in prison for refusing to pay the 100% tax
but then the government confiscates all their income anyway? Didn't they
nevertheless pay the tax, contradicting your "they subsequently don't pay
any tax so aren't relevant?"
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
