Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Gary Childress]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Are we just shit out of luck if we want the postal service or social security? Or should only people who want to pay for postal service or social security fund social security and the post office?

How is this purely "theftless" society going to operate?

Should we stop all taxation currently being conducted in our current pre-theftless societies so that justice is served? I mean I suppose that would stop wars if everyone agrees to stop taxation because militaries are currently funded by taxation. So maybe it's a good idea.

OR

Is IC being unrealistic and therefore we should reject IC as a member of our society and he can go live in a shack in the wilderness somewhere all by himself and collect berries to feed himself.

[Gary Childress]

Oh and while we're at it, perhaps we should define "Theft".

We all take things and some things are OK to take. So it's not theft just to take anything and everything. Because there are some things we can take without being "thieves". Long story short, I would therefore like to propose a working definition for the word, "theft".

Theft = The unjustified taking of something that belongs to someone else.

If something is justifiably taken from someone else, then it is not theft. For example: if someone threatens to shoot up a school and authorities or others take away his gun without his agreeing to it, so that he cannot carry out his plan, that is not "theft" because it is justified.

Do we all agree to that definition of the word theft.

Let's use an example: Let's say we're going to form a society, those of us here at PN. We're all going to come together and come to agreement on how OUR society should be run because that is the democratic way of doing things. Since we're at an impasse because IC refuses to allow our society to tax everyone equally to pay for the Philosophy Now Society news letter, how do we administer a newsletter to keep our dispersed members informed. Should it be done on a voluntary basis until the people funding it get tired of funding it (at which point the newsletter goes defunct) Or should we just do without a newsletter at all?

Now to tie it to real life, what if we were a group of people forming a new democratic society and wanted a police force to administer justice for our society. How should we raise money to pay for police officers and judges? Or should we not have police officers and judges?

Thoughts?

[phyllo]

There is a fee charged to participate in a society. Taxes are how that fee is collected.

You don't want to pay, you're not allowed to play.

[Gary Childress]

There is a fee charged to participate in a society. Taxes are how that fee is collected.

You don't want to pay, you're not allowed to play.

That reminds me of Ayn Rand. Rand didn't believe in social security and taxing people to create it. But she cooperated with authorities and paid her dues. Then, in old age, Rand experienced financial problems and low and behold social security came to her rescue and she collected social security to keep herself afloat in retirement.

Of course, Rand, the ignoramus that she was, stated that she still didn't believe social security was justified even after it saved her from destitution. However, she "gracioiusly" agreed to take the social security given to her exclaiming, "I paid for it, therefore I should get it." To this day I'm not aware that Rand ever modified her opinion on Social Security. She maintained until the very end that it was an improper duty of government.

People should not be ignoramuses like Ayn Rand. I still don't know why some people still read her garbage.

[Age]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

But, does "immanuel can" think or believe it is 'stealing" when 'tax money' is used for weapons manufacturing for "its side", or, for when promoting "christian education"?

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Are we just shit out of luck if we want the postal service or social security? Or should only people who want to pay for postal service or social security fund social security and the post office?

It could be said and argued that if people want to 'post some thing', then they can pay for that service, "themselves", and not rely on 'taxed dollars' to do so.

But, because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money. So, it could be said, and argued, then for some services, like healthcare and/or education, then paying for them is a shared responsibility. For the very simple fact that some jobs, in Life, are not paid equally, or as much as others are.

Which, by the way, the inequity of 'pay rates' around the word, in the days when this is being written, is absolutely staggering unfair and unjust. But, 'this' is 'the world' you adult human beings want, and are creating.

Imagine being such a stupid species that you pay the ones who do would do what they do for nothing, that is, pay those who who play games/sports or who entertain, the most amount of money, but then pay the ones who do the actual work, in Life, that is actually necessary the least amount of money, that is, those who pick up your rubbish for you,, build your houses for you, cook for you, clean up after you and for you, and/or look after or care for you, or for your children.

The actual Truly necessary jobs, in Life, get paid the littlest, while the completely unnecessary jobs, in Life, get paid the most. Yet, some of you wonder wonder why 'the world' is 'backwards', or in decline. Some times some people can not see the 'blatantly obvious', even when 'it' is 'staring them in the face', as some say.

How is this purely "theftless" society going to operate?

Should we stop all taxation currently being conducted in our current pre-theftless societies so that justice is served?

'Shoulds' can turn people off listening, and following.

Is there absolutely any thing that you human beings 'should' be doing, in Life? Or, are you all born absolutely free to choose and do absolutely any thing at all that 'you' like?

Now, that 'you' all 'grow up' doing what 'you' all know, instinctively, is what is Wrong, in Life, is another matter. Which, by the way, when addressed openly, honestly, and fully, will guide 'you' human beings, back, to doing only what is Right, in Life, which, in turn, will start creating 'the actual world' that 'you' all want, desire, and deserve.

Creating an up lift in 'the world', and thus stopping the 'current decline' of 'the world', in the days when this is being written.

I mean I suppose that would stop wars if everyone agrees to stop taxation because militaries are currently funded by taxation. So maybe it's a good idea.

OR

Is IC being unrealistic and therefore we should reject IC as a member of our society and he can go live in a shack in the wilderness somewhere all by himself and collect berries to feed himself.

Or, 'you' human beings can 'look at', and 'see', things in 'other ways'.Until 'you', also, find the True, and Right way, in Life.

[Gary Childress]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

But, does "immanuel can" think or believe it is 'stealing" when 'tax money' is used for weapons manufacturing for "its side", or, for when promoting "christian education"?

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Are we just shit out of luck if we want the postal service or social security? Or should only people who want to pay for postal service or social security fund social security and the post office?

It could be said and argued that if people want to 'post some thing', then they can pay for that service, "themselves", and not rely on 'taxed dollars' to do so.

But, because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money. So, it could be said, and argued, then for some services, like healthcare and/or education, then paying for them is a shared responsibility. For the very simple fact that some jobs, in Life, are not paid equally, or as much as others are.

Which, by the way, the inequity of 'pay rates' around the word, in the days when this is being written, is absolutely staggering unfair and unjust. But, 'this' is 'the world' you adult human beings want, and are creating.

Imagine being such a stupid species that you pay the ones who do would do what they do for nothing, that is, pay those who who play games/sports or who entertain, the most amount of money, but then pay the ones who do the actual work, in Life, that is actually necessary the least amount of money, that is, those who pick up your rubbish for you,, build your houses for you, cook for you, clean up after you and for you, and/or look after or care for you, or for your children.

The actual Truly necessary jobs, in Life, get paid the littlest, while the completely unnecessary jobs, in Life, get paid the most. Yet, some of you wonder wonder why 'the world' is 'backwards', or in decline. Some times some people can not see the 'blatantly obvious', even when 'it' is 'staring them in the face', as some say.

How is this purely "theftless" society going to operate?

Should we stop all taxation currently being conducted in our current pre-theftless societies so that justice is served?

'Shoulds' can turn people off listening, and following.

Is there absolutely any thing that you human beings 'should' be doing, in Life? Or, are you all born absolutely free to choose and do absolutely any thing at all that 'you' like?

Now, that 'you' all 'grow up' doing what 'you' all know, instinctively, is what is Wrong, in Life, is another matter. Which, by the way, when addressed openly, honestly, and fully, will guide 'you' human beings, back, to doing only what is Right, in Life, which, in turn, will start creating 'the actual world' that 'you' all want, desire, and deserve.

Creating an up lift in 'the world', and thus stopping the 'current decline' of 'the world', in the days when this is being written.

I mean I suppose that would stop wars if everyone agrees to stop taxation because militaries are currently funded by taxation. So maybe it's a good idea.

OR

Is IC being unrealistic and therefore we should reject IC as a member of our society and he can go live in a shack in the wilderness somewhere all by himself and collect berries to feed himself.

Or, 'you' human beings can 'look at', and 'see', things in 'other ways'.Until 'you', also, find the True, and Right way, in Life.

OK. Age, thank you for replying and giving us your opinion.

[Age]

Oh and while we're at it, perhaps we should define "Theft".

We all take things and some things are OK to take.

Will you provide examples?

If no, then why not?

So it's not theft just to take anything and everything. Because there are some things we can take without being "thieves". Long story short, I would therefore like to propose a working definition for the word, "theft".

I would like to know what 'you' can take without that taking being theft.

Theft = The unjustified taking of something that belongs to someone else.

Can you 'take', of something, that belongs to 'you'?

If no, then 'the taking', is always from someone else. Which you also claimed is some times okay, right?

If something is justifiably taken from someone else, then it is not theft. For example: if someone threatens to shoot up a school and authorities or others take away his gun without his agreeing to it, so that he cannot carry out his plan, that is not "theft" because it is justified.

If you can 'take' from each other, justifiably, only after one threatens, then is it 'okay' or not 'okay' to 'take' before one threatens?

And, can 'I', for example, 'take' 'your life', from 'you', if 'you' threaten?

Also, what 'kind of threats' are deemed 'justifiable', to then start 'taking', and what 'kinds of taking' are then 'justifiable', exactly?

Do we all agree to that definition of the word theft.

Is the relativity of the words, 'justifiable' and/or 'unjustifiable', even able to be obtained, defined, and agreed upon, considering the innumerable or infinite amount of different variables and possibilities, here?

Let's use an example: Let's say we're going to form a society, those of us here at PN. We're all going to come together and come to agreement on how OUR society should be run because that is the democratic way of doing things.

To me anyway, any claim of, 'how things 'should' be run', will fail before it even begins.

Since we're at an impasse because IC refuses to allow our society to tax everyone equally to pay for the Philosophy Now Society news letter, how do we administer a newsletter to keep our dispersed members informed.

Informed of 'what', exactly?

Should it be done on a voluntary basis until the people funding it get tired of funding it (at which point the newsletter goes defunct) Or should we just do without a newsletter at all?

Why are you so persistent with the 'shoulds', here?

And, what are the 'should' words, here, even in relation 'to', exactly?

Now to tie it to real life,

Now, just so that I have some thing to compare 'real life' to, what is 'unresl life', exactly?

what if we were a group of people forming a new democratic society and wanted a police force to administer justice for our society.

But, usually the police 'force' mostly just 'enforce' people to stop doing things against the human being made up laws. So-called 'justice' is then 'administered' by 'the courts'.

Which are obviously things that have not worked for thousands of thousands of years in bring about a Truly peaceful and harmonious loving world.

How should we raise money to pay for police officers and judges? Or should we not have police officers and judges?

Well considering the Fact that so-called "police officers" nor "judges" are actually needed, in Life, how about 'we' do away with 'them'. Thus leaving any issue or question about so-called 'raising money' 'fall by the way side', as it might be said?

Thoughts?

'They' have, already, been provided.

[Age]

There is a fee charged to participate in a society. Taxes are how that fee is collected.

You don't want to pay, you're not allowed to play.

That reminds me of Ayn Rand. Rand didn't believe in social security and taxing people to create it. But she cooperated with authorities and paid her dues. Then, in old age, Rand experienced financial problems and low and behold social security came to her rescue and she collected social security to keep herself afloat in retirement.

Of course, Rand, the ignoramus that she was, stated that she still didn't believe social security was justified even after it saved her from destitution. However, she "gracioiusly" agreed to take the social security given to her exclaiming, "I paid for it, therefore I should get it." To this day I'm not aware that Rand ever modified her opinion on Social Security. She maintained until the very end that it was an improper duty of government.

People should not be ignoramuses like Ayn Rand. I still don't know why some people still read her garbage.

Did know that it was so-called 'garbage' until you read it?

If either 'yes' or 'no', then 'the reason/s' why you read 'those writings is probably the 'exact same reason/s' why other people, still, read 'those writings'.

[Gary Childress]

There is a fee charged to participate in a society. Taxes are how that fee is collected.

You don't want to pay, you're not allowed to play.

That reminds me of Ayn Rand. Rand didn't believe in social security and taxing people to create it. But she cooperated with authorities and paid her dues. Then, in old age, Rand experienced financial problems and low and behold social security came to her rescue and she collected social security to keep herself afloat in retirement.

Of course, Rand, the ignoramus that she was, stated that she still didn't believe social security was justified even after it saved her from destitution. However, she "gracioiusly" agreed to take the social security given to her exclaiming, "I paid for it, therefore I should get it." To this day I'm not aware that Rand ever modified her opinion on Social Security. She maintained until the very end that it was an improper duty of government.

People should not be ignoramuses like Ayn Rand. I still don't know why some people still read her garbage.

Did know that it was so-called 'garbage' until you read it?

If either 'yes' or 'no', then 'that' is probably why people, still, read 'those writings'.

The professors in the philosophy department where I studied philosophy used to joke about how immoral Rand was. I agree with them. Do you think it's intelligent to demand that social security not be funded and then find yourself grateful for having it when it is funded but still maintaining that you were right to oppose social security? That sounds idiotic to me. Or maybe you can explain to me how Ayn Rand was right to oppose social security?

[Gary Childress]

Oh and while we're at it, perhaps we should define "Theft".

We all take things and some things are OK to take.

Will you provide examples?

Will you please go back and read more carefully what I wrote? I gave an example of the very thing you are asking me whether or not I gave an example of.

[phyllo]

Do you think it's intelligent to demand that social security not be funded and then find yourself grateful for having it when it is funded but still maintaining that you were right to oppose social security? That sounds idiotic to me. Or maybe you can explain to me how Ayn Rand was right to oppose social security?

I suppose that if she was able to structure society, then she would exclude social security. If she needed financial help then she would approach family and friends. If they didn't help, then she would go to a charity and if that didn't work she would be destitute.

But since she lived in a society with social security which she paid for with taxes, then she used it. Seems pretty normal.

[Gary Childress]

Do you think it's intelligent to demand that social security not be funded and then find yourself grateful for having it when it is funded but still maintaining that you were right to oppose social security? That sounds idiotic to me. Or maybe you can explain to me how Ayn Rand was right to oppose social security?

I suppose that if she was able to structure society, then she would exclude social security. If she needed financial help then she would approach family and friends. If they didn't help, then she would go to a charity and if that didn't work she would be destitute.

But since she lived in a society with social security which she paid for with taxes, then she used it. Seems pretty normal.

It might be normal but I would hardly call that the mark of a philosophical "great". Milton Friedman admired Ayn Rand. Many economists have admired Ayn Rand. I've read part of one of her books and had people who have read her books and been sympathetic to her beliefs tell me what was in them. They don't seem like very good quality thought or writing to me. But, maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe everyone should read everything written to find out for themselves what is worthwhile and what isn't and not take commentary form qualified academics seriously. I don't know. I happened to believe what my professors said. I still questioned a lot of things and raised objections to some of my professors but overall, I think they were pretty intelligent and taught quality education.

[phyllo]

One reads Rand to get a different perspective on the relationship between individual and society.

Professors may have another perspective.

[Gary Childress]

One reads Rand to get a different perspective on the relationship between individual and society.

Professors may have another perspective.

Yeah. And a lot of people run around and shout "taxes are theft" because the famous Ayn Rand said so. So her minions run around espousing things that are absurd. Are we not supposed to challenge them before they end up destroying society? I guess I'm not understanding how my professors misguided anyone by not taking Ayn Rand very seriously.

[phyllo]

One ought to know why one is taking a particular position.

And not just because some professors said so.