Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
No, for the reasons I've already pointed out. Taxes are arbitrary constructs of government, not natural laws or logical principles. The "consequences" of refusing to pay them are artificial, not automatic or rational. They could be otherwise. In fact, they could not exist at all.
So it's not "automatic" that government would fail without taxes...
Gary, is your impression that government isn't a human construct? Do you think it's some kind of "natural" law? Do you think people can't survive unless they pay taxes?
They can. For example, income tax in N. America was only introduced as a temporary measure (allegedly) during the American Civil War, to finance it. Before that, there was no such thing. In Canada, it never appeared until WW1, for the same reason.
And yet, people lived. Civilizations grew. Crops got planted. Houses got built. Art was created. Music was written. Children were educated. There were even hospitals.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:24 pm
It didn't "come up." You decided to use it as some kind of analogy, actually...though it wasn't a very good one, obviously. God has no taxes, and taxes are arbitrary constructs of government.
We were discussing the word "force," if I recall. And I think you thought talk of "taxes" would somehow illuminate something. Then you lost your own point, apparently, because it seems it didn't illuminate anything.
It came up because "socialism" requires taxes
Well, Socialism "requires" many things to which it is not entitled.
So taxes in order to sustain things like highways and social programs are things that governments is not "entitled" to ask for. Is your view then that taxes to raise armies is something governments are not "entitled" to or is it OK to raise armies but not to maintain quality of life programs for the elderly or sick or to better facilitate commerce?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:35 pm
No, for the reasons I've already pointed out. Taxes are arbitrary constructs of government, not natural laws or logical principles. The "consequences" of refusing to pay them are artificial, not automatic or rational. They could be otherwise. In fact, they could not exist at all.
So it's not "automatic" that government would fail without taxes...
Gary, is your impression that government isn't a human construct? Do you think it's some kind of "natural" law? Do you think people can't survive unless they pay taxes?
They can. For example, income tax in N. America was only introduced as a temporary measure (allegedly) during the American Civil War, to finance it. Before that, there was no such thing. In Canada, it never appeared until WW1, for the same reason.
And yet, people lived. Civilizations grew. Crops got planted. Houses got built. Art was created. Music was written. Children were educated. There were even hospitals.
Surprising, isn't it?
All governments need taxes to sustain themselves. Before income taxes, the Canadian government got it's income from tariffs and taxes on manufacturers. The US government sustained itself in part through selling land taken from native Americans to people who wanted to buy it. Not sure about Canada, but in the US the poorest effectively don't pay any taxes now and taxes are progressive based on income (though not necessarily wealth). So those complaining most about taxes are often those with comparatively high incomes. But taxes could be based on wealth instead of income, but my guess is that you would still consider them immoral.
Last edited by Gary Childress on Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:35 pm
Well, Socialism "requires" many things to which it is not entitled.
So taxes in order to sustain things like highways and social programs
We've had this discussion before, and it's boring.
Have you got anything actually relevant to the question of "force" to say?
Well, you seem to have complained that the questions I've asked about "force" are "irrelevant" or "off topic" so are you changing your mind on that? Is it OK now to discuss what is "force" and what isn't?
Is force not required to enact punishment on a person if they refuse to be punished?
Sure. What's your point?
So if someone refuses to go to Hell, does God then send them there against their will (provided that is where God deems them fit to be)?
Gary, let's get at this question a better way.
Let's suppose a man says to you, "I hate God; I want nothing to do with Him." Moreover, he says, "I don't recognize any of his good gifts to me as good or as His gifts."
Now, let's suppose we wish to honour that man's wishes, in spite of his foolishness. We can see that he's looking for a place to be with no relation to God, and none of God's gifts. Dumb, but let's give it to him.
Where does he wish to go? Name the place best suited to the demands of such a man.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:07 pm
Sure. What's your point?
So if someone refuses to go to Hell, does God then send them there against their will (provided that is where God deems them fit to be)?
Gary, let's get at this question a better way.
Let's suppose a man says to you, "I hate God; I want nothing to do with Him." Moreover, he says, "I don't recognize any of his good gifts to me as good or as His gifts."
Now, let's suppose we wish to honour that man's wishes, in spite of his foolishness. We can see that he's looking for a place to be with no relation to God, and none of God's gifts. Dumb, but let's give it to him.
Where does he wish to go? Name the place best suited to the demands of such a man.
I don't know. What are the choices of places he could go? If all that is available is Heaven or Hell, then should a man whose worst crimes are not being devout to God and committing minor traffic infractions go to Hell or should he go to Heaven? Which do you think is fit for such a person? Or are there alternatives other than Heaven and Hell?
So if someone refuses to go to Hell, does God then send them there against their will (provided that is where God deems them fit to be)?
Gary, let's get at this question a better way.
Let's suppose a man says to you, "I hate God; I want nothing to do with Him." Moreover, he says, "I don't recognize any of his good gifts to me as good or as His gifts."
Now, let's suppose we wish to honour that man's wishes, in spite of his foolishness. We can see that he's looking for a place to be with no relation to God, and none of God's gifts. Dumb, but let's give it to him.
Where does he wish to go? Name the place best suited to the demands of such a man.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:14 pm
Gary, let's get at this question a better way.
Let's suppose a man says to you, "I hate God; I want nothing to do with Him." Moreover, he says, "I don't recognize any of his good gifts to me as good or as His gifts."
Now, let's suppose we wish to honour that man's wishes, in spite of his foolishness. We can see that he's looking for a place to be with no relation to God, and none of God's gifts. Dumb, but let's give it to him.
Where does he wish to go? Name the place best suited to the demands of such a man.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:25 pm
God knows.
If there's a God, then that is possibly true.
I think you know, too, Gary. There's only one sort of place that honours the demands of that kind of man. I think you can see how automatic that is.
Can you make it more clear what you think is the "only one" sort of place that man belongs or "wants" to go? It's not clear to me. Heck, maybe there are several places that would "honor" such a man.
