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

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder if IC minds all the stealing that goes on in the name of religious 'charities'.

That's an interesting assumption. You suppose that we all "owe" taxes already? Governmental theft is just build into your suppositions, then?

Take the income tax. It was introduced during WW1, with the promise that it was strictly a war measure, and that after the war, it would be withdrawn. Needless to say, the government never withdrew it. They lied. And they continued to madate income theft from the general populace perpetually afterward. But it was never voluntary, never voted on, never democratic...it was institutionalized by way of the war measures act.

And because you've always had to pay income tax, you've converted this into a "government right" to skim from your income perpetually. And you're irate that there might be people or more properly, social causes, that might escape some of this governmental grift? If the food bank supported by our local churches doesn't pay taxes, you're going to penalize them for feeding the poor voluntarily? And you're going to accuse those who are serving the poor of theft?

An interesting inversion of values. In that view, government has an "unalienable right to steal," and nobody has a right not to be stolen from...including charities, whose money serves the very social programs you claim to value?

Interesting pattern of thinking, that.

Come off it! Of course income tax was controversial once. So are other governmental taxes, policies, and platforms. So what?

Not just "controversial." To have a "controversy," you have to have allowed discussion. That never happened. It came in by legislation, under the guise of war measures. It was in no way democratic, and no "controversy" was even allowed.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, theft is defined as illegally taking someone else's property without permission.

Exactly like this.

Taxes are legal

Laws can be immoral. Remember, there were once slave laws.

Also, did you see my post about how the top 10% of U.S. citizens nab $560k per person a year out of the GDP, while the remaining 90% share $31k each (I'm quoting the number from memory).

No. But are you plugging for National Socialism, then? That would be what the Nazis stood for.

On the other hand, if you're plugging for global Socialism, then you're going to end up with something less than $10,000 per year. Explain how you're going to use that to fund a comprehensive social safety net, if you can.

[MikeNovack]

<< the conversation about income tax >>
Not just "controversial." To have a "controversy," you have to have allowed discussion. That never happened. It came in by legislation, under the guise of war measures. It was in no way democratic, and no "controversy" was even allowed.

WHAT war ????? The 16th Amendment was ratified before WWI

It was the result of 1895 Pollock vs Farmers' Loan and Trust by the Supreme Court. Passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified by enough states in 1913. Why do you think "no discussion"? You think NOT an issue in any of the Congressional campaigns in 1910 and 1912? Or in elections for state legislators? Discussion not allowed ???????

OH, you must mean the Civil War period income tax business --- but that's why I brought up Pollock. Our current income tax is post 16th Amendment.

[Immanuel Can]

<< the conversation about income tax >>
Not just "controversial." To have a "controversy," you have to have allowed discussion. That never happened. It came in by legislation, under the guise of war measures. It was in no way democratic, and no "controversy" was even allowed.

WHAT war ????? The 16th Amendment was ratified before WWI

You're in the wrong country.

But I'm sure you can find an equivalent example. They all do it: hike the taxes without a popular vote.

[Alexiev]

As I wrote earlier in this thread, theft is defined as illegally taking someone else's property without permission.

Exactly like this.

Taxes are legal

Laws can be immoral. Remember, there were once slave laws.

Also, did you see my post about how the top 10% of U.S. citizens nab $560k per person a year out of the GDP, while the remaining 90% share $31k each (I'm quoting the number from memory).

No. But are you plugging for National Socialism, then? That would be what the Nazis stood for.

On the other hand, if you're plugging for global Socialism, then you're going to end up with something less than $10,000 per year. Explain how you're going to use that to fund a comprehensive social safety net, if you can.

I'm not plugging for socialism of any kind, as should be obvious to those who can read. Instead, I am insisting that "theft" is defined as illegally taking someone's property without their permission. Since taxes are legal, they are not theft. Good grief! When you've lost an argument, just admit it, instead of dissembling.

Taxes are levied in capitalistic countries. The mere levying of taxes does not constitute "socialism", as everyone (but you) knows.

You can slink off to lick your wounds now.

[Walker]

I covered that. To avoid repetition, to say the principle in other words:

When the incomparable Padmasambhava took Buddhism to Tibet, he assimilated it into the culture, he did not not try to replace the culture with Buddhism as a conqueror in sheep's clothing, thus the amalgamation of two cultures melted together in one pot, not two separate enclaves.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not plugging for socialism of any kind,

Well, that's good.

I am insisting that "theft" is defined as illegally taking someone's property without their permission.

Which is a great description of taxes. When were you asked if you wanted to pay them?

Since taxes are legal...

So was slavery. So, in many countries, is beating your wife, and child brides, and forcible female circumcision, and revenge rape...all legal somewhere. So this proves nothing at all.

I've pointed all this out before. You're not thinking. You're just talking.

[Alexiev]

I'm not plugging for socialism of any kind,

Well, that's good.

I am insisting that "theft" is defined as illegally taking someone's property without their permission.

Which is a great description of taxes. When were you asked if you wanted to pay them?

Since taxes are legal...

So was slavery. So, in many countries, is beating your wife, and child brides, and forcible female circumcision, and revenge rape...all legal somewhere. So this proves nothing at all.

I've pointed all this out before. You're not thinking. You're just talking.

You are the one who is not thinking. I don't blame you, though. You may not be capable of thinking.

The fact that taxes are legal does not mean they are morally acceptable (although I think they are). It simply means (as I have repeated ad nauseum) that they are not theft. This is obvious. I wrote this point in clear, simple English. Taxes are NOT "illegally taking someone's property." Therefore (pay attention now) they do not constitute "theft".

Why are you arguing? There is no argument here. If you want to argue that taxes are immoral I (like slavery) or ill-conceived (like socialism) feel free. If you want to claim they are theft, you are so blatantly and obviously wrong that you make a fool of yourself. As usual.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not plugging for socialism of any kind,

Well, that's good.

I am insisting that "theft" is defined as illegally taking someone's property without their permission.

Which is a great description of taxes. When were you asked if you wanted to pay them?

Since taxes are legal...

So was slavery. So, in many countries, is beating your wife, and child brides, and forcible female circumcision, and revenge rape...all legal somewhere. So this proves nothing at all.

I've pointed all this out before. You're not thinking. You're just talking.

The fact that taxes are legal does not mean they are morally acceptable (although I think they are).

Theft is always wrong. It's commandment #7 of the big ten.

Taxes are NOT "illegally taking someone's property."

You're not getting it. "Legal" does not mean "moral" or "right." One can use the law to steal, just as one can use the law to own slaves.

There is no argument here.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

But if you don't get it, you don't get it. When you take somebody else's property, or use the government to do it for you, but don't get their permission, you're a thief. It's that simple.

[Age]

Well, that's good.


Which is a great description of taxes. When were you asked if you wanted to pay them?


So was slavery. So, in many countries, is beating your wife, and child brides, and forcible female circumcision, and revenge rape...all legal somewhere. So this proves nothing at all.

I've pointed all this out before. You're not thinking. You're just talking.

The fact that taxes are legal does not mean they are morally acceptable (although I think they are).

Theft is always wrong. It's commandment #7 of the big ten.

LOL the 'big ten'.

Here, is more further proof that if "Immanuel can" an "Islamic" upbringing, then it would be quoting the quran as the one and only true guidance for all that is right, and wrong, in Life.

Which, again, is extremely humorous to observe, and watch 'play out', here.

Taxes are NOT "illegally taking someone's property."

You're not getting it. "Legal" does not mean "moral" or "right."

LOL you are 'the one' who is not getting 'it', here, "immanuel can".

One can use the law to steal, just as one can use the law to own slaves.

There is no argument here.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

But if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Exactly, you just do not 'get it', in a lot of 'your conversations' with, and against, others, here.

When you take somebody else's property, or use the government to do it for you, but don't get their permission, you're a thief. It's that simple.

Yes. And, if you earn 'income', then you 'give permission' for governments to 'take some of it', from you.

But, if the government uses that money to make more weapons, in order to threaten, harm, maim, or kill 'others', then 'that' is not 'stealing'.

It is only when governments use 'that money' to 'help' and/or 'care for' others, with 'social services', then 'that' is 'stealing', hey "immanuel can"?

[Alexiev]

[
You're not getting it. "Legal" does not mean "moral" or "right." One can use the law to steal, just as one can use the law to own slaves.


But if you don't get it, you don't get it. When you take somebody else's property, or use the government to do it for you, but don't get their permission, you're a thief. It's that simple.

"Stealing" is the general term for taking someone's property without permission, while "theft" is the legal term for the unlawful and intentional act of taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

Thus, if you "steal" property legally, that does not constitute "theft". If you can't understand this, there is no hope for you.

[phyllo]

One can conclude that all laws are immoral because there is always someone who disagrees with the law. Unless a law gets 100% approval in which case there would not even be a need for the law.

It doesn't matter if the law is established by the declaration or king or dictator or by the vote of a democratic majority.

Is there any way around this?

So what are moral laws? Whatever God says in the Bible.

[Alexiev]

One can conclude that all laws are immoral because there is always someone who disagrees with the law. Unless a law gets 100% approval in which case there would not even be a need for the law.

It doesn't matter if the law is established by the declaration or king or dictator or by the vote of a democratic majority.

Is there any way around this?

So what are moral laws? Whatever God says in the Bible.

Laws may or may not be "immoral", but they are all coercive and enforced by violence. So if we think coercive violence is a bad thing, then we must conclude that utopia must be an anarchy. The question then becomes: can a heaven ruled by God be utopian? This is the question posed by Milton in Paradise Lost. Satan is noble for rebelling against the heavenly autocracy, but -- like rebels everywhere -- instead of abolishing autocracy he attempts to set himself up as the ruler of his own realm.

So laws (including tax laws) may be a "necessary evil". As it says in the Bible, man was born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward.

[Immanuel Can]

[
You're not getting it. "Legal" does not mean "moral" or "right." One can use the law to steal, just as one can use the law to own slaves.


But if you don't get it, you don't get it. When you take somebody else's property, or use the government to do it for you, but don't get their permission, you're a thief. It's that simple.

"Stealing" is the general term for taking someone's property without permission, while "theft" is the legal term for the unlawful and intentional act of taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

What you're not realizing is that something may be genuine theft, and still approved by the authorities. Look at all the confiscations and dispossessions during a pillaging, or during the Russian or Chinese revolutions: those were all legal, but also immoral, and totally acts of thievery.

An immoral action doesn't suddenly become moral just because some tyrannical or corrupt regime rubber-stamps it. It's still theft.

[Alexiev]

[
You're not getting it. "Legal" does not mean "moral" or "right." One can use the law to steal, just as one can use the law to own slaves.


But if you don't get it, you don't get it. When you take somebody else's property, or use the government to do it for you, but don't get their permission, you're a thief. It's that simple.

"Stealing" is the general term for taking someone's property without permission, while "theft" is the legal term for the unlawful and intentional act of taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

What you're not realizing is that something may be genuine theft, and still approved by the authorities. Look at all the confiscations and dispossessions during a pillaging, or during the Russian or Chinese revolutions: those were all legal, but also immoral, and totally acts of thievery.

An immoral action doesn't suddenly become moral just because some tyrannical or corrupt regime rubber-stamps it. It's still theft.

No it isn't. "Theft" is a legal term. All you have to do is read my definition of "theft" to see that. It may be, for careful users of language, stealing, but not theft.

[Immanuel Can]

One can conclude that all laws are immoral because there is always someone who disagrees with the law. Unless a law gets 100% approval in which case there would not even be a need for the law.

It doesn't matter if the law is established by the declaration or king or dictator or by the vote of a democratic majority.

Is there any way around this?

So what are moral laws? Whatever God says in the Bible.

Laws may or may not be "immoral", but they are all coercive and enforced by violence.

Well, human laws are. Divine laws are descriptions of the moral truth about reality, and of the consequences that naturally ensue those who detach themselves from moral reality.

So if we think coercive violence is a bad thing, then we must conclude that utopia must be an anarchy.

Socialists love coercive violence. And it's their only means of enforcing universal compliance, which they always must demand. But there are voluntary societies, and they are not anarchic or foolishly utopian, the way Socialism is. All human governance is faulty. But as has so often been repeated about democracy, it's "the worst form of government, except for every other one."

The question then becomes: can a heaven ruled by God be utopian?

No, because "utopia" means "no-place," and reflects the fevered aspiration of fallen human beings. Heaven is a promise of a reality that does not depend on faulty human beings.

So laws (including tax laws) may be a "necessary evil".

Yes, some are. But the goal of taxation should not be to generate some fatally-flawed utopia dreamed up by autocratic men. It should merely be to enable civilization. And there it should stop. This is far, far short of the forcible universal redistribution demanded by Socialism. Modest and reasonable taxation can even come about by agreement, through democratic consultation, rather than through governmental force.

But Socialism will never win on that basis. So Socialism cannot accept limited taxation or democratic consultation. It has to impose universal uniformity...which, of course, it never succeeds in doing, but kills tons of people in the trying of it.