Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
So if we take all the possessions of the black people (and we first make a law about it), it's not theft? 'Cause it ain't illegal (we made a law) and it's not performed in secret (we're very clear about it). That's insane.
no, it is not theft.
My morality and your wuold say it is wrong, but it has nothing to do with the law value or any kind of theft..
I find insane this continue mess you do with words. Calling taxation theft you do a bad work even for some of your ideas.
If you say only that you don't want taxation, because you don't like it, you don't believe it, you prefer a different law in your ideal society.. we can discuss your ideas .
But you prefer to use imaginifc words, that brings only confusion and errors. Calling theft what a law says is simply crazy..
no, it is not theft.
My morality and your wuold say it is wrong, but it has nothing to do with the law value or any kind of theft..
I find insane this continue mess you do with words. Calling taxation theft you do a bad work even for some of your ideas.
If you say only that you don't want taxation, because you don't like it, you don't believe it, you prefer a different law in your ideal society.. we can discuss your ideas .
But you prefer to use imaginifc words, that brings only confusion and errors. Calling theft what a law says is simply crazy..
No. There is individual moral responsibility.
But how can you say that when it's a scientific fact that people behave differently when there's more of them in such a situation? The more of them there is, the more diffusion of responsibility appears and the more of Bystander Effect appears. So, collective responsibility is a scientific fact and you are so blinded by your ideology that you're willing to ignore that. To use your wording: that's insane.
So if we take all the possessions of the black people (and we first make a law about it), it's not theft? 'Cause it ain't illegal (we made a law) and it's not performed in secret (we're very clear about it). That's insane.
The only thing that's insane is your logic again. The Nazis already did this and yes it was theft but they had to make a regime in which everything was insane from top down. I forgot the 3rd and the most important aspect of theft: criminal motive. I should have listed it as 1st aspect. That's why I wouldn't even call theft if someone steals food to survive. That's why we also need public kitchen with some basic food for survival. We don't need caviar there but we can always have some bread and butter for the hungry people. And that's why the law can never perform justice without a comprehensive moral view on humanity that needs to be derived from common morality. The law can never be fair if it's aimed at all possible particular views on morality. That's another insane and futile agenda of yours.
Holding somebody under gunshot and saying he's free. Nice.
That's a plain lie. There is no gunshot. Every contract you get into and sign with your own free will has a defined legal framework which includes tax. So again, don't sign any contracts and you won't have a problem with tax. It's all voluntary. ;)
But how can you say that when it's a scientific fact that people behave differently when there's more of them in such a situation? The more of them there is, the more diffusion of responsibility appears and the more of Bystander Effect appears. So, collective responsibility is a scientific fact and you are so blinded by your ideology that you're willing to ignore that. To use your wording: that's insane.
So if we take all the possessions of the black people (and we first make a law about it), it's not theft? 'Cause it ain't illegal (we made a law) and it's not performed in secret (we're very clear about it). That's insane.
The only thing that's insane is your logic again. The Nazis already did this and yes it was theft but they had to make a regime in which everything was insane from top down. I forgot the 3rd and the most important aspect of theft: criminal motive. I should have listed it as 1st aspect. That's why I wouldn't even call theft if someone steals food to survive. That's why we also need public kitchen with some basic food for survival. We don't need caviar there but we can always have some bread and butter for the hungry people. And that's why the law can never perform justice without a comprehensive moral view on humanity that needs to be derived from common morality. The law can never be fair if it's aimed at all possible particular views on morality. That's another insane and futile agenda of yours.
Holding somebody under gunshot and saying he's free. Nice.
That's a plain lie. There is no gunshot. Every contract you get into and sign with your own free will has a defined legal framework which includes tax. So again, don't sign any contracts and you won't have a problem with tax. It's all voluntary. ;)
But how can you say that when it's a scientific fact that people behave differently when there's more of them in such a situation?
I'm not denying the bystander effect. So yes, people behave differently depending on the number of people that are present in a certain situation. So what? This authorizes the state to steal?
I forgot the 3rd and the most important aspect of theft: criminal motive.
Theft is really simple: you take something away from somebody without his permission.
That's why I wouldn't even call theft if someone steals food to survive.
Of course it's theft. In some cases it's defensible, but it's still theft.
Let me put it this way: if the government decides (so democratically) to increase the taxes with 10%, and in exchange, the state buys basic products and everyone gets an equal part of that (milk, bread, water, ...). Is this theft?
There is no gunshot.
You're forgetting the monopoly on violence initiation by the state here.
Every contract you get into and sign with your own free will has a defined legal framework which includes tax.
That's wrong. I have no option to make a contract that suits both me and the other party because of the state. It's a lack of freedom. Okay, it was my 'free will' to sign it, but did I really have another option there? It's either sign such a contract or live in poverty. In theory, you might have a 'choice'. In practice, you don't. Yogi Berra.
Statists, always claiming that you have a choice.
I'm not denying the bystander effect. So yes, people behave differently depending on the number of people that are present in a certain situation. So what? This authorizes the state to steal?
I forgot the 3rd and the most important aspect of theft: criminal motive.
Theft is really simple: you take something away from somebody without his permission.
That's why I wouldn't even call theft if someone steals food to survive.
Of course it's theft. In some cases it's defensible, but it's still theft.
Let me put it this way: if the government decides (so democratically) to increase the taxes with 10%, and in exchange, the state buys basic products and everyone gets an equal part of that (milk, bread, water, ...). Is this theft?
There is no gunshot.
You're forgetting the monopoly on violence initiation by the state here.
Every contract you get into and sign with your own free will has a defined legal framework which includes tax.
That's wrong. I have no option to make a contract that suits both me and the other party because of the state. It's a lack of freedom. Okay, it was my 'free will' to sign it, but did I really have another option there? It's either sign such a contract or live in poverty. In theory, you might have a 'choice'. In practice, you don't. Yogi Berra.
Statists, always claiming that you have a choice.
LOL,
a post full of contents...
We have a saying "Wat baten kaars en bril als den uil niet zienen wil?" which basically means: if somebody refuses to learn or cooperate, what's the point in helping them?
There's no point for us to discuss. We have such a difference POV that every discussion ends exactly the same.
a post full of contents...
We have a saying "Wat baten kaars en bril als den uil niet zienen wil?" which basically means: if somebody refuses to learn or cooperate, what's the point in helping them?
There's no point for us to discuss. We have such a difference POV that every discussion ends exactly the same.
I'm not denying the bystander effect. So yes, people behave differently depending on the number of people that are present in a certain situation. So what? This authorizes the state to steal?
I am starting to think you are doing this on purpose. You manipulate with the flow of discussion constantly and become agressive when cornered with arguments.
I was proving to you that the state is not a thief. I based my argumentation on society's necessity to delegate collective responsibility in certain cases. Your reply was that collective responsibility doesn't exist. I have proven to you that it does on the example of Bystander Effect. Your reply to that can be translated as: "So what? This cannot mean that I am wrong.". I rest my case.
Theft is really simple: you take something away from somebody without his permission.
That would mean that theft is also when the stolen thing is returned back to the owner. Please, don't ever make a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.
Of course it's theft. In some cases it's defensible, but it's still theft.
It is theft but only because the law says so. But if the legal system at the same time doesn't allow for everyone to be fed, then we can argue about overall morality and justice within such a legal system. In my view, this is not theft in all cases and then I wouldn't call such a person a thief. Of course, if it's clear and can be proven that theft for this person was the only option.
You're forgetting the monopoly on violence initiation by the state here.
Well, thank God for that. Should everyone be equally entitled to make justice? What do you want? Wild west back again?
That's wrong. I have no option to make a contract that suits both me and the other party because of the state. It's a lack of freedom. Okay, it was my 'free will' to sign it, but did I really have another option there? It's either sign such a contract or live in poverty. In theory, you might have a 'choice'. In practice, you don't. Yogi Berra.
Well, it's not the state's fault that you don't have all the choices that you want. It's the concept of private property that does that. If you're born as an orphan, you don't have almost no choices whatsoever. Who's fault is that? State's again? When you're an orphan, the state is often your only hope of survival.
The state made and maintains the infrastructure that each person making money in it surely uses. Asking that it doesn't charge you anything for that service is not a valid request. Legally, morally and even logically.
I am starting to think you are doing this on purpose. You manipulate with the flow of discussion constantly and become agressive when cornered with arguments.
I was proving to you that the state is not a thief. I based my argumentation on society's necessity to delegate collective responsibility in certain cases. Your reply was that collective responsibility doesn't exist. I have proven to you that it does on the example of Bystander Effect. Your reply to that can be translated as: "So what? This cannot mean that I am wrong.". I rest my case.
Theft is really simple: you take something away from somebody without his permission.
That would mean that theft is also when the stolen thing is returned back to the owner. Please, don't ever make a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.
Of course it's theft. In some cases it's defensible, but it's still theft.
It is theft but only because the law says so. But if the legal system at the same time doesn't allow for everyone to be fed, then we can argue about overall morality and justice within such a legal system. In my view, this is not theft in all cases and then I wouldn't call such a person a thief. Of course, if it's clear and can be proven that theft for this person was the only option.
You're forgetting the monopoly on violence initiation by the state here.
Well, thank God for that. Should everyone be equally entitled to make justice? What do you want? Wild west back again?
That's wrong. I have no option to make a contract that suits both me and the other party because of the state. It's a lack of freedom. Okay, it was my 'free will' to sign it, but did I really have another option there? It's either sign such a contract or live in poverty. In theory, you might have a 'choice'. In practice, you don't. Yogi Berra.
Well, it's not the state's fault that you don't have all the choices that you want. It's the concept of private property that does that. If you're born as an orphan, you don't have almost no choices whatsoever. Who's fault is that? State's again? When you're an orphan, the state is often your only hope of survival.
The state made and maintains the infrastructure that each person making money in it surely uses. Asking that it doesn't charge you anything for that service is not a valid request. Legally, morally and even logically.
The state made and maintains the infrastructure that each person making money in it surely uses.
it's easier than this.
Property doesn't exists without state.
Whoever claim taxes are theft, forget that property is a creation of the state.. there's no property without the law.
it's easier than this.
Property doesn't exists without state.
Whoever claim taxes are theft, forget that property is a creation of the state.. there's no property without the law.
There's no point for us to discuss. We have such a difference POV that every discussion ends exactly the same.
if you think so, why are you still answering (and trolling) me?
leave me be..
if you think so, why are you still answering (and trolling) me?
leave me be..
it's easier than this.
Property doesn't exists without state.
Whoever claim taxes are theft, forget that property is a creation of the state.. there's no property without the law.
Yes, exactly. I totally forgot about this basic truth. Claiming that the state can steal is actually a catch 22 statement. If the state stops with its "stealing", there is nothing to steal any more except for maybe what you have in your pockets. ;)
edit: And even that would not be theft then because without state's law, we are left with animal law, i.e. the law of the stronger so if someone can take something away from you, this is according to the law.
(edited)
Property doesn't exists without state.
Whoever claim taxes are theft, forget that property is a creation of the state.. there's no property without the law.
Yes, exactly. I totally forgot about this basic truth. Claiming that the state can steal is actually a catch 22 statement. If the state stops with its "stealing", there is nothing to steal any more except for maybe what you have in your pockets. ;)
edit: And even that would not be theft then because without state's law, we are left with animal law, i.e. the law of the stronger so if someone can take something away from you, this is according to the law.
(edited)
I rest my case.
I said that the bystander effect exists. It's a real thing. I'm just saying that for me, the existence of that effect is not enough to defend a big state. Now you'll say you're not in favor of a big state. Well, what you consider the tasks of the government is for me big state. And in practice, your system will always lead to a higher percentage of public expenditures and taxes (% of GDP).
That would mean that theft is also when the stolen thing is returned back to the owner.
Okay, add "if it belonged to that person in the first place".
It is theft but only because the law says so.
So you agree that it is not because the law says something is legal or not that it changes the moral aspect. Okay, so that erases one argument of yours, more precisely "it's legal, we voted for it".
Should everyone be equally entitled to make justice?
No. I just don't want the state to be able to initiate violence. Taxes are an initiation of violence. The state can react with violence if a private person started using violence.
Well, it's not the state's fault that you don't have all the choices that you want. It's the concept of private property that does that.
Lol. It's not the state's fault that a contract must be made according to the state's laws. Then whose fault is it, really? Because of private property? No. It's not because of private property that I have to follow the laws of the state. It's because of the state.
I said that the bystander effect exists. It's a real thing. I'm just saying that for me, the existence of that effect is not enough to defend a big state. Now you'll say you're not in favor of a big state. Well, what you consider the tasks of the government is for me big state. And in practice, your system will always lead to a higher percentage of public expenditures and taxes (% of GDP).
That would mean that theft is also when the stolen thing is returned back to the owner.
Okay, add "if it belonged to that person in the first place".
It is theft but only because the law says so.
So you agree that it is not because the law says something is legal or not that it changes the moral aspect. Okay, so that erases one argument of yours, more precisely "it's legal, we voted for it".
Should everyone be equally entitled to make justice?
No. I just don't want the state to be able to initiate violence. Taxes are an initiation of violence. The state can react with violence if a private person started using violence.
Well, it's not the state's fault that you don't have all the choices that you want. It's the concept of private property that does that.
Lol. It's not the state's fault that a contract must be made according to the state's laws. Then whose fault is it, really? Because of private property? No. It's not because of private property that I have to follow the laws of the state. It's because of the state.
Yes, exactly. I totally forgot about this basic truth.
I already countered this. The state imposes a monopoly (money supply), and then says: "Because of this monopoly, we make sure that you can have property." I hope you see the irony.
I already countered this. The state imposes a monopoly (money supply), and then says: "Because of this monopoly, we make sure that you can have property." I hope you see the irony.
You 'forgot' to answer this:
Let me put it this way: if the government decides (so democratically) to increase the taxes with 10%, and in exchange, the state buys basic products and everyone gets an equal part of that (milk, bread, water, ...). Is this theft?
Let me put it this way: if the government decides (so democratically) to increase the taxes with 10%, and in exchange, the state buys basic products and everyone gets an equal part of that (milk, bread, water, ...). Is this theft?
I already countered this. The state imposes a monopoly (money supply), and then says: "Because of this monopoly, we make sure that you can have property." I hope you see the irony.
you look at money, but it's wrong.
ANY property is impossible without a state.
Property itself is a no-sense concept without a state.
you look at money, but it's wrong.
ANY property is impossible without a state.
Property itself is a no-sense concept without a state.
I said that the bystander effect exists. It's a real thing. I'm just saying that for me, the existence of that effect is not enough to defend a big state.
Rephrasing it won't change your manipulation. Bystander Effect show clearly that the more of the people share their responsibility for a certain action, the lesser are the chances that someone will actually take the necessary action. So, if you diffuse responsibility to infinitesimal parts, the individual parts within it become irrelevant. What remains is collective responsibility.
Taking this into consideration, it's perfectly rational to collectively assign parts of collective responsibility (well, at least the ones for which it is possible to do so) to government institutions. It is simply an ideal way of dealing with it. It is in any case better than leaving it up to the Bystander Effect.
Nobody would build roads or at least they wouldn't be done in an overall efficient way if it weren't for the state. Everyone would think that somebody else should do it and we can't choose which road to take as if it's a marketable service. Some jobs are simply natural monopolies and there is no other way to organize them than by the state's government.
Now you'll say you're not in favor of a big state. Well, what you consider the tasks of the government is for me big state. And in practice, your system will always lead to a higher percentage of public expenditures and taxes (% of GDP).
Making the state's role smaller than it is practicable is definitely not a solution and my system will not always lead to a higher percentage of GDP and even when it does, and unfortunately it often does, it is still always a lesser evil than what you advocate.
Okay, add "if it belonged to that person in the first place".
Of course. Again, it's all about the motive when it comes to crime. Ask Sherlock or Columbo. ;)
So you agree that it is not because the law says something is legal or not that it changes the moral aspect. Okay, so that erases one argument of yours, more precisely "it's legal, we voted for it".
How does this conflict my argumentation? I am claiming all along that laws must represent common morality which needs to be agreed by consensus. We get something in return for taxes, we are free to enter contracts which activate tax liability, ergo, taxes are moral and not theft. There is no evil motive and they are useful. Where do you see me claiming that taxes being legal is my argument? I am arguing that they are legal for a good reason. That's it.
No. I just don't want the state to be able to initiate violence. Taxes are an initiation of violence. The state can react with violence if a private person started using violence.
Taxes are not violence. Once again, you initiate a tax liability with certain actions because you live within a public property. We as citizens are all shareholders within our state. Because general assembly of state's shareholders decided that we all pay taxes when and if we do this or that is the reason why we have taxes. Go live in Sub-Sahara and be free from taxes if you want. Their general assembly makes different decisions or they don't make them at all as you desire.
Lol. It's not the state's fault that a contract must be made according to the state's laws. Then whose fault is it, really? Because of private property? No. It's not because of private property that I have to follow the laws of the state. It's because of the state.
Exactly. It's not the state's fault that you're within it. It's yours. You can get out if you want. The state can't move to another place. It's owned by their shareholders- the citizens. You included. Go to the general assembly and vote and if you don't like the result that much, then sell your stocks and buy different ones. Don't go finger pointing that the majority voted criminal decisions. It's simply not true.
Let me put it this way: if the government decides (so democratically) to increase the taxes with 10%, and in exchange, the state buys basic products and everyone gets an equal part of that (milk, bread, water, ...). Is this theft?
Of course not. The state simply redistributes their resources. You will get milk too. If there is corruption motive behind, then it's theft but that's abuse. Communistic ideas were not corrupted. Their motive was fair. They just led to individual corruption because they were impractical and stimulated negative selection including corruption.
(edited)
Rephrasing it won't change your manipulation. Bystander Effect show clearly that the more of the people share their responsibility for a certain action, the lesser are the chances that someone will actually take the necessary action. So, if you diffuse responsibility to infinitesimal parts, the individual parts within it become irrelevant. What remains is collective responsibility.
Taking this into consideration, it's perfectly rational to collectively assign parts of collective responsibility (well, at least the ones for which it is possible to do so) to government institutions. It is simply an ideal way of dealing with it. It is in any case better than leaving it up to the Bystander Effect.
Nobody would build roads or at least they wouldn't be done in an overall efficient way if it weren't for the state. Everyone would think that somebody else should do it and we can't choose which road to take as if it's a marketable service. Some jobs are simply natural monopolies and there is no other way to organize them than by the state's government.
Now you'll say you're not in favor of a big state. Well, what you consider the tasks of the government is for me big state. And in practice, your system will always lead to a higher percentage of public expenditures and taxes (% of GDP).
Making the state's role smaller than it is practicable is definitely not a solution and my system will not always lead to a higher percentage of GDP and even when it does, and unfortunately it often does, it is still always a lesser evil than what you advocate.
Okay, add "if it belonged to that person in the first place".
Of course. Again, it's all about the motive when it comes to crime. Ask Sherlock or Columbo. ;)
So you agree that it is not because the law says something is legal or not that it changes the moral aspect. Okay, so that erases one argument of yours, more precisely "it's legal, we voted for it".
How does this conflict my argumentation? I am claiming all along that laws must represent common morality which needs to be agreed by consensus. We get something in return for taxes, we are free to enter contracts which activate tax liability, ergo, taxes are moral and not theft. There is no evil motive and they are useful. Where do you see me claiming that taxes being legal is my argument? I am arguing that they are legal for a good reason. That's it.
No. I just don't want the state to be able to initiate violence. Taxes are an initiation of violence. The state can react with violence if a private person started using violence.
Taxes are not violence. Once again, you initiate a tax liability with certain actions because you live within a public property. We as citizens are all shareholders within our state. Because general assembly of state's shareholders decided that we all pay taxes when and if we do this or that is the reason why we have taxes. Go live in Sub-Sahara and be free from taxes if you want. Their general assembly makes different decisions or they don't make them at all as you desire.
Lol. It's not the state's fault that a contract must be made according to the state's laws. Then whose fault is it, really? Because of private property? No. It's not because of private property that I have to follow the laws of the state. It's because of the state.
Exactly. It's not the state's fault that you're within it. It's yours. You can get out if you want. The state can't move to another place. It's owned by their shareholders- the citizens. You included. Go to the general assembly and vote and if you don't like the result that much, then sell your stocks and buy different ones. Don't go finger pointing that the majority voted criminal decisions. It's simply not true.
Let me put it this way: if the government decides (so democratically) to increase the taxes with 10%, and in exchange, the state buys basic products and everyone gets an equal part of that (milk, bread, water, ...). Is this theft?
Of course not. The state simply redistributes their resources. You will get milk too. If there is corruption motive behind, then it's theft but that's abuse. Communistic ideas were not corrupted. Their motive was fair. They just led to individual corruption because they were impractical and stimulated negative selection including corruption.
(edited)
Rephrasing it won't change your manipulation.
I'm not rephrasing. I'm clarifying, because you don't seem to get my point.
It is simply an ideal way of dealing with it. It is in any case better than leaving it up to the Bystander Effect.
I disagree. I think the solution (a state with real political power) is a bigger problem than the problem itself.
Everyone would think that somebody else should do it and we can't choose which road to take as if it's a marketable service.
Why not?
How does this conflict my argumentation? I am claiming all along that laws must represent common morality which needs to be agreed by consensus.
You said that taxation isn't theft because (one of the three reasons) theft is illegal.
We as citizens are all shareholders within our state. Because general assembly of state's shareholders decided that we all pay taxes when and if we do this or that is the reason why we have taxes.
You're comparing with a company. Fine. But a company can't force its shareholders to pay for some new investment.
The state can't move to another place. It's owned by their shareholders- the citizens.
Why? Why is this land the property of the Belgian state? Why can't I proclaim my own country if my house is my property? Apparently, because the majority decides so. But what majority? Why only the Belgians? Why not include the Dutch to vote? Who defines within what context that majority must be found?
Of course not. The state simply redistributes their resources.
First of all, THEIR resources? Ar the cows their property?
Secondly, that's theft. You force somebody to 'buy' milk against his will. What if he doesn't want any?
If I force you to give me 100 euro in exchange for a pair of socks I have, is it theft? And what if 1,000 people around us agree with me, is it theft? And what if the whole Belgian population agrees with me, is it theft?
I'm not rephrasing. I'm clarifying, because you don't seem to get my point.
It is simply an ideal way of dealing with it. It is in any case better than leaving it up to the Bystander Effect.
I disagree. I think the solution (a state with real political power) is a bigger problem than the problem itself.
Everyone would think that somebody else should do it and we can't choose which road to take as if it's a marketable service.
Why not?
How does this conflict my argumentation? I am claiming all along that laws must represent common morality which needs to be agreed by consensus.
You said that taxation isn't theft because (one of the three reasons) theft is illegal.
We as citizens are all shareholders within our state. Because general assembly of state's shareholders decided that we all pay taxes when and if we do this or that is the reason why we have taxes.
You're comparing with a company. Fine. But a company can't force its shareholders to pay for some new investment.
The state can't move to another place. It's owned by their shareholders- the citizens.
Why? Why is this land the property of the Belgian state? Why can't I proclaim my own country if my house is my property? Apparently, because the majority decides so. But what majority? Why only the Belgians? Why not include the Dutch to vote? Who defines within what context that majority must be found?
Of course not. The state simply redistributes their resources.
First of all, THEIR resources? Ar the cows their property?
Secondly, that's theft. You force somebody to 'buy' milk against his will. What if he doesn't want any?
If I force you to give me 100 euro in exchange for a pair of socks I have, is it theft? And what if 1,000 people around us agree with me, is it theft? And what if the whole Belgian population agrees with me, is it theft?
I'm not rephrasing. I'm clarifying, because you don't seem to get my point.
I get your point "ab ovo" and you dance your way around my arguments again. Pathetic.
I disagree. I think the solution (a state with real political power) is a bigger problem than the problem itself.
Fine. I disagree. But if you manage to get enough votes, I will be decent enough to not call your ideas criminal. Maybe just criminally insane. ;)
Why not?
Because it would be stupid and impractical. You lack the imagination apparently.
You said that taxation isn't theft because (one of the three reasons) theft is illegal.
Cherry-picking. To use your words: I clarified that already. But it seems you like your cherry too much to let go.
You're comparing with a company. Fine. But a company can't force its shareholders to pay for some new investment.
That happens only because 1st, a company can go bust and 2nd, shareholders don't need to have equal shares at any given time. So, if a recapitalization is necessary, it can be voted that only some shareholders participate in it. If the shareholders would need to keep an equal share at any given time, then they would all need to participate equally in the recapitalization. So, you can't make nonlinear recapitalization/taxation within a state as each citizen needs to keep his only vote/share. Ergo, taxes are made on a linear principle and recapitalization is not.
Why? Why is this land the property of the Belgian state? Why can't I proclaim my own country if my house is my property? Apparently, because the majority decides so. But what majority? Why only the Belgians? Why not include the Dutch to vote? Who defines within what context that majority must be found?
Life's a bitch and then you die. Nag, nag, nag. Cause it's like that and that's the way it is. ;)
First of all, THEIR resources? Ar the cows their property?
What cows now? Didn't you say that state only buys milk from taxes and gives to people? Taxes are state's property and it can do with it whatever it wants. It can even make taxes in milk or cows. It would probably be stupid and democratically shortsighted but it can be done.
Secondly, that's theft. You force somebody to 'buy' milk against his will. What if he doesn't want any?
Shit. Now theft is also when somebody gives you something that you don't want. Where does it end? ;)
You don't have to take the milk. That's for sure. Spill it if you want.
If I force you to give me 100 euro in exchange for a pair of socks I have, is it theft? And what if 1,000 people around us agree with me, is it theft? And what if the whole Belgian population agrees with me, is it theft?
Yes. That's theft. You have no authority over me. And you didn't build roads for me. It goes the same for random 1000 people and Belgium. I only take financial orders from 4,5 millions of Croatian citizens. But if the whole Belgian population agrees and they use government institutions to collect 100 euro from you and give you a pair of socks, then yes, that would not be theft.
It would never happen either but for some reason you are amused by hypothetical improbabilities so I went along. So, we have just proven that if people would be really, really, really stupid, then even democracy wouldn't work. ;)
(edited)
I get your point "ab ovo" and you dance your way around my arguments again. Pathetic.
I disagree. I think the solution (a state with real political power) is a bigger problem than the problem itself.
Fine. I disagree. But if you manage to get enough votes, I will be decent enough to not call your ideas criminal. Maybe just criminally insane. ;)
Why not?
Because it would be stupid and impractical. You lack the imagination apparently.
You said that taxation isn't theft because (one of the three reasons) theft is illegal.
Cherry-picking. To use your words: I clarified that already. But it seems you like your cherry too much to let go.
You're comparing with a company. Fine. But a company can't force its shareholders to pay for some new investment.
That happens only because 1st, a company can go bust and 2nd, shareholders don't need to have equal shares at any given time. So, if a recapitalization is necessary, it can be voted that only some shareholders participate in it. If the shareholders would need to keep an equal share at any given time, then they would all need to participate equally in the recapitalization. So, you can't make nonlinear recapitalization/taxation within a state as each citizen needs to keep his only vote/share. Ergo, taxes are made on a linear principle and recapitalization is not.
Why? Why is this land the property of the Belgian state? Why can't I proclaim my own country if my house is my property? Apparently, because the majority decides so. But what majority? Why only the Belgians? Why not include the Dutch to vote? Who defines within what context that majority must be found?
Life's a bitch and then you die. Nag, nag, nag. Cause it's like that and that's the way it is. ;)
First of all, THEIR resources? Ar the cows their property?
What cows now? Didn't you say that state only buys milk from taxes and gives to people? Taxes are state's property and it can do with it whatever it wants. It can even make taxes in milk or cows. It would probably be stupid and democratically shortsighted but it can be done.
Secondly, that's theft. You force somebody to 'buy' milk against his will. What if he doesn't want any?
Shit. Now theft is also when somebody gives you something that you don't want. Where does it end? ;)
You don't have to take the milk. That's for sure. Spill it if you want.
If I force you to give me 100 euro in exchange for a pair of socks I have, is it theft? And what if 1,000 people around us agree with me, is it theft? And what if the whole Belgian population agrees with me, is it theft?
Yes. That's theft. You have no authority over me. And you didn't build roads for me. It goes the same for random 1000 people and Belgium. I only take financial orders from 4,5 millions of Croatian citizens. But if the whole Belgian population agrees and they use government institutions to collect 100 euro from you and give you a pair of socks, then yes, that would not be theft.
It would never happen either but for some reason you are amused by hypothetical improbabilities so I went along. So, we have just proven that if people would be really, really, really stupid, then even democracy wouldn't work. ;)
(edited)
Life's a bitch and then you die. Nag, nag, nag. Cause it's like that and that's the way it is.
Dance monkey, dance!
So, we have just proven that if people would be really, really, really stupid, then even democracy wouldn't work.
I rest my case. ;-)
I'll end it here, you are claiming I dance around my arguments, I claim the same about you, so quite frankly, I don't see the point in going further into this debate. We'll once again have to agree to disagree because of the fact that you want to impose the will of the majority on the minority while I prefer everyone to be free and to decide for himself what he wants to spent his money on.
Dance monkey, dance!
So, we have just proven that if people would be really, really, really stupid, then even democracy wouldn't work.
I rest my case. ;-)
I'll end it here, you are claiming I dance around my arguments, I claim the same about you, so quite frankly, I don't see the point in going further into this debate. We'll once again have to agree to disagree because of the fact that you want to impose the will of the majority on the minority while I prefer everyone to be free and to decide for himself what he wants to spent his money on.