The Democrats do something I agree with! And at the same time, something I don't! - Page 4

JaJae · 02-01-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Taxes are theft. Plain and simple.

Now, you or others may want to argue how that theft is legal theft, and that's fine. But it's still theft.

There's only one of two ways someone can get money from me. I can either give it freely to them. Or they can steal it from me. Since I don't freely give any money to the government (they take it on their own with witholding), it is theft.

Again, it's legal theft. But still theft.

There's no such thing as legal theft. That's like saying charging interest is theft. Any means of taking someone's money can be considered theft by such a loose definition as is being used in this thread.

I think what a lot of you guys are trying to say is that you feel taxes aren't fair. Calling it theft is a bit ridiculous. Just because you feel you shouldn't have to pay them doesn't mean it's theft.

Scrum · 02-01-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What lesson did we learn from small pox? The money the US puts into finding cures should solve it in the states first, then worry about the rest of the world.

I'm with you on this.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The money we're sending 'to Africa' for 'AIDS research' is for what? Who exactly is doing break-through work over there? Nobody; it's lining the pockets of warlords and governments. It would be better spent here in the states for the sake of real research. It's not like the African AIDS virus is that different than the American AIDS virus.

You think we just airdrop billions of dollars in with a note saying "please spend this on aids. If you are a warlord, please don't spend it"?

The money is going into areas where they can research the virus.
They have a large base to work from.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-01-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's no such thing as legal theft. That's like saying charging interest is theft. Any means of taking someone's money can be considered theft by such a loose definition as is being used in this thread.

I think what a lot of you guys are trying to say is that you feel taxes aren't fair. Calling it theft is a bit ridiculous. Just because you feel you shouldn't have to pay them doesn't mean it's theft.

The difference is that interest is a contractual obligation that is agreed on one's own accord. Taxes, on the other hand, are coercively forced.

JaJae · 02-01-2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The difference is that interest is a contractual obligation that is agreed on one's own accord. Taxes, on the other hand, are coercively forced.

Doesn't mean it's theft. Just because you have have to pay them doesn't mean it's theft. In order for it to be theft someone's rights would have to be violated, someone would have to be wronged. You have no right to not be taxed.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-01-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Doesn't mean it's theft. Just because you have have to pay them doesn't mean it's theft. In order for it to be theft someone's rights would have to be violated, someone would have to be wronged. You have no right to not be taxed.

That's a matter of opinion. If I'm being forced to hand over my money, I reckon my right to ownership is being violated.

I'm guessing you're of the opinion that ownership is a privilege and not a right, right?

JaJae · 02-01-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's a matter of opinion. If I'm being forced to hand over my money, I reckon my right to ownership is being violated.

Right to "ownership"? What?

By living in this country and under its government is how you have these "rights" you mistakenly think are being violated. And by living under this government and the rules of this government you are allowed to own land and work and live. And if you don't make enough money the government will give you some. They'll "protect" you in a lot of ways. In order for you to have these "rights" the government needs to tax people. In order for your rights to be upheld and protected the government needs to fund judicial system, a legislative system, etc etc. And all of this that goes into government has to be paid for by the people living under it. That's how a nation works. If you don't want to be a part of this nation you're free to go to some depressed part of the world where there is no government to enforce taxation laws. But being required to contribute to the society in which you live is not theft. It's called being a part of a nation.

lew · 02-01-2007, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Right to "ownership"? What?

By living in this country and under its government is how you have these "rights" you mistakenly think are being violated. And by living under this government and the rules of this government you are allowed to own land and work and live. And if you don't make enough money the government will give you some. They'll "protect" you in a lot of ways. In order for you to have these "rights" the government needs to tax people. In order for your rights to be upheld and protected the government needs to fund judicial system, a legislative system, etc etc. And all of this that goes into government has to be paid for by the people living under it. That's how a nation works. If you don't want to be a part of this nation you're free to go to some depressed part of the world where there is no government to enforce taxation laws. But being required to contribute to the society in which you live is not theft. It's called being a part of a nation.

I like it when people say that if you're against income taxes or anything of that sort, that you must be anti-American. "GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH!!!"

According to you guys, America must have fucking SUCKED before 1913.

JaJae · 02-01-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I like it when people say that if you're against income taxes or anything of that sort, that you must be anti-American. "GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH!!!"

According to you guys, America must have fucking SUCKED before 1913.

I never said you were anti-American. And if you think a pre-income American income tax government can continue to be a superpower and sustain our quality life in the global economy, I'd have to say you're severely mistaken.

lew · 02-01-2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I never said you were anti-American. And if you think a pre-income American income tax government can continue to be a superpower and sustain our quality life in the global economy, I'd have to say you're severely mistaken.

I know you never called me anti-American. But that is the sentiment that people have been saying lately.

And I could care less if we were a superpower. All superpowers eventually crumble. I'd rather be in a reliable country, than a superpower country.

JSmythe · 02-01-2007, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by lew

And I could care less if we were a superpower. All superpowers eventually crumble. I'd rather be in a reliable country, than a superpower country.

nbiggershaft · 02-01-2007, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I like it when people say that if you're against income taxes or anything of that sort, that you must be anti-American. "GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH!!!"

According to you guys, America must have fucking SUCKED before 1913.

I don't think anyone is saying 'love it or leave' it here. If you don't like the way something is done, you can try to change it. Until then, it just seems if you are going to make extreme claims like the government is 'stealing' your money, your only solution is to move elsewhere. You may as well be stomping around your front yard complaining about some homeowners association charging you a yearly fee. Was their always a fee? No. Do you want to pay the fee? No. Doesn't mean shit if all your neighbors are in a agreement, you pay or you leave.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-01-2007, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't think anyone is saying 'love it or leave' it here. If you don't like the way something is done, you can try to change it. Until then, it just seems if you are going to make extreme claims like the government is 'stealing' your money, your only solution is to move elsewhere. You may as well be stomping around your front yard complaining about some homeowners association charging you a yearly fee. Was their always a fee? No. Do you want to pay the fee? No. Doesn't mean shit if all your neighbors are in a agreement, you pay or you leave.

Democracy at its finest.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-01-2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Right to "ownership"? What?

By living in this country and under its government is how you have these "rights" you mistakenly think are being violated. And by living under this government and the rules of this government you are allowed to own land and work and live. And if you don't make enough money the government will give you some. They'll "protect" you in a lot of ways. In order for you to have these "rights" the government needs to tax people. In order for your rights to be upheld and protected the government needs to fund judicial system, a legislative system, etc etc. And all of this that goes into government has to be paid for by the people living under it. That's how a nation works. If you don't want to be a part of this nation you're free to go to some depressed part of the world where there is no government to enforce taxation laws. But being required to contribute to the society in which you live is not theft. It's called being a part of a nation.

You're mistaking right for privilege. Libertarians hold the belief that rights are inherent. Libertarians also hold the belief that rights are derived from ownership. Henceforth, everyone has a right to ownership because everyone is born owning property (in a purely libertarian sense, you have a right to life because you own your life). To be denied that right to ownership is not effectively stripping that right, but rather, it's a violation of the right. Again, rights are inherent.

As classical liberals (the worldly way of saying "libertarian"), the Founding Fathers of America held these ideals. The Declaration of Independence is almost entirely about explaining the association between ownership and rights, and how rights are inherent.

So when I say I have a right to own property, my opinion is also being backed by the foundation of this country and ultimately all of the laws within it. This country does not "allow" me to have that right. There is no such thing as "allowing" someone to have a right. It's not that I can own land because the government "allows" it, I can own land because it's an unalienable right.

Kytro · 02-01-2007, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

You're mistaking right for privilege. Libertarians hold the belief that rights are inherent. Libertarians also hold the belief that rights are derived from ownership. Henceforth, everyone has a right to ownership because everyone is born owning property (in a purely libertarian sense, you have a right to life because you own your life). To be denied that right to ownership is not effectively stripping that right, but rather, it's a violation of the right. Again, rights are inherent.

While it is an interesting concept it is only a viewpoint it isn't "truth" so to speak.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-01-2007, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

While it is an interesting concept it is only a viewpoint it isn't "truth" so to speak.

It's the most rational and fair concept. I would challenge you to prove otherwise.

nbiggershaft · 02-01-2007, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

You're mistaking right for privilege. Libertarians hold the belief that rights are inherent. Libertarians also hold the belief that rights are derived from ownership. Henceforth, everyone has a right to ownership because everyone is born owning property (in a purely libertarian sense, you have a right to life because you own your life). To be denied that right to ownership is not effectively stripping that right, but rather, it's a violation of the right. Again, rights are inherent.

As classical liberals (the worldly way of saying "libertarian"), the Founding Fathers of America held these ideals. The Declaration of Independence is almost entirely about explaining the association between ownership and rights, and how rights are inherent.

So when I say I have a right to own property, my opinion is also being backed by the foundation of this country and ultimately all of the laws within it. This country does not "allow" me to have that right. There is no such thing as "allowing" someone to have a right. It's not that I can own land because the government "allows" it, I can own land because it's an unalienable right.

I remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don't recall property rights. I also recall an ability to amend laws. And that nothing in the constitution was above being amended.

lew · 02-01-2007, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don't recall property rights. I also recall an ability to amend laws. And that nothing in the constitution was above being amended.

Read it again if you don't recall where property rights are.

nbiggershaft · 02-01-2007, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Read it again if you don't recall where property rights are.

Yep just went back over it. Unless you are citing a complaint section, didn't find it in there.