Taxation is violent robbery.

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

LuckyR wrote: April 16th, 2021, 2:07 am Ok, so you abhor violence, therefore I guess there are no taxes, thus no services. Hope your house doesn't catch fire...

Oh BTW, there's no internet, nor snail mail, so we'll be running the Forum by homing pigeon and smoke signals.

Though you get to keep your money... except that there is no longer money. But at least you don't have to pay taxes, whoo hoo.
If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), you are agreeing with me that taxation by big governments is violent robbery, but then you are also making the claim that non-defensive violence (in this case violent robbery) is needed for fire services, the internet, and money to exist; Is that a correct understanding of what you are trying to say?


***
Steve3007 wrote: April 16th, 2021, 5:53 am
Scott wrote:It seems like you be committing the false dichotomy fallacy...
I take your point and I can see why you think I might be committing that false dichotomy fallacy. It is perfectly possible that taxation is necessary violent robbery. So I'll clarify by saying that I don't believe it is violent robbery, and I believe that it is necessary to pay for public services, but I believe those two things separately, so saying both of them together doesn't mean I'm implying mutual exclusivity.

I can see your argument for claiming that it is violent robbery (because we are forced to pay using threats up to and including prison), and it's an interesting and thought-provoking point to make. But I come back to a general belief I have about language: that it should be useful. I don't think it's useful to place taxation in the classification "violent robbery"...
The term concentration camps was originally a euphemism meant to sound better than prisons.

Likewise, I assume an advocate of rape would find a different label more useful. An advocate of rape might respond with misunderstanding, complaints, emotions, and denials when we point out that the rape is rape, in addition to whatever other euphemisms the rape-advocate would use to support the rape.

It's fine to prefer more "useful" labels or more euphemistic labels over other ones. In other words, it's agreeable for you to say that you find the label taxation more useful and/or euphemistic and/or less prone to misunderstanding and/or less prone to emotional cognitive dissonance when dealing with other people. In a similar pattern, it is often that case that using any word over 5 letters may be non-useful depending on to whom one is speaking, such as if one finds oneself around kindergartners. But there is big difference between saying X (e.g. "non-consensual sex" is a more useful label than Y (e.g. "rape") for Z (e.g. "what John did to Mary last night") versus saying that Z (e.g. "what John did to Mary last night") is not a case of Y ("rape"). In other words, being a less useful synyonm is not remotely the same as being untrue.

As far as dis-usefulness goes, it is even more dis-useful to say that "taxation is not violent robbery", namely since it clearly is violent robbery, if we ignore any utter misunderstanding and reading the between the lines.

It's one thing to prefer calling a prison a "concentration camp" because you think it's more useful or to prefer calling a certain type of rape "non-consensual sex" because you think it is at least in that situation more useful or less likely to leadto misunderstanding or reading-between-the-lines. But to take that preference for usefulness and say that a concentration camp is not a prison (e.g. because it's necessary) is simply counter-factual. It is both.

Steve3007 wrote: April 16th, 2021, 5:53 am ... it obviously has very negative connotations. People generally parse a statement like "taxation is violent robbery" to mean something similar to "I am strongly against taxation". Although you could argue that that's their problem for incorrectly reading between the lines.
I ask to focus on the denotation not someone's connotation, but regardless I don't think it's correct to say that generally people parse "taxation is violent robbery" to mean something similar to "I am strongly against taxation". Some people might read between the lines in that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they are reading between the lines, and it doesn't change the fact that what was actually said is utterly true.

Granted, you can argue that it's more useful language that is less likely to be misunderstood (and/or less likely to be received emotionally) such as by calling a prison a "concentration camp" or calling a rape "non-consensual sex" or referring to kids in cages as "unaccompanied migrant children in overflow facilities". But that alleged usefulness of the more euphemistic language doesn't make the less euphemistic language untrue.

Usefulness may not be binary, but truth is. Having allegedly more useful synonyms to say the same thing does remotely make the allegedly less useful way untrue.

There are kids in cages.

Non-consensual sex is rape.

And taxation is violent robbery.

Steve3007 wrote: April 16th, 2021, 6:06 am
Scott wrote:1. Taxation is violent robbery.
2. Taxation is a levy that finances the things we need to do collectively.

I don't agree with #2, but even if I did, it seems irrelevant to me because the above is a false dichotomy. Logically speaking, it's possible for both #1 and #2 to be true.
So if we agree that the above is not presented as a dichotomy but as two separate propositions whereby we can consistently agree with all, any or none of them, I'm interested in why you disagree with #2.
The primary reason is that I don't believe we "need to do" anything ever.

When it comes to choices, I believe in the concepts of can and cannot, and, from can, the concepts of do or do not. In that way, each person is 100% in control of their own choices.

I elaborate and explain that concept a bit more in my topic Man Is Not Fit To Govern Man.


***

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 16th, 2021, 8:56 am
Scott wrote: April 14th, 2021, 10:07 pm Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.
Pattern-chaser wrote: April 15th, 2021, 12:51 pm I disagree. Taxation is a levy that finances the things we need to do collectively.
Scott wrote: April 15th, 2021, 5:28 pm ...the rich not only get richer from not having to pay for trillions of dollars of violent government spending...

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. You aren't saying that taxation is violent, you're saying that the proceeds of taxation are used by your government to commit acts of violence.
I am saying both, but primarily I am saying the former.

A big government uses the threat of violence to coerce people to give it money (i.e. commits violent robbery). Incidentally, it also then uses that money to fund other non-defensive violence, such as but not limited to the war on drugs like marijuana.

But even if it buys cupcakes for girl-scouts with the profits of its robbery, the robbery itself was violent.

Ask a pacifist in prison for pacifistic tax protesting and they can describe the violence they endured at the hands of the government and its agents, assuming the pacifist doesn't get shot during the violent arrest.

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 15th, 2021, 12:51 pm I still disagree that taxation is robbery, but I understand the "violent" part now.
Why do you disagree? What quality do you believe robbery must have that taxation by a state, national, or global government doesn't?

Keep in mind, the OP does exclude highly localized pseudo-taxation such as the condo fees or rents charged by a condo community or the so-called property "taxes" charged by small town or the rents charge by a mom to their adult child living in the basement. In other words, I refer only to taxes by big government.


***
Steve3007 wrote: April 16th, 2021, 9:05 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. You aren't saying that taxation is violent, you're saying that the proceeds of taxation are used by your government to commit acts of violence. And I must agree; that is a fact. Your country spends more on killing, and the machinery to accomplish it, than all other nations on Earth put together.
That's not my interpretation of what he meant. I thought he meant simply that taxes are extracted with the threat of [violent] punishment for non-compliance, and he views that as a threat of violence.
Yes, that's what I meant.

It is in the same sense that the war on drugs is violent.

Legal scholar Stephen L. Carter wrote an interesting article for Bloomberg explaining how laws that require enforcement are inherently violent: Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner

Needless to say, when a big government like the USA government makes a law ordering someone to pay money to them or to not grow marijuana, that is not like a request such a begger on street saying, "please give me money if you will". Rather, it is a demand that you do what they order you do (e.g. give them money) and not do what they have ordered you not to do (e.g. grow marijuana) under the threat that if you disobey they will use non-defensive violence against you.


***
Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm
Scott wrote: April 15th, 2021, 11:41 pm
Each person has their own opinions and way of deciding what kind of violence they personally support if any, but for me I can't at all imagine for myself even starting to think it matters whether or not the violence is state-sanctioned. The Nazi murdering of Jews among other victims was state-sanctioned, to be philosophically cliché.

To me, what matters is whether the violence is non-defensive or not.

I'm sorry if the OP was not clear about that.

All laws are violent and coersive.
I absolutely agree.

I already linked to it earlier in this post, but nonetheless there is a good article by legal scholar Stephen L. Carter published in Bloomberg explaining how laws that require enforcement are inherently violent: Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner
Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm If violent coersion is (ipso facto) a bad thing, utopia must be an anarchy.
Perhaps, but I do want to note that I do believe in "bad" or 'evil', and I don't advocate for pipe dream utopias.

There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy. So there is no is-ought problem my philosophy either.

I just talk about what is.

And there is a lot to talk about. Look at how much there is to say just about the four word sentence, "Taxation is violent robbery."


Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm We can certainly make the argument that taxation is "defensive violence". Without taxes funding the police more people would doubtless drive at 50 mph in school zones. More people would probably murder other people, or assault them, or rape them.
The way I would categorize the term defensive, taxation is not defensive even if used to fund defensive endeavors.

In analogy, if I kill an innocent child to sell the child's organs on the black market and then donate the money to the local police department, I do not think that my killing of the innocent child is defensive, even though my donation to the police department could be construed as funding defense, assuming those police enforce laws against non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, etc.) rather than engage in non-defensive violence themselves by enforcing laws against victimless consensual behaviors (e.g. laws against marijuana). Simply put, my hypothetical killing of that hypothetical child to sell her organs to fund the police would be murder, not defense.

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm Obviously state sanctioned violence (per your example) can be evil.
You are welcome to believe that. Nonetheless, incidentally, I don't personally believe in evil.

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm It seems to me you are over-simplifying the issue.
How so?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

If taxation in the USA is violent robbery, are you with the US robbers or with the US robbed or with both?

Scott, you identify the robbers but normally robbers don't allow their victims to know who they are.

Normally, once robbers are identified, they are in troubles. Well, is your interest in identifying robbers comes from an interest in playing cop? If not then where does your interest come from in picking on some groups and perhaps tarnishing them? If yes, you want to play cop then what authority have you got to do so?
I think you have at some point mentioned being an anarchist and therefore in no need of anyone's permission, like a wild animal.
That can be bad too. It's just a matter of knowing what's worst, no?

You do pretty well running this site and obviously are an intelligent person interested in fairness but unfortunately not all anarchists are this way in my experience.

My understanding is that countries are like applications that people rally around but not necessarily by choice. Anyway, applications aren't perfect or work for everyone and unlike with an app, you can't just switch as you want but all app need some ressource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery. Whatever food animals in your country are subjected to is much more of a concern if you are concerned about violence, and everyone but vegans engage in that.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Hi, Empiricist-Bruno,

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm If taxation in the USA is violent robbery, are you with the US robbers or with the US robbed or with both?
I'm not sure what you mean by "with". Can you explain that a bit more to me?

Most literally, I am with my kids and wife in Connecticut, and we just finished watching one of the Kong movies together. I assume that's not what you mean, though.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm Scott, you identify the robbers but normally robbers don't allow their victims to know who they are.

Normally, once robbers are identified, they are in troubles.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by normally, but assuming you just mean usually, as in more often than not, then I'm not sure those two statements are true. They might be. Regardless, I am not sure it's particularly relevant.

It's definitely not uncommon for robbers to attempt to hide their identity from their victims and/or the public, such a bank robber wearing a ski mask. In fact, that seems to be a trend with non-defensive violence in general. For instance, it wouldn't be uncommon for rapists and murders wear ski masks when committing those acts of non-defensive violence. I'm not sure if it is normal or more often than not, but I'm not sure how that would matter anyway.

Regardless, plenty of robbers and other violent victimizers do their violence without hiding their identity. Neither Hitler nor Stalin kept themselves anonymous, for cliché instance.

Perhaps, there is a strong correlation between how secretive someone is with their violence and how much wealth and power they have? Consider the countless famous gangsters like Al Capone. Many times their power comes in part from the fact that folks know they mean business, and by meaning business I mean they make sure you know they rob and kill often and will do the same to you without much triggering.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm Well, is your interest in identifying robbers comes from an interest in playing cop? If not then where does your interest come from in picking on some groups and perhaps tarnishing them? If yes, you want to play cop then what authority have you got to do so?
I don't have an interest in picking on some groups, and I don't have an interest in playing cop.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm I think you have at some point mentioned being an anarchist and therefore in no need of anyone's permission...
I am not sure what you mean by "in no need of anyone's permission", but regardless consent is extremely important in my philosophy, habits, and way of life.

I oppose non-defensive non-consensual violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). If that makes me an anarchist, then I'm an anarchist. If not, then not. If it does, then it makes the 170+ people who retweeted this tweet about peacefulness anarchists too, presumably to their own surprise.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm You do pretty well running this site and obviously are an intelligent person interested in fairness but unfortunately not all anarchists are this way in my experience.
I appreciate the compliment. :)

Nonetheless, I'm not sure the point in pointing out that not all 'anarchists' are intelligent and interested in fairness. Surely, the same thing could be said about blond people, or hazel-eyed people, or Christians, or Muslims, or atheists, or tall people, or short people.

I believe in the philosophical principal of charity, and by extension not judging an idea, religion, dogma, or entire category of people by the most annoying people who claim to support that idea or be in the group.

For example, many people fallaciously use anecdotal recollection bias to falsely assume most vegans and vegetarians are outspoken, but of course that's because those stereotyping conclusion-jumpers only know, at least off the top of their head, about the--annoyingly--outspoken vegetarians and vegans. For example, they might actually know 20 vegetarians/vegans personally but not know that 18 of those 20 vegetarians/vegans are vegetarians/vegans because those 18 are not outspoken. So a conclusion-jumper might judge the whole 100% by the 10% they see. You'd be surprised how many people complain to me about how annoying vegetarians are without realizing I am one. I don't usually tell them in the moment; it's a little inside joke I keep for myself. :)

The same anecdotal recollection bias is why people tend to vastly overestimate the likelihood of plane crash or terrorism attack. The same thing that makes newsworthy (i.e. it's unusual uniqueness) causes to make the news and get over-represented in people's minds.

In another example, if someone lives in a town of people with only whitish skin color, and they don't have a single dark-skin person in their neighborhood or schools, they would be foolish to stereotype the average dark-skin person based on the caricatures and unique examples provided to them on newspapers and television screens, where selection bias plays a huge role.

In other words, the kind of anarchists one happens to specifically know on average to one's own recollection will say more about oneself than anarchists. The kind of Christians one knows will say more about oneself than Christians. The kind of white people or black people one knows says more about oneself than it says about what white and black people tend to be like.

In my possibly misleading anecdotal experience, humans are pretty similar all around, and the things that make them different tend to transcend their silly little groupings. Any dogma or religion will have dumb humans and smart humans as followers alike, relatively nice humans and relatively mean humans, relatively peaceful humans and relatively violent humans, relatively patient calm humans and some easily triggered emotional humans.

I recommend judging a group by its best, if one is going to judge the group at all. :)

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm all app [i.e. countries] need some resource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery.
I absolutely agree that asking users to pay for an app is not robbery.

Violently forcing users to pay for the app by threatening to commit non-defensive violence against them if they don't pay is robbery.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by LuckyR »

Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 6:28 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 16th, 2021, 2:07 am Ok, so you abhor violence, therefore I guess there are no taxes, thus no services. Hope your house doesn't catch fire...

Oh BTW, there's no internet, nor snail mail, so we'll be running the Forum by homing pigeon and smoke signals.

Though you get to keep your money... except that there is no longer money. But at least you don't have to pay taxes, whoo hoo.
If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), you are agreeing with me that taxation by big governments is violent robbery, but then you are also making the claim that non-defensive violence (in this case violent robbery) is needed for fire services, the internet, and money to exist; Is that a correct understanding of what you are trying to say?
I am stipulating that taxation is violence, as a courtesy to you. My view on taxation is that I use the services, therefore I am okay with paying for those services. Others (many, many others) prefer a free ride. Different strokes...
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by NickGaspar »

LuckyR wrote: April 15th, 2021, 2:16 am Blah, blah, blah... everyone wants stuff and no one wants to pay for it. Move along... nothing to see here.
you are confusing the act of "paying for products and services", with the act of "unmonitored collection of money".
Its one thing to identify the needs and what it will cost to take care of them and an obey to the demands of an authority
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 12:10 am Hi, @Empiricist-Bruno,

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm If taxation in the USA is violent robbery, are you with the US robbers or with the US robbed or with both?
I'm not sure what you mean by "with". Can you explain that a bit more to me?

Most literally, I am with my kids and wife in Connecticut, and we just finished watching one of the Kong movies together. I assume that's not what you mean, though.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm Scott, you identify the robbers but normally robbers don't allow their victims to know who they are.

Normally, once robbers are identified, they are in troubles.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by normally, but assuming you just mean usually, as in more often than not, then I'm not sure those two statements are true. They might be. Regardless, I am not sure it's particularly relevant.

It's definitely not uncommon for robbers to attempt to hide their identity from their victims and/or the public, such a bank robber wearing a ski mask. In fact, that seems to be a trend with non-defensive violence in general. For instance, it wouldn't be uncommon for rapists and murders wear ski masks when committing those acts of non-defensive violence. I'm not sure if it is normal or more often than not, but I'm not sure how that would matter anyway.

Regardless, plenty of robbers and other violent victimizers do their violence without hiding their identity. Neither Hitler nor Stalin kept themselves anonymous, for cliché instance.

Perhaps, there is a strong correlation between how secretive someone is with their violence and how much wealth and power they have? Consider the countless famous gangsters like Al Capone. Many times their power comes in part from the fact that folks know they mean business, and by meaning business I mean they make sure you know they rob and kill often and will do the same to you without much triggering.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm Well, is your interest in identifying robbers comes from an interest in playing cop? If not then where does your interest come from in picking on some groups and perhaps tarnishing them? If yes, you want to play cop then what authority have you got to do so?
I don't have an interest in picking on some groups, and I don't have an interest in playing cop.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm I think you have at some point mentioned being an anarchist and therefore in no need of anyone's permission...
I am not sure what you mean by "in no need of anyone's permission", but regardless consent is extremely important in my philosophy, habits, and way of life.

I oppose non-defensive non-consensual violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). If that makes me an anarchist, then I'm an anarchist. If not, then not. If it does, then it makes the 170+ people who retweeted this tweet about peacefulness anarchists too, presumably to their own surprise.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm You do pretty well running this site and obviously are an intelligent person interested in fairness but unfortunately not all anarchists are this way in my experience.
I appreciate the compliment. :)

Nonetheless, I'm not sure the point in pointing out that not all 'anarchists' are intelligent and interested in fairness. Surely, the same thing could be said about blond people, or hazel-eyed people, or Christians, or Muslims, or atheists, or tall people, or short people.

I believe in the philosophical principal of charity, and by extension not judging an idea, religion, dogma, or entire category of people by the most annoying people who claim to support that idea or be in the group.

For example, many people fallaciously use anecdotal recollection bias to falsely assume most vegans and vegetarians are outspoken, but of course that's because those stereotyping conclusion-jumpers only know, at least off the top of their head, about the--annoyingly--outspoken vegetarians and vegans. For example, they might actually know 20 vegetarians/vegans personally but not know that 18 of those 20 vegetarians/vegans are vegetarians/vegans because those 18 are not outspoken. So a conclusion-jumper might judge the whole 100% by the 10% they see. You'd be surprised how many people complain to me about how annoying vegetarians are without realizing I am one. I don't usually tell them in the moment; it's a little inside joke I keep for myself. :)

The same anecdotal recollection bias is why people tend to vastly overestimate the likelihood of plane crash or terrorism attack. The same thing that makes newsworthy (i.e. it's unusual uniqueness) causes to make the news and get over-represented in people's minds.

In another example, if someone lives in a town of people with only whitish skin color, and they don't have a single dark-skin person in their neighborhood or schools, they would be foolish to stereotype the average dark-skin person based on the caricatures and unique examples provided to them on newspapers and television screens, where selection bias plays a huge role.

In other words, the kind of anarchists one happens to specifically know on average to one's own recollection will say more about oneself than anarchists. The kind of Christians one knows will say more about oneself than Christians. The kind of white people or black people one knows says more about oneself than it says about what white and black people tend to be like.

In my possibly misleading anecdotal experience, humans are pretty similar all around, and the things that make them different tend to transcend their silly little groupings. Any dogma or religion will have dumb humans and smart humans as followers alike, relatively nice humans and relatively mean humans, relatively peaceful humans and relatively violent humans, relatively patient calm humans and some easily triggered emotional humans.

I recommend judging a group by its best, if one is going to judge the group at all. :)

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm all app [i.e. countries] need some resource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery.
I absolutely agree that asking users to pay for an app is not robbery.

Violently forcing users to pay for the app by threatening to commit non-defensive violence against them if they don't pay is robbery.
Ok, thanks for the many clarifications on your post. Given these clarifications, it is becoming clear that I cannot support your assertion that taxation is robbery. In my mind, after reading your clarifications, it becomes clear that what you are saying is that animal farming ought to be included under the robbery label. Even if you were to agree to this amendment to your proposition, I would still not agree with that statement although I would agree that both activities are immoral. You see I know someone who occasionally robs others and is the kind of robber that would not want others generally to know. This person would never want to tax others due to a deeply rooted sense of wanting to be one of the gang as opposed to being a gang leader. So, it is hard for me to put both these activities under the same word/label although I understand both these activities are indeed rooted in the same evil location.Empiricist-Bruno
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by LuckyR »

NickGaspar wrote: April 17th, 2021, 6:58 am
LuckyR wrote: April 15th, 2021, 2:16 am Blah, blah, blah... everyone wants stuff and no one wants to pay for it. Move along... nothing to see here.
you are confusing the act of "paying for products and services", with the act of "unmonitored collection of money".
Its one thing to identify the needs and what it will cost to take care of them and an obey to the demands of an authority
So what's the alternative? Voluntary tax payments? Seriously? Folks already drive uninsured (when it is mandated). Have you been in an accident with an uninsured motorist? Not fun. Folks already dodge taxes (to pay for services you seem to agree are a desirable thing). Can't wait to hear your ideas.
"As usual... it depends."
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Ecurb »

Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 6:28 pm

In analogy, if I kill an innocent child to sell the child's organs on the black market and then donate the money to the local police department, I do not think that my killing of the innocent child is defensive, even though my donation to the police department could be construed as funding defense, assuming those police enforce laws against non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, etc.) rather than engage in non-defensive violence themselves by enforcing laws against victimless consensual behaviors (e.g. laws against marijuana). Simply put, my hypothetical killing of that hypothetical child to sell her organs to fund the police would be murder, not defense.

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm Obviously state sanctioned violence (per your example) can be evil.
You are welcome to believe that. Nonetheless, incidentally, I don't personally believe in evil.

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm It seems to me you are over-simplifying the issue.
How so?
You are over simplifying by suggesting there is a clear distinction between "defensive violence" and "non-defensive violence". Shooting someone who threatens to noogie you is defensive violence, but is not proportional, so it would be silly to justify it. Shoving someone aside who cuts in line ahead of you is non-defensive, but proportional.

Taxes are "defensive" (in a somewhat abstract way), but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that they are proportional to the benefits they confer. We "own" property only because the laws of the State allow us to do so; therefore it's reasonable to pay a tax on that property to support the laws and the State.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Ecurb wrote: April 17th, 2021, 12:34 pm
Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 6:28 pm

In analogy, if I kill an innocent child to sell the child's organs on the black market and then donate the money to the local police department, I do not think that my killing of the innocent child is defensive, even though my donation to the police department could be construed as funding defense, assuming those police enforce laws against non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, etc.) rather than engage in non-defensive violence themselves by enforcing laws against victimless consensual behaviors (e.g. laws against marijuana). Simply put, my hypothetical killing of that hypothetical child to sell her organs to fund the police would be murder, not defense.

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm Obviously state sanctioned violence (per your example) can be evil.
You are welcome to believe that. Nonetheless, incidentally, I don't personally believe in evil.

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm It seems to me you are over-simplifying the issue.
How so?
You are over simplifying by suggesting there is a clear distinction between "defensive violence" and "non-defensive violence".
I don't recall suggesting that. As best I can recall, those are your words, not mine.

In analogy, I can firmly point to a logical important conceptual distinction between consensual sex versus non-consensual sex (i.e. rape), while realizing that in practice things are sometimes not so black-and-white, and sometimes there are tough situations in which it is very arguable whether a certain case was consensual or not, especially if two people aren't in strict agreement about the exact facts of the particular case at hand, such that two honest intelligent jurors could easily vote different ways in a rape trial.

Concepts are inherently binary and thus black-and-white. Reality arguably never actually is. Sure, arguably, verbalizing anything at all ever thereby necessarily oversimplifies it. For example, we can say a specific basketball ball is a round sphere, or that a piece of paper has been cut in a circle, but in practice things like circularity, roundness, consent, and defensiveness are often much less black-and-white. In one extremely philosophical sense, circles don't exist. A great example of how figurative grayness arises with these very issues of defensiveness explored in my article on this website from 12 years ago, Public Health - A Gray Issue in Political Philosophy.

It might be easier for me to understand what you think I suggested that is wrong and/or "oversimplified" if you quote for me the specific sentence in which you think I made the allegedly wrong/oversimplified suggestion.

But unless 'oversimplified' necessarily entails wrongness than perhaps your complaint is not with me but language and verbalization itself.
Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm Shooting someone who threatens to noogie you is defensive violence, but is not proportional, so it would be silly to justify it. Shoving someone aside who cuts in line ahead of you is non-defensive, but proportional.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you might be mistaking the concept of vengeance with what I mean by defense. What you seem to be describing if I am understanding correctly is the 'eye for an eye' philosophy. On that issue then, I suggest my other two topics:

Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

How do you feel about vengeance?

Ecurb wrote: April 16th, 2021, 12:16 pm Taxes are "defensive" (in a somewhat abstract way), but that's irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? In regard to the specific topic at hand, "Taxation is violent robbery," I think your comments about "proportionality" are off-topic (i.e. irrelevant), and I think the concept of defensiveness versus non-defensiveness is extremely relevant.

Robbery, like rape and murder, is defined in part by its non-consensual (i.e. violent) non-defensiveness, just like a circle is defined in part by its roundness. It's a necessary a quality of such a thing by definition. Don't you agree?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

LuckyR wrote: April 17th, 2021, 2:02 am
Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 6:28 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 16th, 2021, 2:07 am Ok, so you abhor violence, therefore I guess there are no taxes, thus no services. Hope your house doesn't catch fire...

Oh BTW, there's no internet, nor snail mail, so we'll be running the Forum by homing pigeon and smoke signals.

Though you get to keep your money... except that there is no longer money. But at least you don't have to pay taxes, whoo hoo.
If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), you are agreeing with me that taxation by big governments is violent robbery, but then you are also making the claim that non-defensive violence (in this case violent robbery) is needed for fire services, the internet, and money to exist; Is that a correct understanding of what you are trying to say?
I am stipulating that taxation is violence, as a courtesy to you. My view on taxation is that I use the services, therefore I am okay with paying for those services. Others (many, many others) prefer a free ride. Different strokes...
In my possibly misleading anecdotal experience, most people don't like a free ride. For example, countless times I've seen people battle over who gets to pay the bill after sharing a meal at a restaurant. Likewise, the kind of people who like a free ride tend to be the kind that are willing to use non-defensive violence to get the free ride.

But that points to why consent is so extremely important in interactions, and in the context of political philosophy, is arguably inexorably linked to the concept of violence (e.g. the epitomizing figurative or literal gun pointed to someone's head). For instance, imagine if a gun-carrying would-be rapist goes to rape someone but before the gun-carrying rapist can do the raping the would-be rape victim says, "Oh, I will have sex with you consensually; you don't need to even take out your gun." I agree that in such a situation the inherent violence of rape has been arguably rendered moot.

If you personally would consensually pay taxes even if you weren't being threatened with non-defensive violence, then your own experience as a would-be victim of violent coercion is going to be at best a misleading example of what it actually means to be threatened with non-defensive violence. Instead, it is important to consider what happens to those who wouldn't do what they are being coerced with the threat of violence into doing, and from there we can see what it really means to be threatened with non-defensive violence, noting that when a pacifistic tax protester is violently thrown in prison it is done with the money paid by those who do pay the taxes, which makes consent entail responsibility.

If one lives in a place where there is something like the taxpayer funded war on drugs, and one eagerly pseudo-consensually pays their taxes (i.e. claims they would choose to pay the taxes even if they weren't being threatened with violence), then that person is clearly one of the violent victimizers not (merely) the victim; don't you agree?

If a pacifist is sitting in prison on one's dime, then I would err on the side of giving that violence funder the benefit of the doubt in the sense of assuming the funder of violence is not truly a willing funder of the violence. This is how I would view the work done by the prison workers in Nazi concentration camps who's labor helped assist the Holocaust and extended Germany's military might and successes. Once the threat of violence has been established, even the claim of the would-be victim to be consenting becomes dubious at best.

In a sense, you cannot pay taxes to a big government (e.g. the USA government) consensually because the coercive threat of violence has already been established by those to whom you might eagerly give your money. Regardless, to any taxpayer in the USA (for example) I will--if I reasonably can find a way to do so--give the benefit of the doubt and assume they wouldn't be funding things like the non-defensively violent war on drugs if they weren't already being violently coerced themselves.

Granted, some of them probably would eagerly make charitable donations to such war-waging. The rest of us, if our consent was respected, would likely prefer to donate our money to more peaceful charities and businesses.

A free ride usually requires non-defensive violence, and one who is choosing to use non-defensive violence (e.g. robbery) is usually doing so to get a free ride in some sense or another.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm all app [i.e. countries] need some resource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery.
Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 12:10 am I absolutely agree that asking users to pay for an app is not robbery.

Violently forcing users to pay for the app by threatening to commit non-defensive violence against them if they don't pay is robbery.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 17th, 2021, 7:56 am Ok, thanks for the many clarifications on your post. Given these clarifications, it is becoming clear that I cannot support your assertion that taxation is robbery.
Why not? Can you define robbery and tell me specifically what quality or trait something necessarily must have to be robbery that taxation by big governments does not have?

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm In my mind, after reading your clarifications, it becomes clear that what you are saying is that animal farming ought to be included under the robbery label.
No, I am not saying that. I don't believe in the concept of "ought" and would not use that word. There are no oughts in my philosophy. In my philosophy, I talk about what is.

I am isolating my philosophical considerations for this matter to interactions between (1) human adults capable of consent and (2) big governments, such as the USA Federal Government which spends over $4 trillion per year, to fund such things as violently putting pacifist marijuana smokers in prison.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm Even if you were to agree to this amendment to your proposition, I would still not agree with that statement although I would agree that both activities are immoral. You see I know someone who occasionally robs others and is the kind of robber that would not want others generally to know. This person would never want to tax others due to a deeply rooted sense of wanting to be one of the gang as opposed to being a gang leader. So, it is hard for me to put both these activities under the same word/label although I understand both these activities are indeed rooted in the same evil location.
This objection fails for two reasons:

1. I am not suggesting anything at all is "evil". I don't personally believe in "evil'.

2. If a close loved one of yours has a mustache, you might not like for that person and Hitler to both be under the category of mustache-havers, but unfortunately truth is not beholden to such subjective preferences.

You might not like the true fact that taxation by big government is clearly violent robbery, which is a fine and understandable feeling, but needless to say it doesn't change the fact that the fact is clearly true.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 5:01 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm all app [i.e. countries] need some resource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery.
Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 12:10 am I absolutely agree that asking users to pay for an app is not robbery.

Violently forcing users to pay for the app by threatening to commit non-defensive violence against them if they don't pay is robbery.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 17th, 2021, 7:56 am Ok, thanks for the many clarifications on your post. Given these clarifications, it is becoming clear that I cannot support your assertion that taxation is robbery.
Why not? Can you define robbery and tell me specifically what quality or trait something necessarily must have to be robbery that taxation by big governments does not have?

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm In my mind, after reading your clarifications, it becomes clear that what you are saying is that animal farming ought to be included under the robbery label.
No, I am not saying that. I don't believe in the concept of "ought" and would not use that word. There are no oughts in my philosophy. In my philosophy, I talk about what is.

I am isolating my philosophical considerations for this matter to interactions between (1) human adults capable of consent and (2) big governments, such as the USA Federal Government which spends over $4 trillion per year, to fund such things as violently putting pacifist marijuana smokers in prison.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm Even if you were to agree to this amendment to your proposition, I would still not agree with that statement although I would agree that both activities are immoral. You see I know someone who occasionally robs others and is the kind of robber that would not want others generally to know. This person would never want to tax others due to a deeply rooted sense of wanting to be one of the gang as opposed to being a gang leader. So, it is hard for me to put both these activities under the same word/label although I understand both these activities are indeed rooted in the same evil location.
This objection fails for two reasons:

1. I am not suggesting anything at all is "evil". I don't personally believe in "evil'.

2. If a close loved one of yours has a mustache, you might not like for that person and Hitler to both be under the category of mustache-havers, but unfortunately truth is not beholden to such subjective preferences.

You might not like the true fact that taxation by big government is clearly violent robbery, which is a fine and understandable feeling, but needless to say it doesn't change the fact that the fact is clearly true.
In my opinion, in order to commit an act of robbery you must

1) Not be the rightful owner of the property taken forcefully.
Well, look at your own cash. Who's face is on it? Yours or that of the government?

2) Be a robber.

Personally, given your approach, I think that you can hear and appreciate point #1 and I don't know how even you can get around that.

As far as point #2 is concerned, I would say that you can't be naive and must be wise and have had experience with real life robbers, not just as a victim of them but also entertaining friendship with some robbers to really get to know what a robber is made of. But studying your own approach, I would expect you to recognize a robber by the act that he or she is doing. My experience suggests that that doesn't work (or it doesn't always work). (Courts will try to prove that you did a robbery to be able to determine that you are a robber but that too isn't overly reliable in my opinion) so I can see how this second point of mine would just be dismissed by you but it is nevertheless a worthwhile point in my opinion.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm all app [i.e. countries] need some resource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery.
Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 12:10 am I absolutely agree that asking users to pay for an app is not robbery.

Violently forcing users to pay for the app by threatening to commit non-defensive violence against them if they don't pay is robbery.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 17th, 2021, 7:56 am Ok, thanks for the many clarifications on your post. Given these clarifications, it is becoming clear that I cannot support your assertion that taxation is robbery.
Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 5:01 pm Why not? Can you define robbery and tell me specifically what quality or trait something necessarily must have to be robbery that taxation by big governments does not have?
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 17th, 2021, 9:36 pm In my opinion, in order to commit an act of robbery you must

1) Not be the rightful owner of the property taken forcefully.
Well, look at your own cash. Who's face is on it? Yours or that of the government?
I don't keep my money or assets in the form of printed paper, so technically nobody's face is on it.

Incidentals aside, if I am understanding your argument correctly, you are saying that I cannot be the victim of robbery because I cannot own any money or assets because the government already owns everything, or at least already owns all of my money (which according to you isn't actually my money at all ever, so according to you calling it "my money" in any situation is a misnomer). Is that your argument?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by LuckyR »

Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 4:49 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 17th, 2021, 2:02 am
Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 6:28 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 16th, 2021, 2:07 am Ok, so you abhor violence, therefore I guess there are no taxes, thus no services. Hope your house doesn't catch fire...

Oh BTW, there's no internet, nor snail mail, so we'll be running the Forum by homing pigeon and smoke signals.

Though you get to keep your money... except that there is no longer money. But at least you don't have to pay taxes, whoo hoo.
If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), you are agreeing with me that taxation by big governments is violent robbery, but then you are also making the claim that non-defensive violence (in this case violent robbery) is needed for fire services, the internet, and money to exist; Is that a correct understanding of what you are trying to say?
I am stipulating that taxation is violence, as a courtesy to you. My view on taxation is that I use the services, therefore I am okay with paying for those services. Others (many, many others) prefer a free ride. Different strokes...
In my possibly misleading anecdotal experience, most people don't like a free ride. For example, countless times I've seen people battle over who gets to pay the bill after sharing a meal at a restaurant. Likewise, the kind of people who like a free ride tend to be the kind that are willing to use non-defensive violence to get the free ride.

But that points to why consent is so extremely important in interactions, and in the context of political philosophy, is arguably inexorably linked to the concept of violence (e.g. the epitomizing figurative or literal gun pointed to someone's head). For instance, imagine if a gun-carrying would-be rapist goes to rape someone but before the gun-carrying rapist can do the raping the would-be rape victim says, "Oh, I will have sex with you consensually; you don't need to even take out your gun." I agree that in such a situation the inherent violence of rape has been arguably rendered moot.

If you personally would consensually pay taxes even if you weren't being threatened with non-defensive violence, then your own experience as a would-be victim of violent coercion is going to be at best a misleading example of what it actually means to be threatened with non-defensive violence. Instead, it is important to consider what happens to those who wouldn't do what they are being coerced with the threat of violence into doing, and from there we can see what it really means to be threatened with non-defensive violence, noting that when a pacifistic tax protester is violently thrown in prison it is done with the money paid by those who do pay the taxes, which makes consent entail responsibility.

If one lives in a place where there is something like the taxpayer funded war on drugs, and one eagerly pseudo-consensually pays their taxes (i.e. claims they would choose to pay the taxes even if they weren't being threatened with violence), then that person is clearly one of the violent victimizers not (merely) the victim; don't you agree?

If a pacifist is sitting in prison on one's dime, then I would err on the side of giving that violence funder the benefit of the doubt in the sense of assuming the funder of violence is not truly a willing funder of the violence. This is how I would view the work done by the prison workers in Nazi concentration camps who's labor helped assist the Holocaust and extended Germany's military might and successes. Once the threat of violence has been established, even the claim of the would-be victim to be consenting becomes dubious at best.

In a sense, you cannot pay taxes to a big government (e.g. the USA government) consensually because the coercive threat of violence has already been established by those to whom you might eagerly give your money. Regardless, to any taxpayer in the USA (for example) I will--if I reasonably can find a way to do so--give the benefit of the doubt and assume they wouldn't be funding things like the non-defensively violent war on drugs if they weren't already being violently coerced themselves.

Granted, some of them probably would eagerly make charitable donations to such war-waging. The rest of us, if our consent was respected, would likely prefer to donate our money to more peaceful charities and businesses.

A free ride usually requires non-defensive violence, and one who is choosing to use non-defensive violence (e.g. robbery) is usually doing so to get a free ride in some sense or another.
OK, I disagree with the Nazi guard analogy and I'll explain why. It is illogical to declare that one is a pacifist therefore they are going to reduce their tax payment by 15% because defense spending is 15% of Federal spending. Because it is an error to suppose that your tax money is evenly divided among the different Departments of government spending equally. Thus conceptually if all you care about is the National Park system, you can imagine that 100% of your tax money goes to the Department of the Interior. No need to worry, there are at least 15% of taxpayers who care about the military.

So, if you agree with funding the CDC but not the war on drugs, imagine 100% of your tax dollar going to the CDC. Remember you (the collective you of voters) voted for the representatives who created the budget, but while your district and state have your representative, other districts have other representatives who agree with the war on drugs (or whatever you personally disagree with). It's a big world with lots of opinions, you are going to disagree with some of them. That's okay.

Do you draw a moral distinction between a Nazi soldier who directs routine road traffic to one who guards a concentration camp? If so you are giving too much power to the assignment dispatcher at the barracks, in my opinion (since jobs were assigned, not up for volunteers). OTOH if you view them equally, then you agree (as in my tax example) that large systems have many parts, some benign, some unsavory, but if one is part of a complex system, it is unreasonably simplistic to focus on one facet and extrapolate the rest.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Taxation is violent robbery.

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 10:13 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 16th, 2021, 7:07 pm all app [i.e. countries] need some resource to get going and asking users to pay a bit does not come across to me as robbery.
Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 12:10 am I absolutely agree that asking users to pay for an app is not robbery.

Violently forcing users to pay for the app by threatening to commit non-defensive violence against them if they don't pay is robbery.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 17th, 2021, 7:56 am Ok, thanks for the many clarifications on your post. Given these clarifications, it is becoming clear that I cannot support your assertion that taxation is robbery.
Scott wrote: April 17th, 2021, 5:01 pm Why not? Can you define robbery and tell me specifically what quality or trait something necessarily must have to be robbery that taxation by big governments does not have?
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: April 17th, 2021, 9:36 pm In my opinion, in order to commit an act of robbery you must

1) Not be the rightful owner of the property taken forcefully.
Well, look at your own cash. Who's face is on it? Yours or that of the government?
I don't keep my money or assets in the form of printed paper, so technically nobody's face is on it.

Incidentals aside, if I am understanding your argument correctly, you are saying that I cannot be the victim of robbery because I cannot own any money or assets because the government already owns everything, or at least already owns all of my money (which according to you isn't actually my money at all ever, so according to you calling it "my money" in any situation is a misnomer). Is that your argument?
Scott, if there is nobody's face on your money then I understand how my argument fails. I guess I can't see your cash to verify the truth of what you are saying...Maybe you do not really have money or the country to which you really belong is faceless (the internet?)?

I think you are misrepresenting my argument, especially when you claim that I claim "the government already owns everything..."

You and I don't view money the same way and that makes this discussion difficult. As a citizen of your country, you can own some of your country's money --on behalf and as a part of your country. So, just as your country can be robbed, so can you.

Your sperms/ovules aren't owned by your country, and so you can be robbed of that. I could go on on that topic but it may be perceived as off-topic.

If a country decide to manage it's money through a farm-like system of systematic robbery of more vulnerable living beings, (Cow milking which many vegetarian like you support) or groups of beings, then it is the country's choice and it helps accomodate principally those running the country but not uniquely them. Even those who are heavily exploited under a system like that will benefit to a certain extent from the order that the leaders impose.

So, if resistance to a government leader/robber is possible but the victim measures the pros and cons of resistance and decide to go along and give the government leaders/ robbers and let them have what they want, the victims understand that they are getting something in return. So, this isn't robbery in my opinion it is more like balance within the living beings in a country. A true robber generally has no concern about leaving its victims with an incentive not to terminate the relationship; they just take while hidden and then vanish.
Maybe had you said taxation is worse than robbery you might have been able to make a point there which I could have understood and supported given the actual circumstances that you present.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021