Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2021, 10:48 am
Scott wrote:Your question, I think, is when a private landowner evicts a non-paying tenet who absolutely refuses to leave, is it (sometimes) violent robbery?
No. My question was about the surcharge that you say is levied on property purchases in Manchester CT to fund public services like schools and police. I don't think such a surcharge, as you've described it, is like paying rent or like the other examples you mention. It is, it seems to me, a tax.
It may be. And OJ may be a murderer.
My question isn't about those overly specific debatable things that may or may not be the case.
Instead, my question is about whether taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery. My understanding is that we both agree it is violent robbery.
Presumably, the most violent it would legally get is if the squatters was arrested for trespassing, but could that be construed as violent robbery; I don't know. If the squatters aren't already wanted by the police for some other crime, or otherwise illegally carrying pot or something, my best guess is that the evicting cops would probably offer the squatter a ride to the homeless shelter or something. I have no idea what would happen, how it would play out, and whether in the most exceptional of imaginable cases it could be reasonably construed as violent robbery.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2021, 10:48 am
So it seems reasonable to assume that, although we've never seen it happen, that must be what happens when people don't pay this surcharge thing?
No, I don't think it is reasonable to assume
in either case. There are thousands of people in prison right now explicitly for not paying taxes to the USA Federal Government. That's a verifiable statistical fact, not an assumption.
Moreover, in the United States at least, there is an important significant difference between civil liabilities dealt with in civil court and required payments that are directly and explicitly enforced criminally by prison sentences for non-payment. It's generally not a criminal crime to not pay a contractual debt to a condo community where one lives. You won't go to jail simply for not paying that debt. Similarly, you won't go to jail just for refusing to pay your credit card bills because it is not illegal. You may lose your house and land in civil court, and you may eventually get evicted from where you live, but you won't go to jail just for not paying the debts.
There are thousands of people in prison right now for refusing to pay taxes to the United States governments. There is not a single person in prison right now simply for refusing to pay the town of Manchester.
We don't just need to hope to happen to see it with our own eyes (or rely on mere assumption). It's both de facto and de jure. Here is the codified federal law: I.R.C. § 7201. They aren't hiding it. It's not a secret.
There is no corresponding local law where I live.
There is no codified legal basis for putting a person in prison for refusing to pay money to Manchester, CT or refusing to pay their condo fees if they live in a condo community.
It's not the same, and thus the comparisons are (I believe) utterly inaccurate, but that's also all moot to the titular topic.
Even if you--or deep time-consuming research--convinced me that at the small local level the township of Manchester is engaging in violent robbery, that would be a moot point because I am not arguing that such violent robbery does not occur on a small local level. It would make as much as sense to argue about whether Joe Shmoe from Idaho is a violent robber. If that specific person or township is also engaging in violent robbery, then it doesn't change the fact that we agree on the answer to the titular question. If that specific person or township happens to not be engaging in violent robbery, then it doesn't change the fact that on the answer to the titular question. Manchester's guilt wouldn't absolve the USA Federal Government. It's not moot simply because I say it's moot; it's moot because it's actually moot and irrelevant to the question: Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?
It wouldn't be moot if I instead had asked: "Is only
taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?" But I didn't ask that. I do not disagree with the claim that violent robbery also occurs at small local levels including by small local governments, so if that's your point then consider it happily conceded. We agree on that too.
Of course, violent robbery also occurs on small local levels. My argument in no way entails, slightly suggests, or let alone relies on the idea that violent robbery doesn't also
occur on small local levels. My argument in no way entails, slightly suggests that small local townships cannot commit violent robbery.
Much like arguing about OJ's guilt, we could spend years arguing about whether a certain small local organization in any one of ~20,000 townships in the USA is also
engaging in violent robbery. It's moot. It has no affect on our answer to the titular question: Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?
It seems to me the bottom line is we agree:
Taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery.