Scott wrote: Are you denying that people are in prison for refusing to pay taxes to the United States government?
Or are you denying that imprisoning peaceful people against their will is violent?
It seems to me like you didn't directly answer the questions. Please answer the questions:Robert66 wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 5:26 pm Ok let's go around again. You are a member of a society, and as such you receive benefits, and are required to pay taxes. By remaining in your society, you give your consent to the arrangement. Taxation is not violent, but refusing to pay it will ultimately lead to action against you. This is no different to committing other crimes.
1. Are you denying that people are in prison for refusing to pay taxes to the United States government?
2. Are you denying that imprisoning peaceful people against their will is violent?
Scott wrote:With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?
If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:
1. Taxation is non-consensual.
2. Taxation is violent.
No, I am not allowed to leave the United States at this time, and even if I did I am legally required to pay taxes to the USA Federal Government. USA federal income taxes are not assessed based on where I live. Your argument is fallacious, but even if it wasn't it fails because it's simply not true. I am not American by choice or consent. It would make as much sense to bill me for being male or white, and throw in me prison if I refuse to pay my man-fee or my white-person-fee.
Moreover, regardless, I absolutely 100% do not consent to pay taxes to the big violent United States government and never ever would; I only pay because I am threatened with violence if I don't.
If your argument rests on the claim that I consent to paying taxes to the big violent United States Federal Government, which is behind things such as the $1 trillion war on drugs, then I reject your argument out of hand, and there is no need to discuss it further.
I will not argue in detail about whether or not I consent to something, at least if there is not a signed contract. If there is a signed contract, or some similar paper trail of seeming affirmative consent, then perhaps we could argue about whether that was signed freely of sound mind without duress (e.g. without a literal or figurative gun to my head).
If an armed bank robber pointing a gun to my head keeps claiming I consent to give him my watch and perhaps even claims I like what's happening, while I assert that no I do not consent and am only giving my watch because I was threatened with violence by the armed robber, then I will not argue in detail about it.
The same goes if an armed person literally shoves something down my throat while I verbally protest that I don't consent to it but the armed forcer claims I do consent. I am the authority in regard to what I consent to.
In my book, you don't get to say what I consent to, and if your argument rests on trying to do that, then I totally and absolutely reject it out of hand, and we can just agree to disagree.