Slavery

[Wootah]

Assuming you are against slavery: how do we justify taxation where a portion of a person's work is taken from them for nothing in return?

Bare in mind a slave has the fruit of their labour taken from them and yet may still indirectly benefit if the master uses some of it to feed and cloth them or build roads for them to walk on.

This isn't so much an anti taxation post but questioning whether we really are all against slavery.

Can we be pro taxation and anti slavery and not inherently hypocritical?

[bjs]

[Replying to bluethread]

By this logic, how are we compelled to pay any taxes? We are not compelled to any specific purchase, so sales tax is not compelled. We are not compelled to any specific employment, so income tax is not compelled. We are not compelled to own anything that would incur property tax.

This approach seems about as practical as suggesting that we do not need to purchase goods or services from any store or individual. That is, neither is practical.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Bust Nak]

Which goes back to my original point - the same can be said for a customer purchasing food from a grocery store, he is a slave of the store. Calling one slavery or extortion while giving a pass the other is just an arbitrary line based on the idea of fairness, on what is and isn't worth it.

Two people freely exchanging resources is not slavery.

At best I can agree that we are slaves to our bodies and the necessities of the body compel us as much as any master.

The difference is you have much more control over how the government spends it's revenue, even redistribute some of it to yourself.

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer the 'illusion' of believing in God over this?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

If you or your children have attended public school, driven on public roads, used the national currency, or accepted protection from police, firefighters or the military then then the benefits are not indirect.

If those benefits are direct then a slave that learns a skill or uses a road or uses money or is protected by their master is getting benefits. This is a thread to warn people against slavery not to embrace it!

If you prefer, you may leave your country and look for a place to live where you will provide for your own education, infrastructure, and defend yourself against robbers or foreign powers. Or you can pay your taxes.

It's far from that point yet but I would suggest to everyone to always be prepared to flee when the time comes.

[bjs]

If you prefer, you may leave your country and look for a place to live where you will provide for your own education, infrastructure, and defend yourself against robbers or foreign powers. Or you can pay your taxes.

It's far from that point yet but I would suggest to everyone to always be prepared to flee when the time comes.

It seems to be exactly the point. A slave cannot leave. A taxpayer can.

Also, notice that I did not suggest being prepared to flee. I said leave now. It is hypocritical to compare taxes to something as immoral as slavery while still accepting the benefits of the government (infrastructure, standardized currency, national defense, etc.)

[bluethread]

The difference is compulsion. Apart from Obamacare, no one is compelling the customer to buy things.

You say that but you are compelled to pay the asking price for the food you take from a grocery store, on the pain of a beating and/or imprisonment.

This is not true. You are conflating compulsion to buy with the restriction on theft. Apart from Obamacare, it is unconstitutional to compel anyone to buy anything.

The actual difference is the ease of switching to a competitor. If you don't like the asking prices in one store, it's pretty easy to go to another store; if you don't like the asking prices for one utility company, it's somewhat harder to use another company; if you don't like the asking prices in one country, it's often very difficult to switch country.

Now, you are conflating difficulty with compulsion. One is free to decide whether to pay the asking price, seek and alternative or do without. None of those options involve affirmative action on the part of a second or third party.

there is no promise of direct benefit.

Start from the top: military defence, and its civic cousins, the police and fire department are the big ones that every single person directly benefits from. Transport infrastructures is another obvious one, most of you directly benefits from, even the sidewalk is paid for by various taxes. Social security is another, you may say that is not direct when you don't qualify for help, but then I would point to any insurance that you do buy, you don't get anything if you don't qualify by having your stuff stolen, destroyed or you don't get sick. Peace of mind is a direct benefit.

Or we just skip the details and point out what exactly it is that you are purchasing: the subscription for residency.

Now, you are conflating externalities with direct benefits. Military and police are constitutional exceptions, mainly because they are necessary for maintaining a governmental structure. Prior to the 19th century, with rare exception, fire fighting was voluntary and/or handled by insurance. One was not compelled to fund a fire department. One was permitted to carry his own risk. Though it has been eroded over time, the constitution does not prescribe a "subscription for residency". The proof of this is that the homeless are not compelled to pay such a subscription.

In fact, much taxation is for the purpose of redistribution, thus the benefiting of others to ones own detriment at the hands of a third party.

That's true, but you don't get much of a say on how the owner of grocery store spend the money after you handed it over either, the same thing happens there. Said owner is free to redistribute it to any third party at your detriment. The difference is you have much more control over how the government spends it's revenue, even redistribute some of it to yourself.

Again, one gives one's money to the grocer voluntarily. Once that is done, it becomes the property of the grocer and he should not be compelled to part with it by force either.

This latter, under threat of confiscation and/or imprisonment, in any other form, is considered extortion. This places one in a state of servitude, in which a third party has control of ones resources and abilities, i.e slavery.

Which goes back to my original point - the same can be said for a customer purchasing food from a grocery store, he is a slave of the store. Calling one slavery or extortion while giving a pass the other is just an arbitrary line based on the idea of fairness, on what is and isn't worth it.

No, he is not. He is not subject to confiscation and/or imprisonment, if he chooses not to buy from the grocer. I am not giving a pass to arms length transactions. I am pointing out the difference between an arms length transaction and one enforced under threat of confiscation and/or imprisonment. One is commerce. The other is slavery.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

By this logic, how are we compelled to pay any taxes? We are not compelled to any specific purchase, so sales tax is not compelled. We are not compelled to any specific employment, so income tax is not compelled. We are not compelled to own anything that would incur property tax.

This approach seems about as practical as suggesting that we do not need to purchase goods or services from any store or individual. That is, neither is practical.

Ah, but you are ignoring "the forgotten man". It is he who is being compelled. Sales tax is not part of the salesman's offer. The salesman is compelled, under threat of confiscation and/or imprisonment, to collect the tax, as an agent of the government. That is economic fascism, which makes the grocer a slave of the government. In the case of employment taxes, even more so. The employer is compelled to calculate and remit a percentage of what he pays an employee for his services. The employer receives no benefit for doing this. This was unconstitutional until 1913, when the 16th amendment was passed, as the fin-de-siècle philosophy of collectivism swept through western society. That was the seed of the modern ever expanding bureaucratic state, which enslaves the majority of the citizenry of these United States today. In fact, it has gotten to the point that the non-citizen is freer that the citizen.

[bjs]

[Replying to bluethread]

By this logic, how are we compelled to pay any taxes? We are not compelled to any specific purchase, so sales tax is not compelled. We are not compelled to any specific employment, so income tax is not compelled. We are not compelled to own anything that would incur property tax.

This approach seems about as practical as suggesting that we do not need to purchase goods or services from any store or individual. That is, neither is practical.

Ah, but you are ignoring "the forgotten man". It is he who is being compelled. Sales tax is not part of the salesman's offer. The salesman is compelled, under threat of confiscation and/or imprisonment, to collect the tax, as an agent of the government. That is economic fascism, which makes the grocer a slave of the government. In the case of employment taxes, even more so. The employer is compelled to calculate and remit a percentage of what he pays an employee for his services. The employer receives no benefit for doing this. This was unconstitutional until 1913, when the 16th amendment was passed, as the fin-de-siècle philosophy of collectivism swept through western society. That was the seed of the modern ever expanding bureaucratic state, which enslaves the majority of the citizenry of these United States today. In fact, it has gotten to the point that the non-citizen is freer that the citizen.

No one compelled the salesman to be a salesman. No one compelled the employer to employ anyone. However, if they are going to use Washington’s money (the standardized currency established and protected by the federal government) then they are going to have to pay Washington’s tax.

If we choose to accept the benefits of a government, such as standardized currency, then we will have to pay the tax in exchange for those benefits. If we wish to stop paying the tax then we must first stop availing ourselves to the benefits.

[Bust Nak]

You are conflating compulsion to buy with the restriction on theft.

Whether it's a conflation or not is being debated - not paying tax is stealing from the country, from every citizen in the country.

One is free to decide whether to pay the asking price, seek and alternative or do without.

Exactly the same thing with tax, you are free to decide whether to pay the asking price, seek an alternative (emigrate to another country) or do without (go live on a boat in international waters.)

Now, you are conflating externalities with direct benefits. Military and police are constitutional exceptions, mainly because they are necessary for maintaining a governmental structure.

Doesn't matter exactly why the government is offering this service, the point was that's what you are in effect, buying from the government.

One was not compelled to fund a fire department. One was permitted to carry his own risk.

That's fine, services can be added or removed, that's no different from a shop adding or removing lines of good from its shelves.

The proof of this is that the homeless are not compelled to pay such a subscription.

Lets say me and a clubowner are great pals and he does not charge me for being in his club that normally does have a subscription fee. Does the existence of someone who is not compelled to pay, suddenly renders the usual subscription, not really a subscription?

Again, one gives one's money to the grocer voluntarily. Once that is done, it becomes the property of the grocer and he should not be compelled to part with it by force either.

And you don't see how that's the same with tax? One gives one's money to the government voluntarily. Once that is done, it becomes the property of the state and it's up to the state to do with it what it wishes, hopefully reflecting the will of the population.

No, he is not. He is not subject to confiscation and/or imprisonment, if he chooses not to buy from the grocer.

Neither are you, you just can't keep the benefits without paying. Just as someone can't take the stuff from a shop without paying.

[Bust Nak]

Two people freely exchanging resources is not slavery.

At best I can agree that we are slaves to our bodies and the necessities of the body compel us as much as any master.

So in this sense, you are compelled to buy food and water from a shop, if that one shop happens to be the only convinent way of getting said the necessities of the body - it can be said that you are a slave to a shopowner.

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer the 'illusion' of believing in God over this?

I happen to get great social care where I live. My family use of the local library weekly, I use my subsidized sport centre in the summer. There is a great recycling centre that I use often. I make use of subsidized childcare. Then there is the safety net that I have access to if I need it.

[Kenisaw]

Assuming you are against slavery: how do we justify taxation where a portion of a person's work is taken from them for nothing in return?

Bare in mind a slave has the fruit of their labour taken from them and yet may still indirectly benefit if the master uses some of it to feed and cloth them or build roads for them to walk on.

This isn't so much an anti taxation post but questioning whether we really are all against slavery.

Can we be pro taxation and anti slavery and not inherently hypocritical?

You do get something for the taxes that you pay. You get roads, you get police service, you get military protection from other nations that may want to take over the part of the planet you live on. Claiming there is "nothing in return" is nonsense.

Furthermore, a slave is not allowed to leave, or change jobs, or do many other things that a tax payer in this country can do. You are even free to leave this country entirely if you don't like the taxes. You are not a slave in any sense of the word.