Current Events > ITT, you (attempt to) explain why taxation isn't theft...

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm by no means a huge fan of taxes, but I understand why they're there.
And regardless of the many nuances of how they are put in place, or how they could be done better,
I feel like I successfully explained why they aren't theft. Which was the question.
So, I'm outta here.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Your employer pays based on your contributions to the company (i.e. the fruits that you contribute to the company).

lmao no they do not

You are never payed based on what you contribute to the company. You are paid fucking fractions of fractions of the value you create.
---

Also without you paying taxes you wouldn't have a government there to make companies and corporations pay you at least a fair wage.
---

Antifar posted...

What currency are you using?

That's a good way of looking at it actually. The currency only exists because the government says it does and only has value because it is backed by the government. It therefore makes sense for the government to control fiscal and monetary policy, as they have a direct impact on the currency.

Now, the level of taxation and spending (as well as other aspects of the above) are up for debate, and we can take part in democracy to influence these things. Of course, we require a properly functioning democratic system and an informed electorate for that to work. It's up to us to fight for that. I'm not quite so pessimistic to think that democracy is doomed despite recent events. They might even give people a necessary kick up the back side.

QueenCarly posted...

lmao no they do not

You are never payed based on what you contribute to the company. You are paid fucking fractions of fractions of the value you create.

That reminds me of this:

QueenCarly posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Your employer pays based on your contributions to the company (i.e. the fruits that you contribute to the company).

lmao no they do not

You are never payed based on what you contribute to the company. You are paid fucking fractions of fractions of the value you create.

They literally do. Deciding to hire someone to work X amount of hours, and how much to pay them depends on how much of an asset they'll be to the company compared to how much it will cost to hire them. They know that they have to aim for the best balance between those two things while still creating worker incentives in order to prevent you from working for some other company.

luigi13579 posted...

That's a good way of looking at it actually. The currency only exists because the government says it does and only has value because it is backed by the government.

You're...not serious are you?

luigi13579 posted...

That reminds me of this:

Yes...the surplus value extracted from your labor IS entrepreneurship because why else would a company hire people if they have nothing to gain from it themselves? The risky investments made by entrepreneurs are the only reason why ANYBODY within a company has a job.
---

Because we have representation
---

@QueenCarly
@luigi13579
@Antifar
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?

Did the government give itself that right, or did we the people?
---

Notti posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?

Did the government give itself that right, or did we the people?

Bingo
---

Notti posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?

Did the government give itself that right, or did we the people?

The government. We're far from being a 100% pure democracy.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Notti posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?

Did the government give itself that right, or did we the people?

The government. We're far from being a 100% pure democracy.

So what? We still elected the representatives that make up the government.

And why do you think a pure democracy is a good thing?
---

We elect the government that establish the laws. We give consent to let the government tax us because we vote in people who support the concept of taxation. Ergo, it's not theft, and if you personally have that much of an issue with it, go find a society that doesn't tax people and live there instead.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

We elect the government that establish the laws. We give consent to let the government tax us because we vote in people who support the concept of taxation. Ergo, it's not theft, and if you personally have that much of an issue with it, go find a society that doesn't tax people and live there instead.

Exact, everyone is free to leave. Except criminals, you gotta stay and do your time.
---

nicklebro posted...

So what? We still elected the representatives that make up the government.

I didn't realize everybody voted for the same person. If two wolves and one sheep vote on which one of them is to be eaten for dinner and the two wolves vote for the sheep, does that mean the sheep agreed to be eaten?

nicklebro posted...

And why do you think a pure democracy is a good thing?

I...didn't say that it was. wtf?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

We elect the government that establish the laws. We give consent to let the government tax us because we vote in people who support the concept of taxation. Ergo, it's not theft, and if you personally have that much of an issue with it, go find a society that doesn't tax people and live there instead.

Except, there's just one problem...what if every candidate available supports taxation, thus giving you no choice but to vote against your ideals? In fact, very few, if any, people agree with the candidate they vote for on everything 100%. Not to mention, we have no control over whether a candidate actually follows through on their promises. Germany elected Hitler. Does that mean the Jews agreed to be exterminated?
---

Taxation is only theft if its imposition is explicitly illegal. Otherwise, by use of social conveniences, like roads, running water, sewage, and other infrastructure, along with a very explicit agreement about how much you will pay for such services, and to whom, you are obligated to pay taxes. If you rent property, you are obligated to make payment on it as said in your rental contract. If you buy a home, you are obligated to pay the sales and property taxes as stated by the government. All property, and even the money you use to pay your taxes, is ultimately property of the government who issued it. By using it, you are agreeing to the explicit laws of its use, the explicit laws of the country, and all legal taxes, which again are most often made explicit in modern countries (you can know exactly what you will be paying). In most developed countries, taxes arent usually hidden or varied along the whim of the tax collector. And not anyone can legally claim they are a tax collector. If some stranger who is not a tax collector claimed they were a tax collector, and you gave them money, that would be fraud and theft. Furthermore, in any electoral system of governance, politicians often run an a explicit platform which outlines their taxation policies. If they change those policies during their governance, or add new taxation policies that the majority dont want, there are often legal methods to impeach them.

Calling taxation theft implies that it is illegal. In whatever country you live, if it is legally sanctioned by the government, and that government is operating within its legal domains, often set down by a constitution, taxation is certainly not illegal. So its not theft. Contrast that with a situation where an illegal gang of thugs comes knocking on your door with baseball bats demanding you pay them protection money (protection from them, as is the case in much of the pre-developed and developing world). Thats extortion and theft, and the sort of extortion and theft most people should gladly pay a competent government taxes to help prevent. If every time you needed to bribe your police to do something, like prevent a gang of thieves from extorting you, in most countries (even ones where this is a regular illegal occurrence) that would be theft. Those are two very different circumstances.

In most developed countries, not paying your taxes is illegal and a form of theft. Its not just some abstract government you are stealing from, but from those who pay for the social services you (or your fellow citizens) use. In many cases, you could legally avoid paying taxes altogether by not owning anything, not using any social services, and not using your national currency. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
---

DoomSwell posted...

Think of it as paying rent (utilities [roads, schools, etc] included) on government land (ie; the whole country)

I never asked to be born.

Why be happy getting born into a system where you are given obligations to your community not guaranteed to be paid back to you simply because you were born?

Not to mention taxes arent a sustainable way of providing for the growth of your community.

It can help supplant, but when you have a shrinking population/worker pool it will eventually begin to cannibalize the poorest groups getting taxed looooooong before the rich suffer any changes to their lifestyles.

Thats just how taxes work.
---

bulbinking posted...

Not to mention taxes arent a sustainable way of providing for the growth of your community.

It can help supplant, but when you have a shrinking population/worker pool it will eventually begin to cannibalize the poorest groups getting taxed looooooong before the rich suffer any changes to their lifestyles.

Thats just how taxes work.

No it isn't how they work.
---

iClockwork posted...

Taxation is only theft if its imposition is explicitly illegal.

Execution is only murder if its imposition is explicitly illegal.

iClockwork posted...

Otherwise, by use of social conveniences, like roads, running water, sewage, and other infrastructure, along with a very explicit agreement about how much you will pay for such services, and to whom, you are obligated to pay taxes.

Too bad taxes aren't calculated as a fee for service, but rather as a portion of the income that you earned...

iClockwork posted...

If you rent property, you are obligated to make payment on it as said in your rental contract. If you buy a home, you are obligated to pay the sales and property taxes as stated by the government

And yet, the prices on those things don't cost a percentage of your income, but charge a single price to whomever can afford it. What if a realtor said that the rent of your apartment is 50% of your income? Wouldn't you be skeptical as to whether or not they really need all of the money they're trying to get out of you?

iClockwork posted...

All property, and even the money you use to pay your taxes, is ultimately property of the government who issued it.

Wrong. The government borrows money in order to add to its currency, and we're free to convert US dollars into some other currency and spend it in some other country if we choose to, so the money that the US government borrows most certainly doesn't belong to them. But even if you do think that the government owns all the money, does that mean that if some elected officials managed to pass a law giving themselves the right to take any amount of money out of anybody's bank account without explanation, would that still not be theft? I mean, it's their money and they can take what's theirs whenever they want, right?
---

Mike_Stanton posted...
iClockwork posted...

Nice cherry picking when you feel like addressing the overarching concepts of my post and taxation itself we can have a discussion. As of now it seems you only want to argue in bad faith instead of understanding.
---

iClockwork posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...
iClockwork posted...

Nice cherry picking when you feel like addressing the overarching concepts of my post and taxation itself we can have a discussion. As of now it seems you only want to argue in bad faith instead of understanding.

Nobody should be born into the bomds of obligation unless they requested the gift of life themselves, regardless of the obligation.

If there was an opt-out system for taxes, nobody would pay their taxes, and everything would turn into private communities.
---

iClockwork posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...
iClockwork posted...

Nice cherry picking when you feel like addressing the overarching concepts of my post and taxation itself we can have a discussion. As of now it seems you only want to argue in bad faith instead of understanding.

I responded to portions of your post because lots of your sentences seemed to just be reiterations of things you had already mentioned. So I chose to respond in the way that I did because it seemed that your post had about 4 basic points. If I missed any salient points you were trying to make then just say so. Also, is it safe to say that you have no responses to the parts of your post that I did respond to?
---

bulbinking posted...

Nobody should be born into the bomds of obligation unless they requested the gift of life themselves, regardless of the obligation.

Terrible argument. You're not obligated to stay, you're free to reject the social contract and move anytime you would like. You also have the option to revoke your livelihood if you feel so strongly about how you didn't request the gift of life.

bulbinking posted...

If there was an opt-out system for taxes, nobody would pay their taxes, and everything would turn into private communities.

Intelligent people would since they realize for many things are handled and provided infinitely better(e.g. the court system) by a centralized government than a private community.

Mike_Stanton posted...

I responded to portions of your post because lots of your sentences seemed to just be reiterations of things you had already mentioned. So I chose to respond in the way that I did because it seemed that your post had about 4 basic points. If I missed any salient points you were trying to make then just say so. Also, is it safe to say that you have no responses to the parts of your post that I did respond to?

There's little value in responding to a straw manning of the premise.
---

iClockwork posted...

Intelligent people would since they realize for many things are handled and provided infinitely better(e.g. the court system) by a centralized government than a private community.

Literally all real world instances of private vs government I can think of show the opposite.

Its okay, you are probably depressed like most americans and suffer from learned helplessness, making you think think things are impossible that arent.
---

bulbinking posted...

Literally all real world instances of private vs government I can think of show the opposite.

Show me where privatized courts or police function better than privatized judicial systems.

bulbinking posted...

Its okay, you are probably depressed like most americans and suffer from learned helplessness, making you think think things are impossible that arent.

I've been extraordinarily blessed and more successful than I would have thought possible coming from where I came in my 28 years. Happy to pay my fair share of taxes back into a system that helped my family through rough times.
---

iClockwork posted...

bulbinking posted...

Literally all real world instances of private vs government I can think of show the opposite.

Show me where privatized courts or police function better than privatized judicial systems.

bulbinking posted...

Its okay, you are probably depressed like most americans and suffer from learned helplessness, making you think think things are impossible that arent.

I've been extraordinarily blessed and more successful than I would have thought possible coming from where I came in my 28 years. Happy to pay my fair share of taxes back into a system that helped my family through rough times.

First question will require a lot of research which I may or may not be willing to do for you since you havent fotten the clue that government is always less efficient/effective at things than private sector.

As for the second part of your post, narcissist much? Just because you were one of the lucky few who was actually helped by the system doesnt mean there werent at least 3 others who suffered due to misappropriated resources by the government to help your cause.

Also each state is different and has different systems, and sometimes the state and fed systems clash making it hard to get anything done and all the citizenry just sits around until they are told what they are ALLOWED to do even if they have the means and knowledge to do more themselves because thats not fair everybody should get a turn!.

Sorry, survival of the fittest and first come first serve are what built this country. No reason we cant do that again considering how our koombiyah social security nets set up by the hippies in the 60s is collapsing in on itself.

If you build a safety net, people will sleep in it, even if it catches a few poor souls who wouldve perished without.

I am a man who is fine accepting my fate if I were to fall, but the harder I work the more is taken like rubberbanding economic AI.

We used to be fzero, now we are mariokart.
---

bulbinking posted...

First question will require a lot of research which I may or may not be willing to do for you since you havent fotten the clue that government is always less efficient/effective at things than private sector.

Just give me the real world example where this is true. Not very hard.

bulbinking posted...

As for the second part of your post, narcissist much? Just because you were one of the lucky few who was actually helped by the system doesnt mean there werent at least 3 others who suffered due to misappropriated resources by the government to help your cause.

Could you provide the research that backs up your claim that for every person helped three others suffer.
---

iClockwork posted...

Terrible argument. You're not obligated to stay, you're free to reject the social contract and move anytime you would like.

So someone doesn't have the right to walk on, or breath the air from a certain portion of the earth, unless they surrender certain freedoms? The government did not create the land that it governs, so saying that people can just move to another country doesn't cut it, because there's limited space available on this planet. By limiting the available space people have to exercise certain rights, you're still restricting people of their freedoms because you're telling them that certain rights will only be protected if they limit which parts of the earth they can live on.

iClockwork posted...

There's little value in responding to a straw manning of the premise.

Why don't you just explain what you meant if there was any misunderstanding?
---

Can TC come up with a better way to fund the needs of society?
---

LordRazziel posted...

Can TC come up with a better way to fund the needs of society?

Besides stealing? How does any business fund its operations?
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

I didn't realize everybody voted for the same person. If two wolves and one sheep vote on which one of them is to be eaten for dinner and the two wolves vote for the sheep, does that mean the sheep agreed to be eaten?

They don't all vote for the same person, obviously no one said they did. And if the wolves and sheep all agree ahead of time to have a vote and whoever gets voted out gets eaten, then yes, the sheep agreed to be eaten. Its not rocket science man...
Mike_Stanton posted...

I...didn't say that it was. wtf?

You said that the government is the one making all of the decisions because were not a pure democracy. You're obviously wrong about that but it does prove you think a pure democracy would be better than a republic. Which you're also wrong about.
---

nicklebro posted...

They don't all vote for the same person, obviously no one said they did. And if the wolves and sheep all agree ahead of time to have a vote and whoever gets voted out gets eaten, then yes, the sheep agreed to be eaten. Its not rocket science man...

lol so you ARE saying that people who are victims of things they didn't vote for deserve what they got? I wonder why you ignored my Hitler analogy...Germany elected Hitler, and a good portion of their population was Jewish. By living in Germany they agreed to the democratic process that eventually elected the man who had them sent to Auschwitz. So according to your logic, even though most of Hitler's voters probably had no idea what he was planning on doing, the fact that the German people (Jews included) agreed to the process that elected him means that the Jews agreed to be sent to Auschwitz. lol keep defending Nazi Germany.

nicklebro posted...

You said that the government is the one making all of the decisions because were not a pure democracy. You're obviously wrong about that but it does prove you think a pure democracy would be better than a republic.

No, it doesn't prove that because you were the one who said that voting for government officials means that we collectively agreed to every decision that the government makes, which somehow justifies anything that the government does. The procedure for determining who is in charge of the government doesn't justify what the government does. Unless of course, you think the Holocaust was justified...
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Except, there's just one problem...what if every candidate available supports taxation, thus giving you no choice but to vote against your ideals?

I'm sure there are some candidates in some obscure party that actively oppose taxation. Put your money/effort towards supporting them, or run for office yourself. There's nothing stopping you.

Which is also why one that's popular doesn't exist, for what it's worth: Most people seem to be okay with the concept since they actively benefit from public resources resulting from that funding.

In fact, very few, if any, people agree with the candidate they vote for on everything 100%. Not to mention, we have no control over whether a candidate actually follows through on their promises.

I think OP is discovering that society doesn't work around a worldview that opposes the concept of taxation.

Germany elected Hitler. Does that mean the Jews agreed to be exterminated?

your penchant for triggering Godwin's Law is truly incredible

"taxation = millions murdered, haha i am genius take that STATISTS"

a true intellectual
---

Basically, most people don't completely oppose the concept of taxation and if people did they would, per the rules of the relatively free society we exist in, fund and support an anti-taxation candidate. Otherwise, society at large has consented to being taxed by supporting and voting in a modern government and never popularly posing questions about how to get rid of taxation.

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

I'm sure there are some candidates in some obscure party that actively oppose taxation. Put your money/effort towards supporting them, or run for office yourself. There's nothing stopping you.

This is all good advice. If I could give you similar advice, if you like giving up your earnings to help people so much then donate to charities instead of voting for demagogues who will put a gun to everybody's head forcing them to do the same.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Which is also why one that's popular doesn't exist, for what it's worth: Most people seem to be okay with the concept since they actively benefit from public resources resulting from that funding.

More like, the general public has been practically brainwashed into thinking that the government is somehow a more honorable business than any other, when it's one of the few, if any businesses that will charge you according to how much money you have.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

your penchant for triggering Godwin's Law is truly incredible"taxation = millions murdered, haha i am genius take that STATISTS"a true intellectual

You're justifying what the government does based on the fact that they were elected. If anything that the government does is justified so long as they were elected then Nazi Germany was just doing what The People gave them permission to do.
---

Ultimately, we as a people choose what we do and do not tolerate.

We choose to tolerate taxes. Whether it's "theft" or not means nothing.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?

Theres plenty of deserted islands you can go live on
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Ultimately, we as a people choose what we do and do not tolerate.

lol collectivism...different people are different people.
---

the_rowan posted...

It's not theft because it's payment for services rendered. Like, this should be obvious? I mean, you are argue about specific details like whether the cost of the things taxes are used for are inflated, but unless you're going to say you literally don't need roads (both the roads themselves and services like plowing), police, public education, or national defense altogether, and you also don't believe that you benefit from other people having access to any of these and other government-funded benefits while living in the same society as you, then you're just whining.

The point is that you're not being given a choice though and your money has to go to things you may never use or utilize.
It's like trying to argue the mafia coming into your business, taking a big percentage of your money, and giving you protection in return. Yeah they're technically offering you a service, but you're not getting any say in the matter.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?

Theres plenty of deserted islands you can go live on

Which limits the space people have available to practice their rights. Seriously, if all you have is "the government says it can, and if you don't like it you can get out" then you might as well say that any government policy is ethical.
---

DoomSwell posted...

Think of it as paying rent (utilities [roads, schools, etc] included) on government land (ie; the whole country)

You sign a contract before paying rent, and if either party breaches the contract, the other party has the right to sue.

With the government, the government writes the "contract", constantly changes it and breaks the rules, and forces you to give it your money and abide by the "contract" on pain of death.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?

Theres plenty of deserted islands you can go live on

Which limits the space people have available to practice their rights. Seriously, if all you have is "the government says it can, and if you don't like it you can get out" then you might as well say that any government policy is ethical.

nobody inherently has any rights from birth. rights are given to them by the society they live in + the government
---

If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?

Theres plenty of deserted islands you can go live on

Which limits the space people have available to practice their rights. Seriously, if all you have is "the government says it can, and if you don't like it you can get out" then you might as well say that any government policy is ethical.

nobody inherently has any rights from birth. rights are given to them by the society they live in + the government

Wrong. Rights can only ever be taken away by the government, since they're the ones who put restrictions on people. The only potential good that the government can do in that way is preventing people from infringing on other people's rights. The line should be drawn when the government starts making itself an exception to such infringements.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?

Theres plenty of deserted islands you can go live on

Which limits the space people have available to practice their rights. Seriously, if all you have is "the government says it can, and if you don't like it you can get out" then you might as well say that any government policy is ethical.

nobody inherently has any rights from birth. rights are given to them by the society they live in + the government

Wrong. Rights can only ever be taken away by the government, since they're the ones who put restrictions on people. The only potential good that the government can do in that way is preventing people from infringing on other people's rights. The line should be drawn when the government starts making itself an exception to such infringements.

what rights do you think you are inherently entitled to from birth?
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

lol so you ARE saying that people who are victims of things they didn't vote for deserve what they got? I wonder why you ignored my Hitler analogy...Germany elected Hitler, and a good portion of their population was Jewish. By living in Germany they agreed to the democratic process that eventually elected the man who had them sent to Auschwitz. So according to your logic, even though most of Hitler's voters probably had no idea what he was planning on doing, the fact that the German people (Jews included) agreed to the process that elected him means that the Jews agreed to be sent to Auschwitz. lol keep defending Nazi Germany.

If you participate in a vote then you are quite obviously accepting the results whether you get what you want or not. And Hitler was elected but he quite obviously consolidated his power quickly and took his place as a dictator which obviously wasn't part of the democratic system people had signed up for. I mean I don't feel the need to really explain any further, lol seeing as how your argument is that anyone who is in favor of free elections is somehow a nazi supporter and thinks the holocaust was justified, its pretty clear you're not someone I need to take very seriously.

Mike_Stanton posted...

No, it doesn't prove that because you were the one who said that voting for government officials means that we collectively agreed to every decision that the government makes, which somehow justifies anything that the government does. The procedure for determining who is in charge of the government doesn't justify what the government does. Unless of course, you think the Holocaust was justified...

No it doesn't justify anything that the government does, hence the Constitution and why Trump is so frustrated he can't just throw anyone he wants in jail, etc. etc.

You know that comparing everything to Nazis and arguing people support the Holocaust just makes every single person who reads your post write you off as a troll right? Well have fun with that.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Ultimately, we as a people choose what we do and do not tolerate.

lol collectivism...different people are different people.

Nice tautology.

But any civilization is made up of those different people. And in this particular one, enough of those people choose to tolerate taxes.

Rika_Furude posted...

what rights do you think you are inherently entitled to from birth?

Anything that doesn't involve infringing on another's rights. Why should I be forced to do anything against my will? In fact, you have a right to give away to anything you consider to be a good cause if you choose to, so why not let everybody just do that at their own discretion?
---