The slavery in taxation

simplistic2

We understand that slavery is the theft of 100% of another's produce. If we are born onto a slave plantation we are given food and shelter by the slave owner not because he has a soft spot for his slaves but because he needs them to be productive to reap their output.

So the question is at what percentage is the consistent theft of another's property not considered slavery? Is it 80% , 50% or 1%?

It is understood that if were mugged in the street and the mugger made of with 1% of what you owned like a wallet it is a once off theft. But if this mugger was part of a gang and followed you around and mugged you of 1% every week would this be a type of slavery to the mugger?

You could of course try to run away but the threat would always remain. You could also try to kill the mugger but this would most likely end with your death as this would been seen as attack on the gang.

This is the same situation you are born into living under an immoral government and just like the slaves born to the plantation providing them with housing and food does not disqualify the original and consistent theft of their output and freedoms.

Slavery can equal as much as 1% or 100% taxation the amount is irrelevant because slavery is being under constant threat of violence for not complying with your masters.

Lockstep

I'd say slavery is much more far-reaching than that. It's being the property of another person without any rights whatsoever.

I've a fair amount of experience in volunteer work, where I received no remuneration for my work (they took 100% of my produce) which few would view as slavery, mainly as I could stop when I wanted to.

Taxation is voluntary as long as you stay in an area; you might view income tax as slavery but a slave isn't allowed to leave whereas you can.
It's a different story if the slave is provided with food and housing but is completely free to leave anytime he likes. That's not slavery.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd say slavery is much more far-reaching than that. It's being the property of another person without any rights whatsoever.

I've a fair amount of experience in volunteer work, where I received no remuneration for my work (they took 100% of my produce) which few would view as slavery, mainly as I could stop when I wanted to.

Taxation is voluntary as long as you stay in an area; you might view income tax as slavery but a slave isn't allowed to leave whereas you can.
It's a different story if the slave is provided with food and housing but is completely free to leave anytime he likes. That's not slavery.

If we are born into an area where people are raped consistently is it called love making until we move away?

Eliot Rosewater

Slavery is an extreme word that has very negative connotations and is unapplicable to taxation, in my opinion. Also, people who say "taxation is slavery" alienate others from their cause. I disagree with such extreme rhetoric.

Much as you dislike taxation (and I certainly sympathize with you on that point) you have to concede that the state does have some legitimacy in collecting it; far more legitimacy than a mugger does in taking money from you, for instance. You also benefit, albeit in a very roundabout and inefficient manner, from public services.

The belief that taxation is slavery, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in the removal of government. I think anyone who believes that the govenment has some role - even if only to uphold rights and protect citizens - must disagree with the sentiment.

simplistic2

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Slavery is an extreme word that has very negative connotations and is unapplicable to taxation, in my opinion. Also, people who say "taxation is slavery" alienate others from their cause. I disagree with such extreme rhetoric.

Of course people don't like it since a majority of people prefer to view themselves as good human beings and when faced with reality that the government initiates force against others they are faced with the fact that if they support government actions they are supporting force against their fellow man.

This is why euphemisms are so common in politics because people need to believe what they are doing is moral. Take the military for example if you kill for your country you are a patriot but if you kill for any other cause you are murderer. The simple swapping of the words can create great cognitive disonace and enable people to commit acts that they would vehemently oppose otherwise.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Much as you dislike taxation (and I certainly sympathize with you on that point) you have to concede that the state does have some legitimacy in collecting it; far more legitimacy than a mugger does in taking money from you, for instance. You also benefit, albeit in a very roundabout and inefficient manner, from public services.

Its not taxation I am opposed to specifically it is the initiation of aggression that I believe to be the cause of all of the evil in the world taxation is just a sub category of that but it does enable all wars.

There is no such thing as " the state" there is only individuals and if you are to say that some individuals can legitimately steal then why is it not morally acceptable for all individuals to steal?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The belief that taxation is slavery, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in the removal of government. I think anyone who believes that the govenment has some role - even if only to uphold rights and protect citizens - must disagree with the sentiment.

I perfectly respect your wish to live under a state but would you also respect the wishes of those who do not wish to live under a state?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

If we are born into an area where people are raped consistently is it called love making until we move away?

First you compare taxation to theft and now to rape. Do you not see the differences?

But I'll humour your extreme hyperbole.
If you are a grown adult and live in a place where people are raped then why are you staying there?
By voluntarily staying in a place where you are provided with services in exchange for payment you are taking part in a contract. In this case, it's the social contract.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

kickoutthejams wrote: »

First you compare taxation to theft and now to rape. Do you not see the differences?

But I'll humour your extreme hyperbole.
If you are a grown adult and live in a place where people are raped then why are you staying there?
By voluntarily staying in a place where you are provided with services in exchange for payment you are taking part in a contract. In this case, it's the social contract.

If the various "mobs" have ringfenced the planet, then talking about "a social contract" is just a phrase without any meaning, especially if you imply that it is voluntary. The reality is that history has always been about the balance between the individual and whatever authority is running whatever system happens to be in place. Contract is meaningless though imp

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem to be under the assumption that all nations are close to the same. You aren't forced to live in Ireland so it is hardly fair to act is if there is a gun being held to your head, compelling you to stay.

The Irish citizen is free in that we keep electing in the same useless, self-serving politicians and paying inflated prices for low-quality goods and services. We have the chance to buy stuff off the internet or set up our own companies and run for office ourselves. But we don't do so. We get the government we deserve.

silverharp wrote: »

If the various "mobs" have ringfenced the planet, then talking about "a social contract" is just a phrase without any meaning, especially if you imply that it is voluntary. The reality is that history has always been about the balance between the individual and whatever authority is running whatever system happens to be in place. Contract is meaningless though imp

There are around 200 nations to which you can emigrate to without any central government forcing them to behave the way they are, in effect, a market of governments.
There are various states with various levels of taxation and government control. You're free to move to any of these.

Some would like a communist nation that isn't bureacratic and corrupt but the various free-market mobs have ringfenced the planet prevent them from doing so (apart from a few totalitarian regimes)

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

First you compare taxation to theft and now to rape. Do you not see the differences?

But I'll humour your extreme hyperbole.
If you are a grown adult and live in a place where people are raped then why are you staying there?

The point is not where should people run, but is it moral in the first place? The whole" if you dont like it leave" argument is not an argument but a threat.

By voluntarily staying in a place where you are provided with services in exchange for payment you are taking part in a contract. In this case, it's the social contract.

The point is not where should people run, but is it moral in the first place? The whole" if you dont like it leave" argument is not an argument but a threat.
If I had the choice of being born 200 years in the future into a stateless society I would gladly accept the offer. I don't so I can only try and change what I can now.

The social contract is invalid because in every case it was brutally imposed on people without their consent.

If you accept the social contract as a valid contract then you also have to accept mafia protection payments as valid also because they meet the requirements of the social contract as "voluntarily staying in a place where you are provided with services in exchange for payment" is the same thing.

You get "protection" and the mafia gets "payment" for voluntarily staying in your area.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic2

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So if we are not slaves and we are not free either what are we? A sort of free-range slave?

PanchoVilla

Taxation is not slavery. Manufacturing a false global economic crisis so that banks can repossess your home, car, and anything else you may have accumulated over a number of years is slavery. Burying people in debt for the rest of their lives so that any money they make actually belongs to the banks/lenders is slavery. The banks have cleverly tricked people into accepting indentured servitude as a normal way of life. As soon as you sign that mortgage/loan application, you sell yourself into slavery.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

The point is not where should people run, but is it moral in the first place? The whole" if you dont like it leave" argument is not an argument but a threat.
If I had the choice of being born 200 years in the future into a stateless society I would gladly accept the offer. I don't so I can only try and change what I can now.

The social contract is invalid because in every case it was brutally imposed on people without their consent.

No, it was not imposed.
Either your parents made the decision on where to raise you or you made it yourself and emigrated here. I'm presuming you're old enough to make your own decisions and that you are not being held in Ireland against your will so it's you upholding your own part of the social contract.
You are not forced to accept it any more than you are forced to buy a car or a house.

simplistic2 wrote: »

If you accept the social contract as a valid contract then you also have to accept mafia protection payments as valid also because they meet the requirements of the social contract as "voluntarily staying in a place where you are provided with services in exchange for payment" is the same thing.

You get "protection" and the mafia gets "payment" for voluntarily staying in your area.

Sounds fairly similar to landlords who force tenants to pay for staying and benefiting from their land.
In a democracy, governments are voted in by citizens. They have legitimacy based on the shared consent of their citizens, subject to the constrains of whatever Constitution is being used.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The free market of nations at work. Good nations prosper and attract the best and brightest, poor ones fall by the wayside.

That no anarcho-capitalist nation exists (or has ever existed) seems to highlight the utopian nature of such a system.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're free to make decisions and to live with the bad decisions we make. Extends to voting and governments.
It's a shame, I know.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The free market of nations again. I could go down the route of trying to blame the failure of communism on the inevitabilty of its collapse based on the pressures of a communist nation in a capitalist world but we both know it'd be bollocks.
I was more referring to the pie-in-the-sky ideals behind it. The reason lovely communist and anarcho-capitalist regimes don't exist is presumably based on their inability to function and their impracticality.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No, it was not imposed.
Either your parents made the decision on where to raise you or you made it yourself and emigrated here. I'm presuming you're old enough to make your own decisions and that you are not being held in Ireland against your will so it's you upholding your own part of the social contract.
You are not forced to accept it any more than you are forced to buy a car or a house.

Im curious as to how you think states are formed?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Sounds fairly similar to landlords who force tenants to pay for staying and benefiting from their land.
In a democracy, governments are voted in by citizens. They have legitimacy based on the shared consent of their citizens, subject to the constrains of whatever Constitution is being used.

Reality is not democratic the definition of theft doesn't change depending on votes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Im curious as to how you think states are formed?

How states are formed isn't the issue here, given that we're dealing with the here and now.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Reality is not democratic the definition of theft doesn't change depending on votes.

Given that theft is taking something from someone without permission, it's a very precarious route to go down, given that taxation is a fulfillment of a contract.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How states are formed isn't the issue here, given that we're dealing with the here and now.

Since its the beginning of taxation and the beginning of the social contract it is the beginning of the issue. But you do know that they are violently imposed and the whole social contract is just an ex post facto justification for that.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Given that theft is taking something from someone without permission, it's a very precarious route to go down, given that taxation is a fulfillment of a contract.

Yes and how was that contract formed in the beginning?

silverharp

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There are around 200 nations to which you can emigrate to without any central government forcing them to behave the way they are, in effect, a market of governments.
There are various states with various levels of taxation and government control. You're free to move to any of these.

A strange line of reasoning ! , everybody has their own subjective criteria , based on family, work, firends, culture etc. where they want to live. The average person doesnt doesnt choose where to live based on the political system in place. It is only "a market" at the margin or in terms of capital movement which can vote by a couple of keystrokes.

simplistic2

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So African American slaves are just people whos full embrace of freedom is greatly inhibited by the political and social culture of big government also. You can pick your own rhetoric?

Thats great that you have become wealthy , I hope to exploit the government bubbles too if there is any left. But like a slave if followed to its logical conclusion I will be killed for refusing to pay taxes and defending myself from the aggressive government.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Since its the beginning of taxation and the beginning of the social contract it is the beginning of the issue. But you do know that they are violently imposed and the whole social contract is just an ex post facto justification for that.

Violently formed: probably but it has gotten it's own legitimacy these days, except for those nations where the citizens are prevented from leaving or where they dont choose their own government.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Yes and how was that contract formed in the beginning?

It's constantly being formed between the State and citizens who are born/immgrate and then broken again when they die/emigrate.

The social contract of feudalism is not what is being discussed here.

Lockstep

silverharp wrote: »

A strange line of reasoning ! , everybody has their own subjective criteria , based on family, work, firends, culture etc. where they want to live. The average person doesnt doesnt choose where to live based on the political system in place. It is only "a market" at the margin or in terms of capital movement which can vote by a couple of keystrokes.

Nah, they can choose where they want to live based on a wide variety of criteria, which includes political systems (no matter how high the standard of living might be, few of us would choose to live in a dictatorship)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Social democratic states are also responsible for the highest standards of living in history. Countries like Italy and Spain might be in a tough spot but with reform they can still function (Has there been an era of such peace and prosperity as there has been in Western Europe since WWII?)
Likewise, Clinton-era America and Germany show the resilience and possibilities that social democracy offers.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah you know I'm not trying to defend communism! My point was parenthetical at best, it was meant more that we can't have utopian ideas on politics.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Violently formed: probably but it has gotten it's own legitimacy these days, except for those nations where the citizens are prevented from leaving or where they dont choose their own government.

Lets take the rape analogy for a spin again! Essentially you are claiming that the latter acts overwrite the first act. If somebody is raped do you think that because a majority of people say rape is ok it justifies what happened to that person?

Or if my great great granddad was forced into a social contract that his unborn relations have to fulfill this contract?

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Violently formed: probably but it has gotten it's own legitimacy these days, except for those nations where the citizens are prevented from leaving or where they dont choose their own government.

If you were around the times of african american slavery would you say the same that it was violently formed and had gotten its own legitimacy because it became the norm?

Or what about kidnapping women and then selling them off to men to be wedded too.

In both cases the results seem to be "good" for society but does that make it moral?

simplistic2

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Im not sure of American history but wasn't it the government that caught most of the slaves? With many of the founding fathers owning them?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would depend on if you go quietly or not? I firmly believe that self-defence is legitimate but its also suicide and suicide doesn't really promote freedom.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Lets take the rape analogy for a spin again! Essentially you are claiming that the latter acts overwrite the first act. If somebody is raped do you think that because a majority of people say rape is ok it justifies what happened to that person?

No, I'm saying that the previous act is a separate issue from it in it's current state.
My ancestors were turfed off their land by English settlers and most of us would agree that kicking someone off their land is a very bad thing and a fairly black/white issue.
However, their descendants have been living on that land for centuries so it becomes a much, much more complex issue.

Keep in mind that governments are elected on the ideas of providing services in exchange for taxation so they have a legitimacy that being raped (forced to have sex) does not.
Also, rape is an act that can apply to everyone (noone forces you to work so that if you wish to avoid being stolen from, you can immediately leave)
However, being raped can apply to anyone, regardless of their own decisions (even if you are on your way to leave the country, you can still be raped)

simplistic2 wrote: »

Or if my great great granddad was forced into a social contract that his unborn relations have to fulfill this contract?

But you're not. Your parents had the choice of where you were born and were free to renounce this contract at any time. Now that you're old enough, you're accepting it yourself.

If you emigrated into Ireland, then you accepted the contract on your own behalf.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

If you were around the times of african american slavery would you say the same that it was violently formed and had gotten its own legitimacy because it became the norm?

Or what about kidnapping women and then selling them off to men to be wedded too.

In both cases the results seem to be "good" for society but does that make it moral?

In both of these cases, the slaves/women have no choice themselves.
The slaves and women weren't free to leave the contract so it's really not a fair comparison at all.

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In both of these cases, the slaves/women have no choice themselves.
The slaves and women weren't free to leave the contract so it's really not a fair comparison at all.

Maybe but lets put them to the test. Am i free to leave the social contract (pretending it exists) and stop paying taxes and not be governed?

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More as a mix between social democracy and capitalism. A strong welfare state is very compatible with free markets (places like Hong Kong). Capitalist advances have been occuring for centuries but when combined with the massive changes of post-WWII social democracy, saw a massive growth in living standards and quality of life.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The baby boom occurred directly after the war and the economic growth lasted for roughly 30 years (the French know this period as Les trentes glorieuses) so I'm not sure how you can brush this period of rampant economic growth as little more than babies being born.

The problem with some social democratic states is that they aren't changing with the times. For example, France is facing an aging population but stubbornly resists raising the retirement age, even though when social security was brought in, noone was expected to live for so many years after they retired.
Merely that social democracy hasn't changed doesn't mean there is a problem with the entire system.

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

Maybe but lets put them to the test. Am i free to leave the social contract (pretending it exists) and stop paying taxes and not be governed?

Of course you're free to leave the social contract. Pick out a country you like and move there.
End of your social contract with the Irish State.

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Of course you're free to leave the social contract. Pick out a country you like and move there.
End of your social contract with the Irish State.

Why are you equating landmass with a government?

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

Why are you equating landmass with a government?

I was using country in the sense of "territory of a nation-state". Not "lump of landmass"

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I was using country in the sense of "territory of a nation-state". Not "lump of landmass"

grand, so why are you saying to move to another country? Cant i stay where i am?

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

grand, so why are you saying to move to another country? Cant i stay where i am?

I was saying "move to another country" as you were asking if you were free to leave the social contract.

As by moving to Ireland you are accepting the social contract between the State and its citizens, or by being born here your parents made the decision on your behalf. I'm guessing you're old enough to leave Ireland on your own

Of course you can stay where you are but you are expected to uphold your end of the social contract.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Of course you can stay where you are but you are expected to uphold your end of the social contract.

Why am i expect to uphold something that doesnt exist that's only a concept in your mind? What happens if i dont?

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

Why am i? What happens if i dont?

Why are you expected to uphold your end of a contract? I'm not sure I need to explain that one.

What happens if you don't? Punishment. In the same way that would happen if you broke a contract with a company.#


Edit: you edited your above post so I'll respond accordingly.

Cróga wrote: »

Why am i expect to uphold something that doesnt exist that's only a concept in your mind? What happens if i dont?

Merely as a contract isn't written down doesn't mean it's not a contract. I'm sure you're familiar with unwritten contracts.

As above, if you don't uphold your end of the contract, then you can expect for the contractor to seek redress for your refusal to uphold your part of the contract.

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why are you expected to uphold your end of a contract? I'm not sure I need to explain that one. What happens if you don't? Punishment. In the same way that would happen if you broke a contract with a company.

I think you need to explain how it exists or is it just a concept in your mind? A company would be able to show me the contract can you show me yours?

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

I think you need to explain how it exists or is it just a concept in your mind? A company would be able to show me the contract can you show me yours?

Ha! No it doesn't!


Contracts exist all the time. If you go into a resteraunt and order a meal a contract exists between the two of ye. Likewise, if I go into a shop and buy a book, a contract exists between me and the bookseller.

Surely you know that contracts aren't all signature and documents?

Black Swan

simplistic2 wrote: »

This is the same situation you are born into living under an immoral government and just like the slaves born to the plantation providing them with housing and food does not disqualify the original and consistent theft of their output and freedoms.

"Immoral," or means-ends rationally amoral (Max Weber in Economy & Society), or a form of morality that supports the interests of the 2% that controls 80% of the wealth (C. Wright Mills "power elites"). This also raises the question of who is the "government" in reality, not just on paper, or the smiling faces on the telly shaking hands, kissing babies, and spouting platitudes?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Slavery can equal as much as 1% or 100% taxation the amount is irrelevant because slavery is being under constant threat of violence for not complying with your masters.

Reminds me of a variation on the theme found in One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse, but with more emphasis on the value produced by labour, rather than on the psychological nature of domination of the many by the few.

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What happens if you don't? Punishment.

First you said im free to leave/end the imaginary social contract now you're saying if i end it i will punished. Why are you advocating the initiation of violence against me?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Merely as a contract isn't written down doesn't mean it's not a contract. I'm sure you're familiar with unwritten contracts.

As above, if you don't uphold your end of the contract, then you can expect for the contractor to seek redress for your refusal to uphold your part of the contract.

Im not familiar with unwritten contracts, tell me all about them please.

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

First you said im free to leave the imaginary social contract now you're saying if i leave i will punished. Why are you advocating the initiation of violence against me?

You aren't being punished for leaving in the same way that you won't be punished for leaving a contract (unless there are specific provisions penalising you for doing so)
You will be punished for attempting to avail of the benefits of a contract without providing your end of the contract. Fairly standard contract law really.

I didn't say that you are free to end a social contract while claiming you will be penalised for attempting to leave the contract.
I said you are free to leave the contract (ending it) and you can be penalised for not fulfilling your end of the contract.

Please don't twist my words or construct strawmen.

Cróga wrote: »

Im not familiar with unwritten contracts, tell me all about them please.

Basically, contracts exist in every day life. Every sale and transaction between you and a vendor is an unwritten contract.

Cróga

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ha! No it doesn't!


Contracts exist all the time. If you go into a resteraunt and order a meal a contract exists between the two of ye. Likewise, if I go into a shop and buy a book, a contract exists between me and the bookseller.

Surely you know that contracts aren't all signature and documents?

Sure i understand what you're saying here. I buy a book or a meal we have voluntarily contracted.

What i'd like to know is the contract between government and me moral(voluntary) or immoral(coercive)?

constance tench

"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see"

A brief history of human enslavement...Human/Tax Farms by Canadian Philosopher Stefan Molyneux.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Lockstep

Cróga wrote: »

Sure i understand what you're saying here. I buy a book or a meal we have voluntarily contracted. And these are with things that are tangible in reality.

There is no written contract but you are receiving tangible benefits (such as access to education and defense by the armed forces)
Similarly, there is no written contract for private sector services but you receive tangible benefits.

Cróga wrote: »

What i'd like to know is the contract between government and me moral or immoral? Is it voluntary or coercive?

As with all contracts, it is both voluntary *and* coercive. Voluntary to enter into and leave, coercive if you try to abuse the contract (such as not upholding your end)

Black Swan

constance tench wrote: »

"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see"

Only if we are uninformed (Thomas Gray's ignorance is bliss) or in denial of the Iron Cage (Max Weber).