Taxation Is Theft [Archive]

MarxSchmarx

21st January 2012, 06:39

Hmmm...Yes.

The problem is not taxation but the manner in which the taxes are used. I'm sure the OP can agree.

I agree the problem is not taxation, but nor is it "the manner in which it is used." The real problem is what government taxes.

Working people's income, particularly those derived from employment, and their economic activity, particularly as it relates to the consumption of the necessities of life, should not be taxed. In fact, all purchases excluding certain high luxury items like recreational yachts and Lamborghinis, should not be taxed; or, if they are, the merchant needs to absorb that cost and not pass it on to consumers.

So to Teapartiers like Night Ripper, the response should be that income earned off the backs of others ("capital gains" and absurdly high salaries for "upper management"), income inherited, income from interest, and the like, is not "your money" in the first place. Conflating this kind of income with people's wages that already rip off workers is one of the oldest tricks in the right wing's book.

Ozymandias

21st January 2012, 06:53

I agree the problem is not taxation, but nor is it "the manner in which it is used." The real problem is what government taxes.

Working people's income, particularly those derived from employment, and their economic activity, particularly as it relates to the consumption of the necessities of life, should not be taxed. In fact, all purchases excluding certain high luxury items like recreational yachts and Lamborghinis, should not be taxed; or, if they are, the merchant needs to absorb that cost and not pass it on to consumers.

So to Teapartiers like Night Ripper, the response should be that income earned off the backs of others ("capital gains" and absurdly high salaries for "upper management"), income inherited, income from interest, and the like, is not "your money" in the first place. Conflating this kind of income with people's wages that already rip off workers is one of the oldest tricks in the right wing's book.

"...the merchant needs to absorb that cost and not pass it on to consumers." I can agree with that! But you know they would then just simply increase the price of the product or service to compensate for the loses, versus just adding the taxes to the subtotal. Those two sources of government taxation which you believe should be avoided constitute a massive chunk of the government's income. Do you believe the government could operate without taxation along these points?

Personally, I would not mind paying taxes if I could trust the government. If I knew that by paying taxes, I made a direct contribution to improve the well-being of fellow man. We simply cannot say that with certainty now.

Agent Ducky

21st January 2012, 07:31

You mean the roads built on real estate stolen from private individuals? Alright, stop stealing real estate from people to build those things and I will. I'd rather drive on private roads anyways.
How is this guy not restricted yet? :laugh:
No, the real stealing is when people own private real estate and use it to exploit people's surplus labor value. You can argue all you want that they're working voluntarily, and nobody is being forced to work, but what other options do they have? For many, the other option is starve/ live on the streets.

RGacky3

21st January 2012, 08:30

No taxation, no property right laws, fair deal.

pluckedflowers

21st January 2012, 08:45

Tim Cornelis

21st January 2012, 11:40

It all depends on what the tax money is used for. If the money potentially benefits everyone eg police, fireman, then it is not theft. But if the money is used to benefit a specific group of people to the exclusion of the rest, then it is theft. eg farmers or welfare recepients.

That is absolutely nonsensical. If you steal money, it's theft, regardless of the nature of its use.

If I come into your house and take all your live savings, then give it to the police, how is this not theft? Just because it went to a purpose that, according to you, "potentially benefits everyone" does not mean it's not theft.

Taxation is theft.

The rebuttals that you then need to stop using public roads, etc. is equally nonsensical. It makes as much sense as saying anti-capitalists should neither buy or sell goods, or that anarchists and communists should not use public roads either.

Night Ripper

21st January 2012, 15:57

I dun wanna pay for roads, I dun wanna pay for safe neighborhoods

False. I am more than willing to do business with someone that owns a road or security service.

I dun wanna pay so someone else's house doesnt burn down.

Again false. I'm more than willing to buy fire insurance so myself and others are safe and spread the risk around.

Go move to Somalia if you hate paying taxes so much.

I don't own real estate in Somalia. I own it here. I shouldn't have to abandon it just to avoid being victimized.

For many, the other option is starve/ live on the streets.

If you want charity, ask, beg. What gives you the right to point a gun at me and demand I give you something I don't want to?

No taxation, no property right laws, fair deal.

Property rights don't require taxation.

How did his real estate become private property in the first place?

It was unowned and it was claimed. There's no taxation required for that.

Ozymandias

21st January 2012, 16:59

That is absolutely nonsensical. If you steal money, it's theft, regardless of the nature of its use.

If I come into your house and take all your live savings, then give it to the police, how is this not theft? Just because it went to a purpose that, according to you, "potentially benefits everyone" does not mean it's not theft.

Taxation is theft.

The rebuttals that you then need to stop using public roads, etc. is equally nonsensical. It makes as much sense as saying anti-capitalists should neither buy or sell goods, or that anarchists and communists should not use public roads either.

Well, it wouldn't be theft if the individual gave his life savings away willingly. The government forces us to pay taxes, so we could easily interpret this as theft.

But permit me to expand this train of logic:

Society forces us to work to preserve our standard of living, therefore we are all wage slaves.

The government silences disparaging public expressions, therefore we live in a totalitarian state.

It's easy to exaggerate our conditions of existence to an extreme.

Klaatu

21st January 2012, 19:19

Are you saying that only the government can operate a water hose? There could never be private fire services?

Maybe I should have used the police department as an example. So let me ask you a question: Do you think there would be fewer police beatings, head bashings, pepper-spraying, tasering, etc under a private police force?

And yes, I would rather have my town govt put out my house fire, because a private fire department would not treat every home equally, depending on what sort of "fire plan" you could afford to pay (or none at all, in which case, goodbye house)

piet11111

21st January 2012, 20:03

How did his real estate become private property in the first place?

Conquest.

On a related note does anyone have night rippers address.

Rafiq

21st January 2012, 20:30

Listen, fucker, we'll take your shit and make you eat garbage regardless of whether you think it's ethically coherent. It's better for everyone.

More beneficial and efficient > ethics.

I mean you disgusting scumfuck with the "beg, charity" mentality. Shove your charity up your ass, we are not going to live off the benevolence of kings. We're gonna rip from you your means of developing charity.

And, p.s. You don't own shit, everything you own was built on the blood of the proletariat.

So go fuck yourself, piss off, and have a nice day on your tax-funded-technologically dependant computer, which would not exist if it wasn't developed by tax funded organizations.

Ocean Seal

21st January 2012, 20:32

You mean the roads built on real estate stolen from private individuals? Alright, stop stealing real estate from people to build those things and I will. I'd rather drive on private roads anyways.
Sweet, I'm going to declare that I own the road around your house and charge you an exorbitant fee everytime you step on it.

Mah money be under attack, bro wouldn't it be teh greatest if we privatisse all dem roads. That way everything is only voluntary exchanges. But if people be robbin eerrthing then we need to call in prviate security forces to beat them down. But den wouldn't it just be like multiple mini-states with teh po-lice everywhere?

Princess Luna

21st January 2012, 20:45

"Taxation Is Theft"
Do not dare call the fire department when your house is burning down, TeaPartyer.

Then gtf off of the public roads, bridges, services, sidewalks, buildings, etc.
I am going to play the devil's advocate here and argue against these statements. The state already took his money, so why should he not get what he is paying for? regardless of rather the payment was voluntary or not.

Le Rouge

21st January 2012, 20:47

I am going to play the devil's advocate here and argue against these statements. The state already took his money, so why should he not get what he is paying for? regardless of rather the payment was voluntary or not.

He actually got what he paid for. Roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc...

Princess Luna

21st January 2012, 20:55

He actually got what he paid for. Roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc...
Yes, and he was the saying the government should not take his money to pay for those things. If the government stopped making him pay taxes and yet he continued to use those facilities, then he would be a hypocrite. However as it stands, he (I assume) has had to pay taxes to the government, so using them does not make him a hypocrite, just someone who is getting what they already paid for. Once again let me clarify I don't agree with him. I just think saying "Opposing taxes, and using a public road is hypocritical" is like saying "Opposing Capitalism, and using a computer is hypocritical." they are both flawed arguments.

piet11111

21st January 2012, 21:50

Also Night Ripper what is your position on the Ludlow massacre ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

The Ludlow Massacre was an attack by the Colorado National Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_National_Guard) on a tent colony of 12,000 striking coal miners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miner) and their families at Ludlow, Colorado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow,_Colorado) on April 20, 1914.
The massacre resulted in the violent deaths of between 19 and 25 people; sources vary but all sources include two women and eleven children, asphyxiated and burned to death under a single tent. The deaths occurred after a day-long fight between strikers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action) and the Guard.
Ludlow was the deadliest single incident in the southern Colorado Coal Strike, lasting from September 1913 through December 1914. The strike was organized by the United Mine Workers of America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers_of_America) (UMWA) against coal mining companies in Colorado. The three largest companies involved were the Rockefeller family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_family)-owned Colorado Fuel & Iron Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Fuel_%26_Iron_Company) (CF&I), the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Fuel_Company) (RMF), and the Victor-American Fuel Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor-American_Fuel_Company&action=edit&redlink=1) (VAF)

#FF0000

21st January 2012, 22:07

#FF0000

21st January 2012, 22:13

Oh, and to the folks saying "lol don't use public shit then" need to stop and realize that, uh, the role of government goes beyond public works. You're talking about the gov't taking a good chunk of your paycheck to go towards wars, imprisoning workers, militarizing the police force and making it rain for the capitalist class. Roads and Schools are great but taxes are still bullshit.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

21st January 2012, 22:23

Roads and Schools are great but taxes are still bullshit.

Those, too, are for the capitalists, in a capitalist state, of course. Schools for educated but obedient labour, and roads to transfer their goods quickly and efficiently.

Klaatu

21st January 2012, 22:33

explain to me how you can own land in the first place without literally saying "hey this is mine don't touch or i'll hit you"

The truth is that no individual person really "owns" land anyway. The State owns the land you live on. You only own the value of the land, not the land itself. Here is why: I live in the USA. More specifically, the land I live on is within the USA; in fact it is the USA. Anyone that doubts this fact, try to declare yourself a sovereign country and stop paying property tax. See how long you can get away with that.

Oh, and to the folks saying "lol don't use public shit then" need to stop and realize that, uh, the role of government goes beyond public works. You're talking about the gov't taking a good chunk of your paycheck to go towards wars, imprisoning workers, militarizing the police force and making it rain for the capitalist class. Roads and Schools are great but taxes are still bullshit.

I think your conflict is with war and capitalism, not taxes, per se.

#FF0000

21st January 2012, 22:41

The truth is that no individual person really "owns" land anyway. The State owns the land you live on. You only own the value of the land, not the land itself. Here is why: I live in the USA. More specifically, the land I live on is within the USA; in fact it is the USA. Anyone that doubts this fact, try to declare yourself a sovereign country and stop paying property tax. See how long you can get away with that.

Yes but how does one claim to own land in the very first place without using force to back it up? If the land is public, then it's owned by the state, but how do they have any claim on it? If it's owned privately, then who'd they get that right from? And where did the person they got the right from get the right to own it themselves in the first place?

What I'm saying is that folks who support capitalism are wrong from the start because they assume things that aren't owned are things that simply have no owner and are waiting to be claimed, rather than being things that are "owned" by everyone. If anyone ever wants to say they own land, then the only leg they have to stand on is having a big stick to enforce their claim with.

So much for non-aggression lol.

I think your conflict is with war and capitalism, not taxes, per se.

Sure, but the state is not some neutral actor in this whole thing. The state serves and protects the interests of the ruling class -- even when they're appeasing us workers. I mean, shit, do you know how many companies got huge thanks to the New Deal under President Roosevelt? The answer is: only a handful while the rest had to go kick rocks and be poor-store, but that was the point.

Tim Cornelis

21st January 2012, 22:42

The government forces us to pay taxes, so we could easily interpret this as theft.

Which it is.

But permit me to expand this train of logic:

Society forces us to work to preserve our standard of living, therefore we are all wage slaves.

No at an accurate analogy. Wage slave implies physically compelled subjugation to another person. The fact that we have to work does not mean we are slaves per se.

The government silences disparaging public expressions, therefore we live in a totalitarian state.

Not an accurate analogy either. A totalitarian state is a state that rigidly controls all aspects of life, cultural, social, economic, and political. A government that smothers dissent is not necessarily totalitarian.

It's easy to exaggerate our conditions of existence to an extreme.

But it's not an exaggeration.

------------------------------------------

It was unowned and it was claimed. There's no taxation required for that.

Right. So... The ownership by King Leopold II of the Congo, which lead to the death of millions, was legitimate?

In fact, there is a much better analogy, also regarding taxation.

The US government came to unowned land, claimed it, so it is their legitimate private property. The Spanish government did the same in what is now Mexico. The US government bought parts of Mexico as well as Alaska.

Thus, all of US soil, with the exception of Hawaii, is legitimate private property of the US government.

So, the "taxation" you pay to the US government is actually just rent. And rent is completely voluntary. If you don't want to pay it, go live elsewhere.

In fact, the US government should not be democratically chosen as this is a violation of private property rights. It should be a private dictatorship.

That is, of course, according to your own logic.

-----------------

If you want charity, ask, beg. What gives you the right to point a gun at me and demand I give you something I don't want to?

Famine is justified, innit?

As Amartya Sen put it:

Take a theory of entitlements based on a set of rights of 'ownership, transfer and rectification.' In this system a set of holdings of different people are judged to be just (or unjust) by looking at past history, and not by checking the consequences of that set of holdings. But what if the consequences are recognisably terrible? … Refer[ing] to some empirical findings in a work on famines … evidence [is presented] to indicate that in many large famines in the recent past, in which millions of people have died, there was no over-all decline in food availability at all, and the famines occurred precisely because of shifts in entitlement resulting from exercises of rights that are perfectly legitimate. … [Can] famines … occur with a system of rights of the kind morally defended in various ethical theories, including Nozick's[?] I believe the answer is straightforwardly yes, since for many people the only resource that they legitimately possess, viz. their labour-power, may well turn out to be unsaleable in the market, giving the person no command over food … [i]f results such as starvations and famines were to occur, would the distribution of holdings still be morally acceptable despite their disastrous consequences? There is something deeply implausible in the affirmative answer

Get it now? The inalienable right to private property leads to a justification of private dictatorships an famine. Private property is illegitimate.

-------------------------------------------

Listen, fucker, we'll take your shit and make you eat garbage regardless of whether you think it's ethically coherent. It's better for everyone.

More beneficial and efficient > ethics.

Ah, so you do believe in ethics. If you do something because "it's better for everyone" you adhere to the ethical view of consequentialism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/).

Klaatu

21st January 2012, 22:50

Yes but how does one claim to own land in the very first place without using force to back it up? If the land is public, then it's owned by the state, but how do they have any claim on it? If it's owned privately, then who'd they get that right from? And where did the person they got the right from get the right to own it themselves in the first place?

What I'm saying is that folks who support capitalism are wrong from the start because they assume things that aren't owned are things that simply have no owner and are waiting to be claimed, rather than being things that are "owned" by everyone. If anyone ever wants to say they own land, then the only leg they have to stand on is having a big stick to enforce their claim with.

So much for non-aggression lol.

Complex questions, but realize that I am on the same page as you are: I support public lands. Private property is not OK (except if a person "owns" only about 1/10 acre, enough to put a small house on.) Millions of acres owned by rich people is a morally wrong thing.

Sure, but the state is not some neutral actor in this whole thing. The state serves and protects the interests of the ruling class -- even when they're appeasing us workers. I mean, shit, do you know how many companies got huge thanks to the New Deal under President Roosevelt? The answer is: only a handful while the rest had to go kick rocks and be poor-store, but that was the point.

But I am thinking of the ideal state, not the capitalist-owned state. Again, we are on the same page here.

#FF0000

21st January 2012, 22:50

no you see i must nitpick until i disagree with everyone on everything

cb9's_unity

21st January 2012, 22:54

You mean the roads built on real estate stolen from private individuals? Alright, stop stealing real estate from people to build those things and I will. I'd rather drive on private roads anyways.

You've got your history factually wrong. I'll focus my argument on America, but a similar argument could be made elsewhere. In America the land was originally public and more or less belonged to everyone. The fact is that Europeans actually originally stole that public land and made it private.

Pro-capitalists always distort history to make their artificial legal institutions appear "natural".

Ocean Seal

21st January 2012, 22:54

The rebuttals that you then need to stop using public roads, etc. is equally nonsensical. It makes as much sense as saying anti-capitalists should neither buy or sell goods, or that anarchists and communists should not use public roads either.
That has nothing to do with leftism. They asserted that taxation was theft so we ask that they not use the things that they're taxes pay for. Anti-capitalists shouldn't engage in ownership of the means of production because exploitation is theft.

We don't assert absurd idealist arguments like "the government stole the roads". We say wouldn't it be better if the working class owned the means of production?

Klaatu

21st January 2012, 22:56

Just finished watching the film "Jeremiah Johnson." This story takes place in 1830 frontier American West.
Johnson is an independent mountain man. He depends only on himself, because he lives alone (and pays no taxes!)
But then he gets married to a native. The family members all contribute to the common wealth of their camaraderie.
They all work hard together. Everyone contributes. And are stronger for it.

In the pioneer days of this country, everyone did his share and everyone pulled his weight.
The nation is like a huge family. Everyone must contribute to the commonwealth. Everyone must pay taxes.

No one likes paying tax. No one likes having to work. No one likes being last in line. But that's life.
So if you don't want to pay your taxes, then get out of this country. Or at least go live by yourself up in the mountains.

Tim Cornelis

21st January 2012, 23:02

Ozymandias

21st January 2012, 23:10

Which it is.

No at an accurate analogy. Wage slave implies physically compelled subjugation to another person. The fact that we have to work does not mean we are slaves per se.

Not an accurate analogy either. A totalitarian state is a state that rigidly controls all aspects of life, cultural, social, economic, and political. A government that smothers dissent is not necessarily totalitarian.

But it's not an exaggeration.

I was just raising other popular comparisons made in reference to our current social paradigm for that very reason--To make apparent the fact that they don't make much sense.

But in reference to taxation...the more I think about it, the more I realize that yes it could very well be theft. In the sense that an individual cannot really choose to live outside of the confines of society in order to escape taxation--Therefore taxation is forced upon us.

#FF0000

21st January 2012, 23:11

I also take issue with the idea of "the nation" being like "a huge family".

Klaatu

21st January 2012, 23:15

That is an incredibly weak argument. That guy are the frontier voluntarily chose to contribute to the common good.

And people voluntarily choose to live in a certain country.

Taxation is based on coercion.

So if one does not voluntarily choose to live in a certain country, one is free not to. No one is coercing anyone to live in this country. But to live here, one must contribute.

This reminds me of my old workplace. We have a "common" coffee pot: drink all you want, but you must pay $1.00 per week. Most participants drink one or two cups per day... but this guy drinks three pots per day... yet only pays $1.00. This is probably an argument against flat tax, but my point is that those that contribute little or nothing do not deserve to live in this country. Period. It's like that in any club, union, or organization. Pay or leave.

I also take issue with the idea of "the nation" being like "a huge family".

No nationalism intended here. It's just an analogy.

NewLeft

21st January 2012, 23:19

What to do with taxation? Democratize it.

Klaatu

21st January 2012, 23:21

What to do with taxation? Democratize it.

That is exactly what towns do. We vote our own "millage" for public schools, etc. No congressman is voting on our tax rate. I think this shoud also be done at the national level.

Tim Cornelis

21st January 2012, 23:29

And people voluntarily choose to live in a certain country.

So if one does not voluntarily choose to live in a certain country, one is free not to. No one is coercing anyone to live in this country. But to live here, one must contribute.

By your logic, most dictatorships are voluntary as you can leave.

What do you tell those pro-democracy protesters in Iran? That living there is voluntary and hence have no right to complain?

In fact, by your logic, wage labour and debt bondage is voluntary too! No one is forcing you to work there, no one is forcing you sign that contract.

What to do with taxation? Democratize it.

Democratise theft is not much better. And how is it not already subject to democratic procedures?

22nd January 2012, 01:09

Property rights don't require taxation.
It was unowned and it was claimed. There's no taxation required for that.
It does require coercion, however.

Klaatu

22nd January 2012, 01:15

By your logic, most dictatorships are voluntary as you can leave.

What do you tell those pro-democracy protesters in Iran? That living there is voluntary and hence have no right to complain?

In fact, by your logic, wage labour and debt bondage is voluntary too! No one is forcing you to work there, no one is forcing you sign that contract.

Democratise theft is not much better. And how is it not already subject to democratic procedures?

You are the king of straw-men aren't you.

You do not like paying taxes. Neither do I. But it is a necessary evil. I don't like the bourgeois capitalist state any more than you do. (When I say "state" I henceforth mean "The Socialist State" in case there is any question)

OK then what sort of system can you offer as an alternative, in order to pay for things like roads, schools, national defense, etc, which everyone must use? Who pays for that... in the Socialist State (or do without, and live alone up in the mountains?)

22nd January 2012, 01:15

Complex questions, but realize that I am on the same page as you are: I support public lands. Private property is not OK (except if a person "owns" only about 1/10 acre, enough to put a small house on.
WTF? 1/10 of an acre is extremely small and far less than what most working class people enjoy.

Klaatu

22nd January 2012, 01:20

WTF? 1/10 of an acre is extremely small and far less than what most working class people enjoy.

I live in the city. And if you live in an apartment building, you literally "live on top of" others. It's probably more like 1/100 acre in Manhattan.

22nd January 2012, 01:22

I live in the city. And if you live in an apartment building, you literally "live on top of" others. It's probably more like 1/100 acre in Manhattan.
So what? The land people live on should not be restricted to 1/10 of an acre.

Klaatu

22nd January 2012, 01:24

So what? The land people live on should not be restricted to 1/10 of an acre.

How do you feel about a single person owning, say, 10,000 acres?

22nd January 2012, 01:25

How do you feel about a single person owning, say, 10,000 acres?
Why are you asking?

Klaatu

22nd January 2012, 01:28

Why are you asking?

Because owning such a large estate would require one to be wealthy. "Being wealthy" is not going to exist after the capitalists are thrown out.

RedZezz

22nd January 2012, 01:39

Disregarding whether taxation is moral or not, it is not theft. In fact, tax evasion is considered theft from the state.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, however, since the question of what is or is not theft is a legal issue and current taxes are legal, the original arguement is void.

The morality arguement is that it is "immoral" since the government is "putting a gun to your head". Since this is also what property is, i.e. don't touch this without permission or be punished, would mean that property is also theft. It gives credit to Proudhon.

22nd January 2012, 02:14

Because owning such a large estate would require one to be wealthy. "Being wealthy" is not going to exist after the capitalists are thrown out.
But you dont have to be wealthy to own more than 1/10 of an acre.

Rafiq

22nd January 2012, 02:16

The truth is that no individual person really "owns" land anyway. The State owns the land you live on. You only own the value of the land, not the land itself. Here is why: I live in the USA. More specifically, the land I live on is within the USA; in fact it is the USA. Anyone that doubts this fact, try to declare yourself a sovereign country and stop paying property tax. See how long you can get away with that.

Isn't this a laugh.

This is, by far, a demonstration of your incapable understanding of materialism.

The Bourgeois class owns the land. Bottom line. It's there's, under their name, protected using their guns. This is how things started. The State is a mere instrument of enforcing this(which was a response, not a first cause), and part of enforcing it means you have to establish a "sovereign" country with land tax, etc. A country does not equate to one giant property, per se. A country is a unification of several different sections of Bourgeois property. The State, in actuality, is not a third party external force. It does not really own anything, the Bourgeoisie does. All "authoritarian" actions by the state (taxing, evicting, demolishing) are acts agreed upon by the higher ranking members of the bourgeoisie, in which they decided that it was best for their existence to continue. Klaatu, I don't know why you pull shit out of your ass, I think it's because you want to sound original or something.

Countries are merely instruments of the Bourgeoisie feeding the hunger of capital, the state, what the country is made of, merely was brought about to relinquish the hunger of capital. So, yes, Individuals do own land . Your analysis is completely Idealist and out of line with Marxian economics.

Revolution starts with U

22nd January 2012, 02:31

I have to agree with Rafiq, starngely. People only care about your "this is stealing" argument for as long as they derive some benefit. When the shit hits the fan, they will take your food and hopefully you will be left to starve. They might just cut your head off.

It's unfortunate, and I don't support it. But hey, that's life. You can say taxes are theft, and you are right, I agree with you. I can say property is theft, you probably don't agree with me. All that matters is who enforces what.
And I hate to break it to ya... but, uh... 99% of the people in the world would benefit from worker controlled economies far more than one controlled by small groups of elites.

Night Ripper

22nd January 2012, 13:39

Since this is also what property is, i.e. don't touch this without permission or be punished, would mean that property is also theft.

Self-defense of one's property is not theft. What's next, rape is theft?

RGacky3

22nd January 2012, 14:09

Property rights don't require taxation.

THey require a state, they require big daddy government to keep the privilage you call "capitalist property rights."

Tim Cornelis

22nd January 2012, 14:50

You are the king of straw-men aren't you.

How is it a strawman?

You do not like paying taxes. Neither do I. But it is a necessary evil.

That is beyond the point. I am debating whether taxation is necessary; or whether taxation is just, I am debating whether it is theft--which it is.

OK then what sort of system can you offer as an alternative, in order to pay for things like roads, schools, national defense, etc, which everyone must use? Who pays for that... in the Socialist State (or do without, and live alone up in the mountains?)

Again, I am debating whether taxation is a form of theft, not whether it is necessary. You are now implicitly arguing that because it is necessary, it is not theft. However, the necessity of an act does not change the nature of it.

That being said, in a socialist society you wouldn't necessarily need taxes.

Let's use a simplistic example of a time-based currency. Everyone is paid 10 labour credits for 1 hour of work by a remunerative-committee associated with the commune.

Those who work in hospitals would simply receive credits that represent their labour time. Those who work in schools simply receive credits that represent their labour time. The same goes for all public workers. There would be no need to deduce a certain amount of taxes from the workers to pay for the labour of public workers as their pay represents labour time.

In communism, there would of course be no need for taxation at all.

Disregarding whether taxation is moral or not, it is not theft. In fact, tax evasion is considered theft from the state.

No it's not. For example, each year I am forced to pay a certain percentage of my justly acquired income to the military. I never use the military or its services, I don't support the military, it does not exist for me, and I am not willing to pay for it. Yet I am coerced to pay for the military.

How is the state not stealing my money? Are you really saying that if I refuse to pay for the military I am stealing from the government?! What would I possibly be stealing by refusing to pay for something I have never used, and not support?

Taxation is the same as pizzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzo_(extortion)). You are forced by the mafia/state to pay a certain percentage of your income to the mafia/state or else they attack you by smashing your shop and imprisoning you, respectively.

RGacky3

22nd January 2012, 17:47

Self-defense of one's property is not theft. What's next, rape is theft?

Thats fine, if you can physically hold on to it, and defend it personally, sure. No one wants your tooth brush and pots.

Klaatu

22nd January 2012, 19:04

Isn't this a laugh.

This is, by far, a demonstration of your incapable understanding of materialism.

The Bourgeois class owns the land. Bottom line. It's there's, under their name, protected using their guns. This is how things started. The State is a mere instrument of enforcing this(which was a response, not a first cause), and part of enforcing it means you have to establish a "sovereign" country with land tax, etc. A country does not equate to one giant property, per se. A country is a unification of several different sections of Bourgeois property. The State, in actuality, is not a third party external force. It does not really own anything, the Bourgeoisie does. All "authoritarian" actions by the state (taxing, evicting, demolishing) are acts agreed upon by the higher ranking members of the bourgeoisie, in which they decided that it was best for their existence to continue. Klaatu, I don't know why you pull shit out of your ass, I think it's because you want to sound original or something.

Countries are merely instruments of the Bourgeoisie feeding the hunger of capital, the state, what the country is made of, merely was brought about to relinquish the hunger of capital. So, yes, Individuals do own land . Your analysis is completely Idealist and out of line with Marxian economics.
In what country, China? A Latin American dictatorship? You are trying to define what the state is, or who owns it, but that misses the point.

I am guilty of not being specific: I meant the proletariat does not own land, the bourgeois state does. This is the same thing you point out. :rolleyes: So you have not refuted my argument. On the contrary, you have helped support it.

Do not think that my idea is an endorsement of this lack of rights/ownership; in fact I don't like the present system at all.

#FF0000

22nd January 2012, 19:18

Self-defense of one's property is not theft. What's next, rape is theft?

Nope.

To even claim ownership of property in the first place requires coercion.

Klaatu

22nd January 2012, 20:54

How is it a strawman?

Fallacy: Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

That is beyond the point. I am debating whether taxation is necessary; or whether taxation is just,
I am debating whether it is theft--which it is.

When you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread, does the merchant steal your money from you when you take the bread?
Of course not. You are getting something for your money. Taxation is not theft either, because you are getting something in
return for your money. For example, a nice highway to get to your job. That is a good reason taxation is not theft; you would
have to pay for that highway anyway even if it were a privately-owned toll road (which would be much more expensive to use)
In fact just about anything we use public funds for (roads, schools, police, fire dept, etc) you would have to buy anyway at a
higher cost if were exclusively privately-owned.

The idea that "taxation is theft" is as off-the-wall reasoning as is "driving on a public road is trespassing"
because you are committing "theft" of a highway lane, by slowing down fast-driving daredevils or something.

Again, I am debating whether taxation is a form of theft, not whether it is necessary. You are now implicitly arguing that because it is necessary, it is not theft. However, the necessity of an act does not change the nature of it.

That being said, in a socialist society you wouldn't necessarily need taxes.

Let's use a simplistic example of a time-based currency. Everyone is paid 10 labour credits for 1 hour of work by a remunerative-committee associated with the commune.

Those who work in hospitals would simply receive credits that represent their labour time. Those who work in schools simply receive credits that represent their labour time. The same goes for all public workers. There would be no need to deduce a certain amount of taxes from the workers to pay for the labour of public workers as their pay represents labour time.

In communism, there would of course be no need for taxation at all.

Everyone still has to pay for the schools and roads. And what about the parents of children in privately-owned worker business co-ops?
How would they compensate the teachers? Directly as is done with private schools? If so, then the children of poorer workers would not
get a proper education, because parents could not afford to pay (Every child deserves an equal level of education), something only possible
with community-owned (pubic) schools.

So then what's the difference? The system you are proposing is just a facsimile of a tax system, but with a different name.

RevSpetsnaz

22nd January 2012, 21:11

After reading this guys posts i love how thick he is. You repeatedly fall back on the idea of privatized services, you mean the privatized services that will in all likelihood charge you an astronomical price for the said service?

Rafiq

22nd January 2012, 21:57

In what country, China? A Latin American dictatorship? You are trying to define what the state is, or who owns it, but that misses the point.

I am guilty of not being specific: I meant the proletariat does not own land, the bourgeois state does. This is the same thing you point out. :rolleyes: So you have not refuted my argument. On the contrary, you have helped support it.

Do not think that my idea is an endorsement of this lack of rights/ownership; in fact I don't like the present system at all.

The Bourgeois State does not own the land of the Bourgeoisie, though. That is what I mean.

Decolonize The Left

22nd January 2012, 22:02

You's all getting trolled so hard right now...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b23/callouspenguin/lol-i-troll-you1.png

- August

Klaatu

23rd January 2012, 01:47

The Bourgeois State does not own the land of the Bourgeoisie, though. That is what I mean.

Fair enough. But can we agree that the Bourgeois State and The Bourgeoisie are joined at the hip, so to speak?

tbasherizer

23rd January 2012, 02:42

Fair enough. But can we agree that the Bourgeois State and The Bourgeoisie are joined at the hip, so to speak?

I hate to butt in, but I don't think you can. Rafiq is saying (and I kind of agree) that the bourgeoisie, being the dominant class in the capitalist mode of production, has control of the capitalist state. To be joined at the hip would imply some degree of equal partnership, whereas there is actually a dominance relationship going on. I wouldn't put it in such direct terms as Rafiq, but I agree with his thesis.

Klaatu

23rd January 2012, 03:14

I hate to butt in, but I don't think you can. Rafiq is saying (and I kind of agree) that the bourgeoisie, being the dominant class in the capitalist mode of production, has control of the capitalist state. To be joined at the hip would imply some degree of equal partnership, whereas there is actually a dominance relationship going on. I wouldn't put it in such direct terms as Rafiq, but I agree with his thesis.

You might be right, comrade. Dominance/Submission. Goodgod how did it ever get this bad? :crying:

All the propaganda they fed to us in our school days was bullshit ("capitalism is the best system" and all of that... if it is so great, why do they feel the need to promote it so much?) Truth is that, today's U.S. is really not much different than the things fought against in the First Revolution in 1776, are they.

Night Ripper

23rd January 2012, 14:28

Nope.

To even claim ownership of property in the first place requires coercion.

No, it doesn't. Why?

After reading this guys posts i love how thick he is. You repeatedly fall back on the idea of privatized services, you mean the privatized services that will in all liklihood charge you an astronomical price for the said service?

Let's not call names. It appears to me that you didn't say anything about whether or not taxation is theft. You are simply saying that without taxation I'd be forced to pay a lot more money to a private service. Even if that were true (it's not) why does that matter. Are you alright with rape because otherwise you'd have to pay a lot more money through dating?

Like I said though, it's not even true that I'd have to pay a lot for a private service. Let's talk about trash. Let's say that there is a service that can pick up trash and their costs for running the service is $20 a house but they charge $200 a house. If that's the case, some other service can open up and start charging $180 a house while still making a huge profit. Another service can open for $160. The original service lowers its price to $140 and so on. Through market competition, the price you pay will approach the cost of the service provided. This is basic economics.

Revolution starts with U

23rd January 2012, 20:36

No, it doesn't. Why?

How are you going to say "this is mine" and enforce it without saying "and I'll shoot you (or have someone else) if you disagree."

Let's put it like this. A is walking through the woods and comes upon a pond. He stops to take in the scenery. B comes running out of the domicile with a gun screaming "mine" and threatening to shoot A if A doesn't leave or pay him.

What kind of doublethink and mental gymnastics are you going to go through to claim A as the aggressor, rather than B?

RevSpetsnaz

23rd January 2012, 20:50

No, it doesn't. Why?

Let's not call names. It appears to me that you didn't say anything about whether or not taxation is theft. You are simply saying that without taxation I'd be forced to pay a lot more money to a private service. Even if that were true (it's not) why does that matter. Are you alright with rape because otherwise you'd have to pay a lot more money through dating?

Like I said though, it's not even true that I'd have to pay a lot for a private service. Let's talk about trash. Let's say that there is a service that can pick up trash and their costs for running the service is $20 a house but they charge $200 a house. If that's the case, some other service can open up and start charging $180 a house while still making a huge profit. Another service can open for $160. The original service lowers its price to $140 and so on. Through market competition, the price you pay will approach the cost of the service provided. This is basic economics.

Well for starters i didnt call anyone a name, i pointed out a fact. This idea that private services are a viable option under the presumption that the person providing the said service is a fair and moral person is a ignorant one. I see what youre getting at with your example however were living in exactly that kind of economic system and the cost of living is increasing, not decreasing.

Tim Cornelis

23rd January 2012, 21:01

Fallacy: Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

I am not asking what a strawman is, but how I used it.

When you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread, does the merchant steal your money from you when you take the bread?

No, because it's a voluntary exchange.

Of course not. You are getting something for your money. Taxation is not theft either, because you are getting something in
return for your money. For example, a nice highway to get to your job. That is a good reason taxation is not theft; you would
have to pay for that highway anyway even if it were a privately-owned toll road (which would be much more expensive to use)
In fact just about anything we use public funds for (roads, schools, police, fire dept, etc) you would have to buy anyway at a
higher cost if were exclusively privately-owned.

Except I am not using the things I am paying taxes for!

It's like this: I go to buy a loaf of bread. The merchant says "that'll be 2$", and I reach into the pocket of the guy next to me to buy for the loaf of bread. That's the concept of taxation.

A realistic example:

I don't want a military. I don't like the military. I have never used the military. I have never used a military service. It does not exist for me.

Therefore, I don't want to pay for it, because I do not, have not, and will not use it!

But, I am forced to pay for the military, because other people want a military.

See? It's coercion. The state is reaching into my pockets and take my money to pay to the military, while I do not want it nor have I given my consent!

Everyone still has to pay for the schools and roads. And what about the parents of children in privately-owned worker business co-ops?
How would they compensate the teachers? Directly as is done with private schools? If so, then the children of poorer workers would not
get a proper education, because parents could not afford to pay (Every child deserves an equal level of education), something only possible
with community-owned (pubic) schools.

You don't need to pay for education or healthcare if you have labour credits.

Look, someone goes to the doctor for one hour. If healthcare is not free, the patient has to pay 10 labour credits for the service (sidenote: he pays 10 labour credits for the service, he does not pay 10 labour credits to the doctor because labour credits do not circulate--they simply disappear from his account). For 1 hour work, the doctor receives 10 labour credits from a committee. He does not receive those credits from the patient--they are created out of thin air and are backed by labour time.

But it is democratically decided that healthcare should be free. So, the patient goes to the doctor for 1 hour, but does not have to pay 10 labour credits. How is the doctor compensated for his 1 hour of labour? Since labour credits do not circulate, the committee simply creates 10 labour credits and add it to his account.

See? No taxation required because labour credits do not circulate and can be created out of thin air. You don't need to take someone else's labour credits to pay for everyone's healthcare.

Marx likened labour vouchers to theater tickets. It's the same. If I receive a theater ticket as a gift, I will lose it when I go the watch a film. But, if the film theater is free (like healthcare) I don't have to give a theater ticket, yet it requires no taxation.

So then what's the difference? The system you are proposing is just a facsimile of a tax system, but with a different name.

No it's not, because labour credits do not circulate!

I can't really explain it any simpler than this.

danyboy27

23rd January 2012, 21:07

#FF0000

23rd January 2012, 21:22

No, it doesn't. Why?

Because there is literally no other way to say you own something that is unowned other than to say "hey this lake or whatever is mine now, and here is the stick I am going to defend it with".

basically to use words libertarians like to use, private property impedes on people's agency.

Night Ripper

23rd January 2012, 21:59

A is walking through the woods and comes upon a pond. He stops to take in the scenery. B comes running out of the domicile with a gun screaming "mine" and threatening to shoot A if A doesn't leave or pay him.

A is walking through the woods and comes across a fence with a sign on it that says "No Trespassing". A ignores the sign, climbs the fence and comes upon a pond. He stops to take in the scenery. B comes walking out of the domicile and asks A to leave or B will be forced to remove A from the premises.

I won't be so rude as to accuse you of doublethink or mental gymnastics but I hope you can see that if A refuses to leave then A is the aggressor, not B.

Because there is literally no other way to say you own something that is unowned other than to say "hey this lake or whatever is mine now, and here is the stick I am going to defend it with".

There's no other way to prevent being raped than by that same manner. That doesn't suddenly mean that preventing people from raping you is coercion. Self-defense of person or property is not coercion. If you don't want to own property then let me know and I'll come by and pick it up.

Rafiq

23rd January 2012, 22:02

No, it doesn't. Why?

Because something as organic as your body belongs to you from birth, as it's function is to assure your brain is kept in tact, and you are your brain. (However I am not saying this in a universal sense, that this is set in stone, we are just playing moral games right now). Property rights have changed, varied, and transformed during the coarse of human history. As a matter of fact, as stupid as you are, you claim that property rights - as old as two hundred years old, were, and still are, somehow set in stone, passed down from the gods, unquestionable and universal, as if they are a natural part of human 'nature'.

I'm appalled you would even ask such a question. You have a lot to learn, and until you do, it's best you keep your mouth shut, lest you end up looking like a jack-ass (which, non coincidentally, you are).

Rafiq

23rd January 2012, 22:05

Because there is literally no other way to say you own something that is unowned other than to say "hey this lake or whatever is mine now, and here is the stick I am going to defend it with".

basically to use words libertarians like to use, private property impedes on people's agency.

But then it would require force, to protect (lack-of) property rights imposed in a post capitalist society, no? Of this we should have no objections. We should not be afraid of using force to defend what truly belongs to the proletariat - everything produced within the capitalist mode of production.

Night Ripper

23rd January 2012, 22:12

Because something as organic as your body belongs to you from birth, as it's function is to assure your brain is kept in tact, and you are your brain. (However I am not saying this in a universal sense, that this is set in stone, we are just playing moral games right now). Property rights have changed, varied, and transformed during the coarse of human history. As a matter of fact, as stupid as you are, you claim that property rights - as old as two hundred years old, were, and still are, somehow set in stone, passed down from the gods, unquestionable and universal, as if they are a natural part of human 'nature'.

I'm appalled you would even ask such a question. You have a lot to learn, and until you do, it's best you keep your mouth shut, lest you end up looking like a jack-ass (which, non coincidentally, you are).

I'm not going to bother responding to any more of your posts since you can't be respectful. I'm sorry that my words upset you so much but you really need to act more mature than calling me names.

Omar the Lucky

23rd January 2012, 22:19

#FF0000

23rd January 2012, 23:11

But then it would require force, to protect (lack-of) property rights imposed in a post capitalist society, no? Of this we should have no objections. We should not be afraid of using force to defend what truly belongs to the proletariat - everything produced within the capitalist mode of production.

Yeah but that force would be in self-defense. All of it. So, justifiable.

Keep in mind I'm also sorta stepping into the shoes of a libertarian and taking their dumbness to their logical conclusions.

RevSpetsnaz

24th January 2012, 00:43

Night Ripper

24th January 2012, 01:16

Heres a question for you. Say we allow the roads and the railways and whatnot to be built by private enterprise, that would mean those private enterprises would need to be contracted by the state, wheres the state getting the money to pay for those contracts?

We don't need the state to contract pizza, pencils or pogo sticks. We don't need the state to contract roads either.

Rafiq

24th January 2012, 02:46

I'm not going to bother responding to any more of your posts since you can't be respectful. I'm sorry that my words upset you so much but you really need to act more mature than calling me names.

Ah, a cop out.

Klaatu

24th January 2012, 02:51

Like I said though, it's not even true that I'd have to pay a lot for a private service. Let's talk about trash. Let's say that there is a service that can pick up trash and their costs for running the service is $20 a house but they charge $200 a house. If that's the case, some other service can open up and start charging $180 a house while still making a huge profit. Another service can open for $160. The original service lowers its price to $140 and so on. Through market competition, the price you pay will approach the cost of the service provided. This is basic economics.

Socialism works this way too. (surprise!) :D

The difference is that there is no multi-million dollar CEO raking in his enormous cut, so prices can be even lower under Socialism!

Klaatu

24th January 2012, 02:59

Ah, a cop out.

You really should lighten up on the ad-homenim. You dissed me too a few times.

Being disrespectful to opponents just makes us leftists look bad to outsiders, comrade. :)

Rafiq

24th January 2012, 03:05

You really should lighten up on the ad-homenim. You dissed me too a few times.

Being disrespectful to opponents just makes us leftists look bad to outsiders, comrade. :)

There wasn't an ounce of ad homenim(using personal attacks to validate argumetn) in the post. I correctly set to dirt his shit post. The personal attacks don't have anything to do with the essence of the post. And we leftists already look bad, especially to this piece of shit called Night Ripper, who thinks

If you want charity, ask, beg.

He wants the working people to "beg" him. A gesture of humiliation and dominance. And in return, he will receive only the fire of the revolution. No begging, no benevolence. Only force.

RevSpetsnaz

24th January 2012, 03:25

We don't need the state to contract pizza, pencils or pogo sticks. We don't need the state to contract roads either.

Ok so whos hiring the private enterprise to build and fix the roads and railways and whatnot?

RGacky3

24th January 2012, 08:12

We don't need the state to contract pizza, pencils or pogo sticks. We don't need the state to contract roads either.

Pizzas pencils or pogo sticks are not common goods.

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 12:37

There's no other way to prevent being raped than by that same manner. That doesn't suddenly mean that preventing people from raping you is coercion.

What you're saying is going off the presumption that the thing in question is owned. I'm saying it is impossible to own anything in the first place without forcing people to let you have it.

Say there is a lake. Nobody owns it. Everyone gets to use it. How does someone claim ownership of it without just forcing people to stop using it?

Keep in mind this is how private property came to exist

Really doesn't compare to defending oneself.

Nox

24th January 2012, 13:04

If you want my money, make me an offer, ask nicely and if I say no, respect my wishes. Anything other than that is antisocial and barbaric. Hopefully, future generations will look back in amazement at how we robbed each other using the threat of violence.

I totally agree. Here's an idea: Get rid of taxes. In fact, get rid of the whole system.

Night Ripper

24th January 2012, 14:27

Ok so whos hiring the private enterprise to build and fix the roads and railways and whatnot?

The customers.

Pizzas pencils or pogo sticks are not common goods.

Food is most certainly a common good, unless you know people that don't benefit from eating (aliens or robots perhaps)?

Nobody owns it. Everyone gets to use it.

Then everyone using it owns it. They can divide it evenly or turn it into a joint-stock company. It certainly isn't justifiable to be one of many users and then claim something as yours. By "use" I mean regular use, not that you washed your feet in a pond 12 years ago and haven't seen it since.

RGacky3

24th January 2012, 14:34

Food is most certainly a common good, unless you know people that don't benefit from eating (aliens or robots perhaps)?

No dumbass, by definition, the roads are for common good, tons of people drive on the same road, everyone can ride on the same road, no one can eat your funions after you've eaten them.

Shit, CARS are more of a common good than food, at least more than one person can drive a car.

Your knowlege of economics is WAAAYYYY to limited to warrent your cockiness.

Jimmie Higgins

24th January 2012, 14:38

If you want my money, make me an offer, ask nicely and if I say no, respect my wishes. Anything other than that is antisocial and barbaric. Hopefully, future generations will look back in amazement at how we robbed each other using the threat of violence.

This is a pretty abstract way of looking at it. Is taxation coercion? Yes, but the question is for who and for what purpose.

As others have said, the modern state is not a neutral body with interests unconnected to the present organization of society: capitalist production for profit. So for the US, as an example, the state from the very beginning was a tool for securing funds for things that the entire ruling class agreed were beneficial - obviously this comes out of their own interests and the interests of the people they represented: merchants and landowners. So their concerns were having a common currency and creating standard trade rules between states as well as creating a military that domestically could put down the anti-tax and anti-judiciary revolts of small farmers after the Revolution and eventually a naval force to secure trade routes and ports. So yes, coersion - but for what interests, and against whom?

Of course the pre-Civil War US government also increasingly became a tool for the slave-owners to maintain their property rights too. This brings me to the second point about coercion. The capitalist state is necessary because capitalism is built on theft and coercion. Where did the initial start-up capital that jump-started capitalism in Europe and eventually the Americas and beyond really originally come from? Theft. Theft of land, resources, and labor in the form of slaves. What was the basis of all trade in late colonial north America and the early US? Trade of Caribbean cash crops grown on stolen land and harvested with stolen slave-labor. In England where did private property come from? The enclosure of common lands worked on by the peasantry and their forced entry into the job market through first evictions and then once homeless anti-vagabond laws.

Of course many apologists for capitalism will claim, "but this isn't real capitalism" but that's because they mistake ideals for reality... also known as dogmatism. By looking at capitalism as an abstraction and in isolation from the totality of society, you can hide the historical and daily theft of the system because, well people just accept these arrangements as either normal or the only real option.

So yes, capitalist taxation is theft by representatives of the system to maintain, expand, reform, or defend the system. And compared to the lifetime of toil and sucking our hopes and dreams into it's profit-driven logic, taxation, is a rather petty crime in the scheme of things.

RevSpetsnaz

24th January 2012, 14:38

The customers..

The customers pay to contract the private enterprise to build and fix the roads and railways and whatnot? Youre implying the individual is the customer? If the individual is the customer then youre expecting a few to pay for the services of the many, which goes against your argument of ownership as you cant stop people from using the those roads and railways and whatnot.

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 15:00

Then everyone using it owns it. They can divide it evenly or turn it into a joint-stock company. It certainly isn't justifiable to be one of many users and then claim something as yours. By "use" I mean regular use, not that you washed your feet in a pond 12 years ago and haven't seen it since.

Except that's very hand-wavy and isn't really a feasible way to deal with it. Does someone who swam in the lake 10 minutes ago own it more than a person who is swimming in it right now? When exactly do you lose "ownership" over the lake?

Seems to me that it's a lot more sensible and a lot more logically coherent to just say everyone should have access to the lake, and that it's wrong to exclude anyone from it.

Misanthrope

24th January 2012, 17:58

I'd never dream of forcing you to work. Just like you'd never dream of threatening or preventing anyone from crossing the picket line. Right?

Not "you" but the system "you" control. And I would prevent someone from crossing a picket line, for the record.

Night Ripper

24th January 2012, 18:21

And I would prevent someone from crossing a picket line, for the record.

I consider that to be a form of assault. If someone wants to work at the wage offered, you should let them. You shouldn't use violence to stop them.

RevSpetsnaz

24th January 2012, 18:26

I consider that to be a form of assault. If someone wants to work at the wage offered, you should let them. You shouldn't use violence to stop them.

And thats exactly how you end up with slave labor.

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 18:28

I consider that to be a form of assault. If someone wants to work at the wage offered, you should let them. You shouldn't use violence to stop them.

Nah, it's self-defense actually.

Rafiq

24th January 2012, 19:47

I consider that to be a form of assault. If someone wants to work at the wage offered, you should let them. You shouldn't use violence to stop them.

The proletariat are the ones getting disatysfied with the bourgeoisie, and their bloody wages, the communist movement (Us) was merely a collection, and a reflection of their interests. We aren't some opportunistic third party (unlike you) who wants to use the working class to for-fill our ideological desires.

Night Ripper

24th January 2012, 22:55

And thats exactly how you end up with slave labor.

By paying them what they offer to work for?

Rafiq

24th January 2012, 22:59

By paying them what they offer to work for?

It's not like the have consent over what you are paying them, you fool.

They either take your shit wages or starve. And all the wealth you get for paying their wages, they created (They do all the work, no?). In Slave Labor, a Slave was clothed, fed, and sometimes, even given great conditions to live in. Some slaves, when offered the choice, chose to stay in their current position, for they had no choice.

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 23:00

By paying them what they offer to work for?

So you really don't see that management and the employing class have a huge amount of leverage in any kind of bargain between the employer and (potential) employee? Are you really so naive to think that management bargains in good faith?

Rafiq

24th January 2012, 23:00

Night Ripper, why is it you keep ignoring me?

RevSpetsnaz

24th January 2012, 23:28

By paying them what they offer to work for?

By continually lowering your offered wage it forces people to work for continually less.

Night Ripper

24th January 2012, 23:48

Night Ripper, why is it you keep ignoring me?

See post #83 in this thread.

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 01:41

See post #83 in this thread.

It's just a cop out. Why not ignore that and try and refute the essence of my posts? too hard for you to handle? Surly a big, powerful, capitalist, all merciful adult such as yourself can handle a few personal insults, huh, you piece of shit (see what I did there).

Wow, if all capitalists are such wimps, like you, perhaps proletarian revolution will be easier than I expected.

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 03:46

goddamn rafiq is intense

Klaatu

25th January 2012, 06:12

you piece of shit

:laugh::lol::p

sorry Rafiq but THAT was funny :D

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 13:44

It's just a cop out. Why not ignore that and try and refute the essence of my posts? too hard for you to handle? Surly a big, powerful, capitalist, all merciful adult such as yourself can handle a few personal insults, huh, you piece of shit (see what I did there).

Wow, if all capitalists are such wimps, like you, perhaps proletarian revolution will be easier than I expected.

If you really think it's a cop out, start acting polite and respectful then see if I continue to ignore you.

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 13:47

You still hav'nt addressed how capitalism could exist without state protection.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 14:44

You still hav'nt addressed how capitalism could exist without state protection.

Does that have any bearing on whether or not taxation is theft?

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 14:48

Yes.

If Capitalism could not exist with out a state, then it could exist without taxation.

BTW, national sovereignty, democratic sovereignty is just as justifiable as any sort of private property.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 14:58

Id like to know when hes going to answer my response.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 15:11

Yes.

If Capitalism could not exist with out a state, then it could exist without taxation.

BTW, national sovereignty, democratic sovereignty is just as justifiable as any sort of private property.

Whether or not something is possible is irrelevant to whether or not it's immoral. I own my land, nobody else. My house, my rules.

Id like to know when hes going to answer my response.

Make another thread if you want to discuss supply and demand.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 15:17

Make another thread if you want to discuss supply and demand.

Nice dodge.

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 16:17

Whether or not something is possible is irrelevant to whether or not it's immoral. I own my land, nobody else. My house, my rules.

You owning the land is the same as the state owning the land, except instead of the state denying people their agency, it's you.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 17:52

Nice dodge.

So you're not going to make a new thread?

You owning the land is the same as the state owning the land, except instead of the state denying people their agency, it's you.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 18:40

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Every reason one has to be against the state can be applied to property owners as well.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 18:44

Every reason one has to be against the state can be applied to property owners as well.

Property owners don't collect taxes, tell you what to do in your own house, interfere with the relationships of consenting adults, etc...

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 18:47

Property owners don't collect taxes, tell you what to do in your own house, interfere with the relationships of consenting adults, etc...

They sure do. They keep the lion's share of the wealth you created with your own labor at work, they fire you if you talk about organizing or don't like something you said on facebook (or anything they want, really), etc. etc. etc.

So, their power isn't nearly as wide as the state's, but it's undeniable that they do still restrict the agency of people like the state does.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 18:54

They sure do. They keep the lion's share of the wealth you created with your own labor at work, they fire you if you talk about organizing or don't like something you said on facebook (or anything they want, really), etc. etc. etc.

So, their power isn't nearly as wide as the state's, but it's undeniable that they do still restrict the agency of people like the state does.

No, not like the state does. You don't have the right to come into my house without permission. By "restricting your agency", I'm well within my rights. If I own a business and I say that everyone must wear silly hats or never talk on Facebook, it's my business. I'm within my rights to fire you for any reason whatsoever. According to your definition, preventing rape is "restricting agency". Good. I'm glad for it. You don't get unrestricted agency to punch me in the nose, trespass on my property or tell me how to run my business.

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 18:56

No, not like the state does. You don't have the right to come into my house without permission. By "restricting your agency", I'm well within my rights. If I own a business and I say that everyone must wear silly hats or never talk on Facebook, it's my business. I'm within my rights to fire you for any reason whatsoever. According to your definition, preventing rape is "restricting agency". Good. I'm glad for it. You don't get unrestricted agency to punch me in the nose, trespass on my property or tell me how to run my business.

No, because your person isn't property. Your body is just your body -- that is self-defense. To own property means to steal it from everyone else -- and to make profit means to steal it from the people who created it.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 18:59

No, because your person isn't property. Your body is just your body -- that is self-defense.

My body is my property. If I have a fake leg, you don't get to take it just because it's not my "body".

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 19:11

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 19:15

This thread is like:

A: There's a big elephant over there

x: No there's not

B: There's a big elephant over there

x: No there's not

C: There's a big elephant over there

x: I have no idea what you're talking about

No, it's not. If you don't want to participate in the discussion that's fine but please don't interject with pointless comments.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 19:19

So you're not going to make a new thread?

Why would i create a new thread for an defense avenue you took?

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 19:24

My body is my property. If I have a fake leg, you don't get to take it just because it's not my "body".

Good thing we differentiate between private and personal property.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 19:27

Why would i create a new thread for an defense avenue you took?

I've already said that if you want to discuss something other than "taxation = theft" then you can make a new thread and I'll discuss it with you. If I've said something off-topic then I apologize. If you don't want to make a new thread then I guess you don't really care to discuss that issue.

Good thing we differentiate between private and personal property.

I don't. Owning a fake leg or a factory both give me the same rights if I obtained them both through voluntary trade with the previous legitimate owner.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 19:29

I've already said that if you want to discuss something other than "taxation = theft" then you can make a new thread and I'll discuss it with you. If I've said something off-topic then I apologize. If you don't want to make a new thread then I guess you don't really care to discuss that issue.

We were discussing that issue, you brought up a particular defense and i challenged that defense.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 19:32

We were discussing that issue, you brought up a particular defense and i challenged that defense.

Stop wasting my time. Either create a new thread or don't. I'll be ignoring you in this thread either way.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 19:35

Stop wasting my time. Either create a new thread or don't. I'll be ignoring you in this thread either way.

Again, good dodge.

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 19:36

No, it's not. If you don't want to participate in the discussion that's fine but please don't interject with pointless comments.

I did. You ignored it.

x: no I didn't

:thumbup1:

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 19:38

Again, good dodge.

In the time it took you to write all these posts, you could have made that thread. At this point, it looks like you're the one dodging. Prove me wrong by making that thread. Until then, I'll assume you're scared.

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 19:39

Stop wasting my time. Either create a new thread or don't. I'll be ignoring you in this thread either way.

You mean you weren't going to do that anyway :confused:

Could've fooled me ;)

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 19:40

I did. You ignored it.

Assuming that I ignored something that wasn't abuse, I apologize. Please link me to what I should have answered or post it again. I do make mistakes sometimes.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 19:45

In the time it took you to write all these posts, you could have made that thread. At this point, it looks like you're the one dodging. Prove me wrong by making that thread. Until then, I'll assume you're scared.

Youre the only one dodging. Im not the only one whos asked you to elaborate on an answer or asked you a question that youve conveniently overlooked.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 19:54

Youre the only one dodging. Im not the only one whos asked you to elaborate on an answer or asked you a question that youve conveniently overlooked.

Nice dodge. Let me know when you make that thread.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 19:57

Nice dodge. Let me know when you make that thread.

Are you seriously falling back on the "i know you are but what am i?" defense?

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 20:02

Are you seriously falling back on the "i know you are but what am i?" defense?

Are you seriously going to keep dodging and not make that thread?

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 20:06

Are you seriously going to keep dodging and not make that thread?

Im not going to create another thread to continue the debate were having here. Either answer the questions or dont engage in the debate. On another note can i motion to restrict this imbecile? I wouldnt normally motion to restrict or ban somone merely because they didnt share the same stance as i do but this knuckle dragger is simply refusing to engage in a mature debate over the validity of his own statments.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 20:07

Im going to create another thread to continue the debate were having here.

Alright, cool. I'll be looking for it.

Franz Fanonipants

25th January 2012, 20:14

how is op not restricted yet?

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 20:21

How are you going to say "this is mine" and enforce it without saying "and I'll shoot you (or have someone else) if you disagree."

Let's put it like this. A is walking through the woods and comes upon a pond. He stops to take in the scenery. B comes running out of the domicile with a gun screaming "mine" and threatening to shoot A if A doesn't leave or pay him.

What kind of doublethink and mental gymnastics are you going to go through to claim A as the aggressor, rather than B?

This.

Let me also add that; yes, it requires coercion to stop yourself from being raped. You have no "right" to restrict anyone's actions, ever. Period.
We make up rights in our head, and then desperately search for a justification, but it's just circular reasoning. X is good because X is good.
People have rights becuase people enforce rights. To think anything else is just naive.

25th January 2012, 20:32

I've already said that if you want to discuss something other than "taxation = theft" then you can make a new thread and I'll discuss it with you. If I've said something off-topic then I apologize. If you don't want to make a new thread then I guess you don't really care to discuss that issue.

I don't. Owning a fake leg or a factory both give me the same rights if I obtained them both through voluntary trade with the previous legitimate owner.
What makes property legitimate, how do you obtain property legitimately in the first place?

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 20:42

What makes property legitimate, how do you obtain property legitimately in the first place?

There are two ways to legitimately obtain property, homesteading or title transfer (this could be trading, gifting, gambling, etc).

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 20:53

What gives you the right to homestead anything?

Homesteading only happens to other lesser people's lands. Humans did it to the Neanderthals, who in turn did it to homo erectus. Romans did it to Europe, Europe did it to the Americas.

Homesteading = theft and murder. Maybe when we go to Mars you can homestead there, that's about it.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 20:57

What gives you the right to homestead anything?

I'm not going to argue rights because I agree with you that rights are things we assert and defend ourselves. If you don't think I have the right to homestead or own property, we can debate until one of us changes our mind or we can use violence. I prefer debate.

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 21:11

So then you would agree you have every right to be or not to be taxed as the government has every right to tax or not to tax you?

In other words; taxation is only theft because you and I believe it to be theft. For proper citizens, it's taxation.

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:13

If you really think it's a cop out, start acting polite and respectful then see if I continue to ignore you.

I won't act respectful to a human being who suggests the proletariat beg him to stay alive. I know for a fact that my insults don't mean shit to you, and that you're just avoiding my posts because you have nothing to say. So instead, you evade the subject, move on to another point you grabbed out of your ass, and repeat the process.

Reply to my posts. Are you that sensitive? So, according to you, my insults, which make up a tiny fraction of the actual posts, flush away the whole essence of my refution? Are you kidding me? You're pathetic. OOPS. I'm sorry, sweet prince, I didn't mean to call you such a name. I hope you don't make me feel bad for you about it :crying:

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 21:13

In other words; taxation is only theft because you and I believe it to be theft. For proper citizens, it's taxation.

That applies to rape, murder, etc. What's your point?

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:20

That applies to rape, murder, etc. What's your point?

The point is, is that, to us, the real thief is you, whom would not exist if not you sucked out the labor of the proletariat. But we oppose bourgeois ethics, we have no problem stealing, lest it bring us an inch closer to class power.

This is not a moral game. This is about force. Our class interest has been transcribed, and the class of yours, demonstrated with the blood of our comrades. Don't try and compromise with us. We are like wolves, wolves that you need in order to retain power and survive. The more of us you kill, the more profit you kill. The more of you we destroy, the closer we are to retaining class power. This is how the game is played. The domination of the proletarian class is inevitable. What you can do, is kneel before the coming storm of history, and surrender, should the revolution be in the midst. Your property, your precious god-given land, will be ripped from you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, except Ethically criticize us, using ethics that do not exist, using morals which are 200 years old and socially constructed.

Bourgeois ethics are for the Bourgeoisie. We won't stand for you shoving them down our throats any longer.

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:23

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:24

I'm not going to argue rights because I agree with you that rights are things we assert and defend ourselves. If you don't think I have the right to homestead or own property, we can debate until one of us changes our mind or we can use violence. I prefer debate.

Well I prefer violence. Do you think you stand a chance against the insurrection?

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 21:25

"This message is hidden because Rafiq is on your ignore list."

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:26

See, I was being kind to this bastard and he put me on his ignore list, because he can't argue with me. He's a troll.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 21:26

I can't really make out whether Night Ripper is a troll. He certainly has the writing style of one. Problem is, is that it's hard to differentiate a troll and a desperate, weak animal who is being destroyed in an argument.

Hes a pompous invalid that smugly presented an argument that he now cannot competently defend.

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:27

Hey someone, do me a favor and quote the last 4-5 posts I made so Night Ripper can see them.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 21:28

Hes a pompous invalid that smugly presented an argument that he now cannot competently defend.

What would you like me to defend regarding taxation being theft? I'm calling your bluff.

Rafiq

25th January 2012, 21:29

You piece of shit, I already destroyed your arguments, yet you put me on ignore and started crying because I called you stupid or something

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 21:30

What would you like me to defend regarding taxation being theft? I'm calling your bluff.

See the relevant post.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 21:32

See the relevant post.

Don't make me dig. Show me something you've said that is relevant to the debate on whether or not taxation is theft and not the side debate you wanted to start about wage labor. I'm still waiting on that thread but I think you'll keep dodging that issue by trying to derail this thread.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 21:37

Don't make me dig. Show me something you've said that is relevant to the debate on whether or not taxation is theft and not the side debate you wanted to start about wage labor. I'm still waiting on that thread but I think you'll keep dodging that issue by trying to derail this thread.

Its not my fault you conveniently overlooked my relevant argument. I presented an argument relevant to the debate and said nothing about wage labor. The only one here trying to derail this thread is you, by selecting certain arguments and attempting to utilize them in the tactic of misdirection.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 21:39

I presented an argument relevant to the debate and said nothing about wage labor.

Then I apologize. That was not my intention at all. Please link me to that post and I will do my best to address it.

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 21:48

"This message is hidden because Rafiq is on your ignore list."

Don't be a coward, please.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 21:52

Then I apologize. That was not my intention at all. Please link me to that post and I will do my best to address it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/taxation-theft-t166978/index5.html

Second post from the bottom.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 22:00

The customers pay to contract the private enterprise to build and fix the roads and railways and whatnot? Youre implying the individual is the customer? If the individual is the customer then youre expecting a few to pay for the services of the many, which goes against your argument of ownership as you cant stop people from using the those roads and railways and whatnot.

Yet again, that has nothing to do with whether or not taxation is theft. If you want to know how private roads could work, start another thread. I'll gladly explain it there.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 22:03

Yet again, that has nothing to do with whether or not taxation is theft. If you want to know how private roads could work, start another thread. I'll gladly explain it there.

Im not going to start another thread so you can explain an argument you made here. You made the argument here so you need to explain it here.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 22:10

Its not my job to start another thread so you can explain your argument. You made the argument here so you need to explain it here.

I'll make another thread then but I'm not derailing my own thread.

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 22:32

I'll make another thread then but I'm not derailing my own thread.

No ones derailing anything, i asked a question pertaining to your argument and youre refusing to acknowledge it with an answer.

Night Ripper

25th January 2012, 22:37

No ones derailing anything, i asked a question pertaining to your argument and youre refusing to acknowledge it with an answer.

Here's your answer: http://www.revleft.com/vb/privatizing-roads-t167122/index.html

RevSpetsnaz

25th January 2012, 23:07

Here's your answer: http://www.revleft.com/vb/privatizing-roads-t167122/index.html

You can answer my question here, where it was asked. Im not going to accomodate your desire to assert your dominance over these this forum.

Night Ripper

26th January 2012, 00:50

You can answer my question here, where it was asked. Im not going to accomodate your desire to assert your dominance over these this forum.

Too bad.

RevSpetsnaz

26th January 2012, 01:01

Too bad.

For the forum perphaps. I guess youll get away with dodging those questions. Congratulations.

Revolution starts with U

26th January 2012, 03:11

That applies to rape, murder, etc. What's your point?

Hey someone, do me a favor and quote the last 4-5 posts I made so Night Ripper can see them.

I'm going to conquer two birds with one stone here. I wouldn't put this in quite the terms Rafiq did, but that doesn't negate its truth.

The point is, is that, to us, the real thief is you, whom would not exist if not you sucked out the labor of the proletariat. But we oppose bourgeois ethics, we have no problem stealing, lest it bring us an inch closer to class power.

This is not a moral game. This is about force. Our class interest has been transcribed, and the class of yours, demonstrated with the blood of our comrades. Don't try and compromise with us. We are like wolves, wolves that you need in order to retain power and survive. The more of us you kill, the more profit you kill. The more of you we destroy, the closer we are to retaining class power. This is how the game is played. The domination of the proletarian class is inevitable. What you can do, is kneel before the coming storm of history, and surrender, should the revolution be in the midst. Your property, your precious god-given land, will be ripped from you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, except Ethically criticize us, using ethics that do not exist, using morals which are 200 years old and socially constructed.

Bourgeois ethics are for the Bourgeoisie. We won't stand for you shoving them down our throats any longer.

RGacky3

26th January 2012, 08:50

Whether or not something is possible is irrelevant to whether or not it's immoral. I own my land, nobody else. My house, my rules.

Bullshit, you ONLY own your land because the state says you own your land, you only own your land because you have property laws protected by the state.

Without the state you don't own shit.

Revolution starts with U

26th January 2012, 10:36

Or some quasi statist aparatus (one unchecked by any democratic controls), mind you (people in his circles call them "PDA's; Private Defense Agencies.")

rylasasin

26th January 2012, 11:17

why is this guy not restricted yet? 44 posts and -70 rep, and an obvious reactionary.

Revolution starts with U

26th January 2012, 11:35

I've noticed rightists tend to get a little more leeway if they keep their posts to OI. I'm guessing the board feels that, until they leave OI, there's really no reason to restrict them. I could be wrong, but I've seen this happen a few times. :thumbup1:

danyboy27

26th January 2012, 17:36

Taxation is theft, but the alternative to keep the capitalist system to run is continuous martial law.

One of my former co-worker who was a colombian told me about how great and wonderful it was to live there with a security team of 4 former cop on his payroll fallowing him around almost 24/7. Always be on the lookout for kidnapping,keep your car door locked all the time, carry a pistol all the time.
But hey, he was paying less taxes!

Night Ripper

26th January 2012, 18:01

But hey, he was paying less taxes!

I'm not opposed to the amount of money. I'm opposed to how it's taken by threat of violence at gunpoint.

danyboy27

26th January 2012, 18:36

I'm not opposed to the amount of money. I'm opposed to how it's taken by threat of violence at gunpoint.

That capitalism, You cant have it without violence and coercion.

IF you think a system like that could last without the state acting has an enforcer, you are dreaming.

The whole scheme is more fragile than you may think.

RGacky3

26th January 2012, 18:43

I'm not opposed to the amount of money. I'm opposed to how it's taken by threat of violence at gunpoint.

I'm opposed to the fact that I can't pick apples on large swathes of land because someone claims they "own it" a claim defended by the guns of the state.

Night Ripper

27th January 2012, 02:21

I'm opposed to the fact that I can't pick apples on large swathes of land because someone claims they "own it" a claim defended by the guns of the state.

So if I plant an apple orchard, fertilize it and care for it, you should be able to just help yourself when the apples are ready? You have no problem stealing someone's labor?

Comrade Samuel

27th January 2012, 02:34

I'm in favor of socialism as long as it's voluntary. I think it doesn't work very well but it's your choice. Give me the same respect towards my choice.

Can I just ask what your talking about here? Rather than giving me a valid reason to doubt my critique of your logic all you said was "respect my choice I disagree with you." it's not like this is a volatile topic and it's not like peoples opinion on you here could really be affected that much so can I please ask why I am wrong? The point of debating something is to PROVE your right and someone else is wrong not sitting at an impass and doing nothing.

Your really kinda "American politician" answered me there.

Revolution starts with U

27th January 2012, 06:00

So if I plant an apple orchard, fertilize it and care for it, you should be able to just help yourself when the apples are ready? You have no problem stealing someone's labor?

Depending on the amount of surplus, maybe you should. BUt here's the important note; the people who actually planted, fertilized, and cared for teh apple orchard can't touch it either.

RGacky3

27th January 2012, 08:40

So if I plant an apple orchard, fertilize it and care for it, you should be able to just help yourself when the apples are ready? You have no problem stealing someone's labor?

Most people that own apple orchards, have someone lese fertilize it, care for it, and so on, shit most of them barely ever SEE the apple orchards.

Profit from ownership does'nt require any labor, thats the whole point of profit.

RGacky3

27th January 2012, 08:41

OH, and if you DID fertillize it and care for it, you should have as much as what you worked for, and what better way to find that out by a democratic process rather than a dictatorial one (which is what you support).

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

28th January 2012, 21:03

If you want my money, make me an offer, ask nicely and if I say no, respect my wishes. Anything other than that is antisocial and barbaric. Hopefully, future generations will look back in amazement at how we robbed each other using the threat of violence.

Well this all comes down to what people consider their own property. Nobody thinks you should have to ask nicely to use your own toilet so if your a communist and believe property is more justly arrange if its collectively owned for instance, why would you believe the proles should ask permission to use some factory if they already should own it?

Franz Fanonipants

30th January 2012, 01:47

So if I plant an apple orchard, fertilize it and care for it, you should be able to just help yourself when the apples are ready? You have no problem stealing someone's labor?

someone obvs never lived in a rural/agricultural area

man no one landowner NEEDS every bit of produce from an orchard/farm plot/etc.

you'd better believe other people are going to take your apples, but shit you don't need THAT many apples

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 02:54

you don't need THAT many apples

It's true that a man can only eat so many apples which is why I need them to trade for oranges, pears, etc.

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 02:58

I like how you passed all the responses saying "ya but often the owner didn't have any hand in planting, fertilizing, or caring for the orchard" and waited for something you already knew the answer to :thumbup:

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 02:59

That makes me wonder... is that how rightists see property?

If I say to someone "take my pans and make me a chicken" to a rightist does that equate to me actually making the chicken. Is anything done with my property, even if done by someone else, in their view, actually done by me?

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 13:42

If I say to someone "take my pans and make me a chicken" to a rightist does that equate to me actually making the chicken.

I don't identify as left or right so I wouldn't know. However, if you are asking me specifically, I would say that whoever makes the chicken... makes the chicken. No big surprise there. That says nothing about ownership though.

If I own the raw chicken, and you cook it, I still own the chicken, even if it's been cooked by you. If you own it, you still own it even if you cook it in my pan. You owe me a cleaned pan but you don't owe me your chicken.

If you steal my block of marble and chisel a statue out of it, you don't own the statue, I do and you owe me for damages to my block of marble.

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 13:45

I don't identify as left or right so I wouldn't know. However, if you are asking me specifically, I would say that whoever makes the chicken... makes the chicken. No big surprise there. That says nothing about ownership though.

If I own the raw chicken, and you cook it, I still own the chicken, even if it's been cooked by you. If you own it, you still own it even if you cook it in my pan. You owe me a cleaned pan but you don't owe me your chicken.

If you steal my block of marble and chisel a statue out of it, you don't own the statue, I do and you owe me for damages to my block of marble.

Because you say so? Too bad I have a bigger gun than you. Cry about it :crying:

Anyway, more importantly than hyperbolic beatitudes... what say you about the people who actually fertilize, plant, and care for the orchard not being able to enjoy any of the fruits of their labor (beyond what the dictator allows them)?

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 13:49

what say you about the people who actually fertilize, plant, and care for the orchard not being able to enjoy any of the fruits of their labor

I find that unlikely. They can always buy some fruit with their wages. If you don't want to work on someone elses farm, start your own.

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 14:12

So it's not really about working the fields at all then? That's the point we're trying to get across. We want you to stop saying silly things like "I believe the people who plant a field are entitled to the fruits of their labor" when what you really believe is "I believe the guy with the piece of paper and state guns on his side is entitled to the fruits of the labor of those who actually do the work."

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 14:23

So it's not really about working the fields at all then?

No, it's just not as simplistic as you want it to be. What I said still stands.

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 14:39

So if I plant an apple orchard, fertilize it and care for it, you should be able to just help yourself when the apples are ready? You have no problem stealing someone's labor?

This still stands? Good. That means you're on our side, property and its owners are illegitimate, and nothing but common thieves writ large.

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 14:45

This still stands? Good. That means you're on our side, property and its owners are illegitimate, and nothing but common thieves writ large.

Yes it still stands. The problem is, you agree to the wages when you start planting or you won't set foot on my property to begin with.

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 14:47

:blink:

So "helping yourself to the fruits of someone else's labor is stealing" unless you have a piece of paper saying "mine" and state (or quasi-statist defense agency) guns to back up your claim?

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 15:07

so "helping yourself to the fruits of someone else's labor is stealing" unless they agree to forfeit those fruits in exchange for a wage.

ftfy

Franz Fanonipants

30th January 2012, 15:11

It's true that a man can only eat so many apples which is why I need them to trade for oranges, pears, etc.

you don't NEED that many oranges, pears, etc.

you don't seem to understand that most people don't have your ridiculous, selfish, anti-human attitude

Night Ripper

30th January 2012, 15:14

you don't NEED that many oranges, pears, etc.

Then I'll trade for toilet paper, razors, flat screen TV's, etc. Trust me, that fruit won't go to waste. If I have everything I need, I'll give the rest away to charity as is my right.

Franz Fanonipants

30th January 2012, 15:16

Then I'll trade for toilet paper, razors, flat screen TV's, etc. Trust me, that fruit won't go to waste. If I have everything I need, I'll give the rest away to charity as is my right.

your fruit will be stolen unless you trade for some guns and hired goons comrade

e: your logic is the most hilarious petit bourgeois shit i can imagine, good on you

danyboy27

30th January 2012, 17:48

Then I'll trade for toilet paper, razors, flat screen TV's, etc. Trust me, that fruit won't go to waste. If I have everything I need, I'll give the rest away to charity as is my right.

Take in consideration that you are living in a community.
Why would anyone want to do buisness with you when they can just have the same thing for free from a friendly neighbor?I do that with my neigbor all the time, they lend me tool, and when they need a hand, i offer myself to help. there is nothing that i do they wouldnt do for me, Same goes for my co-workers

At the end, nobody are gonna trust you and you will beccome a small time peddler.

Revolution starts with U

30th January 2012, 21:31

ftfy

I hope you know those mean the same thing. The only reason they have to "forfeit" their self worth is because some guy claimed property and hired some guns to protect it. Without that coercion, he would have to give them a meaningful say, or nothing would happen; things would remain the same.

kouchpotato

31st January 2012, 19:56

Ah, the days when I used to think like this. Please, move to Somalia if you really think this way. You wouldn't be talking on the internet without the tax money that went to develop the internet, put the structure in place to allow public use and to build the necessary infrastructure. Yet another delusional tea partier who only selfishly cares for himself, but really thats the only way a person could hold that sort of ideology...

Liberalis

1st February 2012, 02:53

I am new to the forums, and I joined to expose myself to differing views. The initial argument was that taxation is theft. Responses have simply been "then don't drive on public roads" or "let your house burn down" and the like. Those responses, however, do not refute the claim that taxation is theft. They only defend purposes taxation is used for.

There are two different issues here:
1. The nature of the act of taxation, and:
2. Whether or not services are better provided if funded through taxes.

I am of the opinion that taxation is theft. From that perspective, many of you are simply arguing that the only way to provide roads, fire stations, and the like is through theft. Whether or not that is true would refer to point 2, which is debatable. But the main issue here, whether the OP is a troll or not, is point 1.

So why is taxation theft? The OP did not at all explain the position. An example illustrates the concept rather nicely. Say that the government did not tax money, but physical goods. Every year during April, and IRS agent would come to your house and take a number of items. Maybe your television, maybe your fridge, maybe your nintendo Wii or maybe your cell phone. Would that constitute theft? Most would say of course. But when money is the item being taken, somehow the same people would answer "no."

In reality, the same act is occuring. The money you gave in taxes could have been used to purchase a tv, a fridge, a nintendo Wii, or a cell phone. In the end, whether the physical goods or the money is taxed, you end up with less wealth than you would have had before. You can justify this act of theft, you can say why it is necessary, and you can say that is the way things are. But such arguments do not refute the nature of taxation itself.

Liberalis

1st February 2012, 03:01

Night Ripper

1st February 2012, 04:17

Ah, the days when I used to think like this. Please, move to Somalia if you really think this way.

Would you have had your mind changed by someone saying "HERP! MOVE TO SOMALIA! DERP!"?
I would move there with the rest of my libertarian brothers and sisters but Somalia has a federal government. Get a new shtick.

RGacky3

1st February 2012, 12:35

ftfy

Actually

unless you have a piece of paper saying "mine" and state (or quasi-statist defense agency) guns to back up your claim?

No one would agree to forfit the fruits of their labor unless you had that.

I would move there with the rest of my libertarian brothers and sisters but Somalia has a federal government. Get a new shtick.

Perfect, I guess private capitalist property rights hsould just show up then.

Night Ripper

1st February 2012, 14:09

No one would agree to forfit the fruits of their labor unless you had that.

No one? That's a bold statement. I think you should tone down the hyperbole.

RGacky3

1st February 2012, 14:17

No one? That's a bold statement. I think you should tone down the hyperbole.

Ok I'll tone it down, NO ONE in the history of mankind has EVER freely given up control of the fruits of their own labor without some sort of coercion or religious motivation (volunteer work).

Even if you give stuff away, your still controling the fruits of your labor, the worker has no control over it, and it ONLY happens with some sort of coersion, under feudalism is was threat of the knights or lacking protection of a lord, under capitalism its state backed capitalist/landed property laws.

No one would willingly plant fruit, pick the fruit, and then give all the fruit under someone elses control, not having ANY say over it, for a price that is WAY WAY WAY under the actual market value of the fruit itself, there is no reason someone would do that willingly unless there was something forcing him, like a state backed property law claiming that even though he did all the work the fruit still belongs to someone else by threat of prison.

The only other thing I can think of is doing volunteer work for a church or something.

So its not hyperbole at all, if you thought about it for a second.

Night Ripper

1st February 2012, 14:41

No one would willingly plant fruit, pick the fruit, and then give all the fruit under someone elses control, not having ANY say over it, for a price that is WAY WAY WAY under the actual market value of the fruit itself...

I would and so would thousands of other people that willingly respect property rights.

RGacky3

1st February 2012, 14:51

I would and so would thousands of other people that willingly respect property rights.

Well I doubt most people would, nor would they respect property rights to the degree necessary for capitalism to exist.

Night Ripper

1st February 2012, 14:54

Well I doubt most people would, nor would they respect property rights to the degree necessary for capitalism to exist.

most people != no one

RGacky3

1st February 2012, 14:59

:laugh:

All right, no argument just full of shit. If that were the case than the vast majority of the law and legal action would'nt have to be property based.

Conscript

1st February 2012, 16:14

most people != no one

Thus the state.

Night Ripper

1st February 2012, 16:43

Thus the state.

Thus private courts.

Liberalis

1st February 2012, 19:27

Ok I'll tone it down, NO ONE in the history of mankind has EVER freely given up control of the fruits of their own labor without some sort of coercion or religious motivation (volunteer work).
Volunteer work does not have to be religious.

No one would willingly plant fruit, pick the fruit, and then give all the fruit under someone elses control, not having ANY say over it, for a price that is WAY WAY WAY under the actual market value of the fruit itself, there is no reason someone would do that willingly unless there was something forcing him, like a state backed property law claiming that even though he did all the work the fruit still belongs to someone else by threat of prison.

Following your example, if I owned a cherry tree in my backyard, and someone broke into my yard and picked off all the fruit from the tree and ate it, they would not be a thief because they are the ones that labored to pick the fruit.

Did the worker buy the seeds? Did the worker buy the land? Did the worker buy the tools needed to pick the fruit? No. Wages do not represent what the worker has produced. They are payment for the service of the worker to the owner of the capital used in production. "Wages" are money paid in exchange for the performance of labor—not for the products of labor, but for the performance of labor itself.

Smith and Marx are wrong. Wages are not the primary form of income in production. Profits are. In order for wages to exist in production, it is first necessary that there be capitalists. The emergence of capitalists does not bring into existence the phenomenon of profit. Profit exists prior to their emergence. The emergence of capitalists brings into existence the phenomena of wages and money costs of production.

Accordingly, the profits which exist in a capitalist society are not a deduction from what was originally wages. On the contrary, the wages and the other money costs are a deduction from sales receipts—from what was originally all profit.

Furthermore, the value of an object has nothing to do with the labor that goes into creating it. Value is subjective. If 1 million workers spend days digging a big hole that nobody wants, that hole will have very little value at all, despite the amount of work put into it. It would represent a waste of resources; a waste of shovels, a waste of labor, a waste of land, and a waste of whatever investment was required to begin the project.

Conscript

1st February 2012, 20:12

Exactly my point. You do not abolish the state, merely transfer its duties and roles.

Revolution starts with U

1st February 2012, 20:36

A private court isn't the same thing as any other court because competition!

RGacky3

2nd February 2012, 07:56

Following your example, if I owned a cherry tree in my backyard, and someone broke into my yard and picked off all the fruit from the tree and ate it, they would not be a thief because they are the ones that labored to pick the fruit.

There is a difference between "your yard" and agricultural land.

Did the worker buy the seeds? Did the worker buy the land? Did the worker buy the tools needed to pick the fruit? No.

Thats ALL if you consider capitalist property rights valid, I don't, under slavery a lot of slave owners lost money since they LOST slaves that THEY bought, but private control of capitalist property (land and capital) are in my opinion just as invalid as slaves.

Wages do not represent what the worker has produced. They are payment for the service of the worker to the owner of the capital used in production. "Wages" are money paid in exchange for the performance of labor—not for the products of labor, but for the performance of labor itself.

Yes, and the value of that labor under capitalism is determined by the lowest rate possible to pay.

Smith and Marx are wrong. Wages are not the primary form of income in production. Profits are. In order for wages to exist in production, it is first necessary that there be capitalists. The emergence of capitalists does not bring into existence the phenomenon of profit. Profit exists prior to their emergence. The emergence of capitalists brings into existence the phenomena of wages and money costs of production.

That does'nt make any sense, "Wages are not the primary form of income in production. Profits are????"

income is where you get money from, it could be from the profits (Capital gains, executive pay) or the wages .... Its funny you say Smith and Marx are wrong then go on to make an incoherant statement that shows a gross missunderstanding of economics.

Its not necessary for capitalists, its necessary for CAPITAL to exist, what your saying is like its necessary for a lord to exist for a food to exist, no, you just need a farm.

Profits are just gains minus costs in a company, income and wages are just personal compensation for labor. You don't NEED a capitalist, you need physical capital yes, but you don't NEED a capitalist, take the capitalist out and juts give the decision making to the workers and it works just fine.

Accordingly, the profits which exist in a capitalist society are not a deduction from what was originally wages. On the contrary, the wages and the other money costs are a deduction from sales receipts—from what was originally all profit.

Take out the capitalist (leave the workers and capital) all the receipts go to wages or worker compensation and re-investment. Take out the workers there is no buisiness.

Furthermore, the value of an object has nothing to do with the labor that goes into creating it. Value is subjective.

When we are talking about value we are talking about base price given that supply and demand are at equilibrium, thats what the classical economists and marxists mean when they talk about value.

We're talking about economics here.

If 1 million workers spend days digging a big hole that nobody wants, that hole will have very little value at all, despite the amount of work put into it. It would represent a waste of resources; a waste of shovels, a waste of labor, a waste of land, and a waste of whatever investment was required to begin the project.

Again, supply and demand being equal ... If there is no demand and no supply it is'nt even an economic issue.

You don't understand what the labor theory of value is, read the little intro thread I wrote about it, then come back.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-marxian-labor-t164551/index.html

RGacky3

2nd February 2012, 07:56

A private court isn't the same thing as any other court because competition!

Exactly and the profit motive.

Revolution starts with U

2nd February 2012, 08:27

"Value is subjective" is not a scientific proposal. It explains nothing, of worth. Subjectiveness is a variable, not something you can use to explain anything.

Night Ripper

3rd February 2012, 14:36

Thats ALL if you consider capitalist property rights valid, I don't, under slavery a lot of slave owners lost money since they LOST slaves that THEY bought, but private control of capitalist property (land and capital) are in my opinion just as invalid as slaves.

In my opinion, taking away private control of capital by force is just as invalid as theft.

danyboy27

3rd February 2012, 15:15

In my opinion, taking away private control of capital by force is just as invalid as theft.
Abstract concepts like proprety, ownership and theft have always been determined by the society in wich you live in.

Without the state has an enforcer for the rulling class, i doubt you could really own that much.

RGacky3

3rd February 2012, 18:03

In my opinion, taking away private control of capital by force is just as invalid as theft.

Ok, how about we just end protections on it and call in invalid, then its not theft.

Night Ripper

3rd February 2012, 18:42

Ok, how about we just end protections on it and call in invalid, then its not theft.

How many legs does a horse have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

A rose by any other name...

RGacky3

3rd February 2012, 18:54

All right but property rights are totally subjective and arbitrary, you say the homestead principle is the principle of property, other people say something else, some people just say might is right, its totally arbitrary and meaningless.

I say property rights are social constructs, not innate rights, and should be subject to democratic oversight when personal interests collide.

Comrade Auldnik

9th February 2012, 04:01

I'm in favor of socialism as long as it's voluntary. I think it doesn't work very well but it's your choice. Give me the same respect towards my choice.

Again, I'm seeing this "oppressors should just willingly give up exploiting people" tendency.

Night Ripper

9th February 2012, 15:07

I say property rights are social constructs, not innate rights, and should be subject to democratic oversight when personal interests collide.

That's just your subjective and arbitrary opinion.

Revolution starts with U

9th February 2012, 15:18

Duh

Comrade Auldnik

9th February 2012, 15:31

That's just your subjective and arbitrary opinion.

It was also Engel's "subjective and arbitrary" opinion.

Comrade Auldnik

9th February 2012, 15:39

How many legs does a horse have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

A rose by any other name...

What is a rose if you call it a shmoogenflail? It's a shmoogenflail, here defined as a woody perennial of the genus Rosa, within the family Rosaceae. Let's keep our focus off of semantics, shall we?

RGacky3

9th February 2012, 17:05

That's just your subjective and arbitrary opinion.

EXACTLY, as are yours.

RGacky3

9th February 2012, 17:09

BTW, in almost ALL philisophical definitions of ethics, kantian, utalitarian, theological and so on, Property rights logically fail.

NoMasters

9th February 2012, 17:37

If you want my money, make me an offer, ask nicely and if I say no, respect my wishes. Anything other than that is antisocial and barbaric. Hopefully, future generations will look back in amazement at how we robbed each other using the threat of violence.

So in your logic, if taxation is theft, then what do you call a rich apartment owner who makes the inhabitants pay a rent?

Rent is different than tax?

Tax is merely a word used for the bourgeoisie to control the ignorant right wing citizens in the name of liberty, god, and justice. All those words to people like you have something to do with money.

And the funny thing is, is that you would benefit from taxation levied upon people like my family, which could pay the welfare of several dozen people with just a mere 10% tax increase.

You do realize that taxation isn't only money levied from you from the state or government right? Taxation exists from the very beginning of our economic system. Those who own the means of production limit their supply of a certain product, like diamonds for example with DaBeers, and therefore they are already taxing people like you who are willing to spend 20% of a years' salary to buy a diamond for their fiance.

And not to mention, the ones who obtain those diamonds make maybe $1 a day?

Are they not levied a tax due to economic inefficiency and blatant criminality of a massive corporation like DaBeers?

:reda:

Night Ripper

10th February 2012, 14:31

BTW, in almost ALL philisophical definitions of ethics, kantian, utalitarian, theological and so on, Property rights logically fail.

You can't even spell "philosophical".

danyboy27

10th February 2012, 17:21

You can't even spell "philosophical".

Ad hominem attack, beccause responding to an argument is just too damn hard.

I somehow expected more from a ''rugged individualist'', i guess i was wrong.

danyboy27

10th February 2012, 17:35

That's just your subjective and arbitrary opinion.

Well of course, that the whole point of communism.
IF somehow the definition of private property was something set in stone, something that cannot be changed there would be no point in challenging it.

What you could and could not own changed a great deal since ancient mesopotamia, but if you want a recent exemple look at the whole copyright debate.
At first when technology allowed people to copy music it was not such a big deal to make a copy for someone else, Today its a federal crime punishable with jail time.

Some property right make sense, like not allowing a single individual to own 400lb worth of enriched uranium, other like giving to an individual godlike power over millions of people beccause he control the food supply dosnt make much sense.