Bernie Sanders, champion of the downtrodden

The point I was hoping to make hinges on a few phrases you mentioned. For instance "However, I believe true progress is based on voluntary cooperation" and "Since our government has decided to stick its nose into the economy..."

The problem I have here is one of chronology. The government did not, at some point, stick its nose into the economy -- it's always been there. From the beginning. I don't know about from the beginning of human history (so many tens of millennia of humanity happened before recorded history -- we can't really know what forms of societies existed then), but certainly from the first arrival of Europeans on this continent, and from the beginning of the United States.

We are born into pre-existing webs of dependency, ones which often include the government, and so for a great many of these, it's not a question of voluntary cooperation or not. Some are, but many are not.

I'm really trying to focus on a very narrow claim here -- your claim that "taxation is theft." You keep referencing hypotheticals (if government were not... if... if... if...). Well who knows, anything is possible in a hypothetical world. But your claim is about the current world, and in this one, where we actually exist, I don't think you can support the absolutist claim that "taxation is theft."

I should also note that I'm not necessarily defending the current tax system, or everything we collectively spend money on via taxes. I think there are many ways the tax system could be made fairer and more effective, and there are good arguments for reforms of various ambitions, from tweaks around the edges to more radical overhauls.

But its pointless to discuss these if the base premise is that "taxation is theft." If we accept that, then there's no point discussing anything else regarding taxes, as the only fair tax is zero. If something is theft, there's no legitimate amount to collect, and no legitimate program to spend on. It's redundant and pointless to criticize, say, government spying, because we've already declared all possible tax-funded actions as illegitimate.

PVW said:

The point I was hoping to make hinges on a few phrases you mentioned. For instance "However, I believe true progress is based on voluntary cooperation" and "Since our government has decided to stick its nose into the economy..."

The problem I have here is one of chronology. The government did not, at some point, stick its nose into the economy -- it's always been there. From the beginning. I don't know about from the beginning of human history (so many tens of millennia of humanity happened before recorded history -- we can't really know what forms of societies existed then), but certainly from the first arrival of Europeans on this continent, and from the beginning of the United States.

We are born into pre-existing webs of dependency, ones which often include the government, and so for a great many of these, it's not a question of voluntary cooperation or not. Some are, but many are not.

I'm really trying to focus on a very narrow claim here -- your claim that "taxation is theft." You keep referencing hypotheticals (if government were not... if... if... if...). Well who knows, anything is possible in a hypothetical world. But your claim is about the current world, and in this one, where we actually exist, I don't think you can support the absolutist claim that "taxation is theft."

Yes. There has always been government involvement.  I do not mean to say that when there was no government involvement things were better.  But rather I'd say that less is more when it comes to government intervening in the economy. 

And yes, monarchs ruled when the Europe came to the New World. And in typical fashion, some horrifying things were done under those monarchs.  The Revolution against the British was an effort to break from this model...albeit an imperfect break, but progress is rarely perfect.  Before you criticize the imperfections of a time, you must look at where they came from.  That's why I find the "Plantations!!!" argument so frustrating. 

To the root of the argument; I think it's rather simple.  Either I have a right to the Fruits of My labor or I don't.  If I do, then telling me that I must send the government some amount of $$ or go to jail, seems an awful lot like a violation of that right.  If the government has the authority to do this to an individual, I'm simply asking where that authority comes from.  If you tell me that source, then we can move on.

And the fact that you can make some value judgement like "Well the government must have added some value somewhere.  Although, I can't seem to put my finger on what that is, it seems to me that they have a right to part of your labor." Doesn't seem to work for me.  If I came to your house, and mowed your lawn and then sent you a bill for $25,0000 and then a group of thugs if you failed to pay me, I'm guessing you wouldn't be too pleased.  Although, I've clearly done something of value.   

PVW said:

I should also note that I'm not necessarily defending the current tax system, or everything we collectively spend money on via taxes. I think there are many ways the tax system could be made fairer and more effective, and there are good arguments for reforms of various ambitions, from tweaks around the edges to more radical overhauls.

But its pointless to discuss these if the base premise is that "taxation is theft." If we accept that, then there's no point discussing anything else regarding taxes, as the only fair tax is zero. If something is theft, there's no legitimate amount to collect, and no legitimate program to spend on. It's redundant and pointless to criticize, say, government spying, because we've already declared all possible tax-funded actions as illegitimate.

You shouldn't defend the current tax system. It's indefensible.   I don't think the premise that "taxation is theft" is pointless at all.  I think discussing truth has real value.  What is truly pointless is talking about tweaks around the edges of a corrupt, immoral, and unconstitutional tax system.  

Another pointless thing to discuss is whether government spying is wrong.  Of course its wrong.  That, of course, has nothing to do with taxes.  It's yet another violation of our liberties as human beings. 

terp said:

That's why I find the "Plantations!!!" argument so frustrating. 

You may have missed the point of why I asked about them. That's OK. You answered my question (thank you), and I was only talking about something I clearly have no idea about.

I do not believe our tax system as a whole is unconstitutional.  On what basis can you (terp) say that?  It is entirely possible that there are individual tax laws that are unconstitutional and that's why we have a court system - but someone needs to bring the case(s) forward.

The requirement that you must share personal details about yourself w/ the burden of proof on you under the threat of imprisonment is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment. 

The argument coming at Terp seems to be that whatever wealth is earned, "government" deserves a share because it had a role in "creating" that. 

So - those who pay no federal tax but indeed derive their income in large part from the fruits of taxpayer labor, how do they fit into this model? 

It's pretty funny that everyone is cool with the massive intrusion to pay for government, but ID check at the voting booth to choose the administrators of government is a human rights violation.

I just would like to understand under what authority the government has a right to violate my or anyone else's natural rights.  It's a pretty simple request.

While I find it horrifying, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, drummer boy contends that we have the rights government decides to let us have.  This means we are merely subjects, and we should hope for a benevolent master.  I strongly disagree with this, but at least he's honest.

Drummerboy,  if this doesn't accurately reflect your POV please correct.

Jackson_Fusion said:

The argument coming at Terp seems to be that whatever wealth is earned, "government" deserves a share because it had a role in "creating" that. 

No, but Terp accusing the government of "theft" of what he supposedly "earned all on his own" deserves challenge that it is highly unlikely that his achievements did not benefit to some degree from infrastructure or other government-provided elements and services.

Do you propose abolition of ALL taxes and ALL government services?  If not, then lose the "theft" argument and focus discussion on specific taxes that you can justify accusing of being "unconstitutional" or whatever the argument is.  

I, for one, prefer to live in a society where we have roads and bridges and schools and most of those other elements that would not be possible without something bringing us all together to support the socially and financially.  And taxation is necessary to support that.

sac said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The argument coming at Terp seems to be that whatever wealth is earned, "government" deserves a share because it had a role in "creating" that. 

No, but Terp accusing the government of "theft" of what he supposedly "earned all on his own" deserves challenge that it is highly unlikely that his achievements did not benefit to some degree from infrastructure or other government-provided elements and services.

Do you propose abolition of ALL taxes and ALL government services?  If not, then lose the "theft" aregument and focus discussion on specific taxes that you can justify accusing of being "unconstitutional" or whatever the argument is.  

I, for one, prefer to live in a society where we have roads and bridges and schools and most of those other elements that would not be possible without something bringing us all together to support the socially and financially.  And taxation is necessary to support that.

I think we can still have taxes (for roads, bridges and schools).  And, the position that "taxation is theft" is valid can be a logical outcome.  Merely by doing away with the income tax and replacing it with user fees and excise taxes (in lieu of the income tax).

Government services are legitimate. Government enforced transfer of money from one party to another be it individuals or businesses is theft.

Government services should be paid for on a fee for service basis with everyone paying the exact same dollar amount.

BG9 said:

Tom_Reingold said:

All senators have high net worths compared to the rest of us. Sanders's net worth is lower than that of all other senators. Given these facts, it's hard to be down on him for being wealthy unless you think it's something despicable about all of them. Still, why pick on him, of all senators?

How do you know Sanders net worth?

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/comment/id/3297302

What is Bernie Sanders’ Net Worth? This article says $528,014.

terp said:

I just would like to understand under what authority the government has a right to violate my or anyone else's natural rights.  It's a pretty simple request.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you don't want to divulge your finances to the government even for taxation?

Are you saying the government is violating your rights?

Does this mean you feel you have no obligations to society? If you have obligations, how would you like to pay them?

If you don't want government to decide what your obligations are, who should decide them? If you say yourself, then they're not really obligations.

With rights come responsibilities.

The income tax IS constitutional - see Amendment 16.  Not only that but many of us believe that it is the fairest way of funding many government services.  

While some services lend themselves to user fees and excise taxes, there are plenty that need to be supported by everyone in order for society to function. Obviously some of you do not agree, but this is a philosophy on which our nation has operated rather successfully for many years.

Furthermore, those "good old days" in the middle of the 20th century saw FAR HIGHER income tax rates than what we have now, but to listen to many anti-tax folks, you would think that taxes have never been higher than today.

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

I just would like to understand under what authority the government has a right to violate my or anyone else's natural rights.  It's a pretty simple request.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you don't want to divulge your finances to the government even for taxation?

Are you saying the government is violating your rights?

Does this mean you feel you have no obligations to society? If you have obligations, how would you like to pay them?

If you don't want government to decide what your obligations are, who should decide them? If you say yourself, then they're not really obligations.

With rights come responsibilities.

Taxes can be collected without collecting the maximum amount of personal information.  Think of EZ pass, sales tax on the purchase of a car, real estate transfer tax when you sell a house, mortgage tax on mortgage proceeds when you obtain a mortgage in New York state, communications tax on your telephone or wireless bill, service charges from PSE&G for employing additional people during the 2007 recession and thereafter, PSE&G (I believe) collects green energy charges from residential customers, exit tax for gains from personal residences where the Seller is leaving the state of NJ, mansion tax for buyers and sellers where the sales/purchase price is more than one million dollars ("$1,000,000"), gasoline tax, Obamacare tax of 3.8% for high earners, and so on.

@Tom_Reingold:  Do you NOT think that less intrusive methods of taxation are not worth discussing?   

This very issue has been litigated a number of times.  See US v. Schiff. http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979685612F2d73_1672/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20SCHIFF  

RealityForAll said:
Taxes can be collected without collecting the maximum amount of personal information.  Think of EZ pass, sales tax on the purchase of a car, real estate transfer tax when you sell a house, mortgage tax on mortgage proceeds when you obtain a mortgage in New York state, communications tax on your telephone or wireless bill, service charges from PSE&G for employing additional people during the 2007 recession and thereafter, PSE&G (I believe) collects green energy charges from residential customers, exit tax for gains from personal residences where the Seller is leaving the state of NJ, mansion tax for buyers and sellers where the sales/purchase price is more than one million dollars ("$1,000,000"), gasoline tax, Obamacare tax of 3.8% for high earners, and so on.

That's actually a lot of personal information.  EZ pass knows where you've been, for example, and etc.

I think less intrusive ways of tax collection are worth discussing. I do not, however, think a taxation system can exist without individuals giving some information. Perhaps you and terp are not claiming it can, so we can agree on that.

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

I just would like to understand under what authority the government has a right to violate my or anyone else's natural rights.  It's a pretty simple request.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you don't want to divulge your finances to the government even for taxation?

Are you saying the government is violating your rights?

Does this mean you feel you have no obligations to society? If you have obligations, how would you like to pay them?

If you don't want government to decide what your obligations are, who should decide them? If you say yourself, then they're not really obligations.

With rights come responsibilities.

That is correct.  The details of my life are my own to share at my will.  I include financial details in this.   

Again, the way the Income tax is administered is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, i have to file taxes and sign that it is both complete and truthful. If the IRS takes any issue with my return I can be audited and must prove that my return is complete and truthful.  Furthermore, they can seize assets during an investigation.  To me, it is clear that this violates my rights. 

I have obligations to society.  But that is a personal thing.  I do not think you have a right to decide them for me.  

And you're right.  With rights come responsibilities.  If we are going to be free that means we need to be responsible, first and foremost to ourselves.  We cannot have positive rights.  If I want food: I grow or buy my own food.  If I want healthcare, I pay for my own healthcare.  That is where rights come with responsibilities. 

sac said:

No, but Terp accusing the government of "theft" of what he supposedly "earned all on his own" deserves challenge that it is highly unlikely that his achievements did not benefit to some degree from infrastructure or other government-provided elements and services.

Do you propose abolition of ALL taxes and ALL government services?  If not, then lose the "theft" argument and focus discussion on specific taxes that you can justify accusing of being "unconstitutional" or whatever the argument is.  

I, for one, prefer to live in a society where we have roads and bridges and schools and most of those other elements that would not be possible without something bringing us all together to support the socially and financially.  And taxation is necessary to support that.

I think that RealityForAll is onto something.  I never said Government couldn't charge for services.  

I also prefer to live in a society with Roads and Bridges.  I also prefer to live in a society where they are well maintained.  I don't think the government has been doing a great job at that to be honest.  l

sac said:

The income tax IS constitutional - see Amendment 16.  Not only that but many of us believe that it is the fairest way of funding many government services.  

While some services lend themselves to user fees and excise taxes, there are plenty that need to be supported by everyone in order for society to function. Obviously some of you do not agree, but this is a philosophy on which our nation has operated rather successfully for many years.

Furthermore, those "good old days" in the middle of the 20th century saw FAR HIGHER income tax rates than what we have now, but to listen to many anti-tax folks, you would think that taxes have never been higher than today.

Here's the text of the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where does it say that they can create an organization like the IRS that you must provide financial details to and that can intimidate the citizens by seizing assets and imprisonment? 

terp said:
Here's the text of the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where does it say that they can create an organization like the IRS that you must provide financial details to and that can intimidate the citizens by seizing assets and imprisonment? 

So, it is constitutional for Congress to exercise the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source".  The issue seems to be the "how" for accomplishing that.  Is there an alternative method that has been proposed, and which would not have the objections that are raised against the current systems?

nohero said:

terp said:
Here's the text of the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where does it say that they can create an organization like the IRS that you must provide financial details to and that can intimidate the citizens by seizing assets and imprisonment? 

So, it is constitutional for Congress to exercise the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source".  The issue seems to be the "how" for accomplishing that.  Is there an alternative method that has been proposed, and which would not have the objections that are raised against the current systems?

The 16th Amendment was to work around the apportionment clause.  So, that part is Constitutional.  I don't know if there is an alternative.  I think you'd agree that just because one can't think of an alternative doesn't mean they can violate the 5th Amendment.

Here is the text of the fifth amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How does the IRS violate this?  (I don't believe that IRS records can be subpoenaed as evidence for "capital/infamous" crimes ... only tax evasion and similar, right?)

sac said:

Here is the text of the fifth amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How does the IRS violate this?  (I don't believe that IRS records can be subpoenaed as evidence for "capital/infamous" crimes ... only tax evasion and similar, right?)

Already answeredin my post @ 7:08.

If something is theft, there's no legitimate amount that can be taken. Sure, there's a smaller negative impact if less is stolen, but stealing less is still stealing. If people are complaining about how much they pay in taxes, they're not arguing that "taxation is theft," they're, at most, arguing that "excessive taxation is theft."

Look at terp's earlier analogy, for instance, where he mows my lawn and then demands $25k. I'm not going to pay him $25k, but if I then turn around and say that the very idea of him expecting payment is "theft," well then I'm also in the wrong, aren't I? And if that's my base position, what is there to discuss -- there's no amount I will ever agree to pay, and no services I will deem legitimate, if I'm philosophically opposed to the very idea of payment.

What of user fees? I'd say if we could pull that off, that solves the philosophical issues nicely. Use a service, pay for it. Nice and simple. Of course, on the flip side, anyone using government services without paying is now themselves guilty of theft, right? 

And how would that even work in practice? Every road tolled, and anyone using it without first paying gets slapped with a penalty? Anyone who breathes unpolluted air without first paying the EPA gets fined? A purely use-based taxation system (which, n.b., logically concedes that taxation is not inherently theft!) doesn't seem workable.

No, if we drop the silly "theft" argument, I think a much stronger reference point is RFA's earlier reference "the power to tax is the power to destroy." We don't want to destroy. Taxes should be as minimally burdensome as possible.

There's a good case to be made for less reliance (or outright elimination) of the income tax and instead a VAT, which is closer to the use-tax model. I know the common counter is that sales taxes are regressive, but a lot depends on what you spend it on -- the "progressive" Scandinavian  countries, for instance, use a VAT, but direct much more of their tax income toward social welfare programs.

Such a radical overhaul isn't likely in the offering any time soon, though. Even within our current system, though, it could be a whole lot less burdensome. Why do most people even have to file taxes, for instance, when the IRS already has the same info you send them? And if we're going to go the income tax route (which I think is perfectly defensible, but not the only legitimate system), what's going on with things like, say, property taxes where people are taxed on potential income? Maybe tax them when they actually turn that potential wealth into real wealth?

Etc. Maybe some of you agree with the specific points above, maybe you don't. The larger point here is that there's a lot of valid debate to be had on what is the fairest, least burdensome way to collect taxes. Those debate are foreclosed if someone insists that 100% of the wealth they control is entirely due to their own efforts and that any government claim on it at all is "theft."

terp said:

sac said:

Here is the text of the fifth amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How does the IRS violate this?  (I don't believe that IRS records can be subpoenaed as evidence for "capital/infamous" crimes ... only tax evasion and similar, right?)

Already answeredin my post @ 7:08.

Ok, I reread your post, but if it really was unconstitutional, don't you think that someone would have tried to make a case of it by now?  I haven't heard of that happening, have you?

And if you feel that strongly about it and are so confident in your position, why aren't YOU trying to make a court case of it?

sac said:

terp said:

sac said:

Here is the text of the fifth amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How does the IRS violate this?  (I don't believe that IRS records can be subpoenaed as evidence for "capital/infamous" crimes ... only tax evasion and similar, right?)

Already answeredin my post @ 7:08.

Ok, I reread your post, but if it really was unconstitutional, don't you think that someone would have tried to make a case of it by now?  I haven't heard of that happening, have you?

And if you feel that strongly about it and are so confident in your position, why aren't YOU trying to make a court case of it?

It's a good question.  And this is where we may go into some controversial waters.  So, I'll start by asking:  Do you agree that the American System of Government was revolutionary in that it focused on the rights of the individual and that the government worked for the individual to protect those rights?  That this inverted the previous models of the citizens being subject to the Monarch?

If so, how does something like the IRS fit into this model?  This organization that has the power to intimidate the citizens.  People live in fear of the IRS.  An IRS audit can really cause some severe problems for the individual.  People can be harassed.  The IRS has been used as a weapon by people high up in the government(notably Nixon and J Edgar Hoover).  

So, now to the Constitutional Challenges.  This has been challenged.  People have spent a good amount of time in Jail challenging this model.  The courts have upheld these for the most part. 

But here's the thing.  The courts are a part of the US Government.  Judges are appointed by politicians. Thus, they are inherently political.  Can we trust the courts which is a branch of the US Government to reliably police and limit the powers of that very same government?  I challenge that notion.  Look at the ACA.  Judge Roberts ruled that constitutional.  That doesn't even pass the smell test that people could be forced to enter into an agreement with a 3rd party. That was clearly a political decision.  

But over time this becomes settled law.  Incrementally we steer further and further away from the original intent of the document that is the core of our Republic.  

Thus, I don't subscribe to the notion that if the US Courts say something is Constitutional that is the equivalent of Moses coming down the mountain w/ tablets written by God.   They are people subject to the same motivations as all other people. They are political appointments.  They can be venal as well.

PVW said:

If something is theft, there's no legitimate amount that can be taken. Sure, there's a smaller negative impact if less is stolen, but stealing less is still stealing. If people are complaining about how much they pay in taxes, they're not arguing that "taxation is theft," they're, at most, arguing that "excessive taxation is theft."

Look at terp's earlier analogy, for instance, where he mows my lawn and then demands $25k. I'm not going to pay him $25k, but if I then turn around and say that the very idea of him expecting payment is "theft," well then I'm also in the wrong, aren't I? And if that's my base position, what is there to discuss -- there's no amount I will ever agree to pay, and no services I will deem legitimate, if I'm philosophically opposed to the very idea of payment.

What of user fees? I'd say if we could pull that off, that solves the philosophical issues nicely. Use a service, pay for it. Nice and simple. Of course, on the flip side, anyone using government services without paying is now themselves guilty of theft, right? 

And how would that even work in practice? Every road tolled, and anyone using it without first paying gets slapped with a penalty? Anyone who breathes unpolluted air without first paying the EPA gets fined? A purely use-based taxation system (which, n.b., logically concedes that taxation is not inherently theft!) doesn't seem workable.

No, if we drop the silly "theft" argument, I think a much stronger reference point is RFA's earlier reference "the power to tax is the power to destroy." We don't want to destroy. Taxes should be as minimally burdensome as possible.

There's a good case to be made for less reliance (or outright elimination) of the income tax and instead a VAT, which is closer to the use-tax model. I know the common counter is that sales taxes are regressive, but a lot depends on what you spend it on -- the "progressive" Scandinavian  countries, for instance, use a VAT, but direct much more of their tax income toward social welfare programs.

Such a radical overhaul isn't likely in the offering any time soon, though. Even within our current system, though, it could be a whole lot less burdensome. Why do most people even have to file taxes, for instance, when the IRS already has the same info you send them? And if we're going to go the income tax route (which I think is perfectly defensible, but not the only legitimate system), what's going on with things like, say, property taxes where people are taxed on potential income? Maybe tax them when they actually turn that potential wealth into real wealth?

Etc. Maybe some of you agree with the specific points above, maybe you don't. The larger point here is that there's a lot of valid debate to be had on what is the fairest, least burdensome way to collect taxes. Those debate are foreclosed if someone insists that 100% of the wealth they control is entirely due to their own efforts and that any government claim on it at all is "theft."

You go on and on, yet you still can't seem to tell me where they get the authority to take my labor as they see fit.  I can see why you'd like to drop the theft argument.  You can't seem to counter it.  If it's such a silly argument, you'd think it easily defeated. 

Note that in my rather silly example where I, uninvited, mow your lawn and ask for a crazy and arbitrary fee is similar to taxation.  I never asked for the government to do any of these things on my behalf.  I certainly didn't agree to the fee structure.  Yet, I must pay or live in a cage.  I just don't see how that is an equitable agreement for the individual.  Please explain this to me.  

I'd also say that the EPA did not invent clean air.  Furthermore, the US Government is a horrific polluter.  Do you know how much fuel a fighter jet uses on a mission? It's about as much fuel as you consume in a 2 year period.

terp said:

I have obligations to society.  But that is a personal thing.  I do not think you have a right to decide them for me.  

I'm still not following. If society can't list which duties its citizens owe, then only you can specify which duties you owe? If that is the case, to me, it seems like you have no duties at all, since you can change them at will. I think it is society-at-large's duty and right to say what the duties to society are. It is a subject of constant debate, and it is legitimate to say "I owe duty X but I don't think I should be responsible for Y," though it won't change laws until, well, until laws are changed. But no, I don't think you are the only person who gets to say what you owe to the rest of us.

Doesn't the fifth amendment apply only when there is an accusation of a crime? I'm not sure. Taxes are owed by people who haven't committed crimes, too.

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

I have obligations to society.  But that is a personal thing.  I do not think you have a right to decide them for me.  

I'm still not following. If society can't list which duties its citizens owe, then only you can specify which duties you owe? If that is the case, to me, it seems like you have no duties at all, since you can change them at will. I think it is society-at-large's duty and right to say what the duties to society are. It is a subject of constant debate, and it is legitimate to say "I owe duty X but I don't think I should be responsible for Y," though it won't change laws until, well, until laws are changed. But no, I don't think you are the only person who gets to say what you owe to the rest of us.

Doesn't the fifth amendment apply only when there is an accusation of a crime? I'm not sure. Taxes are owed by people who haven't committed crimes, too.

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

I suppose he came here thinking more like the modern American.  He doesn't understand how  a Society could be organized in any other way than Top Down.  He comes here and he sees that people just cooperate. There is no centralized order.  If you read it, how blown away he is really comes through.  And this is an old text. 

My problem with "How can society instill its will without telling everyone what to do" is that it can be used to support any Government model.  I know this is not your goal, but this could be used to defend even the most authoritarian tyrannical regime.  I think its actually a pretty dangerous way to think.  In America's case you are defending a oligarchy that is cloaked in democracy.  

My final point is that I'm saddened how willing people are to marginalize the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in order to take away the rights of others.  I'm sure this comes from good intentions.   But again there are those good intentions and where they lead.  

terp said:

You go on and on, yet you still can't seem to tell me where they get the authority to take my labor as they see fit.  I can see why you'd like to drop the theft argument.  You can't seem to counter it.  If it's such a silly argument, you'd think it easily defeated. 

Note that in my rather silly example where I, uninvited, mow your lawn and ask for a crazy and arbitrary fee is similar to taxation.  I never asked for the government to do any of these things on my behalf.  I certainly didn't agree to the fee structure.  Yet, I must pay or live in a cage.  I just don't see how that is an equitable agreement for the individual.  Please explain this to me.  

I'd also say that the EPA did not invent clean air.  Furthermore, the US Government is a horrific polluter.  Do you know how much fuel a fighter jet uses on a mission? It's about as much fuel as you consume in a 2 year period.

Labor, and the fruits of labor, aren't the same thing, though I notice you consistently collapse that distinction. The IRS isn't forcing anyone to work.

Furthermore, the tax system isn't applied post facto. If you do choose to work, you know what the taxes are going in. In an extreme case, you can reject the system entirely and emigrate, choosing to labor in some land where the government structure is more to your liking. We don't have exit visas or anything like that; no one is forced to labor under the laws of the United States against their will.

But let's get back to your lawn mowing analogy. Was this lawn mowing arrangement know to me ahead of time, the way taxes are? If I am so opposed to the fee structure (that I knew about ahead of time), why did I choose to retain (or acquire) the lawn?

And where did that lawn come from in the first place? Did I magic it into existence? Why is this particular bit of land available to be a lawn, as opposed to, say, being the hunting grounds of a nomadic band of hunter gatherers who have no concept of "owning" a "lawn?" (and why are those hunter-gatherers so ignorant of the existence of a "natural" right like exclusive ownership of land?)

And what about the grass - did I buy the seed at a store? If so, did I take a road to the store, and was that a toll road? Did I rely on rain to water the lawn and, if not, where did the water come from? Who built the infrastructure to bring me that water? Is my lawn constantly being overrun by vandals and ruffians, or is there some sort of law and order in my neighborhood, and if so, what force is upholding that order?

If my neighbor decides to build a house on my lawn, is there some sort of court or something I can go to and prevent him, or must I resort to physical violence, and hope I am stronger or luckier than he?

BTW - Jet fuel is pretty polluting, yes. Then again, so are cars, and there's a lot more of those than there are jets, and unlike fighter jets, they're ubiquitous, especially in the areas where people live, and breathe. I'm thankful for catalytic converters, fuel efficiency standards, unleaded gasoline, and other auto emission regulations that have made the air I and my family breath cleaner. YMMV, of course.

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Upthread I said this:

"Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism."

You took issue with that, but characterizing society as "just a bunch of individuals" is precisely the sort of claim I had in my when making my criticism.