Topic: I don't feel like working anymore. - page 4. (Read 7773 times)

... and you only have to give away a small portion of your money, and you get benefits in return. But other than that ...

Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same.

I don't mind if you don't take money from people, no. Just don't try to prevent people from giving aid by refusing to do your share. Then your aggression has to be stopped.

Pay $70,000+ in taxes in one year and then you can have an opinion on taxation too.

If you don't advocate it, only tolerate it, then you'll have no objections when I don't do it. Just like I have no objections when people don't do heroin.


Well, it's been said that the best defense is a good offense. Of course, it's still offense.

The real owner is the person whose name is on the property deed.  Its not an option to announce that "Tim bought that house but its on land stolen in the 1700s so he is not the real owner."

People get property rights from the state as part of citizenship.  The property reverts to the state if you die without heirs.  To complain that they state has no right to impose conditions on its providing you with a property system is to complain about the very concept of property.  No state = no property beyond what you can defend with a gun.

If Atlas earned 10 bucks for every hour he talked about hard work without actually doing any, he'd be the richest guy on the forum.

+1

How about you stop shitting on "useless" people until you stop being so "useless" yourself and actually produce something, tia

I never said anything about anybody giving anyone money or property, much less any conditions relating thereto. There is no honor among thieves first of all. And besides, if the property you brought to me was stolen, I would likely return it if I could find the real owner. Additionally, the conditions of use of stolen property have no validity, because the property wasn't yours to begin with (excepting to return it with good faith, or at a minimum wait for the owner to attempt repossess it).

It's wrong to tax regardless. The banks are committing theft by the involuntary use of their forced fiat financial system. Look to the source of the problem, as the symptoms can be misleading sometimes. Yes, really.

If someone gives you property and money subject to conditions, then its not a great imposition to insist you honour the conditions or give the property or money back.  Saying "keep your hands to yourself" and then trying to ignore the terms under which you were given the property/money is at best dishonest but more commonly its delusional.  

BTW, look at this: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/yes-the-us-government-ought-to-own-the-banks-now.html

Do you really think its wrong to tax the owners of those banks when clearly they would have ceased trading and be worthless without TARP funding?  Really? 

Society, which is a group of individuals acting in concert, can, with enough force, take anything they like, including the lives of others. This is a fact, merely because it is possible to do. Humanity only has such limits as the physical laws in the universe impose upon them. Again, a fact. Having the "right" to take something is another matter altogether. You, and society can justify anything that it wants (usually employing violence or threats thereto). The full range behavior encompasing charity to murder is possible.

I would like to think that straying to far from charity in the direction of murder is a bad idea. You really should keep your hands to yourself (rhetorically speaking). Just because a majority of persons think it's in their best interests to take from others what never belonged to them, seems like bad form. At the very least, it isn't logically consistent. Violating logic and reason will always take you in the wrong direction, and potentially confuse and scare the hell out of everybody. What do you say we not incite fear, uncertainty and doubt?

Sorry but if you have a society that people are willing to go off and die for, its unrealistic to think they won't raise taxes for it.  Especially when the tax is on money that comes from the society in the first place. 

I agree that money is not the sole measure of your power in society.  But money itself only exists as a measure of power.  And no-one has an intrinsic right to power/money.  If the society that printed the money feels it would be better employed elsewhere, it has every right to take it and redeploy it.

Society is only the culmination of individual decisions. Yes, it is all based on self-interested. Young men went off the war because they chose to. They valued the causes they supported and they chose the decision they thought was best. It was as selfish as any other choice.

Money is power but its not exclusively power. Wealth can be created through other means such as innovation which can be exchanged for money. You can be powerful through the scarcity of your skillset and still have little money.

Again, it's not a zero-sum game and you can't redistribute somebody's value without slavery.

Society exists - its not a few random individuals acting randomly.  For example, young men voluntarily go off to war and die for soceities when their objective self-interest would be to stay at home and live.  Saying you don't like the power of society is fine but don't try to argue on the basis that its not there.

Money is a measure of your power in society.  Take away the society and you have taken away the money.  So its perfectly reasonable for society to make sure that money is distributed on whatever basis it wants.  In China, its reserved for a tiny elite.  In Sweden, its spread about a bit.  In the US, its spread from the young to the old.  You may disagree about any of these policies but you are being illogical if you disagree with the right to make the decision.

Society does not give people money. Society does not think, feel nor do. Individuals do. Individuals exchange by their own choice alone. If they choose not to act, wealth is not made and trades cannot occur.

Individuals can only grasp and transfer property and thus they can only own property. The only person who knows the best use for money is the one that holds it. Society cannot make such a unilateral judgement for it cannot think. Again, only individuals can think.

The problem with your logic is that you assume those who are taxed have some inherent right to keep the money society gave them and that the society is under some kind of moral obligation to ignore better uses for the money.

It's getting really twisted around here. Seriously, you tolerate people taking money from others? Ok, I can actually follow that logic. You are also not obligated to assist anyone who is being violently attacked or robbed unless you have a prior contract to protect them. This is true. All law should employ negative rights, contracts typically incorporate positive rights. So your logic does in fact stand, and does not violate the premise of non-initiation of aggression.

However, if you participate in the process of permitting (thru legislation) the plunder of your neighbor by making it acceptable (taxation), would that not, in some way, implicate you in a conspiracy to commit that crime? If your vote directly results in laws that violate the personal liberties and properties of another, would that not make you complicit in that act?

Your last paragraph is bassackwards. Bitcoin2cash is not aggressing anybody if he never laid a hand on anybody. His unwillingness to assist another in his "time of need" may not be considerate, but his lack of action cannot be construed as aggression. Aggression requires a transfer of energy or mass from one object to another, usually thru the act of forces applied to said object initiated by the individual.

No forces, no aggression. No contract, no obligation. May the peace be with you.

You really need to learn the difference between advocating and tolerating. I tolerate people using heroin. I don't advocate it. There's a big difference. If you don't acknowledge that difference, you're not actually addressing my point of view but just some straw man. I don't advocate letting people die. I'm not encouraging it. I'm not recommending it. I'm simply saying that it's immoral to use violence outside of self-defense. You advocate taking money from people and if they refuse, kidnapping them and imprisoning them, and if they resist, killing them. I am against that. That's the line. Argue that.
[/quote]

Ok, let's play with words.
I don't advocate taking money from people. I tolerate it to be able to defend those in need. I tolerate that people who are aggressive in preventing us from doing this a can be arrested, imprisoned, and killed if they attack those who we have appointed to guard our society.

See, you're the aggressor here. I'm trying to defend the health and well-being of the people most in need and you're trying to prevent it. That's got to be aggression.

The violent statist philosophy doesn't even work optimally from a utilitarian aspect. When a man's property right is compromised to the lowest bidder there's going to be less wealth, more poverty and more suffering; there will be less incentive to produce.