Should taxation always come with representation?
Not necessarily.
Taxation is a membership fee for living and/or making money within a nation state. While it is preferable that all members have some say in negotiating this fee, it is sufficient that they simply be allowed to leave if they want. The fact that I can't haggle when buying bread at the supermarket does not make its price "theft," since I can just not buy it.
>>1379825
It would have been extremely difficult for the colonists to have a say in British parliament and whatnot because of the distance.
Breaking away from England was a mistake and done for the wrong reasons.
Most Brits paid higher taxes and still had no representation.
America can go fug itself
>>1379900
>Breaking away from England was a mistake
By what metric? The new American state was far better equipped to ensure the prosperity of its people than the British empire. Winning the war practically doubled the territory of the colonies by opening up vast new tracts of land for settlers, and the Louisiana Purchase would never have happened if America was still a client of Britain.
>>1379870
That's a clever analogy, but I disagree with it. It's a lot easier to not buy bread to avoid a price with which you don't agree than to move away from your home to avoid a tax with which you don't agree. That said, the reasons for the taxes that colonists so disliked were self-inflicted and foolish anyhow, so in that way, it's like buying bread and then complaining about its price to the management when you stole the bread from Native Americans anyway. Or something like that.
>>1379900
>breaking away from England was a mistake
>>1379870
>Taxation is a membership fee for living and/or making money within a nation state.
How is this not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc"?
The people in a nation state existed there before anyone started to extort taxes.
>>1380635
>That's a clever analogy, but I disagree with it. It's a lot easier to not buy bread to avoid a price with which you don't agree than to move away from your home to avoid a tax with which you don't agree.
Of course it's easier, but how does that make it qualitatively different?
The US revolution was pointless and irrelevant.
>>1380658
>How is this not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc"?
How is it?
>The people in a nation state existed there before anyone started to extort taxes.
So?
USA was a mistake
>>1379900
A mistake? OK
>>1380061
So because other people are putting up with Bullshit you should too? What kinda stupid logic is that?
>>1380677
Are you just being edgy?
Why are Europeans so salty?
>>1380673
In terms of the choice not pay a fee you don't want to pay, yes, but in terms of the difficulty involved in avoiding that fee, no. Not paying for bread is as easy as putting it back and leaving, but (legally at least) not paying taxes requires you to quit your job or uproot your trade, purchase a home and/or land, purchase transportation, etc. etc. The cost of not purchasing bread is a lack of enjoyment and nourishment; the cost of not paying a tax anymore is far more, in terms of both monetary value and stress.
>>1380678
The point is that nobody would use that argument against the Mob coming to your corner shop to extort money.
>>1380703
>implying there are any euros ITT
>>1380720
So what just a bunch of cuck ameribros that are being contrarian for no reason ?
>>1379870
>The fact that I can't haggle when buying bread at the supermarket does not make its price "theft," since I can just not buy it.
Well, the supermarket doesn't have an army and police to put you in a 4x4 cell if you don't buy their bread though.
This analogy is retarded.
