>"Taxation isn't theft"
>>73995282
>"Property isn't theft."
>>73995282
Can't have a government without taxation. Don't you want a government you retarded leaf?
>>73995282
A FUCKING LEAF
>>73995282
but you agreed to pay taxes when you decided to be a citizen of the country.
Otherwise, you can simply not participate in the economy. Don't work, don't make any money, don't buy stuff. There, no taxes.
>>73995460
this 2bh fram
over-taxation for shit you don't support nor need is bad tho
socially driven government is cancer
>>73995460
>Can't have a government without taxation.
This is wrong. You cannot have a state without taxation, but you can have a government without taxation.
Furthermore, you are not refuting the claim that taxation is theft.
Your argument is tantamount to "Well I agree that slavery is wrong, but who will pick the cotton?" It doesn't matter who picks the cotton if slavery is wrong. It doesn't matter if you can have a state if taxation is theft.
>>73995282
>"Don't talk to me or my wife's son ever again!"
>>73995800
*unsheathes dragonglass katana*
>>73995282
Buy an island and create your own civilization if you don't want to contribute to the society you live in you libertarian trash.
>>73995766
It does matter that you can't have a state if taxation is theft.
In law there is often the clash of two principals, order and justice. If you're a doctor and your patient has aids and he tells you he intends to marry your cousin, and she doesn't know he has aids, are you allowed to warn her? If we go by justice principal, you should, she deserves to be told, but if you do it then you break doctor patient confidentiality. In order for society to have order, they need to be able to trust their doctors, if they're afraid to go to the doctor, the damage to society is far greater.
>>73995766
>Furthermore, you are not refuting the claim that taxation is theft.
Lolbertarianism is retarded and those who support it are retarded. Refute these claims without being retarded. pro tip: you can't
>>73995420
Somebody tell the niggers that
>>73996213
>It does matter that you can't have a state if taxation is theft.
>Taxation is theft
>A state is necessary
>A state can only exist through the use of taxation
>Taxation if sometimes permissible
I have no problem with you making this argument, but understand that you are making it. Either taxation is or is not theft. Until you answer that question we cannot move forward.
>If you're a doctor and your patient has aids and he tells you he intends to marry your cousin, and she doesn't know he has aids, are you allowed to warn her?
It depends on what the terms of the contract between yourself and the patient are. If divulging such information violates the terms of the contract then you may not do so. If divulging the information does not violate the terms of the contract then you may do so. I don't know why having a discussion about reneging on or violating the terms of contracts is relevant to whether or not taxation is theft.
>In order for society to have order, they need to be able to trust their doctors, if they're afraid to go to the doctor, the damage to society is far greater.
What is the purpose of this statement?
>>73996320
>Lolbertarianism is retarded and those who support it are retarded. Refute these claims without being retarded. pro tip: you can't.
Here's your (you).
>>73997164
I don't know whether or not taxation is theft, I think it can be when the government abuses their power to collect tax but not necessarily all the time.
>I don't know why having a discussion about reneging on or violating the terms of contracts is relevant to whether or not taxation is theft.
I was trying to give an example for a situation in which order trumps justice. If taxation is theft, and theft is clearly unjust, there might still be situations where it's better to commit injustice for the sake of preserving order.
>What is the purpose of this statement?
If people are too embarrassed to go to the doctor they will suffer and die from sickness. In order for people to trust their doctors with sensitive information, they need to know that the doctor is bound by law not to tell anyone. In this instance order trumps justice.
>>73996142
contribute to the society you live in:
>Pay for roads you will never use
>Pay for the healthcare of people you will never even cross on the street
>Pay for people who literally hurt your well-being
The "society" we have to pay for is, most of the time, as much of an influence in our lives as a random person in another country.
>>73995800
*tips cape*
>>73995460
>Can't have a government without taxation.
You can perfectly well. Have some rich aristocracy doing the minimum of high legal/administrative tasks so you don't have to pay them.
Other than that, for pleb administration, just use the land, estates and other capital owned by the state.
Reminder that Charlemagne couldn't trust tax entries and most of the Treasury revenue came from the fisc, that is the lands and manufactures of the state itself. Needless to say such an arrangement implies that this state capital is handled with competence, which may seem absurd in our societies where government are irresponsible and can rely on massive taxation but is not inevitable.
>>73995282
>"Canada isn't a shitposter"
>>73997867
>I don't know whether or not taxation is theft, I think it can be when the government abuses their power to collect tax but not necessarily all the time.
Either taxation is or is not theft. When you believe you have an answer perhaps you should come back to the thread, because I don't see how we could discuss this issue further if you do not take a stance on this issue.
>If taxation is theft, and theft is clearly unjust, there might still be situations where it's better to commit injustice for the sake of preserving order.
It sounds like you are giving a utilitarian argument for why theft is morally permissible. Like I said, until you state whether you believe taxation is theft we really have nowhere to go.
>If people are too embarrassed to go to the doctor they will suffer and die from sickness. In order for people to trust their doctors with sensitive information, they need to know that the doctor is bound by law not to tell anyone. In this instance order trumps justice.
What is your definition of justice? I would argue that to not violate the terms of a contract and infringe upon the equal rights of others is justice. The woman has no "right" for you to tell her that your patient has AIDS, and you have no right to violate the terms of a contract.
I would argue that the idea of "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" is just, but you may argue otherwise. This is a conversation that should follow whether or not taxation is theft, to which you have not given an answer.
>>73998697
You seem autistic, with your rigid insistence on categorically deciding whether or not taxation is always or never theft. I have given you an answer that you don't like.
>>73995282
>Using things you don't pay for is theft.
So I guess if you've ever used a road or a pavement or benefited from street lights, sat on a park bench, you're a thief too.
>>73997937
>Pay for roads you never use.
So you don't ever leave your house? Have you ever used a pavement? Or public transportation that uses roads?
>Pay for healthcare of other people.
This also means that you are entitled to healthcare too.
>Pay for people that literally hurt your well being.
wat?
>guy owns a compound
>several businesses on that compound
>want to open a snackvan because there's a ton of traffic there and no serious food competition
>float the idea, offer a cut
>OY VEY NO YOU IT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC
>it's a snackvan
>there's already plenty of traffic
>ultimately no
Do owners have the right to use their property as they see fit? Seems reasonable. But remember, not everyone who owns something is a valuable contributor to society.
>>73995282
>"only governments cause monopolies"
>>73996320
>>73999607
Identifying "philosophers"
Not a philosopher
>>73998899
>You seem autistic, with your rigid insistence on categorically deciding whether or not taxation is always or never theft.
You seem unable to answer the question.
>I have given you an answer that you don't like.
What I "like" is trivial in this discussion; either you make an argument which can then be supported with claims by yourself and perhaps refuted by myself or you add nothing of value. You have not given an answer that I "don't like", because you have not given an answer at all.
I'm not asking you to decide for yourself whether taxation is theft in five minutes, but this is a question which you must answer. Consider the following analogy:
You and I are discussing whether slavery involves the infringement upon the equal rights of others.
I say that to enslave an individual is to infringe upon their natural-born right of self-ownership.
You say that slavery is necessary for the economy, and that without it, there would be nobody to pick the cotton.
You are saying that slavery is necessary for the economy, and I am saying that to slavery is morally impermissible because it involves infringing upon the equal rights of others.
You are saying that taxation is necessary, and I am saying that taxation is theft and that theft is never morally permissible.
Taxation is also unnecessary, which is a discussion we could have in an an-cap or libertarian thread, but the thread began with OP's post of "Taxation isn't theft".
Until you say that taxation is theft or taxation is not theft we cannot proceed.
>>73995282
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
>>73995282
Actually... that's a pretty damn loaded fucking statement my fellow leaf. I'd say unfinished at that, as well.
"Taxation isn't theft, provided that services are rendered within reasonable time upon payment received."
"Taxation is theft, when those that would provide payment are not met with satisfactory services/goods within a reasonable time frame."
AKA. I bought my fucking coffee, I don't want to wait a decade for it. I also don't want it to be something I didn't even fucking order (vote) for.
Governments are business. And if they want to suckle on the business cock, then they can get the capitalistic shaft like all other small businesses that want to fuck over their customer/supporter base.
>>74000379
>a nigger isn't a thief so long as he uses your stolen bike to deliver your newspaper
That's you. That's how retarded you sound.
>>73999790
I have already answered your question twice. It doesn't matter whether or not taxation is theft, if theft can be the right thing. You can assume that I've admitted for the sake of argument that taxation is theft, though personally I think it depends on the circumstances, if a group of people elects someone to preform a certain duty and consequently he levys tax in order to get the funds necessary to preform it then I see no problem.
Why is theft never morally permissible? Why is breaking a contract you've made with someone never morally permissible?
>>74000629
Damn
Doesn't have to be.
The gas tax doesn't apply for non road use. You only pay for gas used on the roads.
In this case, it is a government usage fee for all roads, which doesn't require shit like toll booths.
>>74000629
good example. Now look at larger (even the small ones are decent examples) governments and how they provide services for the money they 'steal' (fools willfully giving capital away is not theft).
I'd say it's pretty bang on with what you said.
They take a more valueable piece of your shit, to give you back an unfinished/incomplete less valueable piece of shit.
Governments are niggers.
#MakeItStoneAgeAgain
#MightISRight
#I'llFuckingShootYouMate
>>74001418
>stone age again
OY VEY BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS
Fuck off leaf idiot
>>74000841
>It doesn't matter whether or not taxation is theft, if theft can be the right thing.
Then we can say, for the sake of this argument, that taxation is theft. Now we have to decide when, if ever, theft is morally permissible.
>Why is theft never morally permissible?
The only thing in life that is impermissible, that is, inexcusable and unallowable in any circumstance is to infringe upon the equal rights of others. To steal from an individual is to infringe upon his or her right, and to infringe upon the equal rights of others is never permissible.
>Why is breaking a contract you've made with someone never morally permissible?
Because this involves violating the rights of others.
What does the violation of a contract mean? It can only mean one of a few things:
One would be that you renege on the contract, or you acquire the services or goods promised in the contract by another party and do not give to that party the goods or services which you said you would give in the contract. That is theft.
You could also violate the terms of the contract, which could amount to theft of services, or a "breach of contract" as it's often called in legal terms. Either way, this too is theft.
My argument is that theft is never permissible. If you are saying otherwise, then I would like to know in what instances theft is permissible. In other words, cases in which a thief may thieve and not be punished.
>>74001042
what state do you live in? its applied when buying gasoline. at the gas station. its pure electric cars are targeted by the government for a extra tax for road usage since they dont pay the gas tax
>>74001935
What are the equal rights of others and why is it so bad to infringe upon them? How would you define a contract? Does breaking a promise count as breaching a contract? Breaching of contract can mean many things that I wouldn't consider theft. If you're a programmer working for a company you're made to sign an NDA so that after you stop working there you're not allowed to use their code elsewhere, is that theft? If I sell coke bottles and my agreement with coca cola states that I'm not allowed to buy from pepsi, does buying from pepsi count as theft from coca cola? I think going against your word is a bad thing but I'm not quite convinced that it's an infringement upon someone else's rights.
Libertariansim is really cool when you're in highschool and don't really care for anyone but yourself. Eventually you might grow up and realize that a society will never exist on the principles of "I got mine, fuck everyone else!" and that as social creatures, we must work together for mutual benefit and survival.
>>74002794
>What are the equal rights of others and why is it so bad to infringe upon them?
Natural rights. It is self-evident why it is "so bad" to infringe upon the equal rights of others.
Would you like for someone to rape you, enslave you, or steal from you? Of course not.
Rights cannot be violated because that is the nature of a right. Must I tell you why you can't steal from other people?
>How would you define a contract?
An agreement entered into voluntarily by two or more individuals. The contract is enforceable so long as one individual or group of individuals does not attempt to relinquish any of their rights. So, even if a contract between you and I is entered into voluntarily where you pay me $1,000,000 which I then give to my family and I become your slave cannot be enforced.
>Does breaking a promise count as breaching a contract?
This depends. A contract is a sort of promise. But if I promise you that I will not speak ill of you and then I do, then I have not breached a contract.
> If I sell coke bottles and my agreement with coca cola states that I'm not allowed to buy from pepsi, does buying from pepsi count as theft from coca cola?
It is violating a contract, and in some manner, violating a contract is theft. In this instance, you received one or more things from Coca-Cola: they supply you with tools such as a computer and desk, and they give you money. In exchange, you do a number of things for Coca-Cola, including work for them for 40 hours per week and never buy Pepsi products. Coca-Cola renders to you the goods and services they are obligated to render to you as per the contract, but you have not rendered to Coca-Cola the goods and services you are obligated to render to the company as per the contract. This, I would say, is theft. You have violated the terms of a contract by not giving to Coca-Cola the services you have promised to give them while acquiring the services and goods Coca-Cola rendered to you. This is theft.
>>73995460
Taxes to pay for WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO, like build roads, facilitate schools, protect the borders, run the army etc is fine
Buying art, actively funding terrorists, crippling the economy, policing the people because corporations tell them to etc is NOT what I want my taxes to be used for.
>>73995460
Government is just an opinion with a gun.
>>73995282
>Private property isn't theft
Not only is it theft, but my taxes are being used to fund the life of degenerates living off welfare, going without insurance, and crashing their vehicle into me. So my taxes are literally hurting me, what a great deal. The state does not even prosecute or otherwise penalize such behavior, in fact they are encouraging it! I'm sure I'm not the only one who realizes this.
>>73995282
>"the free market will fix it"
>There is no God and thus the only rights are the rights you take for yourself
>I have an imagined abstraction of a God who guarantees my property rights and right to life, but nothing else because taxation is theft
>I believe in a specific God who has laws, rules and defers upon men certain rights AND obligations
Liberterians are just godless heathens who want the State to protect them, for the masses of the working class to die for their rights (if need be), but they don't want to give something in return.
>>74003849
What are the natural rights, specifically? What's natural about rights? I'll grant you that It's self evident why harming people is bad although some would disagree, but it's not self evident at all why people have a right not to be harmed, or why this right is immutable. Many people would argue that it can be acceptable hurt someone if the merits to society are far greater, or if they've done something to deserve it. Do you have anything at all to say to such a person?
>>73995282
No it's not. No one forces you to buy, own or trade. You choose to pay taxes by choosing to buy, own or trade.
>>73995282
Hello Stefan, I hope you are doing well.
>>74004597
https://freedomainradio.com/free/
Read Stefan Dollareedoo's book Universally Preferable Behaviour for free, he talks a lot about this stuff.
>>73999038
>muuh rooooooooooooooooooooooads
>>73995282
Income tax is theft
Trade tax is ok
>>74004958
I've read his UPB and it's completely based upon circular logic. Stefan fully rejects the idea of a divine creator, his idea is that rights come from feels.
>1. The proposition is: the concept “universally preferable behaviour” must be valid.
>2. Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally
preferable behaviour.
>3. Therefore no argument against the validity of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.
I.e. "If you argue the point that means I win :^)"
>>74004958
Ok I might.
>>73999690
Identifying shit posters
>>74004760
Incidentally, that's my brother's name.
>>74005220
Here are some quick points, it's a massive waste of time.
>Soldiers are murderers
>Universal Preferable Behaviour is what people should prefer (i.e. what Stefan prefers)
>Arguments from effect are invalid
I'm not sure if Stefan has even a basic understanding of economics. He also stated that prices don't go up and down at the same time. I don't know what he was thinking, desu.
>>74004597
>What are the natural rights, specifically?
The right of self-ownership. From this right emerge all other rights. It is because you own yourself that you have the right to defend yourself, and have the right to property, and are able to acquire property that is previously unclaimed.
>What's natural about rights?
They are naturally born to all individuals.
>but it's not self evident at all why people have a right not to be harmed, or why this right is immutable.
There is no right to not be harmed. If you own a business, and I start up a business that puts your business out of business, then I have likely done considerable harm to you. I have harmed you financially, and perhaps emotionally. It is not a matter of "harming" other individuals, it is a matter of infringing upon their rights.
>Many people would argue that it can be acceptable hurt someone if the merits to society are far greater, or if they've done something to deserve it.
These are two separate arguments.
The first is one that is utilitarian in nature. Utilitarianism can pretty easily be refuted when it is used to explain why it is permissible to steal or murder those who themselves have not stolen or murdered anyone. Which brings me to the second part of the sentence.
>...or if they've done something to deserve it.
Nobody has an absolute claim to their rights. That is, once you infringe upon the rights of others, you have warranted the restriction of your rights. Here's an example.
I steal $100 from you. You then find me and ask for your money back, but I say that it is now my property and you cannot infringe upon my property rights. Since I have aggressed against you and initiated the use of force by stealing from you, I have forfeited my claim to this right, ad may have that property which was stolen taken from me against my will. Similar examples could be used with restitution for physical harm done to another person.
>>74005204
>language is meaningless
In order to assert that, you must use language, rendering your argument invalid.
>there are no universally preferable behaviours
I order to assert that, you must make a universal statement, that there is no universal truth, thus rendering your argument invalid.
Gotta brush up on your logic bro.
>>74005204
It sounds like he jacked Hoppe's idea of argumentation ethics, although perhaps that book was published prior to Hoppe publishing his works on argumentation ethics.
>>74005800
The only universal truth is that there is no other universal truth
>>74005967
Sorry lad, I'm not a philosopher. You'll have to fill me in on Hoppe's idea of argumentation ethics.
>>74006052
>all things need to be created
>e-except G-God of c-course
Wrong. Back to ancient Greece with you, try again.
>>74006268
Where did I say this?
>>74006188
I took this from the Wikipedia page. The Mises institute also has an e-reader introduction for free to argumentation ethics.
>Hoppe states that because both parties in a debate propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. Thus, Hoppe argues that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.
>>74005779
Natural rights are a redundant fiction to anyone living outside of the US. It is specifically only you guys who go in for them and every time you are asked to explain them, at any level from high powered academics to little civics class passing faggots, it comes out with some muddled bullshit which relies on presenting premises as axioms and feels as facts.
>>74004130
>MUH ROADS
>MUH SKOOLZ
>MUH BORDERS
They're doing a real bang up job.
>>74005779
I have to admit I'm not well versed in this topic. I usually argue about theology or economics but I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around this american idea of rights. Where do rights come from, exactly? I understand saying you prefer not breaking contracts and not harming people but why is it your right? Someone could walk up to me and shoot me in the head and my last moments I would think it's my fault for not seeing it coming, I wouldn't be upset that my right was infringed.
>>74006345
You're insisting on their being a special exception with no evidence to prove your claim. Either there are universal truths or there aren't. Saying there is no universal truths is saying that there is one, which is a contradiction.
>>74006467
This doesn't even make sense. There's no reason not to use violence to settle disputes. The only reasons not to use violence is if it's more costly to do so, you like the person you're in a dispute with, there's another power preventing you from using violence or you don't think you can win.
>>74006854
Prove that there are universal truths
Property rights don't exist unless big daddy state enforces them you stupid leaf
>b-but muh ancap utopia!
>>74006268
all things have a cause except an uncausable entity we know as a god. what is the problem
>>73995648
fuck u rayciss nigga imma free citizen unda da articles of confederation yo cracka ass laws dont apply to me smfh senpai
>>73995766
Stephan is that you??
>>74007092
>all things have a cause
>except an uncausable entity we know as a god
This is not a logical impossibility in and of itself but in order to establish the first part you have to invoke the axiom of causality which doesn't allow for special exceptions.
I'm fine with tax.
I'm not fine with the endless amount that they are charging and I wish more democratic control on how the money is being spent.
I don't want large parts of it going to the anti-democratic EU, third-world welfare leeches or to refugees for example.
>>74006985
In order to prove anything, there must be proof, which means there must be truth. It can be proved that 2 + 2 = 4. It can be proved that reality exists. To argue that nothing can be proved is a logical contrdiction, because you are making a statement saying that something can be proved (that there is proof). You follow? Logical contradictions can't exist and defeat themselves.
For example, if I agree that nothing can be proved, then someone can argue that I can't prove that nothing can be prove. Then I can claim that he can't prove that I can't prove their is no proof. This is called infinite regression, which is a logical fallacy.
This all might seem complicated but it's actually philosophy 101
>>74006812
>Where do rights come from, exactly?
There are different explanations which can be grouped into one of two categories: God, and nature.
St. Thomas Acquinas formally introduced the theory of Natural Law. Needless to say, he was a Christian theologian, and argued that natural law, one of the four types of law, (along with divine, eternal, and human), was given to man by God.
There are others, most notable Murray Rothbard, (who was ethnically Jewish but atheistic), who argued that these rights come from nature and the nature of man. The link I have below has the first several chapters of Rothbards "The Ethics of Liberty", in which he discusses the brief history of Natural Law and proofs for Natural rights.
https://mises.org/library/introduction-natural-law
>Someone could walk up to me and shoot me in the head and my last moments I would think it's my fault for not seeing it coming, I wouldn't be upset that my right was infringed.
Let me ask you this question: is murder, (the intentional killing of an innocent person), permissible?
>>74007840
*(that there is no proof)
You get me
>>73995282
>what is voting for taxes, and or representatives who will pen/enforce said taxes
>>74007962
St. Acquintas was a hack and his cosmological arguments awaken my inner fedora to this day.
>>74007840
No wonder philosophers are mostly unemployed layabouts. I didn't say nothing could be proved, I asked you to prove a specific thing. You provided no evidence, you provided no arguments so I'll assume that you're wrong. Please get some arguments. Stefan.
>>74007962
Whether or not it's permissible is a strange question because nobody asks for permission. If someone asked for my permission I would say no but the world doesn't work that way. I'm not the one to decide what's permissible or not.
>>74008266
I actually completely ByouTFO but obviously it went over your head. Read a philosophy book, maybe you'll realize how wrong you are.
>>74008158
>St. Acquintas was a hack and his cosmological arguments awaken my inner fedora to this day.
lol. He has certainly made arguments that are questionable; I find his writings on the souls of animals to be particularly troubling.
But I'd like for you to answer that question I posed which is "Is murder permissible?"
>>74008419
>"I have no arguments"
This sort of posting only works when you can shout over/insult your opponent, Stefan.
>>74008388
>Whether or not it's permissible is a strange question because nobody asks for permission.
Sorry, I meant morally permissible.
>>73995282
> taxation is a necessary evil
There I fixed that for you
>>74008125
>what is a fancy way of saying what the mafia does, except you get to vote for tony OR vinnie!
still voting for trump but lets not kid ourselves here
nobody forces you to pay taxes
if you dont want, you can leave the country
>refusing to contribute to society is totally acceptable
it's like their brain doesn't work properly or some thing
>>73995282
The government MUST borrow money to take care of defense, basic needs and infrastructure. The problem is that they tax businesses and workers. We need a consumption based tax. http://humanityparty.com/ftp.html
>>74008679
>nobody forces you to pay taxes
Oh, so I can just stop paying taxes and there will be no repercussions for me stopping my payments?
>if you dont want, you can leave the country
How about if I don't want people stealing from me, the thieves leave the country?
>>73995460
Without coaction a government would be called an "association".
When it's called "social/socialist" when it obviously isn't at all, it's a pathological asocial & psycopath colective behaviour
>>74008546
I think murder is morally bad but I don't understand the idea of moral permission. My basis for morality is empathy, murder is bad because it's bad for you to murder, since it creates guilt and stress and prevents you from being at peace. Under my moral framework killing your parents is worse than killing a stranger because the connection you have to them is stronger so the resulting mental trauma you'll inflict upon yourself is that much stronger. I have no way of possibly convincing a psychopath that feels no empathy, using pure reason, why he shouldn't hurt people, and truthfully from their perspective, there really isn't one aside from them getting in trouble.
>>73995282
Taxation is theft but the statist naziboos and normies won't understand or argue properly
>muh roads
>>74006812
>Where do rights come from, exactly?
https://youtu.be/DHSwvtHFsOU
>>74008980
the government must PRINT and SPEND as well. anyone who doubts that isn't living in reality.
>>73995282
>"Waaaaah mommy I don't want to share with the other children ;_;"
>>74008525
I told you in grade 5 language exactly why there are universal truths. Are you legitimately retarded?
>>74009184
the thieves have the power to punish you
they dont care about your opinion that their actions are "stealing"
>>73995282
By living in the country you are accepting the government's rule of law and using their military might in defending you
Therefore, you have to check the box saying "I agree to the terms and conditions"
and what this guy said >>73995648
>>73995460
>>73996213
Oy Vey shocking that Israel puts so much importance into the idea of a state and doesn't care about theft seeing as they stole their entire fucking country.
>>74009452
It can be proven that 2 + 2 = 4 and that reality exists provided we have the same understanding of what constitutes 2 or reality. 2 is 2n, the assumption is always that n is one. So that when we say 100 we mean 100 ones, but say that n ceases to be 1 and becomes something else, does 2n + 2n still = 4?
>>74009720
It's not stealing if you fight for it :)
>>74009233
>I think murder is morally bad but I don't understand the idea of moral permission.
Permissible just means acceptable. I'm asking if murder is morally acceptable.
>My basis for morality is empathy, murder is bad because it's bad for you to murder, since it creates guilt and stress and prevents you from being at peace.
You engage in behaviors on a daily basis that are bad for other people. Have you ever walked by a homeless man and not given him any money? You could have spared the bum some change, but refused to do so. Giving the bum a few dollars would not have harmed you financially, and would have significantly helped the bum. Does this mean that individuals can force you to give your money to bums, just because it is good for the bum and may "create guilt and stress and prevent you from being at peace"? Conversely, what if abstaining from murder creates "guilt and stress and prevents me from being at peace"? Then is it morally acceptable to murder?
>. I have no way of possibly convincing a psychopath that feels no empathy, using pure reason, why he shouldn't hurt people, and truthfully from their perspective, there really isn't one aside from them getting in trouble.
I think you've touched on the problem with your description, which is that it is morally acceptable for a man with no conscience to murder.
I'll rephrase the question for you because the wording threw you off (my apologies). Is murder morally acceptable?
>>74008980
>anonymous party
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHA
I remember when /pol/ dissected their constitution and it essentially created a fascist regime which presided over 100% cucked and disarmed civilians
here's some funny little things from it:
>Authorization to Bear Arms.
>No person shall have the right to bear arms except those authorized by law to do so under Section 4 of this Article. The right to bear arms shall be strictly prohibited, except as authorized by Congress.
>Right to Privacy.
>Each person shall have the right to privacy of their personal information, except information that is deemed necessary in the enforcement of the laws provided by this Constitution or for the protection of the people of the Republic
I literally want to bully you because you're so stupid. Do you ever get that feeling when someone is so pathetic it's so irresistible?
>>74009761
Look at this butthurt loser running to semantics. "Words and symbols can arbitrarily mean something else if I want them to, because it helps me say things that are incorrect!"
LOL read a philosophy book kid, I mean it.
>>74009680
Pretty much this. Our country isn't a libertarian society, it's build on principles where the government (should) use it for the collective best interests (police, roads, school)
If you don't wanna play the game, fuck off. It's just that with the way our taxes work, it might as well be theft.
>>74010133
Read a mathematics book, philosophy is for worthless people. Try contributing to society. Start on something easy, like statistics and other quantitative mathematics.
>>74009680
>b-but muh social contract theory!
Where is this contract? When did I sign it?
I am living on a piece of land that I own. I work and acquire other physical property. What right do other individuals have to force me to relinquish my justly acquired property?
The state is a group of individuals that claim to exercise territorial sovereignty over my own land which I exercise territorial sovereignty over. I never agreed to pay taxes.
>>74010448
You seem frustrated. Don't be ashamed. It took histories greatest minds years to understand and perfect simple philosophy.
>>73995282
It isn't. Theft is illegal taking.
>>74009881
>Permissible just means acceptable. I'm asking if murder is morally acceptable.
You're not asking if I find it acceptable though, aren't you? You're asking if murder "is" acceptable, as though acceptibility is an inherent quality of murder and not a value judgment. Acceptable from an objective point of view so to speak, and I don't think in those terms because I don't believe that there's an objective way to analyze the morality of murder.
I don't consider inaction to be an act of harming other people, so I don't feel guilty when I walk by a homeless man without giving them money(I do feel bad sometimes but that's just irrational). Abstaining from murder shouldn't make you feel responsible or guilty for any negative consequences that came as a result of failing to murder someone, but if for some reason there is then you're in a dilemma, no matter what you do you're a bad person.
>>73995282
>2016
>paying taxes
>>74010456
You signed it when you are allowing a group to rule over you, defend you, and make laws that govern you.
By living on their land that they defend via force against other groups, you by default agree to their rules
>>74010456
>>>/somalia/
>>74009842
Jewconomy 101
>>74010689
>Acceptable from an objective point of view so to speak, and I don't think in those terms because I don't believe that there's an objective way to analyze the morality of murder.
If you believe that murder is morally impermissible, then you would like to live in a society in which murderers are punished for their actions. If you believe that murder is morally permissible, then you would like to live in a society in which murderers are not punished for their actions. It's not a trick question anon, and if you cannot say that murder is morally impermissible then perhaps you should send me your address so that I could murder you, for if it is not morally impermissible, then it is an action which I am free to perform.
It's a simple question with a simple answer: is murder morally acceptable behavior?
>>74010815
The state is an immoral instigator of force. All their land is stolen. All your supposed agreements were made under duress.
Goddamn, no wonder the white race is doomed. Unable to grasp obvious logic.
>>74011132
If you refuse to work with the presiding monopoly of force, they will use your force to remove you from their territory.
that's how it has always been.
>>74008980
Oh, look, another funny line from their website:
>Humans cannot use their reason and intelligence to imagine and invent things if they are constantly forced to concentrate only on their day-to-day survival.
>Most human-inspired inventions, from the first forms of ancient writing to modern computer sciences, were made possible because of financial grants from governments that freed people up from normal physical labor and allowed them to think.
Good god, this is hilarious.
>>73999038
Isn't taxation more like extortion than theft?
Provide unwanted services and then demand payment?
>>74010815
>You signed it when you are allowing a group to rule over you, defend you, and make laws that govern you.
Here you are saying that I signed this contract. May I see it?
>By living on their land that they defend via force against other groups, you by default agree to their rules.
So let me see if I understand this. The state forbids me from offering my services of defense to other individuals, and use violence against me if I try to. The state forms a monopoly on this service, and because they force me to give up my property and don't allow me to refuse the service, it isn't theft. Do I understand this correctly?
>>74010907
>muh Somalia!
Somalia is much better off as a quasi-stateless society than it was as a state. The minimal amount of research would inform you of this.
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
>>74010907
>>74011115
You're presenting me with a false dichotomy, here bud. Either the teddy bear is good or it's bad, but the teddy bear isn't objectively good or objectively bad, if it's Lisa's teddy bear, she judges it to be a very lovely bear, but If it's Jake's teddy bear then teddy bears are for kids, so he judges him to be lame.
What exactly do you mean by "morally acceptable"? Acceptable by whom? God?
>>74010768
Now that's a flag I don't see often.
>>73995648
>when you decided to be a citizen of the country.
Which was never, I was born a citizen of the USA. I never decided to be one.
>>73998899
>>74011721
>Here you are saying that I signed this contract. May I see it?
There is no contract. It's called do what the presiding force of the territory says, or they imprison you. That's how they keep order from egotists with only their own self-interest in mind.
>>74011336
>>>Most human-inspired inventions, from the first forms of ancient writing to modern computer sciences, were made possible because of financial grants from governments that freed people up from normal physical labor and allowed them to think.
This can't be real.
>>74010931
So what about America Canada and Australia?
>>74011997
Yes, it's all real and it's so cringey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4HagtgTPQ&ab_channel=AnonymousOfficial
Their constitution is a mess of tyranny.
>>73995282
Hi, Stefan
>>74011815
>Either the teddy bear is good or it's bad, but the teddy bear isn't objectively good or objectively bad, if it's Lisa's teddy bear, she judges it to be a very lovely bear, but If it's Jake's teddy bear then teddy bears are for kids, so he judges him to be lame.
This is a false analogy, for an inanimate object is neither objectively moral or immoral. An inanimate object can be used in behavior that is moral or immoral, but the object itself cannot be moral or immoral.
>What exactly do you mean by "morally acceptable"? Acceptable by whom? God?
I am asking you if me putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger is moral according to you. If I murder your mother, would you say that I engaged in behavior that was immoral or moral? I don't know any other way to phrase this very simple question that I've now asked you several times. I'll try it once more though: Is murder morally acceptable?
>There is no contract.
You said earlier that taxation was something which I consented to. Now you are saying that the social contract theory is null.
>It's called do what the presiding force of the territory says, or they imprison you.
>It's called spread your legs for the rapist, or he'll murder you.
I don't see an argument here.
>>73996803
Underrated post
>>74012383
The second part of this was meant for >>74011912 , not >>74011815 , sorry.
>>74012383
>You said earlier that taxation was something which I consented to. Now you are saying that the social contract theory is null.
If you let them defend your borders, let them police you, let them govern you, then you are fully consenting to their rule and you do what they say.
AKA you're trying to rationalize being a free loader. Stop relying on the government for everything. Stop consenting to their rule and break the 'social contract' and see how far you get.
Libertarian cucks are the worst tbqh... The quintessential man without morals and principals.
>>73995282
Human beings evolved in groups which had a mixture of personal possessions and communal property
Libertarianism is unnatural
>>74012785
>If you let them defend your borders, let them police you, let them govern you, then you are fully consenting to their rule and you do what they say.
I'm "letting" them do that because violence will be used against me if I don't. This is the same reason why the woman "lets" the rapist insert his penis into her vagina, for if she does not, she will be killed.
>AKA you're trying to rationalize being a free loader.
The state forces me to accept these services, I have no ability to decline them. If the state gave me the opportunity to decline them I would, but I do not have this opportunity. To say that because people force you to do accept a service you must compensate them for the service rendered is nonsensical.
>Stop relying on the government for everything.
I rely on the state for the services which private individuals are not permitted to render to me. If there was a private defense agency that offered to me their services of protection and I had the ability to contract their services and reject the services of the state-run police, then I would likely do so. The state is forcing me to accept these services for if I do not, I will be hurt. Again, do not say that because I am forced to accept these services I have to like them.
>"If you take this dick you can't complain about it!" yells the rapist.
>>74012383
>This is a false analogy, for an inanimate object is neither objectively moral or immoral. An inanimate object can be used in behavior that is moral or immoral, but the object itself cannot be moral or immoral.
You're right buy the point of the analogy was to illustrate the difference between value judgments, which are judgments about how valuable you consider something to be, and objective judgments, which are judgments about the true properties of something. I don't see a way for murder to be objectively bad because "bad" is a value judgment, not an inherent property of something.
>I don't know any other way to phrase this very simple question that I've now asked you several times.
I've asked you to define "morally acceptable" in such a way that makes it clear whether or not you believe that "acceptability" is an inherent property of murder or a value judgment made about murder. We both agree that murder is morally bad, but I believe that murder is bad I mean that it's "bad for you" to murder, not that murder in itself is "a bad thing" because actions or objects can never be good or bad in and of themselves since it has no meaning.
Why not decriminalize tax evasion? Those who wanted to pay taxes would. Those that didn't want to pay taxes wouldn't.
Why does this seem like such an irrational prospect?
Just shame and ostracize people who don't pay taxes. No need for violence and threats thereof.
>>73995460
but you can david, just look at the soviet union, it did not have taxes. I am not saying that that is a good thing, but it is a thing.
