Taxation is theft. If a street gang said, "Give us 30% of your income and we'll protect you from the other gangs," that's a crime. But when the government does the exact same thing, it's regarded as legitimate. — fishfry

What do you mean by "legitimate" here? Dictionary.com defines the word as "according to law; lawful." It also says it is being "in accordance with established rules, principles, and or standards."

Going by the first definition, taxation is clearly a legitimate function of the state, as it's perfectly legal.

If you're going to appeal to the second definition, then whose rules, principles, and standards are you appealing to?

I think you are being unnecessarily formalistic in dealing with this question. — T Clark

Fair point. I try to veer on the side of formalism in order to avoid posting a sloppy argument, but perhaps I went overboard on that last one.

You say - "But I didn't choose to live in your society." I say "Tough titties." There used to be a solution - head off to unexplored areas and live off your own efforts with no help from others. That's not possible anymore. If you live in our society and use our infrastructure - roads, distribution networks, telephones, legal protections (including property ownership), etc., pay your damn taxes and stop complaining. — T Clark

These are my feelings, too, towards anarcho-capitalists anti-tax libertarians, but I probably wouldn't use it in an argument. I would probably counter by saying that all people are born into societies without their consent. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism would do nothing to stop that. But being born into a society without your consent does not absolve one from his or her duties to that society. If a libertarian society forces me to follow its non-aggression principle (NAP), I couldn't protest by saying, "Well, I didn't choose to born into a society that forces me to follow the NAP, so I should be able to punch whomever I want!"

I like your second argument.

The police would take it away from you, if you took it from someone else but how would they know if you stole it from someone if that person is dead? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There are plenty of ways. He could have reported it stolen and then died or someone else reported it stolen for him. But I don't think that's relevant because it doesn't address the claim of whether or not it would be ethical for the police to take something that you got unethically.

I cannot agree with that at all. Regardless of how YOU obtain a stereo, it does not in any way give permission to another person to steal anything from anyone, including YOU and your stereo. If I were looking to buy a stereo and you were selling one, the onus is on you as to any kind of 'Karmic' settlement for good or evil, not me, the unknowing obtainer of your stereo. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So, if I were caught with this stereo and the police took it away from me, you wouldn't support that? Assume that the person I had taken it from has died and it can't be returned to its original owner.

Interestingly, I've been reading Saul Smilansky, who argues that it can actually be better to believe in something untrue than believe the truth.

Smilansky created a view called illusionism as a response to the free will debate. Illusionism essentially says we should act as if we have free will even if we don't. Smilansky argues this because he believes a belief in free will is necessary for a functioning society. We need a belief in free will because people need to feel they are responsible for their actions in order to feel a sense of value and achievement in what they do. We also need to be able to hold others accountable when they do wrong.

I think your purpose is to be an existentialist. It's the freedom, potential and coming-to-be that count. Actually being makes an object of you and pins you down. Essence is an illusion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/ — Cuthbert

Interesting that you mentioned that. I just discovered existentialism recently, and I feel it is the philosophical school (if it can be called a school) that represents my philosophical worldview the best, though not completely. In fact, learning about existentialism was one of those "wow" moments for me, like "Wow! This philosophy expressed everything I have felt but was never able to put into words."

Sorry, but that's just defeatist bullshit. You might not have a grand purpose - you might not be designing a space probe or curing cancer. But even ordinary purposes are worthwhile. I think you're just looking for excuses. — Wayfarer

Not quite sure how I am "looking for excuses." Can you elaborate?

Just noticed my rookie grammar mistake: confusing "your" with "you're." Fixed.

We certainly have to know certain truths for the sake of our survival. I good example to illustrate this point is the anti-vaccination movement. If enough people start believing that vaccines cause autism and refuse to vaccinate their children for that reason, that could certainly threaten the survival of many people.

With that said, I think there are many truths that don't lead to our survival and some that can even make life more painful. Why we should continue to pursue those truths, I don't know.

I agree with getting rid of Protestant work ethic. But my definition of work is really much broader than just survival related activities.. it is regulating comfort and seeking entertainment. It is about the maintenance of one's life. I don't think creating people who have to maintain their lives, including survival but not only survival-related activity, is not a good thing. Nothing wrong with no one existing. I don't believe in creating a problem for someone (of maintaining life) is a desirable thing. — schopenhauer1

If that is your definition of "work," then I don't necessarily see work as a bad thing. Sure, some people can be obsessed with finding pleasure that it causes them pain, but I don't think that is the case for most or even all people. Your definition seems a bit too broad.

By the way, are you a fan of David Benatar?

Perhaps, the main reason is that to apply the golden rule, the person has to be already in some sense 'enlightened' or capable of self-love. After all, self-love is prior to treating another with kindness and empathy. — Posty McPostface

Not so sure about this. Why couldn't I hate myself but treat someone else with kindness? I could certainly conceive of a situation where X believed he was lowly scum and considered Y a god who deserved to be treated with the utmost kindness and respect.

The same goes for empathy. Empathy is "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" (Dictionary.com). While I would certainly need to experience desires not to be harmed, disrespected, etc., in order to be able to vicariously experience those feelings in others, I could still experience those desires without believing I deserved to have them fulfilled because I was a vile, lowly creature --- i.e., I was filled with self loathing.

There is no escaping making others work really (unless the hermit scenario) if we are to live as humans usually do (in a society, that is). — schopenhauer1

That may be true now, but probably won't be true in the near future. With the way technology is advancing, it is entirely possible that robots could do the labor we all do today. Certainly all manual labor could be replaced by robots, and virtually any labor that involves a lot of math could also be done by robots.

However, not having new humans eliminates this dilemma of being forced into working for others demands (and vice versa). Thus antinatalism prevents people from having to work. No need for need if there is no one to need. — schopenhauer1

This seems to be an extreme response to the work "dilemma." It's kind of like burning one's house down in order to kill a spider in it. I think there are better ways to reduce (and maybe one day eliminate) work. First off, we need to get rid of this ridiculous Protestant work ethic. Next, we need to reduce the number of hours people work and replace as many jobs as possible with robots. Third, tax those robots and give the money to humans in the form of a universal basic income.