Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint?
If we can't agree on that, there's no point in discussing an alternative because you don't seem persuaded that there is any necessity for an alternative. — Tzeentch
Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. — The Communist Manifesto
I voted yes. I don't believe human nature is fixed, and I don't believe human beings are bound by necessity such that a "system" is in place to make them behave this or that way.
The future is open. And we can demand the impossible. — Moliere
Is the claim that human nature is not fixed the same as the claim that there is no human nature at all? — Jamal
So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint"... — Christoffer
Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, — Christoffer
You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. — Christoffer
So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). — Tzeentch
These are non-arguments. — Tzeentch
Not worth responding to. — Tzeentch
The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. — Tzeentch
Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc. — Tzeentch
Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?
I would say so. And you would say no. — Tzeentch
So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? — Christoffer
The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, ... — Christoffer
So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard? — Christoffer
I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. — Christoffer
You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. — Christoffer
So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system. — Christoffer
Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. — Christoffer
Describe a society without taxes, in which you don't have to worry about spending your life behind bars because of not paying taxes. You are now free, how do you live in this society? You are born into the world having $100 000 as a starting sum when moving from home, how does that life look like? — Christoffer
Why is taxation the hot topic here? — Jamal
That depends on the form of communal organization. In the purest form, money and taxation would not be required - but only if that commune were entirely self-sufficient and didn't need to trade with non-communist social entities.In a communist society there would be no state, no money, no social classes--and no taxation.
All of this seems pretty human, and actually seems to describe a process that we have seen over and over again in history. — ChatteringMonkey
The key word there is "history". We may need to look farther back for sustainable systems of human organization. And even when we've found a model that could work for us, we'd still have to find its vulnerabilities and insure against the identifiable threats. And, having done all that, prepare to change whatever needs changing in response to new developments and circumstances. — Vera Mont
What I will agree to that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... — ChatteringMonkey
You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact thing, in personal sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct? — Outlander
Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun. — Outlander
Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say. — Tzeentch
It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft. — Tzeentch
Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok — Tzeentch
That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it. — Tzeentch
I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately. — Tzeentch
In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up? — Tzeentch
This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can. — Tzeentch
I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world. — Tzeentch
Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries? — Tzeentch
Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompentent and demonstrably responsible for destroying people's lives? — Tzeentch
Or are these all "failed states"? — Tzeentch
For starters, where did you get the money? Who prints the currency? Who regulates the exchange value? — Vera Mont
Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint? — Tzeentch
The farther back one goes, the less relevant human organisations become for present times it seems to me... There were a lot less people and a lot more space and resources to go around. — ChatteringMonkey
No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. — Christoffer
Ok, do so with Sweden. — Christoffer
And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. — Christoffer
Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. — Christoffer
There are operating communes all over the world; all different, mostly functional. So, of course it's feasible. In fact, it's the most reasonable and efficient form of human organization. Unfortunately, it only works on a small scale. And since these communities are surrounded by oceans of dysfunctional monetary society, they have a high rate of death by drowning. — Vera Mont
It will be relevant again. See my first post on this topic. I always differentiated between ideology "ism" and a communal system of organization. — Vera Mont
No. That melodramatic representation of taxes is both inaccurate and unacceptable. People's things aren't taken; only a predetermined and agreed-upon portion of the money which was issued and guaranteed by a government agency, and which they receive in return for some function they perform that is of value to somebody who is in possession of those funds.
Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest. — Tzeentch
Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory — Tzeentch
Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense. — Tzeentch
Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"? — Tzeentch
And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?
How odd. — Tzeentch
When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?
This is of course a key question. — Tzeentch
Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence. — Tzeentch
I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used. — Tzeentch
The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it. — Tzeentch
Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral. — Tzeentch
You think we're not funding our national defense? — Christoffer
You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about. — Christoffer
No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". — Christoffer
No one is actually forcing you. — Christoffer
What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? — Christoffer
If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. — Tzeentch
Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.