I’ll take Locke’s word for it:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
Fully libertarian, never. Libertarian-ism runs contrary to natural human order. More libertarian that what we have now? It’s possible, but it certainly hasn’t been going that way.
I mentioned in my first post in this thread that I rejected his initial premise.
Okay, well, you and I obviously have a very different philosophical outlook then.
It’s been enjoyable (truly), but I think we’ve reached the agree to disagree part of the discussion.
Theft is considered wrong/immoral, right. Some form of tax is a must as you said. How can something that is a must be wrong/immoral?
Absolutely.
I didn’t see that, but I figured as much.
A distinction without a difference. Taxation is merely a means to give effect to a collective decision. In other words we have decided there is some public good worth paying for and we use taxation to fund it.
A decision to pass a law to build a public road and a decision to pass a law to enact a tax to pay for that public road are one in the same for the purpose of determining whether your consent was abrogated or not. Both are collective decisions that impair your freedom, whether you agree with the collective decision or not.
There is a distinction with a difference as to the enforcement of traffic law on a built road and the taxation and building of the road. They are very different things.
You said we decided, then ended with whether you agree or not. If I don’t agree, “we” didn’t decide.
No, they aren’t different, not at all. They are laws passed by collective action that deprive you of a freedom whether you like it or not.
Identical.
One involves punishing someone for doing something dangerous to others and risking other people’s lives. The other involves punishing someone who is doing nothing wrong and just wish to be left alone for not doing what you order them to do. They are 2 very ethically different questions.
Unfortunately for you, your arguments do not stand up against His directives.
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”.
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.”
“Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience.”
“From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own children or from others?” Peter answers, “from others,” and Jesus replies: “Then the children are exempt. But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
Because you have decided that you want to be a member of this heavenly Kingdom, you take on the obligations along with the reward. And are directed to do the same in the physical realm.
@therajraj If you do not profess Christianity (that I am aware) you are held to the same principle from an earthly standpoint. You decided to become a part of this ‘kingdom’, including applying for inclusion through the legal prescription. Now you are obligated to its directives and eligible for its rewards.
This long winded wrangling over ‘why is water wet?’ or ‘it depends on what the meaning of “is” is’ can only be seen as a dead end.
1 Like
Damn it, @treco how the hell am I supposed to argue with you after such a great response?
I’ll find a way… 
What is your rationale for considering taxation a punishment?
Well, I never claimed Christianity, but I also disagree with your interpretation, Jesus is very intentionally apolitical. Apolitical and endorsement of government are 2 very different things. Regardless, everything Jesus advocated was voluntary. Even if I agree to take the burden of submission to authority myself, Jesus doesn’t command that people who don’t agree be made to do it too.
Are you sure about that?
If the only way to heaven is through Jesus and Jesus already knows whether you’ll accept him or not, do you even have a choice?
A fine and a tax are rationally identical and I’ve never been given rational for any sort of distinction. Even their role in the government is many times interchangeable. Some things are funded based on fines and penalties. Income tax is a fine on earning wealth. (it’s one of the reasons I don’t like income tax as a means of general funding)
AHAHA! fair question, but that is way outside the scope of the discussion.
1 Like
A fine is imposed when you break a law. You get nothing in return. Instead, you repay society for your choice.
A Tax is imposed to create a common good, which you get to utilize in return.
One is a punishment the other is a transaction.
No, fines also fund the government and it’s services. The real difference is that we call it a tax when we impose it on something people do that is good. But it is semantics. The action and function are the same. They are both penalties for certain behaviors imposed through coercion that discourage that behavior.
Idk man, straight from Yoda. Also, catholics believe masturbation to be immoral but it is certainly a must.
In all seriousness, though… Religious morals and legal code contradict all the time. The legal code should not be used as a moral compass.
On the other hand… Our goals as a society are unattainable without taxation. Period. I think most understand that. However, in my opinion, just because something is necessary, it doesn’t make it moral to take. .BUT there is no other solution besides anarchy and fantasy land where people willing give up money.
We live in and benefit from the society we have created so taxes are really our duty to pay into it.
That only explains immigrants.
Can you explain how taxation isn’t theft when I’m taxed by the Canadian government where I was born.
You obviously don’t get to choose where your born so when does a natural born citizen consent
That’s why anarcho capitalists exist. You can’t have a society based on immorality in their opinion