Oh, on government, most definitely. I just think you are in denial about some realities of our position.
Perhaps, but I’ve rationalized it to you the best I can.
You do understand that this is circular reasoning right? I would turn my money over to a mugger also.
You guys do not appear to have any sort of grasp of what consent means. Quit literally, basically everything that happens is consented to by your reasoning.
As long as we agree that it’s just rationalization.
If taxation is theft, then rules against driving on the left side of the road is false imprisonment.
Also, as a corollary, this is why I think Libertarianism is flatly idiotic.
1 Like
The sex thing has run its course and I’m not going to play that.
So no repercussions, easy, and no violation of your own rights = reasonable?
That is the very definition of creating an impasse. You have wedged yourself between a rock and a hard place by placing your own comfort above the benefit of sacrificing in the short term for the possibility of gain in the long term.
@DoubleDuce has eloquently pointed out your circular reasoning, but you won’t admit you’re wrong because the statement of taxation = theft was brought up by me.
Your understanding of consent, rape parallels aside is meaningless.
The fact that you might do that out of self-preservation does not make the mugger’s actions right, legal, moral, or acceptable. You didn’t consent to be mugged simply by virtue of the fact that you were mugged or that you complied out of self-preservation.
The mugger broke a law that he consented not to. I.e. he has consented to live under the rule of law of his state, municipality, and the United States. He’s in the wrong. You are obviously not.
Well, yeah it’s an impasse. Like I said removal of consent is impossible so there is no consent. But you are wrong, I didn’t do it, that’s the way consent works.
No, I won’t admit it’s wrong because I don’t believe taxation is theft. Life doesn’t revolve around you.
Your crying that taxation is theft is meaningless. It’s reality.
Now run along, the adults are talking.
It’s circular because your answer only posses the question, “how did the mugger consent?”.
Your description is correct for the mugger, but it’s also identical to the reason many Americans pay taxes.
I would actually trust USMC with my daughter he is a happily married man with a child I believe and has served his country well. I’d actually employ him if he lived closer.
Yeah…I know you’re joking.
This entire argument is really about semantics.
Yes we have to pay our taxes as it is the law. No, we don’t think it’s fair and if we don’t pay someone will show up with a gun and take you away.
You guys are beating this topic to death give it a rest.
Let’s talk about this being Obama’s last 24 hours as President.
If it’s a private road that I have a choice to use or not use, not at all.
Yes please!
Okay, that was just a tad mean
It isn’t because I’ve already explained to you why I believe American’s have consented. You don’t agree and you obviously haven’t convinced me otherwise so it is what it is I guess.
No. You are hanging your hat on the consent thing without acknowledging that you are not willing to put anything on the line to effect the change you would like to see.
If our countries founding fathers felt the same way we would be pledging allegiance to the Union Jack.
edit: actually, by your definition of reasonable, you have acknowledged that you aren’t willing to put anything on the line.
1 Like
USMC is correct guys. It is the law of the land. If you want to change the law of the land then make every effort to do so.
Taxation is not stealing.
With that said, it seems quite unfair and we all hate it.
You don’t have my permission to travel on my property
This isn’t a discussion of what the law states. Everyone agrees under the law taxation isn’t theft.
It’s a philosophical discussion as to whether Taxation = theft.