Taxation is theft?

[Anonymous No.13636834]

Doesn't the categorical imperative imply that taxing people is immoral?
You may think that you are collecting tax revenue for a good purpose, like perhaps providing healthcare to a low income family, but when you tax another family in the process, you are using them merely as a means to the end of helping the poor family. Now if the wealthier family gave money to them voluntarily, that would be another story. But taxing them is making them do it by force, without their own agency, instead of them doing it out of a sense of duty.

[Anonymous No.13636849]

>>13636834
Is buying anything immoral? Nearly every product is in some form or other connected to the exploitation of the poor, innit?

[Anonymous No.13636850]

>>13636834
no lol
it wouldnt be using them >>>MERELY<<< as a means because it would provide benefit for them. using the logic you have here would mean laws and society shouldnt exist because according to you it would be using people merely as means by forcing them to follow said laws. the keyword here is MERELY.

[Anonymous No.13636879]

>>13636850
How does taxing the wealthier family benefit them if the money is then used to give healthcare, food stamps, and subsidized housing to a poorer family? The wealthy family only gets less money out of the deal.

[Anonymous No.13636941]

they benefit by living in a better society because of getting taxed. the error you made, in kantian ethics at least, is that losing wealth for a just cause is something bad

[Anonymous No.13636943]

>>13636879
meant to tag you here >>13636941

[Anonymous No.13636977]

>>13636941
Seems like kind of a b.s. interpretation of Kantianism, honestly. He didn't even consider pleasure to be a good or suffering to be an evil. So why would the second categorical imperative imply you can force someone to do something for their own good when Kant believes the highest form of excellence of a person is having a duty bound will in the first place?

[Anonymous No.13637005]

>>13636977
my point is that taxation isnt merely using people for their means. as for forcing someone to do something for their own good: society does this all the time. we force children to go to school for their own good, we use force to uphold laws, we force mental patients to stay in asylums, we force patients to stay in hospitals. as i've said, the same logic you're using to say that taxes are wrong can be used for any aspect of society (something kant obviously didnt intend)

[Anonymous No.13637007]

>>13636849
Fuck the poor

[Anonymous No.13637052]

>>13637005
By this logic I should be able to lie to someone if the point of the lie is to make them feel better. Just seems to be based on a false understanding of what Kant thinks treating someone as an end means.

[Anonymous No.13637064]

>>13637052
please explain your logic behind this and address my points about society forcing people to do stuff for their own good (children going to school for example)

[Anonymous No.13637066]

>>13636879
the greater benefit to society as a whole makes it a lot better for them to live in

[Anonymous No.13637115]

>>13637066
>>13637064
Sure.
If the basis for taxes not violating the second categorical imperative in the examples I gave was that the family indirectly benefits from being forced to pay, then why wouldn't that same justification hold for someone who tells a harmless lie because the lie makes someone else feel better?
In the case of children being forced to go to school, ignoring that they may not be considered eligible to be counted in Kant's system before a certain age of reason, the children can be argued to benefit in a real sense in that it can be used to develop proper character.
This is distinct from them being forced to go making them more secure or happy.
When we enforce laws, like say, laws against murder, it is to protect against the violation of everyone's autonomy.
I guess what this disagreement comes down to is we don't understand "treating someone as an end" in the same way.

[Anonymous No.13637118]

>>13637115
Just meant for >>13637064 , whoops

[Anonymous No.13637565]

>>13637005
>we force mental patients to stay in asylums
implying this is moral

[Bear Johnson No.13637626]

>>13636834
ofcourse taxation is theft. Long live anarcho-capitalism

[Anonymous No.13637633]

>>13636834
Jacobi.

[Anonymous No.13638909]

It’s called the social contract.

[Anonymous No.13639902]

>>13638909
When did anyone sign it?

[Anonymous No.13640005]

>>13636879
Healthier people means cleaner cities and lower crime rates.
Look at the Nordic countries where everything is socialized. Extremely low crime rates extremely high quality of life all around.

Also fuck off with 'ree it should be a choice, the rich will naturally do it through charity', America has several billionaires and hundreds of millionaires and all they do is hoard wealth or spend it on fucking shark tanks for their 6th mansion. Ayn Rand was a fat wretched goblin piece of shit with a heart blacker than coal and you should absolutely not take her philosophies to yours.

[Anonymous No.13641085]

>>13636834
Taxation isn't forced. It's a system you may opt out of by moving away, and it is sustained by a quasi-democratic system answerable to the public. It is, setting aside practical issues, an agreed-upon strategy of the community, and a condition of partaking of that community's resources. In other words, pay your fucking taxes or exercise your right to reject the duty--and its benefits--completely.

[Anonymous No.13641125]

>>13641085
what if it were opt-in? Opt out of paying your taxes for healthcare, and you will have to pay for it. The problem is all the rich would opt out of everything, and they pay a lot of the taxes.

[Anonymous No.13641136]

>>13636834
Taxation is theft. Property is also theft. Commerce, definitely theft. Theft? Well that's theft axiomatically. Religion is theft, as is science. Philosophy is double theft. Steal one way, or steal another way, you'll regret it either way.

[Anonymous No.13641164]

>>13641125
Anyone can opt out, but they can't expect to live in the society and partake of all the benefits without contributing at all.

[Anonymous No.13641172]

>>13636834
I'd think its more immoral to let people suffer by not forming a society with taxation, than it is to tax people.
Moreover, everyone benefits from public services in some way. Back in time, no one would survive on their own or with just their immediate family. Humans are and were always a communal species.
We just taxed each other in other ways back when we were far more primitive.

[Anonymous No.13641289]

>>13641172
Sounds like a utilitarian justification desu

[Anonymous No.13641301]

>>13641164
my man did you even read my post? if you opt of out paying taxes for healthcare then you dont receive the benefit of free healthcare

[Anonymous No.13641319]

>>13641301
It sounds hard to remove all of the benefits you get out of a society just because you remove government services.
Do you hire people who used publication to gain skills? You indirectly benefited from the state.
Does your workforce have good health because of government healthcare? You also benefit.
Do you used public roads to transport goods or just drive around? You also benefit.
Utilities? The government is involved in that in some way in all countries since they're a natural monopoly.
Government research, sewage systems, enforcement of laws by police, regulations on air quality or water pipes, etc.
It just seems you can't claim you don't benefit from the government unless you decide to be a hermit outside of society or just leave the country completely.

[Anonymous No.13641320]

>>13641319
used public education to gain skills?*

[Anonymous No.13641322]

>>13641319
I still think you don't get what Im saying. You opt of from paying only the taxes that go towards healthcare, not other taxes. case by case basis.

I dont even think it's realistic it was just an idea that once occurred to me.

[Anonymous No.13641326]

>>13636834
OP is a moron, and no amount of reading will solve that.

[Anonymous No.13641343]

>>13636834
The implication is that forcing someone to do something is categorically immoral, would that make prisons immoral?

[Anonymous No.13641351]

>>13641322
Idk, just seems like everyone benefits too much. The employer gets a healthier workforce, which means the business can do better. A business doing good means it can grow and hire more people. Hiring more people means wages go up for the employed. Employers benefit, employees benefit, and the currently unemployed benefit. Not to mention if a disease is contagious everyone benefits from access to healthcare to tackle the problem head on before it spreads. It's like if you applied the same logic to fire fighting and said you don't want public fire fighters. But if your neighbors house caught on fire you would still benefit because the fire can then reach your house if nothing was done.
Things are too interconnected to just say, "I don't want to pay for government healthcare therefore I'll just stop using it." A society is a collection of people. If everyone does better the society as a whole does better.

[Anonymous No.13641368]

>>13641351
Very good argument anon. And I do agree that things are all interconnected in very complex ways, and that is why very abstract political programs usually fail to manifest, and is probably why I had the instinct to not believe the idea, though I didn't think of what you said, only the problem about the rich opting out.

All in all very nice contribution. I do still think a lot of our taxes go towards retarded policies, but you have made the opt in system seem kind of dumb to me. Empirical evidence would be better if it existed, but your argument rang true immediately when I read it.

[Anonymous No.13641385]

Before you solve the tax problem you have to tackle the ownership problem. Who decided the borders should be the way they are? Who decided to divide the Earth in countries? Who decided to "own" the land. How do you own it?
When you solve this problem, then you understand that the properties you have are on a foreign ground, because it "belongs" to someone, and therefore by using this land you are depreciating it, and therefore have to pay some sort of "fine" or "tax" if you will. Because the proper owner of the land is at loss.

Feudalism still exist, they just have a different name for it. The current trend in housing is for everyone to stop owning property, but to pay rent, so that when they die, the property can be used by someone else. It is economical.

[Anonymous No.13641830]

are people posting this guy as kant as a meme now?

[Anonymous No.13641971]

>>13641830
If you google Kant, this image keeps popping up. I've even seen copies of his books with that image on the cover.

[Anonymous No.13641980]

>>13636849
That presupposes a Marxian theory of value, which as we know is retarded and non-empirical.

If you operate under the far more accurate market theory of value, that is actually repeatable and testable, then capitalist exploitation is impossible without violent coercion.

I.E., the Marxist theory of value essentially states that if you pay someone for anything, be it their labor or a good they produce, and you feel satisfied with the purchase, you must have somehow exploited the person you bought it from. So if I hire you to can peaches for $10 and I make money selling those peaches, I have exploited you.

This is of course retarded. If you accept $10 to can some peaches, you've de-facto agreed that that is what canning the peaches is worth. You weren't exploited. Similarly anyone who accepts pay to do a job without a gun to their head held by the employer is agreeing that their labor is worth that pay.

This is an empirical measurement of value. It precludes exploitation unless coercion can be proven. And not coercion by nature (hurr durr I have to eat and eating means I need money so I'm being forced to work) but actual slavery, or forced labor. Complaining that God made you with a metabolism is not a serious claim of exploitation, it's just bitching about reality.

[Anonymous No.13641981]

>>13640005
>Look at the Nordic countries where everything is socialized.

[Anonymous No.13642003]

>>13641971
wow really, they couldnt even do some research before publishing an entire book?

[Anonymous No.13642025]

>>13641980
Ignoring Marx on the other hand though, if people were working under unsafe working conditions in third world countries or if even children were used so that the product you bought could be produced cheaply as possible, it's hard to see how that's not treating people merely as a means. The entire reason production was even moved there was likely to avoid having to commit to the same enviromental and work standards of the country you want to sell in so you could increase profit. I'll remind, Kant argued that selling something at a fair price (vague on what he counts as "fair", albeit) was part of treating your customer as an end
It stands to reason if the buyer has more leverage over how much he'd buy the price, Kant's ethics would dictate something likewise, that the buyer of labor should negotiate for a fair price on the other person's part.

[Anonymous No.13642405]

>>13636850
>>13636941
>>13637005
>>13637066
>>13638909
>>13640005
The subject matter here isn't whether or not taxation is good or bad, it's whether or not taxation is theft or not theft, and it is most obviously theft. Whether it is good or bad is a different question entirely. Taking someone's resources or property by force, no matter what it is going to be used for, is theft. It's not complicated. Just like executing people on death row is most definitely killing and could reasonably be said to be murder (intentionally planned killing of another human being). That doesn't mean that execution is necessarily bad in all cases.

>>13641085
>Taxation isn't forced. It's a system you may opt out of by moving away
Now this is a truly autistic take.

[Anonymous No.13642492]

>>13642405
I'll disagree with you on your definition of theft without disagreeing that taxation can be a form of theft.
If we took your definition to be correct, that theft has occurred in any situation where property was taken forcibly, we would have to use the term in some non-standard ways. For example, if I break into your house and in the process damage expensive property and end up in a physical confrontation with you in which we both sustain injuries, I might find myself in court some time later where a judge will decide I must pay you for legal fees, property taxes, medical expenses and perhaps mental damages. I will be forced to do this under physical threat of the state. But no one would say the state or you "stole" from me, because this is just an example of restitution, that is to say, righting a wrong. I'm seen as being obligated to do it anyway because I owe you it.
So theft isn't merly the forceful taking of property but the unjust taking of property. So when someone says that taxation is theft, they are morally loading the statement.
Which isn't to say that taxation might not be theft anyway. Certainly it seems to me, that if politicans took money from a corporation, and in return, they voted it to get subsidizes, with no benefit to the tax payer, then there's a lot of sense in saying that the politicians and the corporations robbed the tax payer.

[Anonymous No.13642502]

>>13642492
legal fees, property damages*

[Anonymous No.13642509]

>>13642492
This is a better definition than my own, I will remember it. Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.13642845]

>>13642405
You have so many assumptions here: who the fuck says "your" property belongs to you? The same system that levies taxes gives you the imaginary authority over your supposed wealth. You can't just call one aspect of it "theft" and ignore the rest.

[Anonymous No.13642866]

>>13636834
You don't own your property, the state does.