According to my brother, taxation is stealing

[Darth Servo]

He argues that taxation for the sake of "wealth redistribution" (namely social services like medicare and such) are a form of "legalized theft" and therefore should be eliminated on moral grounds.

I tried pointing out that those services provide the basic necessities of life to the lower classes and that the right to life outweighs the right to property but he disagreed, at least, not when you "force" the upper class to support it.

He also likes to think that such social programs will lead to communism and then uses the Darkstar denial technique when pointed out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

I would be interested in hearing any other counter arguments to his nonsense though.

[Darth Wong]

He argues that taxation for the sake of "wealth redistribution" (namely social services like medicare and such) are a form of "legalized theft" and therefore should be eliminated on moral grounds.

But taxation for the purpose of building roads is not? Neither operation is based upon the permission of the individual citizen. In both cases, there is a general good and democratic approval. The fact that they don't secure his personal permission is irrelevant.

I tried pointing out that those services provide the basic necessities of life to the lower classes and that the right to life outweighs the right to property but he disagreed, at least, not when you "force" the upper class to support it.

This is a democracy. If he doesn't like it, he can vote against it and encourage others to do the same. But democratic government has never been about securing the permission of each and every individual before extracting taxes to pay for government programs.

He also likes to think that such social programs will lead to communism and then uses the Darkstar denial technique when pointed out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

Sounds like a complete idiot. Does he even know what communism is? There's nothing about socialist wealth redistribution programs which would necessarily destroy the concept of bourgeosie capital, which is what communism requires.

I would be interested in hearing any other counter arguments to his nonsense though.

It would be nice if he made an argument first. It looks to me like he's not really explaining why his particular system (requiring permission from each individual citizen before extracting taxes for programs he doesn't like) would be a good one. He simply states it as if it is an axiom shared by both parties, and it isn't.

Whenever someone states his conclusions as if they are universal truths, simply call him on it. The simplest way to do so is to ask why.

"The government does not have the right to take from the upper class for programs we don't support."

"Why?"

"Because it's stealing."

"Why?"

"Because they don't have our permission."

"Why do they need that?"

"Because if they don't get it, it's stealing."

"Why?"

Seriously, if he's just going to be an asshole and state his argument as if it's a universal truth rather than a logical proposition, you might as well be an asshole right back to him and just play games.

[Magus]

Sounds like a complete idiot. Does he even know what communism is? There's nothing about socialist wealth redistribution programs which would necessarily destroy the concept of bourgeosie capital, which is what communism requires.

He's probably confusing communism and socialism, which is unfortunately a very common mistake.

[Darth Servo]

Oh, its gets better since he's not even upper class yet he defends them tooth and nail. He's a 37 year old ultra-conservative still living with his parents. This all started because he has no job and refused to even apply for a government one on the above grounds.

As for his "definition" of communism, it varies with what ever is convienient. Most of the time it seems like he defines "communist" as "anyone who disagrees with me or the hardcore right wing on any economic policy". Nearly every Democrat is a communist according to him. But when discussing why communism is so bad he start quoting Marx.

Did I mention the guy is also a creationist and thinks Darwin is burning in hell at this very moment?

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, its gets better since he's not even upper class yet he defends them tooth and nail. He's a 37 year old ultra-conservative still living with his parents. This all started because he has no job and refused to even apply for a government one on the above grounds.

Like many of the type, he's obviously bought into the con-job that he'll have his opportunity to one day become rich and that the conservatives actually care about his interests. From what you're telling of the man, I doubt very much that he's the type to let reality intrude into his little bubble-world.

[Magus]

Did I mention the guy is also a creationist and thinks Darwin is burning in hell at this very moment?

That's ridiculous! Every creationist knows that Darwin will have to wait for the Final Judgment and Damnation before he can burn in hell, just like everyone else!

[Darth Servo]

But taxation for the purpose of building roads is not? Neither operation is based upon the permission of the individual citizen. In both cases, there is a general good and democratic approval. The fact that they don't secure his personal permission is irrelevant.

His response was that the upper-class people taxed to build roads receive benefit from those roads so in essence they get their money back. Thats his "logic" for supporting government taxation to pay for police and military services. The rich do not receive any (direct) compensation for medcal coverage. He argues lower crime rates provide direct benefit to the wealthy. I did get him to conceed that the same logic would apply to decreasing infectious disease but he held fast on non-infectious medical problems like cancer.

[Darth Servo]

Like many of the type, he's obviously bought into the con-job that he'll have his opportunity to one day become rich and that the conservatives actually care about his interests. From what you're telling of the man, I doubt very much that he's the type to let reality intrude into his little bubble-world.

That was another pathetic attempt at a "point" he tried to make. He stated that the current system is clearly a failure since we don't seem to have any rags-to-riches stories like Andrew Carnegie anymore. He tried to nitpick the counter example of Bill Gates and just ignored the fact that people like Carnegie were far rarer than one-in-a-million.

[Magus]

His response was that the upper-class people taxed to build roads receive benefit from those roads so in essence they get their money back. Thats his "logic" for supporting government taxation to pay for police and military services. The rich do not receive any (direct) compensation for medcal coverage. He argues lower crime rates provide direct benefit to the wealthy. I did get him to concede that the same logic would apply to decreasing infectious disease but he held fast on non-infectious medical problems like cancer.

How about this "direct benefit" - if the rich don't pay for the underprivileged to have life-sustaining health care, the working-class underpinnings of society could quickly deteriorate, plunging the nation into economic chaos.

I'm sure someone on here can point out a flaw in that theory, but is Servo's brother smart enough to do the same? Often, one doesn't need to actually prove someone wrong so much as prove that they have no idea what they're talking about. If they're clueless, their correctness is irrelevant, as it's for the wrong reasons.

[Pelranius]

If the people benefiting from welfare would take their welfare checks and spend it at WalMart, wouldn't that benefit the heirs of Sam Walton who are supposedly supporting the welfare system through their taxes? (assuming that they actually pay taxes)

[Darth Servo]

If the people benefiting from welfare would take their welfare checks and spend it at WalMart, wouldn't that benefit the heirs of Sam Walton who are supposedly supporting the welfare system through their taxes? (assuming that they actually pay taxes)

His response to the "trickle up" theory is that produces lots of inflation. Of course thats bad most of the time but good when inflation supports his particular argument of the day (tm) like how inflation is supposedly responsible for the creation of the middle class.

[Gerald Tarrant]

He also likes to think that such social programs will lead to communism and then uses the Darkstar denial technique when pointed out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

I might try directing your brother to this site here. This is an actual picture of the true size of the US government over time, it's dated (I'm lazy sorry). In any case a quick look at Figure 1 shows the fluctuating Federal outlays (years 1962-2001). Even at its peak the Federal government is controlling ~25%. I have no idea what thresholds he uses to describe Socialism, and Communism, but 1/4 doesn't bother me that much (and I'm a Libertarian {appeal to authority fallacy :P}).

I'd further like to address his slippery slope worries. Since he denies that it's a fallacy, you should point out figure 1, so far it doesn't fit reality.

Of course Federal outlays have increased under Bush, if someone has those numbers they'd be worth posting. There is an irony in that an anti-Tax Republican President has increased Federal outlays over what a Democratic President approved.

As a Libertarian I'm not delighted by income redistribution or taxation in gneral. It needs to be pointed out though that historically things aren't that bad. If you compare to the EU countries, the US is doing fine (if Socialism is your bogeyman). I'll compare to one of the more extreme socialism cases in the G8, France. From the CIA factbook here

GDP with PPP $1.794 Trillion
GDP official exchange $2.055 Trillion

Revenues $1.06 Trillion
Government Spending $1.144 Trillion


This gives me a government share of between 59 and 51% in comparison the US federal government share of GDP (25%) is incredibly low. As a Libertarian I'd of course like the number to be lower, but worries about creeping Socialism are unfounded.

[Darth Servo]

I'd further like to address his slippery slope worries. Since he denies that it's a fallacy, you should point out figure 1, so far it doesn't fit reality.

He doesn't deny that the slippery slope is a fallacy. He denies that he's committing it.

me: "thats a slippery slope fallacy"

him: "no it isn't."

You aren't very familiar with Darkstar technique, are you?

[Darth Servo]

There's nothing about socialist wealth redistribution programs which would necessarily destroy the concept of bourgeosie capital, which is what communism requires.

He thinks it does with the bullshit opinion that taxing wealth will make people not want to become rich anymore. He doesn't even seem to realize how deeply greed is programmed into the human psyche. Either that or its his inability to see anything in black and white, us verses them mentality. Making getting rich more difficult will lead to complete elimination of getting wealthy in his mind.

[Superman]

Reporting crime is tattling. Giving speeding tickets is bullying. Taxation is stealing.

[General Soontir Fel]

Oh, its gets better since he's not even upper class yet he defends them tooth and nail. He's a 37 year old ultra-conservative still living with his parents. This all started because he has no job and refused to even apply for a government one on the above grounds.

At least he is not a hypocrite.

[SirNitram]

He's a 37 year old ultra-conservative still living with his parents.

Did I mention the guy is also a creationist and thinks Darwin is burning in hell at this very moment?

Your parents have my deepest sympathies. This man is Not Right, if I might use the local vernacular.

[Superman]

You could just say, "you live with your parents. Get your own place, high paying job, and then maybe I'll listen to you."

[FireNexus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the figures in those federal outlays seem to indicate that spending went way up under republicans, and crept downward under democrats...

[Sikon]

I might try directing your brother to this site here. This is an actual picture of the true size of the US government over time, it's dated (I'm lazy sorry). In any case a quick look at Figure 1 shows the fluctuating Federal outlays (years 1962-2001). Even at its peak the Federal government is controlling ~25%.

Those CBO figures are for the federal government alone, not the full size of government spending.

U.S. federal government spending is $2.47 trillion. [for 2005 data]

Additional state & local government expenditures were $1.75 trillion about 7 years ago, substantially more now. [Year between 7/1/1999 and 6/30/2000)]

Total U.S. government spending is the combination of both. It is thus at least $4+ trillion out of $12 trillion GDP. [for CIA, 2005 est.]

That is discussed more in my posts in the old thread here.

[Quadlok]

That was another pathetic attempt at a "point" he tried to make. He stated that the current system is clearly a failure since we don't seem to have any rags-to-riches stories like Andrew Carnegie anymore. He tried to nitpick the counter example of Bill Gates and just ignored the fact that people like Carnegie were far rarer than one-in-a-million.

Bill Gates isn't exactly rags to riches, exceptionally talented or lucky, perhaps, but not exactly up from the gutters. Bill Gates Sr. is an influential, well to do lawyer. Sure Gates dropped out of college or whatever, but he was never anywhere near as bad off as Carnegie. The point that you can count the real rags to riches tales in this country without even having to use your toes is still good though.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Their reasoning, or at least that which I have encountered is the following, and nothing I have ever been able to say changes their opinions:

1. Theft is the taking of something from another, the owner or posessor, without permission.

2. Taxation takes money away from the owner, posessor of the money without his persmission.

3. Therefore, its theft.


They also believe it's wrong because it uses coersion to do the stealing. If you don't pay taxes, they will lock you up. They like to compare this to a "bad guy" robbing you at gunpoint. You have the freedom to refuse, but will be roughed up.

Typically, I don't argue that's not stealing. I simply argue on the Utilitarian angle and go: "Yes, it is stealing, but that doesn't, by default, make it wrong regardless of the circumstances any more than it would always be wrong and inadvisable to lie, regardless of the circumstances. Even if I accept the premise that it's stealing, then it just means all stealing isn't unethical if you weigh the consequences of this regulated form of stealing vs its nonexistence."

That usually shuts them up, as they don't get the argument they expect, and they don't have any cut/paste arguments prepared to attack it. I have noticed that most who argue that line just plagiarized the idea from somewhere else anyway. The tactic is to deny them the choice of battleground and sucker punch them with an uncommon response. It's like how people get bogged down in abortion when someone claims "but a fetus an an embryo are human" to which I reply: "correct, and?"

[Darth Wong]

By that argument, seizure of property to pay your creditors is also theft.

[Velthuijsen]

By that argument, seizure of property to pay your creditors is also theft.

Not according to this line of thought. The people who think like that also reason; You (voluntary) entered a contract in which you promised to pay for something, you have to pay even if it means selling of something else you own.

Nevermind that this line of reasoning for example completely ignores circumstances of why people can't pay up now.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Their reasoning, or at least that which I have encountered is the following, and nothing I have ever been able to say changes their opinions:

1. Theft is the taking of something from another, the owner or posessor, without permission.

2. Taxation takes money away from the owner, posessor of the money without his persmission.

3. Therefore, its theft.

A few observations on their argument, I realize these aren't your opinions.

Point number two is not accurate: tax shelters exist all over the place. And I find it implausible that they wouldn't be welcomed somewhere with lower taxes. The fact that many wealthy people stay where they stay means that the burdens of said "theft" are outweighed by the benefits of living wherever they chose to live. (I've read a few stories of tax flight in France, that's why I'm being so general about wherever the taxee is from.)

Another point is similar to what you made, in that even if you grant "taxation=theft" there is a distinct difference between theft by a mugger/pickpocket, and theft by the government. Also it's possible to escape the latter by moving or being less productive.

As an aside I read a text on the history of political institutions in Rome (both Republican and Imperial). The final chapter concluded by describing how the non-Roman frontiers began to take on a decidely Roman cast; due to emigres trying to escape more onerous taxation and conscription requirements. Fleeing the taxman is an old tradition, failure to flee demonstrates tacit acceptance of taxes.

Back to the OP government control over the economy in the US is small, a quick look at CIA factbook and I found that the UK was between 43 and 52% here Australia was between 37 and 40% here
comparatively Americans don't have much to complain about.