According to my brother, taxation is stealing

[Magus]

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.

Sure, but one also elects to remain a citizen of the United States, to live in the country, and to pay its taxes.

[Velthuijsen]

Sure, but one also elects to remain a citizen of the United States, to live in the country, and to pay its taxes.

To which the counter argument there is no place on earth that doesn't force you to pay taxes.

There actually are places that are tax free or close to that. It is just that those places don't have the living conditions people expect of a 1st world city.

BT has the best advice against these people dreaming of utopia. Seem to agree with them and then speculate that it would be worse without.

[Jew]

This all started because he has no job and refused to even apply for a government one on the above grounds.

If nothing else, one must respect him for this. Refusing to apply for a job because it violates his moral standards is commendable. On the other hand, living with his parents seems a bit contrary to libertarian principles, but I suppose it's acceptable if his parents are freely allowing him to do so. As long as there is no force or threat of force involved, it's acceptable (although not necessarily ideal) to a libertarian.

I'm a pragmatic libertarian. I tend to agree in principle with just about everything he says. However, I recognize that the United States is not founded upon libertarian principles, so it is futile to strive for them. We must be pragmatic. Take the system we have, analyze it, and fix the parts that are broken. It is foolish and unrealistic to think that we can throw out the Constitution and install a libertarian government.

[Darth Servo]

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...

Yeah, I pointed out the enormous budget differences between Clinton and the last three GOP presidents after he whined about excessive Democrat spending. He admitted that Shrubby Jr does spend like a drunken sailor but that we shouldn't base ALL Republicans on him. His excuses for Regan and Bush the first was they were fighting the cold war. He went silent when I pointed out that the cold war was over pretty early in Bush Sr's term.

[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.

At least he is not a hypocrite.

Yes he is. I've already pointed out examples where his definitions of terms change with the prevailing wind. He had no problem taking a government Pell Grant to help him pay for college and one of his favorite places to hang out is the local PUBLIC LIBRARY. I've concluded that this is all just an excuse to avoid getting a job.

[Darth Servo]

Refusing to apply for a job because it violates his moral standards is commendable.

No it isn't. Its stupid especially since he can't even justify his position in the first place. Like Mike said in his first post in this thread, my brother is just stating his position as a universal truth without justification and expects everyone to just take his word for it because we can't absolutely disprove it to his satisfaction.

Did I mention he loves the burden of proof fallacy too. He rants at great lengths how atheists like Mike are evil because they can't absolutely disprove the existance of God. Thats his standard operating procedure. Everyone else should blindly accept every single one of his crazy ideas because we can't absolutely disprove them.

[General Zod]

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...

Yeah, I pointed out the enormous budget differences between Clinton and the last three GOP presidents after he whined about excessive Democrat spending. He admitted that Shrubby Jr does spend like a drunken sailor but that we shouldn't base ALL Republicans on him. His excuses for Regan and Bush the first was they were fighting the cold war. He went silent when I pointed out that the cold war was over pretty early in Bush Sr's term.

Just for an extra kick in the nuts, you should mention that no actual fighting happened during the Cold War, either. If you haven't done so already.

[Darth Wong]

Refusing to apply for a job because it violates his moral standards is commendable.

Wrong. With no job, he must be sponging off someone else's charity, which makes him a parasite. He is also continuing to use services paid for by other peoples' tax money, such as police services, fire protection, roads, infrastructure, etc. But he's not paying back into the system, which means his portion of national operating costs is borne by other people. By his own argument, that means he is effectively stealing from them.

[Darth Wong]

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.

But you don't necessarily feel that you should have to pay in the particular timeframe and manner demanded. That's what these people think when the repo man comes.

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

More importantly, the whole "refuse to pay tax for something that does not directly benefit me" argument ignores the fact that he is a member of a society, and that society has certain expectations. It is a completely one-sided view of society in which the society guarantees you certain rights and protections but you offer nothing in return. Anything you give society must be treated like a business transaction, so you expect to get something back for it. Never mind the fact that merely being a member of a well-run society is already a huge benefit; one that people living in impoverished or war-torn societies would not take for granted the way this ingrateful little shit does.

[drachefly]

Refusing to take a government handout would be somewhat commendable; but refusing a government job? That's highly peculiar. You would be doing something, presumably of value, and receive compensation. What's objectionable about that, even if you think that the government should not be the one employing you to perform that job?

Perhaps it's the 'you would be doing something' part...

[Darth Wong]

If he really doesn't want to participate in this system of "theft" as he calls it, he should move to Montana, become a mountain hermit, and "live off the grid". He's a flaming hypocrite.

[Alyeska]

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 choose to live in the country. If they don't like it, they can move. That simple. They elect to stay and accept the taxes. They have given permission by willing to live in the country.]

[Jew]

If he really doesn't want to participate in this system of "theft" as he calls it, he should move to Montana, become a mountain hermit, and "live off the grid".

Or he could be a real man by staying and working to change the system. Running is the coward's way out. If he truly believes the current form of government is unjust, he should work to fix it.

My guess is he's not motivated enough to actually do anything constructive.

They choose to live in the country.

Most people are born in their country, and thus have no choice in the matter. They begin paying taxes (sales tax) the moment they're old enough to buy candy with their allowance. Kids as old as 16 or 17 can have jobs and pay income taxes, but they aren't free to leave the country. It's overly simplistic to say they can just leave. In any case, injustice is never justified by saying "you can just leave." The question of whether taxes are theft is independent of whether or not people can choose to leave the country. Either taxes are theft or they're not, regardless of whether people can leave. I'm sure you can come up with a more solid argument why taxes are not theft, so there's no need to resort to telling people to leave the country.

Personally I think taxes can be levied in a just manner. I don't think the current system in the US is entirely just, but that doesn't make taxes inherently unjust. The current US system is actually pretty good, all things considered. I'm not complaining too much.

[Darth Servo]

If he really doesn't want to participate in this system of "theft" as he calls it, he should move to Montana, become a mountain hermit, and "live off the grid". He's a flaming hypocrite.

He probably would live in Montana except he's had some minor...legal problems...with some people in that state for harassmen. But thats another story.

[Rye]

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.

Pfft, that's easy to refute, you just point out that even if it were theft, it's better than the alternative. If he was starving, would it be better to steal a loaf of bread to survive or let a fat man that won't miss it eat it? From a pragmatic point of view, "legalised theft" that gives more people a better quality of life directly and indirectly than the alternative is the thical choice, not mindless, slavish dogma.

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.

His ethical system allows for the presence of malicious, noninterventionist sociopathy, in other words, according to him, there is nothing wrong with sitting back and laughing as a blind-deaf man walks into traffic, and it WOULD be wrong, according to him, to point a gun at that sociopath to phone an ambulance. His ethical priorities are all arse about face.

[Velthuijsen]

More importantly, the whole "refuse to pay tax for something that does not directly benefit me" argument ignores the fact that he is a member of a society, and that society has certain expectations. It is a completely one-sided view of society in which the society guarantees you certain rights and protections but you offer nothing in return. Anything you give society must be treated like a business transaction, so you expect to get something back for it. Never mind the fact that merely being a member of a well-run society is already a huge benefit; one that people living in impoverished or war-torn societies would not take for granted the way this ingrateful little shit does.

I completely agree. The first time I ran into the 'taxation is theft'-argument I started a general enumeration of the things my government uses the tax money for and with the exception of two or three areas I would want the kind of service offered. Then looking further on it some of those could only be offered effectively by a non profit organization the size of a government. I'll take some inefficiency and the fact that I don't like all the places my money goes just for those tangible benefits. And then I haven't even tried to enumerate the intangibles like peace, stability and living standards.

The anarcho-capitalists have some valid points about problems that occur with a government around, best described as various forms of inefficiency, but to me that is not a reason to abolish governments (seems to me a bit like amputating your head because you have a rash). And places like Somalia seem to indicate that governments will be created, even if it is just to protect against other people trying to enforce their brand of ruler ship.

[Darth Servo]

The anarcho-capitalists have some valid points about problems that occur with a government around, best described as various forms of inefficiency, but to me that is not a reason to abolish governments (seems to me a bit like amputating your head because you have a rash).

Perhaps but insane people like my brother seem to love the idiotic idea of showing that if the other side isn't flawless then their crazy half baked idea wins by default. Quite reminiscent of creationists (of course my brother is one of those as well) and neo-marxists.

And places like Somalia seem to indicate that governments will be created, even if it is just to protect against other people trying to enforce their brand of ruler ship.

Well, he doesn't advocate the complete elimination of government. He just wants "basic services" that provide direct benefits to everyone like law enforcement. Apparently a healthy workforce for the capitalists he worships is too indirect for him.

[Stile]

What a parasite. He should be at least flipping burgers or digging ditches or cleaning toilets. I'll bet he finds a job real quick if someone gives him that ultimatum.

[Darth Servo]

What a parasite. He should be at least flipping burgers or digging ditches or cleaning toilets. I'll bet he finds a job real quick if someone gives him that ultimatum.

Believe me, my parents and I seriously discussed throwing him out but he has become so disorganized, so detached from reality, spends so much time day-dreaming that mom is certain he wouldn't even be able to hold down a job at McD's and that he'd be living in a cardboard box within a few months when his savings finally ran out and then be dead within a few years after that. Mom just can't bring herself to do it.

The guy lets fear rule his entire life. He is terrified of failure and sees his entire life as a failure so he reasons, "why even try?" He has gotten to the level of paranioa where one starts to see therapy as a threat to themselves.

[General Zod]

What a parasite. He should be at least flipping burgers or digging ditches or cleaning toilets. I'll bet he finds a job real quick if someone gives him that ultimatum.

Believe me, my parents and I seriously discussed throwing him out but he has become so disorganized, so detached from reality, spends so much time day-dreaming that mom is certain he wouldn't even be able to hold down a job at McD's and that he'd be living in a cardboard box within a few months when his savings finally ran out and then be dead within a few years after that. Mom just can't bring herself to do it.

The guy lets fear rule his entire life. He is terrified of failure and sees his entire life as a failure so he reasons, "why even try?" He has gotten to the level of paranioa where one starts to see therapy as a threat to themselves.

Suggest to your parents to threaten to enlist him in the military. If they can't shape him up then nobody can.

[J_Cayman]

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!

Huh? You say that as if creationists actually read the bible.

[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.

Yes he is. I've already pointed out examples where his definitions of terms change with the prevailing wind. He had no problem taking a government Pell Grant to help him pay for college and one of his favorite places to hang out is the local PUBLIC LIBRARY. I've concluded that this is all just an excuse to avoid getting a job.

Okay. I mean, theoretically, you could go out of your way to avoid receiving government money in any form (it's impossible to avoid completely--that's why they're called public goods), but you could try. If it's as you say, he doesn't do that.

What's his stance on the church tax exemption?

[J_Cayman]

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...

That's the irony of their so-called small government position.
Decrying the spending of others while putting forward ever more increased spending.

[Stark]

Wait, libertarians seriously think taxation is bad? Are they even more disconnected from reality than I thought?

[J_Cayman]

Wait, libertarians seriously think taxation is bad? Are they even more disconnected from reality than I thought?

According to libertarian doctrine anything that decides how to spend your money is wrong. Hence, taxes would be wrong.