(11-30-2021 09:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-30-2021 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 11:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not all of them.

Taxation is the legal taking of personal property; theft is the illegal taking of personal property. As usual, leftists cannot discern between legal and illegal acts.

Somehow, you completely missed that the lefties were fine with taking other people's stuff, but balked when it came to their stuff. I know you know the word for this.

Taxation is not the legal taking of personal property

It is undoubtedly *a* legal taking of personal property. Money *is* personal property.

Quote:that supporting a position of increasing taxes is akin to supporting the “taking away of of property rights.”

Money is very much personal property. A government mandating that x% of your money belongs to them is such taking of property rights. A legal one.

From my Federal Income Tax casebook: "When government taxes, it takes citizens’ property, usually money, to fund various projects."

That is Taxation basics, and Property I basics.

Quote:It’s that logical jump, which was made by the interviewer, that caused me to call taxation theft (because denying someone their right would be akin to theft).

It is a denial to property --- but one done in accordance with the law, in this case the tax law.

Following conservative logic, taxation is the lawful taking of property by the government.

Quote:hat supporting a position of increasing taxes is akin to supporting the “taking away of of property rights.”

That is precisely, and correctly articulated, what taxes entail.

Supporting a position of increasing taxes is absolutely and undoubtedly an act of supporting a position of taking away of additional property rights. No ifs, ands, or buts to that.

Appreciate the perspective. I find it hard to fall in line with the way fo thinking because of its intent to connect taxation with a reduction in “property rights,” as the interviewer articulated, and you agreed with in the end. To me, it’s a perversion of the idea of property rights if one starts arguing that requiring people to pay their citizenship fee is akin to reducing their ability to own private property, as it does not restrict someone’s ability to earn more income if they want to.

There are a couple of problems with your viewpoint, and I note below after your hypo. The whole issue is embodied in the predicate of the supposed free market transaction that you attempt to build out of cars being cast (in your own words) as a 'requirement'. There is nothing in a free market system that has, at its base, the idea of a mandate to purchase. I.e. that is why typically it is entitled a 'free' market, fyi.

And further, the perversion is one trying to equate a 'free' market with a 'mandated' market --- the 'free market' transaction you describe is one party denotes an amount pay, or else the payor goes to jail (or is subject to criminal/civil/other penalties by force of law.

Quote:No one realistically argues that Wal-Mart takes my private property when I buy a pallet of water from them.

You articulate a specific requirement of capitalism -- the exchange for value. There is a complete freedom on both sides with Walmart and myself to enter into that transaction. So a second problem with your attempt is that what you are trying to shoehorn into the structure of a freely negotiated, freely entered into exchange lacks a counterparty with such freedom to do so.

Quote:Taxation provides people services in return, so it’s not a completely one-sided transaction where there is only taking and no giving.

You miss the idea of 'bargain for exchange'. Taxes are not a completely free transaction. Taxes are mandated extractions.

Quote:And it’s not like many conservatives, and likely this interviewer, view taxation as theft, and that’s not an idea I can support. It’s a fee to be a part of the US.

Its a mandate. You keep glossing over that with all sorts of cute verbiage, much of what doesnt hold water. It is a forced extraction, a mandated extraction.

I am reminded of the similarities between your statement of 'its a fee' to that rationale used by thugs in the protection rackets, or by the rationale used by mobsters to deign to allow private enterprise the liberty of actually doing business in their territory. And the lack of counterparty bargain for exchange is prevalent in that line as well, mind you.

As to the bolded, it is a reduction in property rights. My income is X, I have property rights in the dollars that cross that threshold. Because of income tax, my rights to that property in the whole are now .7x.

Same for real property. I have something less than whole property rights, since the state has mandated that if I do not pay --- they come and take it. They have created an entry property right out of legislation into what would otherwise be a holding in fee simple in the property.

Its pretty simple when the legal concept of property is appreciated.

I'm not glossing over anything - but if you want to go down the road of an unpleasant exchange, we can do that.