Would you be more willing to follow a career passion if you knew essential services were guaranteed, even if it paid less?

▲Reply to this •••+ My feed React Report Follow

Expand

+ Settings

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of

@6WBMZK3
#1 Informed Voter

@9VCKGVS
#2 Informed Voter

@8SRXJQG
#3 Informed Voter

@B4W2XXG
#4 Informed Voter

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

@9ZDKTZY
#1 Engaged Voter

@B977WHL
#2 Engaged Voter

@B5MBP7B
#3 Engaged Voter

@Davix47
#4 Engaged Voter

@935LMPF
#5 Engaged Voter

@BB7TFYZ
#6 Engaged Voter

Test Your Knowledge

7 Replies

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington answered…2yrs2Y

Yes – I'd be inspired to pursue a political career dedicated to destroying the policies that guranteed those services and restoring a free market

▲▲ 1 Reply Agree Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

Just what is actually wrong with it? If the society consents to these kinds of taxes, if these people ar slicing happier lives and it’s truly stable, if the government is for the people, how is needs being provided for a bad thing? I’ve asked this before, but your only response is “taxation = theft”, but what other reason could there possibly be that this is bad?

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

Because no matter what the motivations were behind it, taking people's money without their permission is, by definition, THEFT. The majority may vote for it, but what about that minority that opposes it? Shall they be oppressed and plundered from? On the one side you have free marketers like myself, who say, "Thou shalt not steal," and socialists like yourself, who say, "Thou shalt not steal expect by majority vote."

As for the government providing for the needs of the people, I've got news for you – the government can't give you anything it didn'… Read moret first plunder from someone else, or more often than not, yourself. That stimulus check for ten thousand dollars you'd get in the mail? That's ten thousand dollars they coercively plundered from another human being with guns, and the threats of chains and imprisonment. That Social Security check? Money stolen from innocent people by the same intimidating and barbarian means. Aside from all taxation necessarily discouraging production, it is morally reprehensible, and you still have not given me a logical reason why it would NOT be theft. Why are you asking me "what other reason could there possibly" be that taxation is bad OTHER than that it's theft? That's like asking, "what other reason could murder be wrong other than that it kills another innocent human being." That's asking me to throw away the most powerful argument for my position, while you throw away nothing. We are like two vikings on a battle field of old – and you're asking me to throw down my sword while you retain your own. I've got two words for you: H–ll. No.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

Once again, taxation isn’t theft, you didn’t own that money before, the market gave it to you as a reward, more specifically, it was passed to you from your employer, who could adjust how much you’re given at anytime regardless. Pre-taxation income was decided from the beginning by your employer, the federal minimum wage (which you stand against), guarantees a basic living wage so that they have less power over your already-arbitrary income. The taxation afterwards is just another filter, yet another method of using income, something you weren’t liable to in the first… Read more place, yet seem to want to be. When you sell something, or get funds from your employer, that money is not yours, it is passed through different hands, but at no point are you contractually assigned THIS money, as YOUR personal property. In general, you wouldn’t have it without the government, no matter what currency system is done, a market in general cannot operate entirely without a government, or it’ll just create a new government by accident later on. The difference is not that you don’t own it though, it’s that the government has the authority, as stated even in our bare basic Enumerated Powers. The companies have the authority to give money to their employees after they gain monetary increase, while the government has the ability to take back a bit from the surpluses of that income to give back, no matter how that may be. You “own” post-tax income in the most unofficial sense, but are not contractually obligated to it should the government raise taxes later on. (In certain situations). In being a citizen, you have already agreed to pay taxes, that was part of the social contract, and without it, roads are left in disrepair, cities crumble, water systems collapse, and militaries cease. We need taxes, they make us strong, we agreed to them, you never owned pre-tax income, the government was granted that authority already, and they created and backed the currency of the US, which would remain regardless of how it was changed.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

Not that I honestly expected you to, but you still haven't tried to explain how taxation is NOT theft, or, if you did, it was so incoherent I didn't notice it. Instead, you're denying the very existence of private property rights by claiming no one owns his income, it is what the market gave him as a reward. This conversation is pretty much over if we can't agree that private property is a fundamental right.