Do you think taxes should exist? What should taxes to to if so? If not should we have a government at all? Who should pay for it?
Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking
DutchJazzer
Banned
yes taxes should exist because i am not a thief!
i use the road, i have free will to go on the road and use it. so some sort of car/gasoline/road-tax is ok.
if i don't own a car an live on a large farm. their must be some way to not pay taxes. like some sort of yearly car tax or a gaosline tax(gasoline tax is going away because more and more hybrids)
but why should I pay taxes for a woman who made bad choices in live is single has 4 kids with 5 different men! did i get to **** the woman, and if i pay for her, shouldn't i then take control over her uterus so she does not get more kids to take even more money. shouldn't we put her on some sort of mandatory birth control! does it sound barbaric, doe sit take away liberty?
yes it does. but once you start leeching of someone you should sacrifice freedom and liberty!
can i not opt out out of social security(the retirement part). I know i am better with MY OWN MONEY! if i have to hand over a monthly fee of 200-300 euros as part of some retirement plan. forcefully that is theft! remember i said forcefully!
with a 200-300 euros i would make better decisions for 30-40 years with that money than the government!
i do not want people to be forced to pay, for things that do not benefit them, they do not use, or they do not need!
So If I dont use the Road I shouldnt have to pay taxes for that according to you? I have never called the police or needed them to help me. I guess I should not have to pay for them right?
Our system would not work if you only pay for things you use. That is just privatization. Which is great in many situations not others.
Sincere question: Why do you choose to feed the trolls?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
You are completely missing the big picture. Let's say you don't own a car and never use a road at all. Does that mean you shouldn't have to pay taxes to maintain roads? Let's think about this. Do you buy groceries? Do you perhaps ever have the need for an ambulance or fire truck? Do you ever buy clothing? Maybe order from Amazon or something even? If so how do you get those services? How does the package get to your door? How do the groceries get to the store? Yep. Roads. Do you benefit from roads even if you never personally use them? Damn straight you do. See this is a LOT more complicated than you make it sound. Even take the family on welfare. Do you enjoy crime? Do you want more criminals? Well crime rates go hand in hand with poverty. If we can make they lives of those children a little better then maybe we impact them enough to keep them from a life of crime. That helps everyone. And that is even a very simple way to look at it. The dynamics are far more complicated than that. In a society it is very hard to single out any variables without affecting others you may not even realize are interconnected.
Now we can and should make MUCH better use of the taxes collected, and we need a fair and equitable way to collect those taxes, but making every service in a society Ala carte is just kind of stupid and very short-sighted.
DutchJazzer
Banned
the police is a different thing.
look another example. if i dont own a car or bike. i never paid road taxes. but if i walk to the store. and get some groceries. those groceries have been transported through a truck which then paid road taxes for those groceries, and the tax is offset to me!
it is far more complicated and far reaching, it is kinda difficult for me to tell you this in writing, as my english is better verbally.
but as for the police! according to certain wings of libertarian principles the government should protect you form 3rd parties, which gives a legitimate reason for police and judicial system. for example lets look at traffic. if i ride a motorcycle, helmet(and seatbelt) laws should not be mandatory. because the government is then protecting me from myself. if i own something i can risk it, or use it anyway i want. as far as i know i own my body, because i am not a slave. so i can chose to risk my head! but i should be protected from others. meaning regulations on the road. i should be assured that if i get into an accident with you, and you are the one to blame for it. that i should be reimbursed for the material and physical damage you caused. you should not be mandated to insure your own car!(some countries have those laws, i think some states in usa also have that law).
meaning the government should let me be liberated, responsible and let me manage my own business if i chose to do so. but protect me from 3rd parties, because we do not want chaos! the government should let liberty reign, and leave all people who willingly exchange alone! and only steps in when their is a conflict between 2 or more people. force is defined legally by the government as unlawful violence so in essence the govenrment can write any law to make their force lawful. which is just wrong, yes i know thier are 3 branches of governmetn that are supposed to stop them.
the meaning of force and iniation thereoff in a libertarian principle is different: i just gogoled so i do not mistranslate or say it wrong
so according to libertarian principles the government may only use force when a 3rd party initiated force first. did i initiate force against the woman on welfare who had x kids with x husband and is single? am i responsible for her predicament. then why does the government initiate force on her behalf. why does the government show up with a gun and kidnapping thread if i do not pay taxes. do you get where we i am coming from.
also another point is, the government represents the people, it derives it just power from the consent.
I do not have the right to show up at your door, and kick your door in and take 20% of your possessions, neither does my neighbor, neither does my whole street. but at some point 25% of the population gave Donald trump that right. so where does the government get the right to kick your door in. if i get someone to represent me he can only do what i can do! which means i can only use force as a response to iniation of force. which brings us back to the government can only use force, once a 3rd party initiated it. look i can respond with force myself, for example if someone pulls a gun, we cannot wait for the government to react. i will react on my own behalf. but if a 3rd party kills my wife kid or whatever when i am away, we need the government to intervene, because force has been committed and their is no imminent threat. after all lets say you kill my wife. now i come to your home. and kill you as a response. now your son might never know what happened, and he would do the same to me. you killed my wife, i kill you i killed his dad he kills me. my brother kills him and so on! so when the thread is imminent the government steps in on my wife, her family and mine behalf but they would also step in on the behalf of your son and family because you initiated force against my wife. of course you are presumed innocent, and you are allowed your day in court! and their needs to be probable cause to temporary use limited force against you. i hope u understand what i mean. this also stops a massive chain of revenge starting.
it comes down to the initiation of force is wrong no matter who commits it. but it seems ok when the government commits it. because it is deemed for the "greater good"
everybody should only use force when someone else initiated force first.
so in short, do you think the millions of libertarians are just stupid creatures that yell muh gun, muh liberty, taxation is theft.
we thought this through, we might be wrong, i do admit that. but then we should have a debate with the rest of the world in particular opposing point of views. to show us through logic where we are wrong.
but all we get is.
if i am wrong that mentality of name calling will not change my mind. i used to be a liberal, i changed my mind, maybe i can change it again!
i don't think i should be forced at gunpoint to pay for that woman who has 5 kids with 6 men becuase i am not responsible for that. and if you force me to pay. why not make the men 6 men pay. don't u think i wanna have sex nilly willy with every beautiful girl i meet. but i do not, because if she gets pregnant(and yes their are contraception but they are not 100% safe) i want to pay for the child i am responsible for the live of the child. not some hard working taxpayer. and if you force me to be repsonsible for her and the kids i get to make demands. i get to **** her 3 times a week and she needs to cook for me. I get to bring the kids to six flags if they passed rgades. i get to punish the kids for doing bad in school. i get to tell the woman. you do not need an iphone x. just get a 100 dollar samsung phone and next year you get a new one. I get to drug test her every 2 weeks, if she wnats to use drugs its her thing but dont do it on the back of the taxpayer. i get to force her on contraception so she does not make more kids. after all i am paying for her and her baby daddies lack of responsibility.ok i went a bit overboard with this example, yes sometimes i exaggerate and say ridunkolous things
the problem is lots of people are uneducated on the different libertarian principles, because it is considered extreme right. which means oh my god it is evil.
i appreciate you asking me about it. my answer is not as good as it should be, because after all others are better at explaining this. and their are different factions of libertarians so you may go out and read one, and think i am like that one. but might not be true.
thanks for reading my turrible english!
DutchJazzer
Banned
those companies pay the taxes, and they pass it on to the customer!
and i don't think government should steel money for a fire department. govenrment run fire departments should not exist
so if i order everything from amazon. i pay my fair share because amazon pays the taxes. if you use your car daily and lets say it was pre-electric and hybrid cars. you would pay your fair share for example on a gasoline tax!
so yes when i use those products their is already a tax built in
DutchJazzer
Banned
because debate and conversation is what progresses civilization. name calling only grows the divide
Who aren't the trolls on here?
Worth a thread??
DutchJazzer
Banned
Initiation of force is wrong whether a individual does it or a small group of individuals(the government) does it on behalf of a large group of individuals.
force is only justified as retaliation to the initiation of force
Last edited: