This is such a bad faith argument. Society has largely agreed that welfare is a valuable thing to do, from disability to social security. Calling taxation theft just says that you aren't able to be rational about this.
From reading their comments here, it seems to me that they are saying the theft occurs when labor is sold for a pittance in foreign markets so that things produced by said labor can be sold at a lower price (as compared to when more expensive labor is hired) in domestic markets. ("Basic income" = other people work as slaves in a factory somewhere so you can sit at home and "discover yourself.") The UBI would logically be an extension of that whereby the UBI program itself can only be funded by this disparity and therefore any beneficiary of such a program must be participating, however indirectly, in that theft. (Perhaps especially if one is a loud proponent of such a program.)
Ostensibly, from this perspective, one might consider whether the laborers should benefit more from their labor, rather than the consumers of products which are produced by said labor. It doesn't seem a particularly disagreeable or irrational perspective, at least on its face, though the seemingly disparaging mention of Marxism looks out of place given this perspective is rather Marxist.
Of course, whether one refers to that as "theft" is up to them; I'm just offering this alternate perspective since I didn't read it the way the parent did.
Not sure how you reconcile this take with "People don't like being robbed, PERIOD, especially not to pay for a bunch of weed smokers to sit at home relaxing on their dime. There will be blood."
Ah, missed that. For what it's worth, I can kinda read that sentence both ways but it does seem easier to read as being anti-tax. Actually, taking the two quotes juxtaposed like this, their take reads quite a lot like "think of the third-world laborers" in defense of billionaires.
I don't see much of a point in replying with this comment. It reads like your point is "I don't understand your perspective so it must be wrong", which is folly.
If you're looking for a suggestion of how to gain such an understanding, I've certainly got one of those: put more effort into arguing in favor of perspectives you disagree with. Not only will it help you to understand the disagreeable point of view, it will additionally help you to strengthen your beliefs.
You're right, I completely forgot about what you put in that first comment because it seemed like extremely wishful thinking, bordering on gaslighting. Then, given all the comments since then that have been explicitly about taxation, I assumed that you had reassessed and had something new to contribute given how thoroughly those new comments debunked those original statements. Oh well.
Someone built the road to your house. Someone built the road to that road, and the road to that road, and the only reason the grocery store nearest you exists is because of this network of roads and people living near these roads that makes the region valuable enough to bother putting a grocery store in.
The libertarians in New Hampshire tried the ultra libertarianism you seem to be pitching here and it resulted in two things: unquenched fires, and bear attacks.
Trying to separate yourself completely from your responsibility to society is foolhardy. It hurts you more than it hurts us.
Do you think I did not address your thoughts in my initial reply? Do you think you are addressing others' thoughts and not attacking ridiculous men made of straw? You do not seem to be making a good case for yourself.
Jesus Christ didn't like taxation either. He preached that it was theft also. That's one big reason why they murdered him, then sent Paul (aka Saul) along to invent a new 'explanation' of the Parable of the Coin more favorable to the Roman viewpoint.
Regardless of whatever pretense you put on, you are in fact a member of a gang of thieves plotting to rob your next victim, just as Lysander Spooner explained in the 1800s:
"If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can (and will) hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists." - Lysander Spooner
"If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, an honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized." - Lysander Spooner
"The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents -- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest -- stand ready at all times to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved." - Lysander Spooner
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner
Hint: We are now in the "raising of the spirits of the dead" phase of prophecy; the above being an example of what is meant by that phrase. You Are Here.
No, it's about your viewpoint on taxation and how it's a pointless task to try and reason with a person that takes that stance. "Respecting the lives of others" doesn't preclude taxation to any rational person.
Wrong. Theft or robbery is never justified, no matter what name you give it or how you paint and pretty it up and try to pretend that it's just.
The fact of the matter is, you're sticking a gun in somebody's face and demanding money, to be used for your own selfish purposes, or under some pretense of "the public good." That's a crime. You are a criminal.
Hear the words of a man much wiser and better than you:
"If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, an honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized." - Lysander Spooner
The people you call "rational" are in fact slaves, just like you. That's what you were bred to be, for countless generations. Today you are capable of nothing else but blind, loyal obedience to your owners. You're a crab in a bucket, dragging any other crab back in who dares to attempt escape.
"Rationality" is not a concept your type is actually familiar with. You are incapable of any kind of independent life or thought. Every single "thought" you have was programmed into your mind. Real, actual freedom scares the shit out of you.
The only purpose of your meager existence is to make your owners more wealthy and powerful. When you no longer serve this purpose, you will be discarded--tossed into the fire and forgotten, like a burnt out cigarette stub. That's not long off now.
> What is it about robbing one group of people to pay another that you would expect to "work"?
Well, let's say we get one or two more breakthroughs in AI, and it succeeds in automating literally every job that can be done at a computer. And then it starts investing heavily in robotics. This would render human labor as uncompetitive as horse labor is today.
At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.
This actually seems at least as likely these days as a warmed over libertarian argument that, "Taxes are really just slavery!"
> At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.
Well, there is a third basic scenario; where the billionaires who control the AI use it to help get rid of all the poors once they're no longer necessary.
If that were true though, we'd probably see them all frantically scrambling to control AI, buying private islands and blackmail networks, getting heavily involved in pandemic preparedness programs, genetic engineering, virus research, instigating massive wars, buying up all the media and politicians, creating massive surveillance programs and building deep underground bunkers. Stuff like that.
