How do you refute the claim he keeps bringing up that any tax beyond financing the military to protect the state is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to do something?
I think having a safety net is great, I think social democracy is a good model, but I don't know how to get around his argument.
Is he right?
Inb4 kike, jew, stormfags, etc
It's technically theft, but who gives a shit if it produces infrastructure, education etc.
That's my way of thinking. You could look at social contract theory as well, if you really want solid arguments.
How the fuck is social democracy a good model? Singaporean healthcare system, privatised retirement system, natural monopolies in market hands under regulations that artificially create market mechanisms, low corporate taxes, eliminate all free trade barriers, low income taxes, large taxes on consumption/carbon/land when?
Because the only people who think using force to make someone do something is necessarily wrong are little libertarian crybabies who are literally stuck in the YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO MOM phase.
Not an argument
>It's technically theft, but who gives a shit if it produces infrastructure, education etc.
Hmm, so it's only really justifiable as a necessary evil then?
>evil
le_spook_man.jpg
I'm not a big fan of moral relativism and I find terms like good and evil useful, but yeah, I guess it can be argued that just because you're forcing someone to do something doesn't necessarily make it evil. If taking part in this society requires of you to donate a sum of money so that everyone can pick themselves up when they find themselves in the gutter (which can happen to anyone, including yourself) then maybe it's justified.
He is right.
If taxes are theft, then so is wage labour.
Libertarians' anti-state reasoning is only half-good. They never realise they need a state to maintain property rights and states need to bee upkept with taxes, wether it has a social safety net or not.
>not believing in evil makes you a moral relativist
wew lad
>then so is wage labour
lel is this really what marxists think?
>implying I'm a marxist
>paying for other people's kids
Top cuck
>wage labour is theft
>i-im not a marxist i promise
marx stole it from this guy
read a book perhaps
Doesn't change the fact that you lack basic economic knowledge.
Because I don't agree with liberal claptrap? ok
libertarians are the easiest ideological group to beat up, minus disabled activists i guess
If taxation is theft then why aren't governments held legally liable for this criminal act?
If taxation is theft is inflation theft from creditors as well?
Is deflation theft from debtors?
Are you starting to see how stupid these rhetorical arguments are? The answer is always: it depends on how you define "theft"
>muh natural rights
is what the response will be
How is making someone pay for the military not putting a gun to someone's head and paying them to do something?
Anarchocaps can use his argument. Once he's made an exception all that's left is negotiating what to spend the tax money on.
I wonder if any POWs in any war were screaming muh natural rights as they were being tortured
kek
That's an interesting theoretical discussion if you are having it with an Anarcho-cap that thinks the state shouldn't exist.
As soon as he has agreed that a state should exist and should have tax raising powers he has already shot himself in the foot ideologically and blown himself away because he is already "putting a gun to someone's head" and forcing them to do something since not everyone even wants a military.
And on a practical level as soon as you are taking about raising taxes for the military you need a treasury to hold the money and do the accounts, a revenue service to collect the taxes and (unless this is a military dictatorship) you need to pay to hold elections so there are people in place to decide what to do with the military.
I suppose thats the core of my argument. Its kind of utilitarian, but i prefer the practical benefits of taxes over the "just" idea of everybody keeping what they earn.
>How do you refute the claim he keeps bringing up that any tax beyond financing the military to protect the state is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to do something?
If you're putting a gun to my head and demand that I pay for your protection, you're fucking robbing me you glorified mob.
>Is he right?
No.
Private property doesn't really exist in modern society, and hasn't existed ever since allodial ownership of land was effectively eliminated centuries ago. We're all living within our countries' borders at our governments' sufferance, and bound to their laws.
Google 'social contract'
So we're not even pretending that Veeky Forums is /pol/ with dates now? It's just a straight out /pol/-style discussion on a fringe right wing theorist?
An (ok, a good deal of) off topic thread hardly makes any board /pol/ with dates, otherwise half a dozen other boards would qualify too. Discussions here develop very differently compared with /pol/, even if the topic is the same.
That's not to say I like seeing politics threads here, mind you.