Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

If it belongs nowhere else, it belongs here!
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by David Franks »

Indium Flappers wrote:You just posted a story of someone going to prison for not paying their taxes, and said that it isn't what it is.
That person went to prison for conspiracy to commit fraud and tax evasion, both of which are breaches of an agreement, a wrongful behavior. It's strange that you claim that taxation is theft when it isn't, and claim that defrauding the government is not theft when it is. Did you not read my comment above, or did you fail to comprehend it? Make up your mind: is theft a wrongful behavior, or isn't it? Is theft a breach of an agreement, or isn't it?
If I had watched you walk into our metaphorical room with a chair, set the chair down a few feet across from me, sit in it, and declare "I am not sitting in a chair!", you would have been more correct and I would have had more of an ability to treat you like a human being and have a reasoned conversation.
Good old Clint Eastwood. Great memories!
You know, this whole experience has actually given me a little bit of hope. Some people I've seen online have openly said that they think it is "not wrong" to "steal the legitimately owned property of the rich, and give it to the poor".
That's as stupid as the stuff your cohort comes up with. Why steal, when you can enact more progressive taxes and avoid the wrong of theft?
I'd thought most people, ultimately, could just watch people be victims of violence or theft and not care. But if you guys, and I'm not sure I've met more party-line democrats than you, feel the need to say that threats of violence aren't involved in taxation, that arresting someone and sending them to prison isn't a violent act, that taking someone who hasn't paid taxes to prison for not paying their taxes isn't taking them to prison for not paying their taxes, makes me think that, ultimately, you may feel something closer to me than I'd thought you did. Why else would you struggle so much? Why can't you just say that you're going to take what I've earned for yourselves, and physically attack me and lock me up if I try to resist? Why can't you steal, kill, and destroy with open eyes?
Your writing comprehension is sinking to the level of your reading comprehension.
I had imagined that most people were like those of you here. I was wrong.
The first sentence is irrelevant. The second sentence is accurate.
Thank you for your help.
How nice of you to thank us for something you neither comprehended nor accepted.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Savonarola »

Indium Flappers wrote:... makes me think that, ultimately, you may feel something closer to me than I'd thought you did. Why else would you struggle so much? Why can't you just say that you're going to take what I've earned...
This is like when a religious person insists that, deep down, we can't really be atheists, and that we just want to sin and mock God.

You are that disjointed from the arguments... and reality.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Dardedar »

Indium Flappers wrote:You just posted a story of someone going to prison for not paying their taxes, ...
No, I specifically, explicitly, and repeatedly, did not say that. Stilley did not go to jail for not paying his taxes. He went to jail for fraud. Why do you think this most simple and basic notion is beyond your comprehension? Oh, it's the anarchist thing. Anarchists have to begin by being dishonest with language. That's been my experience, as I told you from the beginning.
I'm not sure I've met more party-line democrats than you,
That's curious considering I've never been a democrat.
the need to say that threats of violence aren't involved in taxation,
Who said that? Now you're just being sloppy again. Spoon feeding again:
1) if you don't pay your taxes, our representative government will take your stuff, because it's not your stuff. You stole it. You don't go to jail for simply not paying your taxes, you get your toys taken away, because they're not yours. Then your taxes are paid.
2) if you can't pay your taxes, you will not go to jail for not being able to pay your taxes (please make a note of it).
3) if you engaged in fraud while stealing from our government and avoiding taxes due, you may go to jail for your deceit, fraud and theft.

Try it and see. Please.
These are not difficult concepts, unless you're a libertarian with a dollop of anarchist on top.
Why can't you just say that you're going to take what I've earned for yourselves,...
Why can't you just say that you're a freeloader mooch and you've been taking all of your life and you want to continue the situation because it causes you pain to experience taxation and contribute a small portion of what you've got back to society?
and physically attack me and lock me up if I try to resist?
Only if you actively engage in fraud and theft. Best to not do that. When you play the game called USA, and you are playing every day, you follow the rules of the game. When you use/earn government money, one rule is that our government gets a cut of their currency back in order to fund upkeep and maintenance for the game. If you don't like the game, if it causes you pain, stop playing the game, using our societal stuff, and/or move. Barter is allowed.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Savonarola »

Indium Flappers wrote:You just posted a story of someone going to prison for not paying their taxes, and said that it isn't what it is.
Here's a good analogy in the form of a concocted dialogue:

DAR
Some fellow shot a guy. Cold blooded murder. The shooter is now in jail.

INDI
So this guy is in jail because he fired a gun.

DAR
No, this guy is in jail because he committed murder.

INDI
Ah, you admitted he's in jail! And if he hadn't shot that guy with a gun, he wouldn't be in jail. Therefore, he's in jail for using a gun.

DAR
Nobody is thrown in jail for firing a gun. They're thrown in jail for murdering people.

INDI
But this guy fired a gun, and now he's in jail. I don't understand how you can say that firing a gun doesn't put you in a cage.


~~~~~

Living in an alternate reality, these anarchists are...
Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Indium Flappers »

Dardedar wrote:
Indium Flappers wrote:You just posted a story of someone going to prison for not paying their taxes, ...
No, I specifically, explicitly, and repeatedly, did not say that. Stilley did not go to jail for not paying his taxes. He went to jail for fraud. Why do you think this most simple and basic notion is beyond your comprehension? Oh, it's the anarchist thing. Anarchists have to begin by being dishonest with language. That's been my experience, as I told you from the beginning.
No dishonesty. Simple fact. Stilley did go to jail for not paying his taxes. Since we are disputing whether or not his actions were fraud or theft, whether or not the act of not paying taxes is fraud or theft, you can not merely assert that his actions were fraud or theft. You have to justify your conclusion, you can't simply assume it.
Dardedar wrote:
I'm not sure I've met more party-line democrats than you,
That's curious considering I've never been a democrat.
Ok, I retract the claim that you're democrats. Your seeming love for Obama led me to that conclusion, but I guess if you say you're not, then I'll go with it.
Dardedar wrote:
the need to say that threats of violence aren't involved in taxation,
Who said that? Now you're just being sloppy again.
Savonarola wrote:You -- for whatever reason -- feel that taxes (or perhaps the consequences of not paying taxes) can accurately be described as "violent." You seem to be saying that this is the emotion that you -- YOU -- feel, a fear of violence. Well whoop-de-fricken'-doo. If the government garnishes my wages, I wouldn't call that violence. If the government throws me in jail because I underpay my taxes, I wouldn't call that violence. If the government takes me to court and makes me pay less than I owed but more than I would otherwise pay, I certainly wouldn't call that violence.
Dardedar wrote:Spoon feeding again:
1) if you don't pay your taxes, our representative government will take your stuff, because it's not your stuff. You stole it. You don't go to jail for simply not paying your taxes, you get your toys taken away, because they're not yours. Then your taxes are paid.
You're begging the question, why isn't it my stuff? Is murder still murder if a state official commits it? Is torture still torture? Then why isn't theft, still theft?

If you believe the government legitimately owns tax-money because the law says that it does, then by the same logic the government has the right to kill anyone the law says it can kill, detain anyone without charge or trial that the law says it can detain without charge or trial, torture anyone the law says it can torture. They may not use the words "murder" or "torture" or "theft", but it's the same act.

But if you judge the actions of government officials the same way you judge the actions of anyone else, then the government doesn't have a valid claim to the funds it extracts through taxation.
Dardedar wrote:2) if you can't pay your taxes, you will not go to jail for not being able to pay your taxes (please make a note of it).
So? Irrelevant.
Dardedar wrote:3) if you engaged in fraud while stealing from our government and avoiding taxes due, you may go to jail for your deceit, fraud and theft.
If someone knocks on my door asking if a friend of mine is home, and telling me they want to kill that friend for the fun of it, then I wouldn't feel guilty for lying to them about my friend's whereabouts.
Dardedar wrote:Try it and see. Please.
These are not difficult concepts, unless you're a libertarian with a dollop of anarchist on top.
You're right, it's not difficult at all. You're just wrong.

See how easy that was?
Dardedar wrote:
Why can't you just say that you're going to take what I've earned for yourselves,...
Why can't you just say that you're a freeloader mooch and you've been taking all of your life and you want to continue the situation because it causes you pain to experience taxation and contribute a small portion of what you've got back to society?
Government isn't the agent of "society". Nice try.
Dardedar wrote:
and physically attack me and lock me up if I try to resist?
Only if you actively engage in fraud and theft. Best to not do that. When you play the game called USA, and you are playing every day, you follow the rules of the game. When you use/earn government money, one rule is that our government gets a cut of their currency back in order to fund upkeep and maintenance for the game. If you don't like the game, if it causes you pain, stop playing the game, using our societal stuff, and/or move. Barter is allowed.
Poppycock. Income earned through barter is taxable income.
IRS wrote:Bartering is the trading of one product or service for another. Often there is no exchange of cash. Small businesses sometimes barter to get products or services they need. For example, a plumber might trade plumbing work with a dentist for dental services.

If you barter, you should know that the value of products or services from bartering is taxable income.
See here.

For living in an area to constitute consent to abide by a set of rules, it is necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, for the person making those rules to have a legitimate property claim over the given area. Which means you have to have a set of principles by which you can decide what constitutes property, before you can show that someone has consented to live by a certain set of rules by living somewhere. By the principles I use, the government has no such legitimate claim.

Using government services doesn't constitute consent either, because since the government doesn't have consent through the first method, it's not ok for it to provide services through taxmoney in the first place. If someone steals your goat and delivers milk from your goat to you everyday, then you aren't consenting to their taking of your goat by drinking the milk.

All your arguments are already answered in the two videos I linked to earlier. You have no arguments that haven't already been refuted.
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Dardedar »

Indium Flappers wrote:Simple fact. Stilley did go to jail for not paying his taxes.
I don't know why you are too dense to grasp something this simple. Not paying your taxes is not a sufficient condition for going to jail. Not being able to pay your taxes is not a sufficient condition for going to jail. Ever. You have to engage in deceit and fraud while avoiding taxes due. That's what Stilley did and then he advised and taught others how to break the law and engage in the same fraud. I can't make this any more simple for you.
Since we are disputing whether or not his actions were fraud or theft,"
That's already been determined in a court of law. You can pretend words mean what you want them to mean, and laws don't matter because you don't recognize government and society, but like most of the things anarchists burp up, nobody cares. I certainly don't.
If you believe the government legitimately owns tax-money because the law says that it does,
We the people have come together and built a civilization, and we have, collectively assigned our agent, our government, to make rules and laws on our behalf. It really doesn't matter if you acknowledge this or if you do not. Stilley fought the law, and the law won. Maybe someday you'll have the courage of your convictions and then after mooching on the work and labors of others as much as possible, we'll get to pay the bill to have you babysat in the big house.
then by the same logic the government has the right to kill anyone the law says it can kill,
Be careful to not muddle a moral question with a legal question.
if you judge the actions of government officials the same way you judge the actions of anyone else, then the government doesn't have a valid claim to the funds it extracts through taxation.
Excellent, you've restated your conclusion again. Now if you could only support that mere sentiment. Not that it would matter since it would be of no consequence. Our tax laws are well established by our representative government, and they will remain no matter how much it causes you pain to have to contribute back rather than just take.
Dardedar wrote:2) if you can't pay your taxes, you will not go to jail for not being able to pay your taxes (please make a note of it).
So? Irrelevant.
It's relevant to the claim that people go to jail for not being able to pay their taxes. They do not. Ever. Please make a note of it.
Why don't you just admit you have your head up your ass on this point and move on? Or you could keep digging.
If someone knocks on my door asking if a friend of mine is home, and telling me they want to kill that friend for the fun of it, then I wouldn't feel guilty for lying to them about my friend's whereabouts.
That's nice. It would still be, by definition, lying. Does your anarchist dictionary say something different about that? No one cares. Whether you feel guilty or have a morally compelling reason to lie, is completely separate from the question of whether it is a lie, which it is. You've muddled two issues again.
If you barter, you should know that the value of products or services from bartering is taxable income.
Interesting. Seems the IRS is starting to enforce this more. Good. We don't want freeloaders and moochers not paying their fair share back to the commons as they exchange value. And if they engage in fraud and deceit while avoiding taxes due, lock them up in a cage.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Indium Flappers »

Dardedar wrote:
Indium Flappers wrote:Simple fact. Stilley did go to jail for not paying his taxes.
I don't know why you are too dense to grasp something this simple. Not paying your taxes is not a sufficient condition for going to jail. Not being able to pay your taxes is not a sufficient condition for going to jail. Ever. You have to engage in deceit and fraud while avoiding taxes due. That's what Stilley did and then he advised and taught others how to break the law and engage in the same fraud. I can't make this any more simple for you.
The claim that "You have to engage in deceit and fraud while avoiding taxes due." is false. If I send a letter to the IRS explicitly stating that I, for whatever reason, will no longer be paying them any taxes of any kind, and then I proceed to do so, I am not deceiving them or anyone else through this action. I am openly breaking the law.

My current understanding is that the IRS devotes little energy towards prosecuting those who do this, and that it is rare for tax resistors to go to prison for openly refusing to pay taxes in this way. But it is rare for people to go to prison for not paying their taxes regardless. The IRS website gives a figure of 279 non-filer investigations initiated, and of 233 cases leading to a sentence, in FY 2013. But that their enforcement of the law is so rare doesn't change the fact that the law carries with it the threat of enforcement, which in the case of this and other laws enforced by the government means a threat of violence.

Whether or not one is ok with someone deceiving the IRS is a separate issue, obviously, but regardless, you can not pay your taxes, not deceive the IRS or anyone else in any way, and still go to prison, according to the law.
Dardedar wrote:
Since we are disputing whether or not his actions were fraud or theft,"
That's already been determined in a court of law. You can pretend words mean what you want them to mean, and laws don't matter because you don't recognize government and society, but like most of the things anarchists burp up, nobody cares. I certainly don't.
Not caring about something isn't an argument. Try again.
Dardedar wrote:
If you believe the government legitimately owns tax-money because the law says that it does,
We the people have come together and built a civilization, and we have, collectively assigned our agent, our government, to make rules and laws on our behalf.
This is a nursery tale, not an accurate historical account. It is either false or irrelevant. If you are claiming that every individual whom you consider to have an obligation to pay taxes has, as an individual, agreed to pay taxes or agreed to act according to the law, then your claim is false. If you claim is that some fraction has come together and agreed, and that this fraction enforces the law against some other fraction, then your claim is irrelevant.
Dardedar wrote:It really doesn't matter if you acknowledge this or if you do not.
I don't make a habit of conceding falsehoods, because then not only would you be wrong, but I'd be wrong too. How horrible would that be?
Dardedar wrote:Stilley fought the law, and the law won. Maybe someday you'll have the courage of your convictions and then after mooching on the work and labors of others as much as possible, we'll get to pay the bill to have you babysat in the big house.
Maybe someday I'll end up in hell for breaking the ten commandments. Then maybe I'll be able to answer David's earlier question on whether I think the ten commandments involve a threat of violence or not.

I'd feel more like I've "won" in life if I've lived by my principles than if I've followed some edict set up for me by someone else. Whether they "win" by forcing me to act according to their edict doesn't matter to me as much.
Dardedar wrote:
then by the same logic the government has the right to kill anyone the law says it can kill,
Be careful to not muddle a moral question with a legal question.
If theft is a legal matter and not a moral matter, why isn't killing a legal matter and not a moral matter?
Dardedar wrote:
if you judge the actions of government officials the same way you judge the actions of anyone else, then the government doesn't have a valid claim to the funds it extracts through taxation.
Excellent, you've restated your conclusion again. Now if you could only support that mere sentiment.
I already supported it with my explanation of Rothbardian property rights.
Dardedar wrote:Not that it would matter since it would be of no consequence. Our tax laws are well established by our representative government, and they will remain no matter how much it causes you pain to have to contribute back rather than just take.
It doesn't represent me, but anyway if anarchists overthrew this government and no one had to pay taxes anymore, you'd just want to try to create another one. The practical necessity of having to pay isn't what makes you feel obligated.
Dardedar wrote:
Dardedar wrote:2) if you can't pay your taxes, you will not go to jail for not being able to pay your taxes (please make a note of it).
So? Irrelevant.
It's relevant to the claim that people go to jail for not being able to pay their taxes. They do not. Ever. Please make a note of it.
Why don't you just admit you have your head up your ass on this point and move on? Or you could keep digging.
Why don't you just admit you're attacking a strawman? Better yet, why don't you stop attacking strawmen? If the law states that a person with an income below a certain point doesn't have to pay income taxes, then it's not that they're not paying their income taxes, it's that they don't have any income taxes to pay.
Dardedar wrote:
Dardedar wrote:if you engaged in fraud while stealing from our government and avoiding taxes due, you may go to jail for your deceit, fraud and theft.
If someone knocks on my door asking if a friend of mine is home, and telling me they want to kill that friend for the fun of it, then I wouldn't feel guilty for lying to them about my friend's whereabouts.
That's nice. It would still be, by definition, lying. Does your anarchist dictionary say something different about that? No one cares. Whether you feel guilty or have a morally compelling reason to lie, is completely separate from the question of whether it is a lie, which it is. You've muddled two issues again.
It would be lying, but it would not be fraud or theft, no matter how loudly the door-to-door killer shouted that I'd agreed to let them kill my friend by not moving to a different neighborhood.
Dardedar wrote:
If you barter, you should know that the value of products or services from bartering is taxable income.
Interesting. Seems the IRS is starting to enforce this more. Good. We don't want freeloaders and moochers not paying their fair share back to the commons as they exchange value. And if they engage in fraud and deceit while avoiding taxes due, lock them up in a cage.
Nice concession.

Now on to something more interesting.
David Franks wrote:
Indium wrote:I'm not trying to show that anything is moral or immoral. I don't know what you refer to empirically with those words. I'm investigating psychological phenomena. That's all. Cause and effect. Quite simple really.
Earlier, you said, "You all seem quite content with the way things are. So, if any of us can be said to have the superior 'moral code', for lack of a better term, I guess you guys win and I loose." That appears to (grudgingly) sum up a discussion of moral code, which this discussion inevitably is. You started out with psychology by way of psychosomatic discomfort, apparently not realizing that a moral dilemma is at the root of all psychological distress-- including your own exquisite case. When you started talking about theft, you jumped into comparative morality.
You sound here like you're thinking of theft as a moral concept. Is it a moral concept, a legal concept, both, neither, or does it differ depending on the context? I'm inclined to think the last one.

Responding to the bit about morality now:

I can observe psychosomatic discomfort introspectively, and infer its presence in others through observing them. For instance, if I see someone crying or having a panic attack, I can infer that they're feeling some sort of negative emotion. My inference could be wrong, of course.

Based on observations I can infer certain principles by which I can make predictions about what I'll observe elsewhere.

Besides that, I can have certain ideas which, for lack of another term to describe them, I'll call "fantastical constructs." I expect others can have these just as they can have emotions and draw inferences.

My whole thesis, in-so-far as I have one, is basically this: I feel certain ways in response to particular observations or thought experiments, I have a desire to feel some ways and not others, and I often try to act to achieve those desires. Since I can perform thought experiments, I can infer some basic principles by which I can predict how I'll feel in different situations.

What I above called a "property order" is one such set of principles. I think some people use the term "moral code" to mean a set of principles of this type as well. I believe in the existence of those sets of principles, because I can observe myself coming up with them introspectively, and I believe in the existence of the emotional psychosomatic phenomena which I analyze using these principles because I can observe those as well. (Technically the principles are themselves psychological phenomena.)

I think that some people believe in the existence of moral principles as some sort of platonic entities existing in and of themselves though. I don't understand in what way they believe morality to exist, which I expect is because they don't understand it clearly themselves, and so can't communicate it to me very well. Morality is a fantastical construct in their minds, not a set of principles by which to predict anything, and it's a meme in that it seems somewhat contagious, which is interesting.

I have described some basic principles by which I can predict how I'll feel about people's actions. The Rothbardian property order comes close as a starting approximation of that. Applying that it's easy to see how I'll probably feel about the actions of government officials, and so easy to predict that I'll feel some negative emotion, (pain,) in response to, among other things, taxation.

Now, some question arises here as to whether there's a feedback loop involved. I expect there probably is, the principle-sets, acts of introspection, thought experiments, and so on, can themselves probably causally contribute to emotional reactions to things. But I think the basic emotions are either hardwired in, conditioned, or otherwise caused by phenomena external to the brain. I don't think people feel empathy merely because they have a fantastical construct in their minds whereby they're obligated somehow to feel empathy. I think most people are biologically hard-wired to feel empathy.
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Dardedar »

If I send a letter to the IRS explicitly stating that I, [won't pay taxes], I am not deceiving them or anyone else through this action. I am openly breaking the law.
Actually, if you don't file a return, the IRS will be quite helpful in this regard. They'll do one for you. And then they will enforce the collection of the amount due. If you don't have the funds, or property, you won't go to jail for that. Please make a note of it.
Perhaps you could just admit you had your head up your ass on this going to jail for not paying your taxes. The US does not have a debtors prison.
...you can not pay your taxes, not deceive the IRS or anyone else in any way, and still go to prison,
Apparently this topic is just beyond your ken. Taxes are just too toxic for anarchists to be able to discuss rationally. Moving on.

I said: "Be careful to not muddle a moral question with a legal question."
If theft is a legal matter and not a moral matter,
Theft is both a legal matter and a moral matter. No dichotomy.
why isn't killing a legal matter and not a moral matter?
Killing is both a legal matter and a moral matter. The question of whether in a given instance killing is legal or not legal, moral or not moral, is true or not true, quite independently of each other. Please make a note of it.
It doesn't represent me,
You're a citizen tapping away on our government internet. Yes it does. And there's not much you can do about it (moving to Somalia would do it but you much prefer a government run society apparently).
if anarchists overthrew this government... you'd just want to try to create another one.
Yes, the people would again create a society with rules and representatives, because anarchism doesn't work. Not that enough people have ever taken the idiotic idea seriously enough to try it on a serious scale.
If you are claiming that every individual whom you consider to have an obligation to pay taxes has, as an individual, agreed to pay taxes or agreed to act according to the law, then your claim is false.
Again, grasshopper, participation is voluntary, no one is forcing you to stay and play the game called USA. If you don't want to play, then leave. Get off the teat. Don't participate and mooch off of all the benefits as you have all of your life. When you choose to participate, and you have made that choice, then by your participation you have entered into a binding contract part of which is that you are agreeing to pay taxes, according to the law, on that government money you are passing around. And it doesn't matter if your don't like that or don't to believe it. Not even a little bit.
If the law states that a person with an income below a certain point doesn't have to pay income taxes, then it's not that they're not paying their income taxes, it's that they don't have any income taxes to pay.
Again you try to fiddle with moving the goal posts rather than just admitting that people don't go to jail for not paying taxes, and you didn't know this. Oh well.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by David Franks »

Indium Flappers wrote:Now on to something more interesting.
Flatterer.
You sound here like you're thinking of theft as a moral concept. Is it a moral concept, a legal concept, both, neither, or does it differ depending on the context? I'm inclined to think the last one.
Adults consider systems of law to be moral because they come from systems of morals. Morality and legality are not mutually exclusive, as you appear to believe they are. Moral precepts are even referred to as "moral laws". Theft is both a legal issue and a moral issue, whether you object to it on moral grounds or on legal grounds.
Responding to the bit about morality now:

I can observe psychosomatic discomfort introspectively....

Based on observations...

Besides that, I can have certain ideas....

My whole thesis, in-so-far as I have one, is basically this: ....
Good meatloaf needs breadcrumbs. Apparently, so does bad meatloaf.
What I above called a "property order" is one such set of principles. I think some people use the term "moral code" to mean a set of principles of this type as well.
Unfortunately, your "property order" is trumped by the societal "property order" that you tacitly agree to by living in this country. And however loudly you blather about whatever contortion you prefer, your tacit agreement speaks louder than your anarchistic blather.
I believe in the existence of those sets of principles, because I can observe myself coming up with them introspectively
Nobody here has claimed that you're not self-absorbed.
and I believe in the existence of the emotional psychosomatic phenomena which I analyze using these principles because I can observe those as well. (Technically the principles are themselves psychological phenomena.)
Nobody has questioned the existence of psychosomatics. In fact, I believe I brought the notion to your attention.
I think that some people believe in the existence of moral principles as some sort of platonic entities existing in and of themselves though. I don't understand in what way they believe morality to exist, which I expect is because they don't understand it clearly themselves, and so can't communicate it to me very well. Morality is a fantastical construct in their minds, not a set of principles by which to predict anything, and it's a meme in that it seems somewhat contagious, which is interesting.
Have you ever noticed how many non-meat ingredients there are in meatloaf?
I have described some basic principles by which I can predict how I'll feel about people's actions. The Rothbardian property order comes close as a starting approximation of that. Applying that it's easy to see how I'll probably feel about the actions of government officials, and so easy to predict that I'll feel some negative emotion, (pain,) in response to, among other things, taxation.
I have not questioned your ability to feel imaginary pain. I have pointed out the fact that your excuse for feeling it is not valid because it is based on a false premise.
Now, some question arises here as to whether there's a feedback loop involved. I expect there probably is, the principle-sets, acts of introspection, thought experiments, and so on, can themselves probably causally contribute to emotional reactions to things. But I think the basic emotions are either hardwired in, conditioned, or otherwise caused by phenomena external to the brain.
That's a big meatloaf.
I don't think people feel empathy merely because they have a fantastical construct in their minds whereby they're obligated somehow to feel empathy.
Neither do I. The converse is much more applicable.
I think most people are biologically hard-wired to feel empathy.
That's one reason that societies depend upon the concept of "common good" or "commonweal" (and why some governmental units call themselves a "commonwealth"). It also is one reason why adults understand that taxation is not theft: people have "fantastical constructs" in their minds because they feel empathy. Of course there are practical considerations as well. Taxation paid for the things that made America great. In fact, it's probably the main thing that keeps you here: you just can't tear yourself away from this great nation.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Indium Flappers »

Dardedar wrote:
If I send a letter to the IRS explicitly stating that I, [won't pay taxes], I am not deceiving them or anyone else through this action. I am openly breaking the law.
Actually, if you don't file a return, the IRS will be quite helpful in this regard. They'll do one for you. And then they will enforce the collection of the amount due. If you don't have the funds, or property, you won't go to jail for that. Please make a note of it.
Perhaps you could just admit you had your head up your ass on this going to jail for not paying your taxes. The US does not have a debtors prison.
They enforce the collection of the amount they assert to be due by sending people to prison. In other words, if you don't pay your taxes, you go to prison.

I just don't know how to respond. I've never spoken with someone who just keeps repeating a falsehood over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, like some sort of religious incantation. The whole point of the laws the government enforces is that if you act contrary to some principle of behavior stated in the law, you will be punished for doing so. The whole point is to say, do this or we will use violence against you, we will throw you in prison, we will evict you from your home, we will kill you, and on and on.
Dardedar wrote:
...you can not pay your taxes, not deceive the IRS or anyone else in any way, and still go to prison,
Apparently this topic is just beyond your ken. Taxes are just too toxic for anarchists to be able to discuss rationally. Moving on.
I'm discussing it quite rationally. I am observing that government officials threaten to send people to prison if they don't pay their taxes, and observing that they sometimes go through with this threat, and you are chanting that what's happening isn't happening over and over like a crazy person.
Dardedar wrote:I said: "Be careful to not muddle a moral question with a legal question."
If theft is a legal matter and not a moral matter,
Theft is both a legal matter and a moral matter. No dichotomy.
why isn't killing a legal matter and not a moral matter?
Killing is both a legal matter and a moral matter. The question of whether in a given instance killing is legal or not legal, moral or not moral, is true or not true, quite independently of each other. Please make a note of it.
Not only have I made a note of it, it's a core part of my earlier explanation of property rights. You have different people, different ways of gaining control of resources, different ways in which people can interact, and different contexts for those interactions. I differentiate between the laws the government enforces, the principles outlined which constitute the Rothbardian property order, and the specific physical actions of taking or using or affecting particular things.
Dardedar wrote:
It doesn't represent me,
You're a citizen tapping away on our government internet. Yes it does.
This argument is invalid. It does not follow from a person's use of the internet that the U.S. government is their representative.

From Anatomy of the State:
Murray Rothbard wrote:Suffice it to say here that an individual's true agent or "representative" is always subject to that individual's orders, can be dismissed at any time and cannot act contrary to the interests or wishes of his principal. Clearly, the "representative" in a democracy can never fulfill such agency functions, the only ones consonant with a libertarian society.
Nor is it at all clear to me why you call it "our government internet". Do you mean "Our government-created internet"? Why would that be relevant? Were the kids of the first person to create a wheel the representatives of the kids of those who didn't create it, because they all used the invention? Or do you mean "Our government-run internet."? Do you think people should lie down and accept bills like SOPA, or accept NSA collection of emails, because the government runs the internet anyway?
Dardedar wrote:And there's not much you can do about it (moving to Somalia would do it but you much prefer a government run society apparently).
You can get internet access in Somalia, and I expect I probably would try if I moved there, so apparently you'd still consider the U.S. government to be my representative. So that won't work.
Dardedar wrote:
if anarchists overthrew this government... you'd just want to try to create another one.
Yes, the people would again create a society with rules and representatives, because anarchism doesn't work. Not that enough people have ever taken the idiotic idea seriously enough to try it on a serious scale.
The people indeed. Anarchists are people, of course, but not "the people", conveniently.

The people as a whole didn't create the government, some people created the government and forced other people to obey it.

It doesn't follow from the lack of something ever having existed that it can't exist. It doesn't follow from the lack of historical examples of peaceful, prosperous, societies of 3 million people living under anarchy that it can never happen.
Dardedar wrote:
If you are claiming that every individual whom you consider to have an obligation to pay taxes has, as an individual, agreed to pay taxes or agreed to act according to the law, then your claim is false.
Again, grasshopper, participation is voluntary, no one is forcing you to stay and play the game called USA. If you don't want to play, then leave. Get off the teat. Don't participate and mooch off of all the benefits as you have all of your life. When you choose to participate, and you have made that choice, then by your participation you have entered into a binding contract part of which is that you are agreeing to pay taxes, according to the law, on that government money you are passing around. And it doesn't matter if your don't like that or don't to believe it. Not even a little bit.
For my staying in my current location to constitute agreement to abide by the rules the government says I have to abide by, the government has to have a valid claim of ownership over the territory I'm staying on.

David D. Friedman puts it better:
David D. Friedman wrote:[T]his works only if the government already has the right to throw you out of the country--i.e. if the government is somehow the owner of the entire territory it rules. Without a social contract, it is hard to see how you can justify such a claim. And until you can justify it, you can 't get your social contract.

I could, after all, propose a contract to Mike under which he agrees to pay me a thousand dollars a month in exchange for the valuable services I am providing by critiquing his FAQ. I could also inform him that by breathing, he agrees to accept that contract. But unless he already believes that he has no right to breath without my permission, it is hard to see why he should feel obligated to pay.
Dardedar wrote:
If the law states that a person with an income below a certain point doesn't have to pay income taxes, then it's not that they're not paying their income taxes, it's that they don't have any income taxes to pay.
Again you try to fiddle with moving the goal posts rather than just admitting that people don't go to jail for not paying taxes, and you didn't know this. Oh well.
Again you repeat a falsehood like a religious incantation. Please stop, Dardedar, it's disturbing.
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Indium Flappers »

David Franks wrote:
Indium Flappers wrote:Now on to something more interesting.
Flatterer.
You sound here like you're thinking of theft as a moral concept. Is it a moral concept, a legal concept, both, neither, or does it differ depending on the context? I'm inclined to think the last one.
Adults consider systems of law to be moral because they come from systems of morals. Morality and legality are not mutually exclusive, as you appear to believe they are. Moral precepts are even referred to as "moral laws". Theft is both a legal issue and a moral issue, whether you object to it on moral grounds or on legal grounds.
This reminds me of arguments I've heard defending Christian morality, or "God's law". All I'll say, or rather ask, right now, is "Why should this matter to me?" Even if God existed, and I'd go to hell for breaking some edict of His, why should I draw any conclusion about morality from this?

I agree that some people talk about moral principles as if they were laws, but then we need to differentiate between "moral laws" and the laws the government enforces. Agreed?
David Franks wrote:
Responding to the bit about morality now:

I can observe psychosomatic discomfort introspectively....

Based on observations...

Besides that, I can have certain ideas....

My whole thesis, in-so-far as I have one, is basically this: ....
Good meatloaf needs breadcrumbs. Apparently, so does bad meatloaf.
A lot of the rhetoric attacking me as an individual in this thread I think of as more breadcrumbs than bread. Except that actually when I eat bread I always try to gobble up the crumbs... So... Bad metaphor for me?
David Franks wrote:
What I above called a "property order" is one such set of principles. I think some people use the term "moral code" to mean a set of principles of this type as well.
Unfortunately, your "property order" is trumped by the societal "property order" that you tacitly agree to by living in this country. And however loudly you blather about whatever contortion you prefer, your tacit agreement speaks louder than your anarchistic blather.
What do you mean by trumped? Two possibilities occur to me immediately:

you mean that the government can enforce a property order more effectively, which doesn't change the emotional phenomena I'm talking about, or

you mean that I have a moral obligation to obey either the government enforced property order or the "societal" property order, apparently because I have agreed to do so by living where I do. But, as I have pointed out, I first have to accept that the government has the right to throw me out of the country in the first place. Where did it get that right?
David Franks wrote:
I believe in the existence of those sets of principles, because I can observe myself coming up with them introspectively
Nobody here has claimed that you're not self-absorbed.
and I believe in the existence of the emotional psychosomatic phenomena which I analyze using these principles because I can observe those as well. (Technically the principles are themselves psychological phenomena.)
Nobody has questioned the existence of psychosomatics. In fact, I believe I brought the notion to your attention.
I think that some people believe in the existence of moral principles as some sort of platonic entities existing in and of themselves though. I don't understand in what way they believe morality to exist, which I expect is because they don't understand it clearly themselves, and so can't communicate it to me very well. Morality is a fantastical construct in their minds, not a set of principles by which to predict anything, and it's a meme in that it seems somewhat contagious, which is interesting.
Have you ever noticed how many non-meat ingredients there are in meatloaf?
I have described some basic principles by which I can predict how I'll feel about people's actions. The Rothbardian property order comes close as a starting approximation of that. Applying that it's easy to see how I'll probably feel about the actions of government officials, and so easy to predict that I'll feel some negative emotion, (pain,) in response to, among other things, taxation.
I have not questioned your ability to feel imaginary pain. I have pointed out the fact that your excuse for feeling it is not valid because it is based on a false premise.
Alright, how to break this down...

I have pointed out feelings that I have, (for the purposes of communication this is just sharing observations I've made,) and I've explained some principles by which I can predict somewhat how I'll feel under different circumstances, and I've asked you all to basically take the same actions towards me, explaining how you feel under different circumstances and what you think the causes of those feelings are.

You say "I have pointed out the fact that your excuse for feeling it is...", which sets up a scenario in which not only do I feel pain in response to certain social interactions, I also feel that my pain is "valid" or "legitimate" or "justified" or "okay to feel", and "is not valid because it is based on a false premise," that I feel this sense of validity because I consciously hold some belief which is false.

So, as a theoretical system, we have people that feel certain ways in response to certain perceptions, and then we have a particular class of metafeelings which people feel towards these emotions when they hold certain beliefs. Plus, people can feel these metaemotions towards emotions that they perceive others to have. You feel that my pain is "irrational" because you believe that the belief causing me to feel that it is "rational" is false.

Yet the belief in question is, in this case, ultimately that I feel the primary emotion in question.
David Franks wrote:
Now, some question arises here as to whether there's a feedback loop involved. I expect there probably is, the principle-sets, acts of introspection, thought experiments, and so on, can themselves probably causally contribute to emotional reactions to things. But I think the basic emotions are either hardwired in, conditioned, or otherwise caused by phenomena external to the brain.
That's a big meatloaf.
I don't think people feel empathy merely because they have a fantastical construct in their minds whereby they're obligated somehow to feel empathy.
Neither do I. The converse is much more applicable.
I think most people are biologically hard-wired to feel empathy.
That's one reason that societies depend upon the concept of "common good" or "commonweal" (and why some governmental units call themselves a "commonwealth"). It also is one reason why adults understand that taxation is not theft: people have "fantastical constructs" in their minds because they feel empathy. Of course there are practical considerations as well. Taxation paid for the things that made America great. In fact, it's probably the main thing that keeps you here: you just can't tear yourself away from this great nation.
The main things that keep me where I live are that my family and friends are here, and that I don't feel able to start from scratch elsewhere. If I went elsewhere though, it'd probably still be in the U.S., so I guess you'd still say the same stuff.

If I felt that by living in the U.S. I was agreeing to abide by all the government's laws here, much less that I was complicit in the killing of innocents abroad, then I would, to be sure, probably spend more effort relieving myself of these feelings. But I don't.
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Savonarola »

Indium Flappers wrote:Plus, people can feel these metaemotions towards emotions that they perceive others to have.
But as I pointed out (repeatedly) seemingly eons ago (and as you have always ignored), you do NOT know what others are feeling. You seem to think that I at least do -- and, maybe, should -- experience pain and feel victimized when I pay taxes:
Earlier, Indium Flappers wrote:... I empathize with those others being taxed, since I perceive them as innocent victims of threats of violence.
Your perception is way off. The rest of us here are saying, "Well, we don't so much mind paying our taxes. After all, we're adults." And you don't even realize that this kills your argument, regardless of all the other details. If we're not feeling pain, and you're feeling pain because of our nonexistent "pain," your feeling is perhaps -- due only to your screwed up perspective -- sympathy, but it's certainly not empathy. Your "pain" that comes from our "pain" is 100% a construct of your own mind, rooted in no basis but your own circular argument. No, definitely not empathy. More like delusion.

If you actually gave a damn about others experiencing pain, you wouldn't be continuing this conversation. The stupidity of your arguments hurts me.
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by David Franks »

Indium Flappers wrote:I agree that some people talk about moral principles as if they were laws, but then we need to differentiate between "moral laws" and the laws the government enforces. Agreed?
Certainly-- as long as that differentiation recognizes that legal systems are rooted in moral systems, and that, being the codified morality within jurisdictions, legal systems are binding upon the citizenry.
A lot of the rhetoric attacking me as an individual in this thread I think of as more breadcrumbs than bread. Except that actually when I eat bread I always try to gobble up the crumbs... So... Bad metaphor for me?
I haven't attacked you. I've attacked what you said. As the metaphor applies to our exchanges, it seems a perfectly fine metaphor, and it appears you failed to understand it. You write a lot of filler. But, to salvage your attempted interpretation: it is very clear from your comments that you've swallowed a lot of filler.
What do you mean by trumped? Two possibilities occur to me immediately:

you mean that the government can enforce a property order more effectively, which doesn't change the emotional phenomena I'm talking about, or

you mean that I have a moral obligation to obey either the government enforced property order or the "societal" property order, apparently because I have agreed to do so by living where I do.
The third possibility, of course-- and the one that you don't want to acknowledge-- is that your willingness to stay here and enjoy the benefits of living in the United States despite the exquisite pain it causes has trumped your gumption to move to a more salubrious location. Your own weakness causes our societal property order to trump your own property order.

However, you do have a moral obligation to obey the societal property order, which is the one the government enforces, and which you have tacitly agreed to, as indicated by the fact that you're staying put. I say you have tacitly agreed, unless you are exercising your options within the system to change it. If you aren't agitating convincingly for the elimination of taxation, voting for candidates who would eliminate taxation and running for office as a candidate who would eliminate taxation, you are abdicating both your perceived moral responsibility and your opportunity to make the issue about somebody other than yourself.
But, as I have pointed out, I first have to accept that the government has the right to throw me out of the country in the first place. Where did it get that right?
I have never said (and nobody else here has said) that the government has the right to throw you out of the country; I (we) have said (multiple times) that you have the right to leave the country. This basic inability to comprehend what has been said to you (or to honestly or accurately represent it), along with your inability to use language honestly, that makes your arguments so ineffective.
Alright, how to break this down...

I have pointed out feelings that I have, (for the purposes of communication this is just sharing observations I've made,) and I've explained some principles by which I can predict somewhat how I'll feel under different circumstances, and I've asked you all to basically take the same actions towards me, explaining how you feel under different circumstances and what you think the causes of those feelings are.
Until you understand that your feelings are founded on a false premise, you have no rational basis to participate in a discussion about feelings, and we have no incentive to enter such a discussion. Once you have couched your feelings in terms of reality (for example, taxation is not theft, so you need to figure out what the actual problem is), we will be able to discuss feelings-- at least, to the extent they are relevant.
You say "I have pointed out the fact that your excuse for feeling it is...", which sets up a scenario in which not only do I feel pain in response to certain social interactions, I also feel that my pain is "valid" or "legitimate" or "justified" or "okay to feel", and "is not valid because it is based on a false premise," that I feel this sense of validity because I consciously hold some belief which is false.
There's no need to set up a scenario. By doing so, you're backing away from the discussion, while half-assedly acknowledging what has been said. But if you insist on doing so, reread your sentence, try to figure out why it is incomprehensible, and revise it.
So, as a theoretical system, we have people that feel certain ways in response to certain perceptions, and then we have a particular class of metafeelings which people feel towards these emotions when they hold certain beliefs. Plus, people can feel these metaemotions towards emotions that they perceive others to have. You feel that my pain is "irrational" because you believe that the belief causing me to feel that it is "rational" is false.
If only you could paraphrase my words as elegantly as I provide them. But how are theoretical feelings relevant? We're trying to discuss your (according to you) actual exquisite-- and ineffable, it turns out-- pain, which is psychosomatic. There's nothing theoretical about this system.
Yet the belief in question is, in this case, ultimately that I feel the primary emotion in question.
I haven't said you don't. Indeed, by pointing out that it is irrational, I have acknowledged that you feel exquisite, ineffable imaginary psychosomatic pain.
The main things that keep me where I live are that my family and friends are here, and that I don't feel able to start from scratch elsewhere. If I went elsewhere though, it'd probably still be in the U.S., so I guess you'd still say the same stuff.
It would still be true, so you're probably right. Have you looked into states and localities with lower taxes? At least the cognitive dissonance would be less jangly.
If I felt that by living in the U.S. I was agreeing to abide by all the government's laws here, much less that I was complicit in the killing of innocents abroad, then I would, to be sure, probably spend more effort relieving myself of these feelings. But I don't.
That's been obvious all along. You avail yourself of the benefits of the social contract, but you shy away from the responsibilities. But equating taxation and killing innocents abroad is an exercise in silliness. They aren't the same thing, by orders of magnitude.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Indium Flappers »

David Franks wrote:Until you understand that your feelings are founded on a false premise, you have no rational basis to participate in a discussion about feelings, and we have no incentive to enter such a discussion. Once you have couched your feelings in terms of reality (for example, taxation is not theft, so you need to figure out what the actual problem is), we will be able to discuss feelings-- at least, to the extent they are relevant.
I hate to skip points again, but here goes.

When you say, "your feelings are founded on a false premise", you seem to be saying that you think my feeling of pain in response to taxation is caused by, ("founded on",) a belief that taxation is theft. I do not think this is at all accurate. On the contrary, my calling taxation theft is itself a consequence of, in part, my feeling of pain in response to it.

To say it in a way that forgoes some precision for the sake of trying to communicate the point, it's not that I don't like taxes because I think they're theft, it's that I call them theft because I don't like them. Did I not clearly express this before?
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Savonarola »

Indium Flappers wrote:I hate to skip points again
Now you're just lying.
Indium Flappers wrote:my calling taxation theft is itself a consequence of, in part, my feeling of pain in response to it.
I'm glad you finally clarified. I can't be sure, but I'm guessing the others felt the same way I did: You couldn't possibly be arguing this because it is an asinine argument.

On the other hand, it sort of shores up my point: If I don't feel this pain paying taxes, then it must not be theft, and you shouldn't feel "empathy" on my behalf for it. For the umpteenth time: Your argument ignores my feelings and instead imputes your feelings in their place, as if they were my own; without doing this, you have no argument.
Indium Flappers wrote:... I call them theft because I don't like them.
I don't like really stupid arguments. Can I consider you a criminal for making them?
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by David Franks »

Indium Flappers wrote:When you say, "your feelings are founded on a false premise", you seem to be saying that you think my feeling of pain in response to taxation is caused by, ("founded on",) a belief that taxation is theft.
"Seem to be"? I've said that directly, more than once. (How could you have missed that?) Up to now, that is the impression you've given. I see you're about to try to squirm out of it.
I do not think this is at all accurate. On the contrary, my calling taxation theft is itself a consequence of, in part, my feeling of pain in response to it.
Is theft the only thing that makes you feel pain? Of course not. Is everything that causes you to feel pain theft? Of course not. In this use, then, "theft" is not just imprecise; it is almost completely inaccurate. Every time you swing, you miss.
To say it in a way that forgoes some precision for the sake of trying to communicate the point, it's not that I don't like taxes because I think they're theft, it's that I call them theft because I don't like them. Did I not clearly express this before?
Apparently not, and I'll have to review your posts to verify that you're changing your argument. In any case, I have stated my understanding of your mechanism multiple times, and you are only now offering a clarification. Unfortunately for you, this contortion is even more inane than the other one is.

But it doesn't matter. You have said that taxation is theft. The fact that you call something you don't like "theft", apparently because you haven't a clue what the word means but you've invented a definition that enables your peculiar moral umbrage, also indicates that your feelings are founded on a false premise. You are falsely accusing theft of doing something it isn't doing. Either way, your feelings are irrational.

Why don't you call taxes something that doesn't abuse the English language? The word "theft" already has a meaning, and "something that Indium Flappers doesn't like" isn't it. (The definition of "theft" also precludes the contention that taxation-- as practiced in the United States, anyway-- is theft.) Surely your moral clarity demands that you represent your position in a way that not only is honest, but also that you communicate clearly and in a language that the people you're talking to understand and accept. True clarity demands no less.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Indium Flappers »

David Franks wrote:
Indium Flappers wrote:When you say, "your feelings are founded on a false premise", you seem to be saying that you think my feeling of pain in response to taxation is caused by, ("founded on",) a belief that taxation is theft.
"Seem to be"? I've said that directly, more than once. (How could you have missed that?) Up to now, that is the impression you've given. I see you're about to try to squirm out of it.
What have I said specifically that gave you the impression that my pain response to taxation was caused by my belief that taxation qualifies as theft? Did I also give you the impression that I believed that my pain response to taxation was caused by my belief that taxation is theft? If so, what specifically gave you that impression?
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by David Franks »

Indium Flappers wrote:What have I said specifically that gave you the impression that my pain response to taxation was caused by my belief that taxation qualifies as theft?
1. You led off with the subject of pain, then went into coercion and the contention that taxation is theft. The platform of your argument gave me that impression.

2. What did you say?
Indium Flappers wrote:.... it would cause you pain, because now you would feel pain from experiencing taxation the same way I experience it .... The thought of someone being taxed is itself painful, the way I expect you would find the thought of someone being tortured or killed painful .... The fact that they threaten me with violence if I don't pay them when I never agreed to pay them in the first place is painful .... The thing that causes me pain is the coercion involved, .... Both involve the use of violence. I find it weird that you think there's no similarity .... I dislike submission and the making of others to submit .... it always makes me feels bad...that I'm using a bike trail that was built using bloodmoney. It makes me feel complicit in an action I dislike....if another trail existed which was funded voluntarily, I would use it, and if I found enough people of like-mind or like-heart willing to help pitch in to create such a trail, I'd most probably work with such a group to try and create an alternative route, even if it cost me more personally to help build than an involuntarily funded route would, because I would value the gain in clear-consciousness resulting from a reduced feeling of complicity in actions that are painful to me to experience ....
Note: I haven't even made it through the first page of this thread.

3. Again: I stated that understanding of your position early on, and until very early this morning-- some two months later-- you have never corrected me.

4. Truth to tell, your new version of your position is so breathtakingly boneheaded, childish, and illogical that I didn't anticipate it. Suddenly presented with the possible ambiguity of your comments, I have to say that I-- apparently foolishly-- assumed that you were taking the slightly less boneheaded, childish, illogical position. And you called me a pessimist.
Did I also give you the impression that I believed that my pain response to taxation was caused by my belief that taxation is theft? If so, what specifically gave you that impression?
That seems to be an inane question. You gave me the impression that you feel pain in response to taxation because taxation is theft, and given the broad basis for my impression, naturally I would take that to be your belief because of the effort you put into the project. See above.

Are you smoking dope with joeknows?
Last edited by David Franks on Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Dardedar »

David Franks wrote: Are you smoking dope with joeknows?
Incidentally, Joeknows is an anarchist too. Or at least that's what he said on his Facebook page some time ago.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Why do you not feel pain upon experiencing taxation?

Post by Savonarola »

Earlier, Indium Flappers wrote:I guess it seems obvious enough to me that taxation is theft that I have trouble understanding how someone could believe it's not. Without understanding this I find it harder to refute.
No kidding. I mean, it seems obvious that if you feel like something's wrong with an idea, then that idea must be unacceptable and something to rail against. You know, just like how people think that homosexuality is icky or that miscegenation is just against the natural order of things: well then, that must be reprehensible. How can you refute that? Homosexuality just makes me feel icky!
Earlier, Indium Flappers wrote:It's like I said "deliciousness means that an icecream flavor has a pleasurable taste, and I find chocolate icecream delicious," and David responded by telling me that, "no, deliciousness means icecream tastes like strawberries." A subtle error, though, perhaps.
So there's a meaning of "delicious," and different people might find different things delicious. But this is the opposite of what you're now saying: We each might have our own ideas of what is rightful taking by taxers, but only your position can be the correct one. And if we disagree with you, you will very magnanimously die a little inside -- just for us -- questioning, mourning, lamenting the fact that we would pick strawberry flavor over chocolate... because while our assessments are meaningless to you, your assessment obviously dictates reality.
Again, it shows that same fallacy in your original argument that I've repeatedly tried to make you realize. You're saying that what makes it theft is YOUR feeling that there's something wrong about it. But I don't have those same feelings about my taxes being paid. If your thesis is that we should feel pain upon being taxed because taxation is theft, and you know it's theft because you feel pain... well, not only is that circular, but doesn't our not feeling pain about taxation break the circle and kill your argument deader than a doornail? (Hint: It does.)

You claim to feel pain on my behalf. But I have no pain. I have no desire or need for you to feel pain for me. I am a willing participant in an exchange.
So there's good news for you! A good portion of us don't feel like taxes are theft. If you feel pain because we feel pain, yet we don't feel pain, then you shouldn't feel pain. If we don't feel pain, the bike trail isn't bloodmoney. So you don't have to feel bad about using the bike trail. Your conscience can be clear!
So you continue being a petulant little goddamn freeloader. But you won't feel that you are, and your feelings are all that matter!

You know, reading comprehension always showed to be my weak point on standardized tests. It wasn't terribly uncommon for my percentile rank to dip down into the 80s. But this is pretty rich. For you to insist that:
Earlier, Indium Flappers wrote:Your vocabulary is useless to me in communicating with most of the people I communicate and interact with
yet -- it seems -- all of us did not glean your (still asinine) position only goes to show that you are positively awful at communicating.

Image
Post Reply