Quote from: donut on March 11, 2014, 09:26:32 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 09:12:04 PM

Quote from: donut on March 11, 2014, 08:18:00 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:05:57 PM

There are people in this thread who want to continue to proclaim that taxation is the same as theft, which we should recognize on the face of it how preposterous and absurd a claim that remains ;;; but NONETHELESS some people in this thread want to argue regarding basic and silly points, like that..

It's actually extortion, which is a form of theft.

I'll try to lay it out.

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
src

Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
src

Can you really tell me with a straight face that taxation is not extortion?

YES. I can tell you with a straight face that you are coming at this question with fuzzy logic. YOU seem to be so much focused on yourself that you fail to consider that there are community considerations and you, supposedly, are part of that community. YOU seem to be case in point someone who wants to set forth trivial arguments to mislead and to distract us from the main issues regarding meaningful discussions about the role of government. You pigeonhole all government taxes and actions as some sort of guilty by association and NO good deeds are being done by these taxes b/c they are taking money from you.. and somehow, you are likely of the belief that these services and benefits should be left to the private sector to some how miraculously carry them out.. on a voluntary basis.... YOU are communicating EXTREMISM without a foundation in reality... if you are trying to equate the community interests to be the same as the thieving interests of a criminal.

YOU are also likely the kind of guy that is so against taxes and community contribution, that he needs to be forced to pay his fair share into the community b/c you are NOT very likely without being begged to contribute on your own. Maybe if someone kisses your feet, then maybe you will possibly decide to contribute a little bit to the community. You are so busy thinking about yourself that you fail to understand the variety of community needs that government fulfills to service people who are NOT in the same circumstances as yourself.

Maybe if we had only a million people in the world, we could get away with each person self-sustaining and having his/her own plot... but we do NOT live in such a world.. and there are communities.. and also an existing status quo that needs to be accounted for and transition if we are going to change to some other societal arrangements that may be able to accommodate approximately 7 billion people.

What is fuzzy about my logic? Seems pretty binary to me - either a given act fits the definition, or it doesn't.
Why can't you follow through to the logical conclusion?

Your logic is ridiculous, and is NOT worthy of serious contemplation.

More or less, you are saying:

Situation 1) A robber comes up to you on the street and points a gun at you, and he says give me your money or there will be negative consequences. You are fearful for your life, and you see that the thief seems capable of causing negative consequences upon you. Therefore you give the thief your money, and you feel resentful about it b/c the thief had placed you in such a position to have to give up your money b/c you did NOT want to suffer the negative consequences that were being threatened.

Situation 2) The government comes up to you, and says if you do NOT pay your taxes you are going to go to jail and your freedom is going to be taken away if you do NOT pay your taxes. YOU are going to duly suffer and the only way NOT to suffer is if you pay your taxes. The government surely seems capable of carrying out its threat, and you value your freedom. Accordingly, you pay your taxes even though you feel resentful about the fact that you had to pay your taxes... but the government forced you into such a situation by threatening you.. just like the robber did in situation 1.

You are saying that situation 1 and situation 2 are clearly similar and that this should be the point of our discussion.. for me to supposedly need to defend why situation 2 is different from situation 1. I think that it is illogical and silly for me to have to argue with some silly notion that these two situations are the same, when clearly, they are NOT the same - even though both situations make you feel the same way.. robbed.

I could give a flying fuck about how you feel about being robbed b/c you have to pay taxes.. so what.. this is NOT about how you feel. A community acting to get you to pay your fair share contribution into the community is NOT the same as someone taking money from you (that is NOT the community, but instead an individual actor or even a gang or even a corporation.. but clearly not the community).

I think that on the face of the matter, your bare assertion that situation 1 and 2 are substantially similar is illogical, incomprehensible and unworthy or serious discussion... Even though the two situations may appear to be similar, they are NOT.. which should be obvious and clear on the face. I think that i adequately explained this over and over and in sufficient detail without having to have the need to elaborate about the obvious, and I do NOT see the point of continuing such a silly-ass discussions if some people continue to think and to argue that taxes and thievery are the same things.... b/c posters like this are living in a sort of parallel reality of LaLa land and a simplistic world to be making such basic assertions to attempt to equate situations that are clearly NOT the same.... even though they "feel the same."

Why do we need to discuss this further? makes no sense to me.