Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

If taxation was kept down to an appropriate level, you'd have far fewer people complaining and/or noticing that taxation is, at its core, theft.

Originally Posted by liberty1776

What makes an action wrong? Is an action wrong because it is against moral law, or is an action wrong because some people say it is?

What I gather from your post is that you believe that things are wrong because they have been forbidden by a group of people, namely the government. According to this idea of right and wrong, nothing is wrong unless the gov't says it is. So, if gov't didn't makes laws against theft, theft would not be wrong. Taking this one step further, if gov't says that it can steal, then that is not wrong. After all, gov't decides what is right and what is wrong. If gov't says that it can steal, the the action of the gov't stealing is not wrong.

This is, of course, insane. But this is the conclusion that is implicit in your argument. If it is wrong for a private indivdual to steal, it is wrong for a group of private indivduals to steal, and it is wrong for a group of private indivduals to get other people to steal for them.

While taxation is not against statutory law, it is against moral law. The only just use of statutory law is to codify moral law. Governments cannot legitimatly "make law", they can only codify existing, moral law.

So, I ask you, what makes government different from private indivduals? How do you reconcile your views with Jefferson when he wrote that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Or do you disagree with this argument that Jefferson makes?

If you agree with it, and continue to maintain that my living in America is the same as giving my consent, how can you justify the American Revolution? Weren't the colonists simply giving their consent by living in an English territory? And, it was much more simple for them to get what they wanted than it is for me to get what I wanted. All they had to do was move to England and they would have had the same rights as every other Englishman.

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

I agree on a theoretical basis, but in practice, taxation is a necessary evil. Many on this board put forth various variations on a socialist utopia. They're doomed to failure because they ignore the realities of human nature. 'Zero taxation' is a libertarian/anarchist utopia and doomed for the same reason.

I don't have a problem with this, but I do object to the abuse of the Constitional taxation authority to fund extra-Constitutional 'obligations'. If taxation was kept down to an appropriate level, you'd have far fewer people complaining and/or noticing that taxation is, at its core, theft.

Originally Posted by goober

Maybe taxes should be optional, taxpayers would get an ID, if you got mugged the police would need to see you were a taxpayer before you could file a report, the murders of non-taxpayers would not be investigated. Non-taxpayers would not be entitled to use the roads or the beaches or the parks. In an accident situation, EMTs would only treat taxpayers, non-taxpayers would simply be pushed to the side of the road. If a non-taxpayers house caught on fire, the fire department wouldn't put out the fire, it would just stand by to make sure it didn't spread to taxpayers homes.
Of course this means that non-taxpayers wouldn't be able to get a mortgage, because they couldn't get Fire insurance.

Originally Posted by liberty1776

By definition, a tax is something which people do not have an option to not pay. How do people have an option whether or not to pay the FairTax?

As for paying for the common defence I would have to ask you what common defence? The common defence of the world? Nation? State? City? Or some other arbitrary group of people? Is there a reason I should be forced to pay for the defence of people in Maine? Is there a reason people in Maine should be forced to pay for the defence of people in Georgia?

Originally Posted by timj219

You do have the option not to pay. Of course you must deal with the consequences of that decision which means leaving the country or going to jail. But the choice is entirely yours.
Your question "what common defence?" is an issue for election time. Not an argument against paying taxes.

Originally Posted by liberty1776

For a response to the argument you make, read the responses that I wrote to Jviehe. You said the same things he did, and I don't feel like making the same argument again in the same thread.

Originally Posted by timj219

You didn't respond to him either.

Originally Posted by liberty1776

I like this scenario only if gov't allowed other companies to compete in the services you mention.

I would much rather have private enterprise provide these important services to me than gov't. And I have no problem with not reveiving any of the gov't benefits that taxpayers recieve.

So, if you are trying to make me out to be some sort of hypocrite, or a mooch, you have failed.

Originally Posted by goober

Are you going to hire a private fire department, a private police department, a private army?

Originally Posted by liberty1776

Yes I did, I took every argument he made and responed to it. The fact that it completly refutes your conclusions does not change this fact.

You are wrong. I am right. You (and Jviehe) continue to make the same arguments that I have refuted. If you want to argue, bring up new points, otherwise admit you are wrong.

Originally Posted by timj219

"End government" is not an argument. It's an admission that you have no intention of being serious.

Originally Posted by goober

Are you going to hire a private fire department, a private police department, a private army?