74
75

Theft is Taxation (theism-comics.com)

TheIsmComics が 投稿

全 42 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]xpatriTheOneLaw 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

very nice flip on the standard

[–]tocano 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Relevant: Taxation in Spoonerville

[–]BashedVoluntary Participant 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like it. Did you write that?

[–]anon338Anarcho-capitalist biblical kritarchy 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Racial subtext

Didn't that robber fool the victim really good?

Can I have one with a single mother thrown into the mix?

What if the robber was in a suit? And the charity was to black single mothers?

Politician: "You are not a racist mysoginist, are you?"

"No."

Politician: "Thanks for your money. Now take her on a date and marry her."

"Wait a minute..."

Politician: "Freaking racist mysoginists! Racists everywhere!"

It would be good to see this from the side of the guy living in a crappy situation.

[–]TheIsmComics[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's a very nice extension of the basic concept.

[–]anon338Anarcho-capitalist biblical kritarchy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Glad you liked it, I look forward to seeing how you will draw it. Pm me soon, I should have some other funny ideas. Lets have people wishing to stop paying taxes one comic at a time.

[–]KaseyKasemFirearmchist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Now take her on a date and marry her.

I already did! Well, she wasn't a single mother, but she was black and single. I win the not-being-a-racist game.

[–]limitexperiencePost-Anarchist Socialist Queer 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Taxation is only illegitimate if you view the current state of things being natural, legitimate or justified. Anarcho-capitalists generally consider America for example to be a corporatist state. Ancaps also mostly admit that the majority or all the land currently owned in the continental U.S. was stolen from indigenous communities. So it is clear that the form of state capitalism the U.S. has is illegitimate and unjustified even by ancap standards.

So I guess I am confused why you guys think taxation is illegitimate? You admit that the rules of the game and the structure of our society is corporatist and rigged in favor of economic elites and the state. Do you honestly believe it is unjustified to tax rent seekers who use government force?

[–]NoGardE 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

That is attempting to fix the problem with more of the problem.

European immigrants took over America because they brought concepts of stricter land ownership to a place that didn't have those standards, and won the fights that ensued. Might doesn't make right, but it certainly works. The native americans were in the right to defend their lands, but they failed. Technology.

I don't see how saying taxation is theft is at all connected to considering the current state of the world justified. The current state of the world includes taxation, which is not just.

Taxation is theft because one person takes another's money, regardless of their wishes. That's literally it.

[–]limitexperiencePost-Anarchist Socialist Queer 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So if somebody steals your television set and you go to take it back, you are unjustified because two wrongs don't make a right?

What if there is a gang of people that came into your neighborhood and stole all your television sets. Then you tracked one down and stole a television set back from them. Is that unjustified?

I am a Stirnerian on morality and ethics so to be honest I don't really care about the moral implications of this, but I would argue that there is an ethical justification for taxation that is consistent with ancap ethics.

[–]NoGardE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have no idea where you're getting the idea in your first sentence.

[–]CypressLBAnarcho-Capitalist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If someone takes your TV and you stop them or take it back it's not theft. Theft is identified when you have no claim to an item. I'm not stealing my own car by driving it and a bank doesn't steal my car by repossessing it when I refuse to pay my loan.

There is no ethical justification of stealing someone's property. Maybe one or a few will allow it but if one person disagrees it's immoral.

[–]of_ice_and_rockand he does not call it poison: goo.gl/wTpmF9 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

European immigrants colonists

There is a difference. Immigration refers to movement into an institution from without, where the Anglo-Americans were merely continuing their North Sea ethic on to another continent as colonists.

Latinos are immigrants, Eastern Europeans are immigrants, and possibly even Germans are immigrants, but not Anglos: they are the heart of the American ethic.

[–]of_ice_and_rockand he does not call it poison: goo.gl/wTpmF9 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ancaps also mostly admit that the majority or all the land currently owned in the continental U.S. was stolen from indigenous communities.

Who has admitted that? Most ancaps hold to direct homesteading, where most of the land the Amerindians merely traversed didn't qualify.

[–]bhknb 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Let's put the cartoon into your context. The mugger, out on a spending spree with his ill-gotten gains, is mugged by another mugger, who then also promises to spend 10% of the takings on some social problem.

Do two wrongs make a right?

[–]limitexperiencePost-Anarchist Socialist Queer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do two wrongs make a right?

Yes, stealing shit from thieves and oppressors is great

[–]CypressLBAnarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If someone gladly "gives" their money to the government while trying to simultaneously minimize the amount of money the IRS gets then that person can call their robbery legitimate. Just like how I could get robbed and then tell the cops it wasn't a robbery. This doesn't legitimize all taxation, only the taxation of one. Each person must deem it legitimate or else it's robbery.

[–]CypressLBAnarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One internet point for you OP

[–]newscrash 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Random thought: Would it be possible with a cryptocurrency to have taxes only be spendable in certain ways?

For example as a taxpayer - I go to pay my taxes but I select options/rules like "my money can only be spent on local infrastructure - roads, bridges, etc" or "30 percent of my tax payment has to be spent on k-12 education" and have the software enforce these tax payment rules?

[–]of_ice_and_rockand he does not call it poison: goo.gl/wTpmF9 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

What citizen disagrees with making government more efficient than 10%?

[–]TheIsmComics[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think you could say the common left-leaning citizen would either overlook or underestimate the inefficiency of government and its destructive potential.

[–]of_ice_and_rockand he does not call it poison: goo.gl/wTpmF9 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, it's more that there are different goals being pursued.

Subsidizing the underclass' breeding is considered one of the worst things possible to those better off, but one of the best things possible to that underclass.

In short, we are at war: there are certain boundary conditions where two groups cannot meet the minimum price of understanding and materially connecting to each other, and therefore cooperating with each other, such that war becomes the rational choice.

This fact is why republics have historically been created via eugenics and destroyed by dysgenics. Below about 80-90 IQ, it becomes materially impossible to integrate that mind into a republican political economy without imposition.

[–]E7ernalDecline to State 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

IQ is relative... you are using it objectively.

One more way you just don't understand what you're talking about.

[–]of_ice_and_rockand he does not call it poison: goo.gl/wTpmF9 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

IQ is relative... you are using it objectively.

it becomes materially impossible to integrate that mind into

One more way you just don't understand what you're talking about.

[–]random_guy_2323 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the issue E7ernal has is that it's ambiguous what is meant by '80-90 IQ' in this context. Ancient Rome had a republic, but relative to IQ100 = global 2016 median, they would have an average IQ below 80.

[–]theorymeltfool 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Taxation = extortion

[–]BelligerantFuck -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Again, if you think taxation is theft, you've gone mad. It's like a child wanting to runaway from their meanie parents because they make them clean their room or do the dishes. As soon as they're gone for a day, they learn real fucking quick how unfun it is to do everything yourself. Some people would love to type onto a screen about how parents that abused their kids, exploited their kids, even killed their kids show how parents are unnecessary and an evil that needs to be banished.

[–]Major-Freedom☺ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, adults are like children.

There are no adults.

[–]2mad2respect -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

A bunch of muggers offer you a choice between giving them half your money or getting beaten. Bad.

A bunch of capitalists offer you a choice between giving them half the product of your labor, or starvation and homelessness. Somehow not bad?

[–]Krackorø¤º°¨ ¨°º¤KEEP THE KAWAII GOING ¸„ø¤º°¨ 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

Take the mugger away from the scenario - no more "getting beaten" problem.

Take the capitalist away from the scenario - you're still starving and homeless.

[–]tocano 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, don't you get it!? Without the capitalist, all the capital equipment (which totally exist anyway, despite the lack of the capitalist) would just be freely accessible to anyone to make their lives better. The capitalist is only in the way, prohibiting people from being able to use it.

[–]2mad2respect -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Take the capitalist away from the scenario - you're still starving and homeless.

No. Why? My fellow workers and I will simply continue to operate the means of production without a capitalist stealing the product of our labor.

[–]Greco412Where we're going we don't need roads. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except he was the one who provided the means of production in the first place. No capitalist means you have to assemble the means of production your self.

[–]CyberToygerVoluntaryist | Furry | Gamer 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Capitalists aren't the ones "offering starvation and homelessness", they're in the same damn boat as YOU, they're offering you their resources they've acquired after having been in YOUR position before. The enemy here is nature and your own mortal body, the Capitalists are offering to help you fight against nature and your own body; the muggers are not offering help, they are taking away from you so that THEY can fight against nature and their own mortal human body.

[–]2mad2respect -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Starvation and homelessness under capitalism is enforced by property law. If I stop paying rent, I will literally be dragged out of my house by cops.

Cops dragging me out of my house isn't "nature".

[–]soskroodLord of the Land 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like the solution for you is to stop living in someone else's house, go get your own.

[–]bhknb 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A bunch of capitalists offer you a choice between giving them half the product of your labor, or starvation and homelessness. Somehow not bad?

The capitalist owns the product of that labor. It was not the laborer's to begin with. What the laborer has is the time, skills, and labor to sell, and that is something the capitalist needs or he won't have any product at all.

If you want to own 100% of the product of your labor, or whatever your dream government would let you keep (maybe 20%?), start a business. Just don't hire anyone.

[–]Turagian -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Taxation is voluntary. Don't have a source of income one doesn't pay income taxes. Don't have property don't pay property taxes. Don't buy goods don't have sales taxes. Finally a person can move somewhere else (depending on the country) if they disagree with the current tax policies. Edit: Flawed argument on my part.

[–]tocano 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

By that logic, being mugged is voluntary. Don't possess anything of value, don't be mugged. Don't walk in public areas, don't be mugged. Finally, a person can move somewhere else if they don't agree with local mugging.

This line of logic basically says that in our current society, you can only avoid taxation by being unemployed and destitute.

Such is clearly not a free society. In a truly free society, you can improve your situation without someone coming and threatening force to remove a portion of your prosperity.

In addition, if the only way to avoid taxation is to live unemployed and destitute - which would qualify someone for govt welfare and handouts, then doesn't it seem that the incentives of that system discourage self-sufficiency while rewarding dependency?

[–]CyberToygerVoluntaryist | Furry | Gamer 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

According to your very logic, then Rape is Voluntary. Don't have a vagina or an anus, one doesn't get raped. Simply have them removed and voila! Problem solved! Because according to you, merely possessing something (money, property, food and goods) is grounds enough to have things taken from you. Merely existing is grounds enough to be subjected to the whims and wills of others.