Someone tries to say taxes are robbery in r/conspitatard. Leads to a long beat down with bonus Star Wars joke. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
93 ups - 33 downs = 60 votes
79 comments submitted at 04:53:06 on Oct 19, 2013 by LynnyLee
Someone tries to say taxes are robbery in r/conspitatard. Leads to a long beat down with bonus Star Wars joke. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
93 ups - 33 downs = 60 votes
79 comments submitted at 04:53:06 on Oct 19, 2013 by LynnyLee
Its not like he is wrong. If you don't pay your taxes than the government will break the guns out. Thats pretty much the definition of coercion right there.
EDIT: For anyone thinking I was being literal, "bring the guns out" is a term of speech for a penalty or fine that the government will slap you with if you don't do "X" action.
EDIT2: The government will not literally "slap" you. They'll send you a first-class mail or leave a message on your machine telling you you're being fucked.
EDIT3: By Machine, I mean an answering machine or voicemail. Not a robot that takes your calls
EDIT4: How to piss off reddit in one easy step: Tell them what every law, civics, and history professor around the world will tell you without question
No, if you don't pay your taxes you'll get a lien on your property or your salary to pay backtaxes and a fine. Only when you barricade yourself in your bunker and start an armed standoff with the cops over not paying your taxes will they break the guns out.
That's like saying the government will shoot you for jaywalking when you were really standing in the middle of Times Square shooting at tourists.
So if you don't pay your taxes, the government penalizes you. Thats still coercion.
You can argue that its legalized or "moral" coercion, but its still coercion.
EDIT: Bringing the guns out is a figure of speech, not a literal thing the government will do. I figured people would be smart enough to realize that, but that was my mistake.
EDIT2: Do ya'll have that much trouble accepting that the government uses force? This is basic civics.
I don't have any problem saying the government uses force to enforce valid laws against habitual and violent lawbreakers. I think this is both legal and moral.
If you ignore court orders to pay your taxes and ignore any attempts to follow the law the government is justified in arresting you as a habitual lawbreaker. If you're known to be well armed they're justified in having weapons drawn when they do it. Finally, if you meet them at the door with a shotgun they are both legally and morally justified to shoot you where you stand.
I'm totally fine with all of this. I also don't worry about it too much because I pay my taxes and don't go around waving guns at cops. Is this coercion? Sure, but why is that a problem?
Your adding on all that moral fluff. I'm just telling you the government uses coercion every day to get what it wants. Be that violent murderers or tax evaders. No matter what the outcome though, the government uses coercive force.
I'm not making a comparitive statement. I'm not here to tell you the joys of anarchism or full-blown statism. I'm just stating the obvious in that the government has and will always use force. The rest is up to you to get comfortable with that idea or not.
And I'm saying I'm fully comfortable with that.
Cool, while we are on the subject of telling each other random things I never asked about, I'm fully comfortable wearing my wife's bra. Discuss
I'm sure you look lovely
Not paying taxes is like shooting random people?
Saying the government will come at you with guns drawn if you don't pay your taxes is nonsense and skips key steps between "not paying your taxes" and "the government has their guns pointed at me" including "because I pulled a gun on them when they stepped onto my property to arrest me with a legal warrant". Just like saying "the government pulled their guns on me for jaywalking" skips key points like "because I was shooting at random people from the middle of the street.
> Saying the government will come at you with guns drawn if you don't pay your taxes is nonsense and skips key steps between "not paying your taxes" and "the government has their guns pointed at me" including "because I pulled a gun on them when they stepped onto my property to arrest me with a legal warrant
So your argument is that the government is just going to kidnap you, not murder you?
No, I'm saying the government is going to arrest you, and if you resist arrest and present a threat they'll shoot you to prevent you from harming them or others. And I'm totally fine with that. Happy my tax dollars go to support it.
If the police start breaking into the homes of people who haven't broken any laws without a warrant, taking those people to a cabin in the woods and holding them for ransom I'd call that kidnapping and I wouldn't be OK with it. That, however, is not at all what you're calling kidnapping.
So why not just bite the bullet and say you're fine with government shooting/kidnapping people who don't do what the government has unilaterally decided that they have to do? At least when people do certain things, like not giving the government money.
Because shooting/murdering/kidnapping are all examples of crimes while the police are acting with legally granted authority on my behalf.
I'm fine that I live in a society that's governed by laws and I'm fine that, because some people won't follow the laws, we need to have certain trained and designated people as enforcers of laws. When those people (police) enforce the laws they need to do so in a way that is lawful. They need to go before a judge, get warrants, follow procedures.
Thus, when they go into your house with guns drawn, drag you into a car and take you to jail, its an arrest but if I came into your house with guns drawn, threw you in my car and took you up to a remote cabin its kidnapping.
This law thing, its kinda amazing isn't it.
So when an autocratic regime swoops in and takes someone from their home in order to punish them for, say, acts of speech, you wouldn't call that "kidnapping" because it's legal? Just an understandable and legitimate action executed by an institution that's necessary to the maintainence of civil order? Do you think most people would agree with you on this?
>Because shooting/murdering/kidnapping are all examples of crimes while the police are acting with legally granted authority on my behalf.
If you live in a dictatorship where the government has seized authority without the consent of the governed you don't have that critical last piece of my quote above.
Fortunately, I live in the US, where (while not perfect by any means) we're pretty damn far from an autocratic regime. I also am capable of seeing the world in shades other than black and white so while I'm totally fine with the government arresting people who, after many attempts, won't pay their taxes I can oppose things like abuses of civil asset forfeiture or extraordinary rendition.
It seems like you can't see any distinction between the police executing a warrant against someone whose refused to pay their taxes and Pinochet disappearing political dissidents. Do you think most people would agree with you on this?
What you aren't getting is that its not government per se that is doing this or that has the authority to do this. It is the people. Through an established contract that the people put in place and continue to uphold through elections (the vast, vast majority don't want it overthrown, do they?) it is the people and the rest of society that demand that people pay their share if they will benefit. No one likes freeloaders. Otherwise you are free to move.
You might say that the people don't choose, that the process is corrupted by corporations, the rich, statists, Rothschilds, whatever. It doesn't matter. The vast majority of people still buy in, still make the calculation that it benefits them (which it does with the astronomical living standards, historically speaking, in the developed world), and therefore give legitimacy to the government. If you disagree with the peoples' priorities as expressed by the government they put into place, the proper response isn't to whine about theft, but to convince them that those priorities are wrong.
> EDIT: For anyone thinking I was being literal, "bring the guns out" is a term of speech for a penalty or fine that the government will slap you with if you don't do "X" action.
Reading. Its your friend
If I'm fine with the government going after habitual lawbreakers with force why on earth do you think I wouldn't be fine with them using a court order to take part of your salary until you paid off your back taxes.
Never asked you if you were fine with it or not. I was just telling you that its coercion. If you are cool with coercive power than thats that. But thats what it is and thats all it ever will be.
Apparently SRD has a problem with me pointing out the obvious
Read the EDIT: For anyone thinking I was being literal, "bring the guns out" is a term of speech for a penalty or fine that the government will slap you with if you don't do "X" action.
is it though when it is lawful and for the reason that you are committing a crime?
idk, do you think governments can ever engage in theft? Think asset forfeiture in America: Lots of people are comfortable calling it theft. But it's also legal. What's the difference?
One thing they agree on and one thing they don't.
Needs more edits.
Needs more circlejerkers
I particularly enjoy your 4th edit. What is your opinion about the morality of coercion?
In most instances it isn't a good thing. There are a few instances of "moral" coercian but they are mostly hypotheticals that most people will never encounter.
Overall though I'm mostly indifferent in its real application. My name, skin color, religion, personal wealth, and body build is enough to insulate me from the worst trespasses, private individual or otherwise. As long as I don't do anything really stupid on a very public level its very likely that the worst I'll be treated by the public sector will be when I retire and become immobile.
As it stands the status quo treats me quite well, but that doesn't mean I have to be dishonest to myself and others on how we reached this spot