Much better! 
What about property taxes?
To clarify – the Govt is morally justified in looking out for it’s Country’s people. This doesn’t mean every action has to benefit each individual, as I said it follows a “lesser of two evils” approach in looking after the populations general welfare. It is basically morally justified in protecting commonly shared interests, such as infra-structure and care of the vulnerable.
To determine what these commonly held interests are, we hold elections where we all have an equal say. This is where the consent comes from.
Traktion- I’m beginning to sense some white flag waving myself now…lol
What about them?
So, is morally justified theft?
You are going round in circles now I’m afraid, asking questions I have already answered.
It’s not equal say if you in the minority. One again, democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting what’s for dinner.
Because you still have not proven that taxes are not theft.
Right. So the 6 take the property of the other 4 without their consent. When they leave the room the 4 get the 6 arrested for theft. Why is this justified when there was general consensus by your agreed definition?
Yes it is…to do otherwise would give each individual member of the minority a louder voice than each individual member of the majority. Rights are for individuals.
Ahhh… the tyranny of the majority argument - that’s why we have safeguards such as Human Rights Conventions.
I clearly have, legally, morally and by definition - meeting all your requirements. I suggest you re-read my posts because I’m not repeating myself anymore.
No legal system in the world would say voting is consent. Voting is for making laws not consent.
Your honor my neighbor needed money for cancer treatment and my other neighbor couldn’t afford rent this month, so my neighborhood held a vote. 7 voted to give money, 2 did not show up to vote, and 1 refused to vote. When asked to pay the neighbor who refused to vote also refused to pay, so we locked him up in my basement until he does. This would also not hold up in court.
Well my fellow SAFE community this American needs to call it a night. Until tomorrow friends stay SAFE.
@Al_Kafir stick to your principles and keep giving everyone a run for their philosophical money. It is always important to protect the weak.
2 Likes
LOL! I am about to go to bed, but I admire your perdistance! 
Ok, some more questions. What is the definition of a country? Does it have feelings, desires or an ability to act on any of them or is it just a geographic space?
What is a government and how do people explicitly give consent? Can withholding or rejecting consent be achieved, given that consent may never have been given in the first place? If not, why not?
If 6 of 10 people vote to have sex with the other 4 without their agreement, is this general consensus mean that the 6 are no longer raping the 4?
The 6 stole from the 4, if the law states theft is punishable then it is correct to arrest the 6.
It isn’t justified by the consensus, it is justified by the law, whatever the consensus says. The consensus among the public might be to cut the balls off paedophiles, but this is where the Human Rights legislation would kick in to prevent it.
I don’t understand why you continue to equate tax with theft, when I have 100% demonstrated, morally, legally and by any “axiomatic” definition that it clearly is not - that is why the scenario you give is not analogous.
Tomorrow…promise…way past my bed time…not waving the flag…lol
You won’t get an argument out of me I agree with what you are saying I just noticed someone renamed the topic and thought it was a poor use of topic renaming ability for a lack of better words. Makes it seems like people on this forum will laugh at you for having a difference of opinion. I don’t know I’m prolly looking to far into it. Just seemed disrespectful in a way to me
1 Like
You can’t have it both ways. Either general consensus is sufficient to redefine what is theft or it isn’t.
I notice that you even called it theft here, despite the position being reached by general consensus (according to you).
You just previously said that 6 of 10 is a general consensus and that they can take from the other 4 without their consent.
You then asserted that a bigger consensus can override this, causing the previous beneficiaries to be considered as thieves.
Now you are saying even a large general consensus is insufficient for redefining definitions, as there is some ethereal Human Rights thing that will step in to prevent it. You have to defined what that is either, but it is no doubt more peoplel/general consensus.
All you have demonstrated is that the definition of theft is ignored by governments. I accept that is true, but it does not change the definition of theft. Renaming the act of theft as taxation and providing vague assertions about why it isn’t theft any more does not change the definition.
-
If you take property from another without their consent, it is theft.
-
Taxation is taking property from another with or without their consent.
-
Therefore taxation is theft when no consent is given.
This is axiomatic, based on the definitions asserted, much like a mathematical equation. Indeed, it is propositional logic.
You need to demonstrate that 1, 2 or 3 is invalid to disprove this.
I can…
Theft has not been re-defined by anyone, no theft occurred.
Theft occurred in the analogy, but the analogy is false in two ways, firstly because tax isn’t theft and secondly because consensus does not make the Law. (for the castrated paedophile reason I gave). The Govt only takes fiat - no private property has been stolen…
General consensus elects the Govt - the Govt enacts Laws - the definition of theft is a legal issue, not a consensus issue.
I have honestly covered all of this and answered every argument throughout the thread. If you read back through, you should have enough information to relieve your incredulity at the fact I can have it both ways.
Edit: If you still don’t grasp my arguments I will try to clarify/precis later…unfortunately I have to work every weekend since beginning Jan to catch up with my finances…due to the taxman recently robbing me…lol
I already (about 100 posts ago….lol) gallantly conceded the theft issue (even though it isn’t), in the interest of moving the argument along to the nub of the matter – all the relevant arguments are moral arguments, not arguments regarding theft/coercion etc. This is why I originally said we would end up going round in circles arguing politics – I could see where you were going and wanted to move things along. I tried to cut to the chase with my moral dilemma analogy.
It’s only because you poked me with a stick and slapped me all round the face with your gauntlet, before tossing it to the floor, that I felt obliged to pick it up.
All you have given me is some vague reasons why you think theft hasn’t occurred. This is despite the fact that people have had their property taken, often without consent, which is the very definition of theft.
You added some stuff about general consensus, but then immediately disproved your own assertion with a counter example. You then went on to say that consensus doesn’t even create laws, disproving further the assertion that general consensus is sufficient to change the definition of theft/rape.
You then added some points about fiat no being the property of individuals, but that of the state (itself being made up of individuals, but we can gloss over that for now). This was to suggest that nothing was stolen, as it was never someone’s property. I asserted that the state demanded fiat even when barter took place - involving no fiat money - to which you asserted the state was entitled to that too, which made the whole ‘fiat isn’t yours’ assertion redundant anyway.
The definition of theft is not a legal one. It is an observable action that someone with no knowledge of the law understands. It is why there is a simple, axiomatic definition in the dictionary.
I challenge you to disprove my 3 above assertions. They are pretty basic statements, with no morality included, so the obvious flaws should be easy to point out, should they exist. I await your counter arguments with baited breath!
lol,can you just simplify what your 3 basic statements/ assertions are please as I’m not sure what you want me to answer