Theft is the Involuntary Taking of a persons property, Taxation is most certainly theft
The fact that is is approved by government, or legal, does not transform it into something else.
It's the contract you were born under, or chose to accept if you immigrated. If you don't like it, you are allowed (encouraged even!) to get involved and try to change it, or you can shop around for a different location that has better terms, or no terms at all (good luck, you might find a place, but I doubt it would be a desirable place to live).
That's the reality of the situation, rejecting it will only work for so long until it is forcible reasserted. It may not always be the case, but it's the case now.
The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you... Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you...
Maybe one day you will see the light of liberty, but I doubt it
The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face..
I will leave you with a few Links
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index
The Philosophy of Liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ
Have a nice evening
That's what being born as a citizen is. The "contract" in question is not a legal construct, but a societal one. It's the same as your relationship to your parents. You both have obligation to each other, but that can be reassessed if one side does not held up. Being born into a contract is not inherently unfair, it's only unfair if the contract itself is unfair and does not allow for change.
> http://georgeoughttohelp.com/
I just watched the first video. It's laughably one sided, presents starting conditions to prime you for later arguments, and uses visuals that look to be eyes to specifically tailored to prime your response through emotion rather than rational thought. I am not impressed.
> The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you
It's relative, and I am, by nature, a relativist. For example, I do not believe ownership is an inherent right, but a societal construct, and as such when discussing something as large as changing that way in which our society functions at a core level, you can't use ownership as the basis to justify the legality of an action of that society without first justifying ownership. That is, there exist systems where there is no ownership, and they are not inherently bad, or wrong, as much as I do not want to live within them.
As such, I'm forced to state a goal of the system, and which system I think is best at getting there while maximizing efficiency. My goal in this case would be a mixture of the least suffering most most happiness per person, while trying to minimize extreme suffering. I think our current mixture of socialism and capitalism is a decent choice for efficiently achieving this goal. I believe straying too far towards either libertarianism or communism provides unacceptable levels of either suffering or overall unhappiness.
I'm open to this situation changing in the future, due to new systems being developed, old systems being tweaked, or reassessment through new realities enabled by technology. I don't think we're there yet. As such, I think "taxation is theft" is working at a level that completely misses the point. Theft is a construct of society, not a moral certitude, and if it works against society, and humanity, to consider taxation theft, then I don't care whether you think it is or isn't. It's irrelevant. I believe that's the most moral stance I can take, the one that helps the most people living now and in the future. You may believe something different, that's fine. I try to live by my beliefs, I only expect you to try to live by yours.
> WOW, Just wow...
> Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you...
I wish I could say that at least you kept it classy, and didn't resort to pure condescension. But I can't.
And as I mentioned earlier if it's not voluntary there is no enforceable contract between the two parties. Might does not make right. You can pass all the laws you wish to state otherwise but it doesnt change the facts.
If I go drive 50mph through a 30mph residential street while I'm talking on my cell phone with one hand, eating a cheeseburger with the other, and steering with my knees, I'll get charged with speeding and pay a ~$130 fine.
If I go drive 25mph through a 30mph residential street with both hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road but I've had two glasses of wine, I'll be assessed ~$1k in "administrative penalties". If I've had three glasses of wine, it's $10k just to plead guilty and avoid all the lawyer's fees. That's life-ruining money for a lot of people.
Drive through a stop sign? $220. Stop at a stop sign and proceed when safe to do so, but had three glasses of wine? $10k.
Is driving after a few drinks really something like 50x more dangerous than blowing through a stop sign at speed?
I agree that "let the drunks drive around until they hit someone" isn't necessarily the best solution, but you have to admit that the way we're dealing with it is nonsensical.
Now, I agree that the punishment has gotten out of hand. That's likely because it didn't have the impact it was hoped it would have, and so the punishment has been slowly ratcheted up over the decades to try to counteract this. That's an unfortunate side effect, and worth its own conversation as I agree it can literally ruin people's lives, but I think it's a distinct issue from whether drunk driving should be punished at all.
> Is driving after a few drinks really something like 50x more dangerous than blowing through a stop sign at speed?
I'm not sure, but in whatever calculations we make about this, we need to keep in mind a few additional points when considering driving while intoxicated. First, intoxication does not cease when the problem situation starts. That is, a distracted person may notice a pending accident too late to prevent it, but they still have a chance, under full control of their faculties, to try to mitigate the problem. Second, a driver distracted through their own fault may alter that behavior at any point, while an intoxicated person cannot (a person distracted from outside stimuli is not something you can really guard against).
One is impairment by situation (kids, or some other occurrence) which you can't conceivably protect against all instances of prior to driving. That is, it's caused by outside forces. The other is willful disregard for the law and the safety of others by initiating the situation when you know it's against the law.
> Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer.
It's a disincentive because it's seen as both more problematic and disruptive.
> Taxation is theft
No, it's legal. Your soundbite has no place in a serious discussion. Feel free to say it's equitable to theft, or you see it as no different, but we both know it is not actual theft, and all you are doing is avoiding the question, which could have been done just as easily by leaving it out.