Let me break this down for you: you do not OWN this country. You use the common resources that belong to all and are available to all. Taxation is the price you pay for using them.
If you don't want to pay them, fine. Leave. Move to Dubai or Monaco where there are no income taxes. What's stopping you?
Has the OP ever read Henry David Thoreau?
Even if taxation is just in theory, if a person doesn't want to fund a government program because they are morally against whatever program is in question, then you still cannot force them to pay taxes. If you do, then you are participating in theft. For the taxes aren't paid voluntarily.
It should be argumentum ad Somaliam.
If it ever gets published, do make sure to contact him. I do not know enough to correct you :P I guess it is the ablative case in Latin?
Nope, accusative singular. First declension.
Aww, I missed out on some Latin?!?! Frustratio!
An example: if a private firm were to build all the roads in one area, and when leaving from your house to go to work, you have to use his roads and pay him money for using them, I'm guessing that's not illegitimate.
If the builder of the roads is not called Road Build Inc. but Republic of Roadia, does that make their charging yout use of their roads illegitimate?
This obviously implies only to stuff called public goods, like roads, or street lighting, or lighthouses, but that, IMO, would mean that taxes that the state takes as charges of services you use are legitimate.
As I said, it applies to menagment of public goods where the state is firm that has a sort of natural monopy, and not to other services such as the police or similar.
Also, another tax is IMO legitimate, and is totally communal in nature. As I said, I don't thing that land is legitimate property. So, you don't have property of land, but by your use you exclude other people for it. Because other people have the right to liberty and thus the freedom of movement to go wherever they want, you have to give other people some sort of compensation so they acknowledge your ius ad rem over land (acknowlegde your exlusive right to be on that land), making land value tax legitimate.
accusative singular.
Isn't accusative for direct objects? Ad Somaliwhatever would translate as "to Somalia", which is an ob ject of the preposition and hence in the ablative.
kylio27:Let me break this down for you: you do not OWN this country. You use the common resources that belong to all and are available to all. Taxation is the price you pay for using them. If you don't want to pay them, fine. Leave. Move to Dubai or Monaco where there are no income taxes. What's stopping you?
If resources belong to all and are available to all (which is the same to me as saying they're unowned, as no one's excluded from them), then why are there different countries?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Wheylous:Isn't accusative for direct objects? Ad Somaliwhatever would translate as "to Somalia", which is an ob ject of the preposition and hence in the ablative.
The meaning of some Latin prepositional phrases changes based on the case the object of the preposition takes. For example, in Somalia translates to "in Somalia", whereas in Somaliam translates to "into Somalia". Typically, the object of the preposition taking the accusative case denotes motion towards the object. So ad Somalia translates to "to Somalia", whereas ad Somaliam translates to "toward Somalia". If the Latin term for the "love it or leave it" fallacy is to be modelled on the argumentum ad hominem ("an argument toward the person"), then it should be argumentum ad Somaliam.
^^^^ Beat me to it!
Wheylous: Isn't accusative for direct objects? Ad Somaliwhatever would translate as "to Somalia", which is an ob ject of the preposition and hence in the ablative.
Not in Latin. The word "ad" requires the accusative case. "Ab" requires the ablative. It's been years since I took Latin, so maybe there are exceptions, but in this case, ad absurdum or ad Somaliam would be correct.
Wow. I'm wrong. I guess it had to happen at some point in my life.
While there are costs for using the services or resources of others (and not considering the lack of voluntary choice in the transactions), kylio27's argument doesn't really negate the free rider concept because even if one does not utilize a service, such as a public road, they are involuntarily coerced to pay for it so that others can use that resource. If I do not have children, why am I taxed to pay for someone else's children to appreciate "free" education? If I have not offended a foreigner in a foreign land, why am I taxed so that the military can aggress against those foreigners? Trolls present logic that is flawed at best, but simply wrong and incapable of standing up to scrutiny. Maybe it's just me, but I just don't feel entitled to the property of others.
They can call themselves the Imperial Principality of Asphalt and the CEO can wear a jewel-crusted crown for all I care... the issue is not the pomp, the issue is that the government itself repudiates ownership of the roads. I've discussed this in another post which I can't seem to find right now. Basically, the government wants the best of both worlds - rents from owned property with non-liability for unowned property. So, the government insists on treating roads and all public lands in this quantum superposition between owned and unowned. The parks are "your public lands", so that's why you have to pay for their upkeep and you can't sue the government if you are injured there. You are the owner, after all! Yet you will be fined for violating any ordinances regarding the use of the park.
Clayton -
Clayton an interesting assessment. So government basically wants to run a business with all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks?
Schools are labour camps.
So government basically wants to run a business with all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks?
Yes, and this is just one symptom of its privilege. Privilege is the legal/moral double-standard which exists between the State and everybody else. It is not merely a double-standard created by force, it is force and legitimacy in the form of fallacious moral and legal arguments that only manage to perpetuate themselves by dint of propaganda that exploits certain weaknesses in human nature.