Followup on taxes = theft

[wufwugy]

I don't see the difference in the choice vis a vis the metaphor of the AC units.

When you have ten dollars you don't have the choice to buy something selling for twenty dollars. I think you're thinking in terms of libertarian coercion lingo, which I try to avoid. I'm trying to get at what freedom of choice is defined as. That's what truly matters when evaluating markets.

Whether the cost is prohibitive is based on each individual's current wealth and goals. Perhaps some business acumen is involved, too. If they can turn the 40k investment into a 100k profit, then the price of 40k is a steal, and they'd be willing to travel much farther to obtain it.

So, you're making my point then? You're making a benefit-cost analysis argument that necessitates its role in the ability to choose.

The burgeoning of food production and availability worldwide is almost exclusively due to the invention of the combine harvester (as I understand it). Whatever markets have done to get combine harvester technology available worldwide is where the praise should fall in the food metaphor.

Note that combine harvesters run in excess of $250,000 (a low-ball estimate on a used combine) and are not necessarily sold within 1,000 miles of everyone who could use one.

Markets did >99% of the work here. I think the schools we all went to, where what they teach us about technology is things like "and them Thomas Edison created something", have done us a great disservice. The truth is that all inventions are utterly worthless without economics making their production and distribution cost-effective. We wouldn't even talk about technology or inventions if we didn't have markets that make them real. Nobody would have the choice to buy a light bulb if it wasn't for markets.

When I said "fairness," my use of parenthesis to indicate egregious ethical wrongdoing was important.
I guess I meant justice and not fairness. Does that change your answer?

It doesn't.

I don't know how you can say anything is an "undue" burden without bringing at least one of { fairness, ethics, justice } into it.

Ah. I'm not discussing this within a moral framework, but an economical one. It's really just math. Costs create burdens on people without bringing morals into it.

No. I see active coercion in N. Korea. I see the "threat of duress" on a grand scale.
People are not free to make a choice if making the choice creates immediate peril for themselves or their family.

How is this different than the peril of spending 40k on an AC unit and watching your children starve to death?

This statement is too open to carry weight. Not all governments fall under this banner (I'm not even convinced it's prevalent in American governance).

All governments do fall under this banner. It's the nature of the institution itself. We see this constantly everyday. People complain about it a great deal, even.

I encourage you to attend your local city council meeting. At the very least, write a letter (using paper) to your local representative. I can almost promise you that they will respond to you in person. Those people represent their constituents and when they receive one letter, they give it the weight of many voices. They assume that you represent a strong viewpoint of multiple constituents. I think you'd be surprised at how much change you can affect if you become actively involved.

The irony of this debate is that you're arguing for a system that provides some level of reform and choice while I'm arguing for a system that is far more effective at providing reform and choice. If the way most people view government was an engineering exam, they'd fail. I'm often scratching my head at why it seems many people think it's good to have a good thing but when that thing is made better it becomes bad.

[a500lbgorilla]

On the original topic, I just want to point out that there is no consent with coercion. Without consent, the taking of taxes is theft. That's all there is to it.

So close. Unfortunately theft means something. It implies criminal action. The gov't dictates which actions are criminal and clearly taxing you without your unique and personal consent is not among them. I'm glad we could wrap this up so easily.

It's kin to theft, it's neighbor to theft, it's just like theft, but it's not theft.

Just like the rain can steal a beautiful day from you leaving you wet, high, and dry, your options against taxes are limited and rhetorical twists to bring others to your distaste aren't the way I'd recommend. I'd bet it's cheaper than you think to get the tax laws changed.

[wufwugy]

So close. Unfortunately theft means something. It implies criminal action. The gov't dictates which actions are criminal and clearly taxing you without your unique and personal consent is not among them. I'm glad we could wrap this up so easily.

It's kin to theft, it's neighbor to theft, it's just like theft, but it's not theft.

Just like the rain can steal a beautiful day from you leaving you wet, high, and dry, your options against taxes are limited and rhetorical twists to bring others to your distaste aren't the way I'd recommend. I'd bet it's cheaper than you think to get the tax laws changed.

The rhetorical twist is what you've presented. If everybody agrees that punching a rilla in the face is no longer called a "punch", it doesn't mean punching a rilla in the face isn't punching a rilla in the face. A technicality difference does not make a semantic difference except only in the context of that technicality. When we say "theft", 99.99% of the time we are not talking about the tiny technicality of it you've presented.

Anything can be said about anything if it's filtered enough that you end up with whatever technicality you're looking for.

[a500lbgorilla]

The rhetorical twist is what you've presented. If everybody agrees that punching a rilla in the face is no longer called a "punch", it doesn't mean punching a rilla in the face isn't punching a rilla in the face.

Thank you. The gov't collecting taxes isn't theft, it's the gov't collecting taxes.

[wufwugy]

Thank you. The gov't collecting taxes isn't theft, it's the gov't collecting taxes.

and it's theft. you're pretending like calling the ocean blue is wrong because "blue" is on some technical level distinct from the ocean and possibly because everything the ocean is does not include blue.

[a500lbgorilla]

The gov't collecting taxes isn't theft because:

1) It's the gov't.

[a500lbgorilla]

You can say that you're coerced to pay taxes, because you are. You can say that you have little choice in the matter, because you don't. You can moan and cry and argue til you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the truth of the thing.

The gov't has the power to collect taxes and so it does. It gave itself this power. How can a thing give itself such a power? Because it's the gov't that won the last war that mattered around these parts and them's the spoils.

[wufwugy]

theft includes more than its legal definition.

the line of logic you're using is a get of jail free card.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's a recognizing reality card. This is how it works. The gov't gave itself the right to collect taxes in the Constitution. You can try to work the word theft to match your feelings, but it's pointless before the bigger truth: the gov't collects taxes and you're not going to argue that away.

[wufwugy]

you've added shifting the goalposts to your argument now.

to revert back, you're claiming that an arbitrary legal definition is the philosophical determinant of the meaning of the word. which is, like, super not true.

[a500lbgorilla]

Go back to the last thread where we talked about this. My point has never moved. Theft implies illegality. The gov't writes the laws and clearly those laws say that collecting taxes isn't theft.

There is an implicit threat of violence to collecting taxes, as you could go to jail for tax evasion. And there's an implicit threat of violence to being jailed as you could be killed for trying to evade prison.

You can recognize these things because they're true aspects of collecting taxes. But the gov't gets to threaten you with death in order to collect taxes because that's one of the perks to being a gov't. You can not deny this.

[wufwugy]

Theft implies illegality.

It doesn't always and it implies other things as well. Philosophically, law doesn't even need to play into it.

You're tunneling down quite the rabbit hole. It's where you can say killing somebody is only killing somebody if the law says so. If I were talking about theft with regards to the law in entirety, I would probably call it criminal theft or something. But I'm just talking about theft as the act of stealing. The whole initial point was to show that just because stealing is legal doesn't make it not stealing.

[a500lbgorilla]

Call it criminal theft. Call it coercive collection. Call it the 'ole Uncle Sammy. But recognize that putting different names to the thing is rhetorical. You want to persuade people to feel or believe or act differently about the gov't collecting taxes. I don't care about that nonsense, because it's nonsense. And so I'll call it the gov't collecting taxes.

The gov't exist. The gov't says it can collect taxes from you. The gov't collects taxes from you because it can and there's not much you can do about it. You could try to change the laws. You could try to overthrow the gov't and start fresh. You could try living off the grid. But arguing about whether it's extra-criminal theft is only going to be met with other arguments for why it isn't, and all the while April 15th will come and go like clockwork.

[wufwugy]

I'm not calling it any of those things because I'm not talking about those things. You're the one playing a rhetorical game. It's an appeal to an authority in order to determine the meaning of something.

TIL that the only way something has meaning is through an arbitrary legal definition. Holy cow.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm saying the way something has meaning is through what it is, not what you call it. How can you miss this point so completely?

[a500lbgorilla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

Outside of this one sentence, the entire article treats theft as a legal construction.

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

And it even says "rightful" owner. Now, what does it mean to be the rightful owner of property?

[wufwugy]

I'm saying the way something has meaning is through what it is, not what you call it. How can you miss this point so completely?

Because what I am calling it is the same as what it is. You are the one calling it something else. You're only looking at a subset of the definition of theft and calling it the entirety of the definition of theft. The law doesn't even need to come into play. Once we have a situation that fits the criteria of "taking something without permission and without intention of returning it", we have theft.

The entire point of my original point in the previous thread was to show that taxes fit this definition. It isn't the only definition taxes fit into, but that doesn't negate that they're still theft.

[a500lbgorilla]

Rights gets into morality and legality. So if you're amoral like me, it's pretty much legality or bust.

Truthfully, I go with a more practical idea of rights but it's a rabbit hole not worth getting into like this. All I see is that the gov't can collect taxes in a practical sense because nothing stops them and thanks to a score or more centuries of governing to learn from, 'it' understands how to collect taxes in a way that keeps itself in power - sometimes this includes using those taxes to improve the lives of those they govern, other times it's to use tax money to protect them, police them, be stable for them, etc etc.

[a500lbgorilla]

Because what I am calling it is the same as what it is.

When will you learn this beautiful lesson:

The next Monday, when the fathers were all back at work, we kids were playing in a field. One kid says to me, “See that bird? What kind of bird is that?” I said, “I haven’t the slightest idea what kind of a bird it is.” He says, “It’s a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn’t teach you anything!” But it was the opposite. He had already taught me: “See that bird?” he says. “It’s a Spencer’s warbler.” (I knew he didn’t know the real name.) “Well, in Italian, it’s a Chutto Lapittida. In Portuguese, it’s a Bom da Peida. In Chinese, it’s a Chung-long-tah, and in Japanese, it’s a Katano Tekeda. You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You’ll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts.” (I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.)

My father taught me to notice things. One day, I was playing with an “express wagon,” a little wagon with a railing around it. It had a ball in it, and when I pulled the wagon, I noticed something about the way the ball moved. I went to my father and said, “Say, Pop, I noticed something. When I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back of the wagon. And when I’m pulling it along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the front of the wagon. Why is that?” “That, nobody knows,” he said. “The general principle is that things which are moving tend to keep on moving, and things which are standing still tend to stand still, unless you push them hard. This tendency is called ‘inertia,’ but nobody knows why it’s true.” Now, that’s a deep understanding. He didn’t just give me the name. He went on to say, “If you look from the side, you’ll see that it’s the back of the wagon that you’re pulling against the ball, and the ball stands still. As a matter of fact, from the friction it starts to move forward a little bit in relation to the ground. It doesn’t move back.” I ran back to the little wagon and set the ball up again and pulled the wagon. Looking sideways, I saw that indeed he was right. Relative to the sidewalk, it moved forward a little bit. That’s the way I was educated by my father, with those kinds of examples and discussions: no pressure—just lovely, interesting discussions.




— Richard Feynman (1918–1988)
Theoretical physicist[1][2]

http://www.haveabit.com/feynman/2

[a500lbgorilla]

And even worse, it's not even the right word.

[a500lbgorilla]

"taking something without permission and without intention of returning it"

Even using this scraped out definition of theft, then you start rolling around about whether or not you give permission when your actions prevent the gov't from throwing you in jail or killing you. It doesn't matter how you feel about paying taxes, or what you say about paying taxes, these things are fleeting. It's about what you do when you pay taxes. You permit yourself to avoid a bad outcome by paying those taxes.*

Who cares about where the permission comes from, or the morality of it, or the legality of it? What matters is that you pay taxes for obvious reasons and the gov't collects them for other obvious reasons.

*and just to be clear, I don't even believe this. It's just one example of how you can argue your way to any side in this word-game.

[a500lbgorilla]

And even your scraped out definition implies ownership. How can you own something when someone else can, in reality, take ownership of it and you can not stop them nor punish them nor retaliate against them nor disincentivize them nor...?

[wufwugy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

Outside of this one sentence, the entire article treats theft as a legal construction.



And it even says "rightful" owner. Now, what does it mean to be the rightful owner of property?

I've been wondering when you would get to this, since it's a far better argument against taxes = theft than this other weird one you're doing. It's still an appeal to authority and ignoring the philosophical framework under it. The appeal to authority is in that property can only be defined by a legal authority (or authority of might). This is true within that specific framework but it is not philosophically true about the concept of property in the first place.

There are countless things that are not legally defined as property that when taken without permission without intent to return that we call stealing.

Truthfully, I go with a more practical idea of rights but it's a rabbit hole not worth getting into like this. All I see is that the gov't can collect taxes in a practical sense because nothing stops them and thanks to a score or more centuries of governing to learn from, 'it' understands how to collect taxes in a way that keeps itself in power - sometimes this includes using those taxes to improve the lives of those they govern, other times it's to use tax money to protect them, police them, be stable for them, etc etc.

I'm not much in disagreement. It's just a different topic.

When will you learn this beautiful lesson:

The fact that you think this suggests to me that we're not on the same page. I think the difference is that I'm looking at the concept and you're looking at it in practice.

Um, yeah, in practice, taxation is not theft. But using the practice to define a concept is a logical fallacy. Maybe this is good and why so many people don't call taxes theft. Because definitely, in practice, it is not theft. That's why my initial point was to show that conceptually they are the same.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure how I feel about the differences of "in practice" and "in concept". I'll have to think about them for a while. I think I could argue that even in practice, taxation is theft, but that would probably require the concept of sovereignty of the individual. Which IMO just takes things into convoluted places.

[a500lbgorilla]

I've been wondering when you would get to this, since it's a far better argument against taxes = theft than this other weird one you're doing. It's still an appeal to authority and ignoring the philosophical framework under it. The appeal to authority is in that property can only be defined by a legal authority (or authority of might). This is true within that specific framework but it is not philosophically true about the concept of property in the first place.

I'm avoiding this completely, if you hadn't noticed. I walked through it just once to make sure that argument (or philosophy) is still the same bullshit as ever.

My weird points are my points.

[wufwugy]

I think the point I'm calling weird is coming out of a position of uber practicality.

I mean, I don't really disagree with it then but I think it's two different topics honestly. At least it's two different hard to relate ways of looking at something.

[a500lbgorilla]

The fact that you think this suggests to me that we're not on the same page. I think the difference is that I'm looking at the concept and you're looking at it in practice.

Um, yeah, in practice, taxation is not theft. But using the practice to define a concept is a logical fallacy. Maybe this is good and why so many people don't call taxes theft. Because definitely, in practice, it is not theft. That's why my initial point was to show that conceptually they are the same.

One of the central lessons I took from my reading through the philosophy of science was that the idea of the thing doesn't matter, all the matters is the reality of the thing. "Structure is Purpose" as they say. What is it, how was it formed, what does it do?

The history of science is rich with great logical arguments that fail to be reflected in Nature. And stories of men coming to the wrong consensus.

Add in all the psychology you can read about the limits of human perception and thinking and all its fun quirks, and that leads me to closely observe the practice and not worry about its platonic conception.

[wufwugy]

That's within the framework of observations of the natural world. Absolutely concepts take a backseat to results then. But what we're dealing with is exclusively a concept. I would never make the argument that the concept of theft has rigor in the natural world. The argument I've made involves consistency within the concept that pretty much all of us believe in.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No matter how similar two things with different names are, their differences are worth noting. Often distinguishing those similar things with different names serves a purpose. So, while taxation is similar to theft from a certain perspective, it is still uniquely different from theft for the reasons that rilla noted.

For you to persist that things which are different by definition are not different is kind of silly. I really don't get it. I mean, fine, illustrate your point that the usage of power by gov't is something we can take for granted. However, when you equate the gov't to a mafia, you simply aren't adequately describing either organization. They have similarities and differences. They are not identical.

[wufwugy]

However, when you equate the gov't to a mafia, you simply aren't adequately describing either organization.

Indeed. I have no illusion that I'm fully describing either organization by pointing out the similarity.

My entire purpose on this topic has been to point out that the logic we use to describe theft is the exact same as a significant chunk of what taxation entails. That isn't to say that that's the only thing taxation entails. Discussion of things like the "social contract" are a justification of this theft*, but the fact that it is theft tends to get lost.

*If this seems like a wrong idea, consider why we would even need a concept of a social contract in the first place if we didn't assume people were being taken from.

[JKDS]

I dont think you can refute MMM or Rilla's point regarding theft's definition, and its more than mere technicality.

I challenge you to define ownership and stealing in a way that doesnt also require recognition of a law.

[wufwugy]

I dont think you can refute MMM or Rilla's point regarding theft's definition, and its more than mere technicality.

I challenge you to define ownership and stealing in a way that doesnt also require recognition of a law.

The claim that the concept of theft requires law is an appeal to authority. It's such an appeal that it's a claim that without law, there is no concept.

Does the concept of dating exist only in a legal context? Does the concept of killing exist only in a legal context? Does the concept of talking exist only in a legal context?

There are plenty of ways in which we say "that's stealing" that are not confined to the law. What if Jimmy found a shiny rock on a hike somewhere and he carried it with him for months and he would put it on the table while he ate his lunch at school and one day he got up to go pee and walked back and the rock was gone? What if Jeff had taken that rock and threw it in the woods? You would say Jeff stole the rock, and there isn't a single law on the books that unambiguously says that rock was Jimmy's property.

An appeal to law authority reminds me too much of what I experienced back when I was fundamentalist Christian. Even more, an appeal to law authority washes away the multitudes of examples of cultures with the concept of theft without the same law authority. Are we now saying that the concept of theft was created some thousands of years after the first written language?

Not once have I claimed taxation is criminal theft. It is not a crime according to any law on the books. Yet, conceptually, it has every element of theft that everybody uses for everything else. This is not a discussion about the law, it's a discussion about the logic of our concepts.

[Renton]

I don't understand why established norms of government policy are immune to criticism on moral grounds, while fringe policies such as those in effect in North Korea are not. When slavery was legal in the U.S., would it have been wrong to call it murder when an owner kills his slaves for trying to escape?

What about natural law? Why is the state a prerequisite for the existence of ideals with which to live by? Rilla, you sound a lot to me like one of those Christians who debates Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens and makes the tired argument that morality can't exist without God. Of course it can, and of course crime can exist without the state. The state is very capable of systematically breaking its own laws within its own borders, as is currently clear with the defunct police forces.

[wufwugy]

Ideas like the social contract emerge from the acceptance that it is logically inconsistent to call taxation not theft. The social contract says "this practice that *wink wink* is wrong *wink wink* is justified for this and this reason." It's a legitimate claim even though I disagree with it. But it wouldn't even be popular (or perhaps even exist) without the acceptance of taxation being taking without permission.

[JKDS]

The claim that the concept of theft requires law is an appeal to authority. It's such an appeal that it's a claim that without law, there is no concept.

No, its not an appeal to authority, but yes, there is no such thing without law.

I take it you went this route because you cant fulfill my challenge.

Does the concept of dating exist only in a legal context? Does the concept of killing exist only in a legal context? Does the concept of talking exist only in a legal context?

Completely irrelevant.

There are plenty of ways in which we say "that's stealing" that are not confined to the law. What if Jimmy found a shiny rock on a hike somewhere and he carried it with him for months and he would put it on the table while he ate his lunch at school and one day he got up to go pee and walked back and the rock was gone? What if Jeff had taken that rock and threw it in the woods? You would say Jeff stole the rock, and there isn't a single law on the books that unambiguously says that rock was Jimmy's property.

Taking is not the same as stealing. You can only steal, if you can also own. But you can only own through law.

An appeal to law authority reminds me too much of what I experienced back when I was fundamentalist Christian. Even more, an appeal to law authority washes away the multitudes of examples of cultures with the concept of theft without the same law authority.

Show me one, because I cant think of any.

Are we now saying that the concept of theft was created some thousands of years after the first written language?

I dont follow. The first written language does not predate the first law.

Not once have I claimed taxation is criminal theft. It is not a crime according to any law on the books. Yet, conceptually, it has every element of theft that everybody uses for everything else. This is not a discussion about the law, it's a discussion about the logic of our concepts.

It doesnt though. Just because some college freshman thinks so, doesnt make it so. Theft requires the 'unlawful' taking, and taxation is lawful. But even if it did fit, it wouldnt matter, because laws can only be viewed within the context of other relevant laws. And there is no law more relevant than the constitution, which permits taxation. You could even have a State law expressly defining Taxation as theft, and taxation would still not be theft.

[JKDS]

I don't understand why established norms of government policy are immune to criticism on moral grounds, while fringe policies such as those in effect in North Korea are not. When slavery was legal in the U.S., would it have been wrong to call it murder when an owner kills his slaves for trying to escape?

No one is saying that. In fact, established norms of government policy are challenged all the time and especially so on moral grounds. But this isnt a debate about amending the constitution to remove taxation, this is a debate about whether taxation is theft. Its not.

What about natural law? Why is the state a prerequisite for the existence of ideals with which to live by? Rilla, you sound a lot to me like one of those Christians who debates Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens and makes the tired argument that morality can't exist without God. Of course it can, and of course crime can exist without the state. The state is very capable of systematically breaking its own laws within its own borders, as is currently clear with the defunct police forces.

But, how can theft exist without ownership, and how can ownership exist without the law?

[Renton]

If taxation is not theft, then killing one's slave in 1862 was not murder.

[JKDS]

It wasnt. It was a killing, sure. But it wasnt murder.

I hope that one of the darkest periods of American History hasnt been forgotten, and that it hasnt been reduced to just owning people on a happy farm.

[wufwugy]

No, its not an appeal to authority, but yes, there is no such thing without law.

There is no need to cover anything else. You have chosen to define theft exclusively within its legal framework. Not once have I defined theft in this framework. You would get no argument from me otherwise, and these threads wouldn't even exist if the law was the determinant of this moral concept.

The concept of "yours" existed long before law and exists in many ways outside of law. This discussion is about this concept and others and has nothing to do with law because law is just one application of an aspect of those concepts in the first place.

The concept of property is not exclusively a legal one. Everything you say is true when we assume these concepts exist only in legal framework. There's nothing more we can discuss on this if we're not on the same page.

So I guess I have a question: has this never happened: a guy had something that was reasonably believed to be a thing that he arbitrates over, but then somebody took it without asking and didn't return it? In all the history of all the humans, this has never happened?

Theft exists as a legal concept because of its validity as a moral concept before and without the law in the first place.

[wufwugy]

Colloquially we tend to use murder as a legal term as well as non-legal term, but denotatively it is probably just a legal concept. Renton's point still stands if he said "a killing" instead of "murder". It would also have worked with "a killing that today would be murder", which would allow for the claim that it could still have been murder on some conceptual level. Also the claim that it's murder on a conceptual level could work even if the word is technically a legal one since the term's utility depends on the concept of a type of killing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There is no need to cover anything else. You have chosen to define theft exclusively within its legal framework. Not once have I defined theft in this framework. You would get no argument from me otherwise, and these threads wouldn't even exist if the law was the determinant of this moral concept.

It's not his choice. It's the common usage. It's your broad, conceptualizing of 'taking stuff that isn't yours' as theft that is causing the dissonance in the conversation.

If your point is, "conceptually, taxation is quite similar to theft," then the crowd agrees.

The concept of "yours" existed long before law and exists in many ways outside of law. This discussion is about this concept and others and has nothing to do with law because law is just one application of an aspect of those concepts in the first place.

Reference, please.

The concept of property is not exclusively a legal one.

[citation needed]

Everything you say is true when we assume these concepts exist only in legal framework.

This is a thread about taxation, right?

There's nothing more we can discuss on this if we're not on the same page.

If wufwugy can't define what he's talking about, then he's really tired and not giving it his usual effort.

You are a champion of logic. Start with definitions. Get from A to Z without skipping steps. Make sure everything is properly defined along the way.

So I guess I have a question: has this never happened: a guy had something that was reasonably believed to be a thing that he arbitrates over, but then somebody took it without asking and didn't return it? In all the history of all the humans, this has never happened?

-.-
What do you mean by "reasonably believed to be a thing that he arbitrates over?" Reasonable to whom?
The guy who took it reasonably believed that it was his to arbitrate over, and the former guy was mistaken with his reasoning.

I don't see how this isn't invoking authority, just in a more subtle way. Who gets to decide ownership? How can that decision be maintained against those who disagree?

Theft exists as a legal concept because of its validity as a moral concept before and without the law in the first place.

How can you possibly know what prehistoric civilizations were like? This statement can never be disproved, because it references a time prior to any written record. This is speculation.
...
or at least
...
[citation needed]

[wufwugy]

It's not his choice. It's the common usage. It's your broad, conceptualizing of 'taking stuff that isn't yours' as theft that is causing the dissonance in the conversation.

That IS theft on the conceptual level.

Reference, please.

You need a reference to show you that the concept of "yours" existed before the law? Dude, that fucking concept existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, almost most definitely millions of years ago, and still probably hundreds of millions of years ago in its most basic forms.

[citation needed]

Are you sure about what we're discussing?

What do you mean by "reasonably believed to be a thing that he arbitrates over?" Reasonable to whom?
The guy who took it reasonably believed that it was his to arbitrate over, and the former guy was mistaken with his reasoning.

This, and lots of other stuff like it, is where the concept originates from.

I don't see how this isn't invoking authority, just in a more subtle way. Who gets to decide ownership? How can that decision be maintained against those who disagree?

What I said is distinctly different from the appeal to authority fallacy.

How can you possibly know what prehistoric civilizations were like? This statement can never be disproved, because it references a time prior to any written record. This is speculation.
...
or at least
...
[citation needed]

It's like you think agents have no agency. I mean, nobody in their right minds would claim that people weren't capable of feeling wrongly taken from until the law came along and told them so. Oh wait...

[wufwugy]

On a different note (probably the note Renton was getting at), even if theft exists only as a legal concept, that doesn't validate any law on theft having arbitration over whether or not something is theft on a conceptual level.

For example, let's say tomorrow you wake up and you kill me. The law finds you guilty of murder. Now let's instead say you are Superman and you wake up tomorrow and you kill every law official and tear apart every document establishing law (wouldn't take Superman long to do). And then you kill me, but this time when you kill me it's not murder because you are the law and you say so.

What level of insane would somebody have to be to say that, due to the technicalities imposed by Superman, I wasn't murdered? Everybody would say these technicalities are only distracting from the normative meaning of murder and the implementation of something doesn't change the concept of that thing.

I never thought I'd have the opportunity to argue against law determinism. Stranger things, they say.

[a500lbgorilla]

If taxation is not theft, then killing one's slave in 1862 was not murder.

Now you're getting it!

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't understand why established norms of government policy are immune to criticism on moral grounds, while fringe policies such as those in effect in North Korea are not. When slavery was legal in the U.S., would it have been wrong to call it murder when an owner kills his slaves for trying to escape?

What about natural law? Why is the state a prerequisite for the existence of ideals with which to live by? Rilla, you sound a lot to me like one of those Christians who debates Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens and makes the tired argument that morality can't exist without God. Of course it can, and of course crime can exist without the state. The state is very capable of systematically breaking its own laws within its own borders, as is currently clear with the defunct police forces.

What about natural law?

It's funny that while I try to move as little as possible from a position based in reality, I get "god of the gaps" on my criticisms of economics and "christian moralist" in my view of gov't and how it works.

[a500lbgorilla]

There's a big difference between 'without the State' and 'without God'. There is no such thing as removing the state but all other things stay equal, while it can be said that a universe with and a universe without god are indistinguishable. All of human history remains unchanged if there is or isn't a god, and things can continue just as they have been. But moving forward without a state is a radical departure.

[spoonitnow]

So close. Unfortunately theft means something. It implies criminal action. The gov't dictates which actions are criminal and clearly taxing you without your unique and personal consent is not among them. I'm glad we could wrap this up so easily.

It's kin to theft, it's neighbor to theft, it's just like theft, but it's not theft.

Just like the rain can steal a beautiful day from you leaving you wet, high, and dry, your options against taxes are limited and rhetorical twists to bring others to your distaste aren't the way I'd recommend. I'd bet it's cheaper than you think to get the tax laws changed.

The definition of theft does not imply criminal action. Theft is defined as the act of stealing. Stealing is defined as taking someone else's property without their consent. You cannot have consent with coercion.

This idea that stealing doesn't exist because the government says so isn't something any thinking person can take seriously.

[Renton]

I dunno, I currently live in a country where law enforcement is practically non-existent. People here are well aware that the chance of being punished by the state for any crime is pretty much zero, and yet 99%+ of them manage not to scam, rob, and murder each other. Natural law is a thing, and when someone snatches a purse here, that is theft regardless of what the state says or does about it. You know how I know that? Because of the people always yelling "THIEF!" in Khmer after it happens so someone, most probably not a policeman, will catch the scoundrel as he runs past, then beat him bloody.

If you want to argue that it doesn't constitute theft in a legal sense, fine, but that isn't even what wuf and I are arguing. It's pointing a gun at someone and expropriating them against their will. That's a plain fact. I prefer to bundle those words conveniently into the word theft, but I can use the unpacked version going forward if that's more suitable to you and JKDS.

[spoonitnow]

I dunno, I currently live in a country where law enforcement is practically non-existent. People here are well aware that the chances of being punished by the state for any crime is pretty much zero, and yet 99%+ of them manage not to scam, rob, and murder each other. Natural law is a thing, and when someone snatches a purse here, that is theft regardless of what the state says or does about it. If you want to argue that it doesn't constitute theft in a legal sense, fine, but that isn't even what wuf and I are arguing. It's pointing a gun at someone and expropriating them against their will. That's a plain fact. I prefer to bundle those words conveniently into the word theft, but I can use the unpacked version going forward if that's suitable to you and JKDS.

But what will they do when they have to argue the point instead of semantics?

[Renton]

Honestly, I think calling taxation theft is pretty merciful. Aggravated robbery is more accurate. It isn't like they're jimmying people's windows and taking their shit while the house is empty. A gun is involved here.

The whole point of this isn't to quibble over the definition of taxation, it is to recognize that it should be minimized because its a direct assault on liberty. Everything the state does that is only possible through taxation should be thoroughly scrutinized, regardless of which party you're in favor of. When you take 30% of what someone produces to give to someone else, that is the same as that person being your slave 30% of the time, and that sucks. Partial slavery sucks and should be avoided unless there's a damn urgent reason for it. This shouldn't be a controversial position to take, and yet it is.

[CoccoBill]

Theft is the act of taking something from its rightful owner without their consent. "Rightful owner", same as "taxation", are social constructs. An entity has been delegated the right to take money from everyone and use it for the common good. Consent is given implicitly by staying in the jurisdiction of the delegated entity.

Calling taxation theft is argumentum ad passiones.

[Renton]

Okay, let's stick to "taking people's stuff at the barrel of a gun"and proceed to discuss the merits of doing that, then? If we're not calling it theft, we're either breaking it down into more specifically descriptive components or euphemizing it by using terms like 'social contract."

[JKDS]

The definition of theft does not imply criminal action. Theft is defined as the act of stealing. Stealing is defined as taking someone else's property without their consent. You cannot have consent with coercion.
.

Neat definition. There are a few reasons why this definition doesnt work on a conceptual level, but thats not relevant. The reason this definition doesnt work for this particular discussion is because it includes the phrase "someone else's property".

Who decides ownership? How do people know when they own something, and when someone is stealing it? Without a universal rule governing this kind of thing, all you have is a bunch of seagulls going "Mine, mine, mine". Once you have that rule, you have a law.

-----

Heres the rub. Taxation is a legal construct. Theft is a legal construct. But in any jurisdiction where both exist, they can never be the same thing. In every single instance where they both exist, taxation does not fit into theft's definition.

[JKDS]

I dunno, I currently live in a country where law enforcement is practically non-existent. People here are well aware that the chance of being punished by the state for any crime is pretty much zero, and yet 99%+ of them manage not to scam, rob, and murder each other. Natural law is a thing, and when someone snatches a purse here, that is theft regardless of what the state says or does about it. You know how I know that? Because of the people always yelling "THIEF!" in Khmer after it happens so someone, most probably not a policeman, will catch the scoundrel as he runs past, then beat him bloody.

If you want to argue that it doesn't constitute theft in a legal sense, fine, but that isn't even what wuf and I are arguing. It's pointing a gun at someone and expropriating them against their will. That's a plain fact. I prefer to bundle those words conveniently into the word theft, but I can use the unpacked version going forward if that's more suitable to you and JKDS.

Cool, but your country has property laws. You are taking for granted that a big bad government entity has decided that holding title means you own the thing and can decide what happens to it.

Consider this: Hunter Jim is tracking a fox. Hes been tailing the creature for a few days, wounded it, and is on the verge of capture. Suddenly, Hunter Bob deals a finishing blow and grabs the fox. Jim yells "Theif", and grabs it. Bob then also yells "theif" and a tug of war ensues. Who owns the fox?

I can easily believe I own the atmosphere and claim everyone is stealing from me by breathing. But thats only because I have unilaterally decided that I both own the atmosphere, and that other people's actions are theft. No one cares though, because they dont recognize my ownership, nor my definition of theft. And thats the issue. Property rights only exist if others recognize the right to own; and the only way we have ever had that is with property law.

Theft is the act of taking something from its rightful owner without their consent. "Rightful owner", same as "taxation", are social constructs. .

I quoted this because its the 3rd or 4th definition someone has created for theft. Because the definitions are different, there are takings that could be theft in one definition, but not another. Whose subjective definition of theft controls?

Okay, let's stick to "taking people's stuff at the barrel of a gun"and proceed to discuss the merits of doing that, then? If we're not calling it theft, we're either breaking it down into more specifically descriptive components or euphemizing it by using terms like 'social contract."

This definition still requires universal recognition that its a person's stuff.

[wufwugy]

I agree that taxation is a legal construct (with moral attributes), but I think theft is a moral construct first (with legal attributes).

I'll say taxation is a legal construct before a moral one because I don't know of any iterations where it is considered good to take from others and redistribute that didn't come about in response to the law existing in the first place. By contrast, the concept of wrongful taking from others exists without law even though the law is a useful tool to designate norms regarding wrongful taking.

[JKDS]

Honestly, I think calling taxation theft is pretty merciful. Aggravated robbery is more accurate. It isn't like they're jimmying people's windows and taking their shit while the house is empty. A gun is involved here.

The exact same entity that has laws providing you title to property, is the exact same entity that permits taxation. Whats really going on is that the government granted you title to things, subject to taxation. You are taking for granted the world as you know it, and forgetting that it only exists because of government. Im not arguing that it couldnt exist without government, im saying that it exists now directly because of government.

Your house sits on government land, was purchased under government enforced contracts, was created using materials that the government said someone could own, was constructed under employment law created by the government, and then you lived in it subject to a million different property laws. The government said you could do all these things, could have your house with windows and everything. But it also said it could tax you.

Could the house exist without all this government stuff? Maybe. Coulda woulda shoulda though, it currently exists because of this stuff. So the government isnt "breaking into your house at gun point", its merely enforcing a law that came before all those other ones.

The whole point of this isn't to quibble over the definition of taxation, it is to recognize that it should be minimized because its a direct assault on liberty. Everything the state does that is only possible through taxation should be thoroughly scrutinized, regardless of which party you're in favor of. When you take 30% of what someone produces to give to someone else, that is the same as that person being your slave 30% of the time, and that sucks. Partial slavery sucks and should be avoided unless there's a damn urgent reason for it. This shouldn't be a controversial position to take, and yet it is.

A libertarian would say that every governmental law is a direct assault on liberty. Regardless, I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that taxes should be scrutinized, and should only be as much as necessary. Thats not the argument in this thread though.

[wufwugy]

It can be said the things we take for granted exist despite government. The correlation we find for increasing living standards isn't with government but with the embrace of the idea of limited government.

[JKDS]

By contrast, the concept of wrongful taking from others exists without law even though the law is a useful tool to designate norms regarding wrongful taking.

No one can argue that there wasnt somebody somewhere who said "hey, that taking was wrong". But no one cares about the subjective feelings of some guy.

The idea of wrongful taking that matters is the objective one; but that only exists because of legally recognized property rights, and legally recognized theft. Sure, cavemen fought over property; but if its just one caveman with a club going "mine"...that isnt establishing property rights or theft. Its just taking by threat of force. However, if that caveman civilization had some rule that was recognized throughout the group regarding property, then you have a property law.

You keep saying that theft existed long before law, but I find that extremely hard to believe and have yet to see any evidence of it.

[wufwugy]

No one can argue that there wasnt somebody somewhere who said "hey, that taking was wrong". But no one cares about the subjective feelings of some guy.

The idea of wrongful taking that matters is the objective one; but that only exists because of legally recognized property rights, and legally recognized theft.

By here you're getting into different territory. You're talking more about logistics and how society works. I have pretty much no disagreement. But my original point (I can't find the older posts again for some reason) was always about the logic that we personally use to describe theft and how if we apply that logic to taxation it raises red flags. It's why I used the examples of powerful thugs systematically taking TVs and redistributing microwaves or whatever. The response people tend to have to this is it's theft if it wasn't for the social contract. We only discussed this briefly.

Anyways I'm not talking about how society works, I'm talking about how people think. It's likely that in your framework I wouldn't disagree with what you say, but I also think it's a different topic. It's cool to discuss different topics, but the point needs to be made that I don't see it as a rebuttal the point I'm trying to make.

[a500lbgorilla]

The definition of theft does not imply criminal action. Theft is defined as the act of stealing. Stealing is defined as taking someone else's property without their consent. You cannot have consent with coercion.

This idea that stealing doesn't exist because the government says so isn't something any thinking person can take seriously.

Just keep reading my responses and you'll catch up.

[a500lbgorilla]

Natural law is a thing

What is natural law?

I read around about it today and it seems incredibly diverse with some points I would take contention to depending on how you interpret it.

I would say that there are certain things that resemble natural law. Instincts and behaviors on which evolution has done the math and imbued in us to make us better social creatures who benefit from each other*. But I believe that these 'natural laws' are limited in scope and power and not some eternal, omnipotent, pure set of laws carried by nature from which our laws are derived or anything like that.

edit: not even this is right, it's done the math on the gene's level. Sometimes that makes us better social creatures who benefit from each other. Sometimes that makes us willing to sacrifice our own lives for strangers. Other times, it may make us very selfish and destructive.

[a500lbgorilla]

I dunno, I currently live in a country where law enforcement is practically non-existent. People here are well aware that the chance of being punished by the state for any crime is pretty much zero, and yet 99%+ of them manage not to scam, rob, and murder each other. Natural law is a thing, and when someone snatches a purse here, that is theft regardless of what the state says or does about it. You know how I know that? Because of the people always yelling "THIEF!" in Khmer after it happens so someone, most probably not a policeman, will catch the scoundrel as he runs past, then beat him bloody.

If you want to argue that it doesn't constitute theft in a legal sense, fine, but that isn't even what wuf and I are arguing. It's pointing a gun at someone and expropriating them against their will. That's a plain fact. I prefer to bundle those words conveniently into the word theft, but I can use the unpacked version going forward if that's more suitable to you and JKDS.

Alright, let me try to make my point by observing the following:

Natural law influences people to yell at thieves when they steal. Yet natural law does not influence people to yell thief when they pay taxes. Why's that?

edit or: Natural law is demonstrated in how people respond to the idea of someone being robbed at gun point but yet they don't respond the same way to how gov'ts collect taxes. Why's that?

[wufwugy]

An entity has been delegated the right to take money from everyone and use it for the common good. Consent is given implicitly by staying in the jurisdiction of the delegated entity.

I just don't think anybody would make this argument for anything that isn't government. Extract the government from the equation and suddenly everybody would be saying how wrong it is to say "an entity has been delegated to take from some for the common good" or "consent is given implicitly by inaction".

I mean, you can put that logic onto just about anything and find that nobody uses it. Where are the people who say that a person can give sexual consent just by being in a certain place? Where are the people who say that smart and/or hardworking people have to take worse jobs for the common good of less smart or less hardworking people to have better jobs?

[a500lbgorilla]

I just don't think anybody would make this argument for anything that isn't government. Extract the government from the equation and suddenly everybody would be saying how wrong it is to say "an entity has been delegated to take from some for the common good" or "consent is given implicitly by inaction".

But if you put the gov't back into the equation, they don't say it's wrong.

Seems to me that just like we learned to outsmart laws of nature all the time, some have also managed to outsmart natural law.

[a500lbgorilla]

PS I've got to believe at some point everyone in this thread has said something along the lines of "good/evil doesn't matter, what matters is..." So I find it odd that we're tossing around right/wrong as if they're not similarly flimsy.

[wufwugy]

But if you put the gov't back into the equation, they don't say it's wrong.

Then my work is successful. Just as long as people see that they're making arbitrary exceptions for government that they don't for anything else. We can move from there to deconstruction of why this exception is made (the so-called social contract).

Seems to me that just like we learned to outsmart laws of nature all the time, some have also managed to outsmart natural law.

I don't know what you mean and I don't know anything about the concept of natural law. You could describe me as a utilitarian. I've come to my libertarian views, not through libertarian theories, but through economic market utility stuff.

[a500lbgorilla]

Then my work is successful. Just as long as people see that they're making arbitrary exceptions for government that they don't for anything else. We can move from there to deconstruction of why this exception is made (the so-called social contract).

It's not arbitrary if it works. And you shouldn't walk away from something that works by mistaking it for arbitrary.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The whole point of this isn't to quibble over the definition of taxation, it is to recognize that it should be minimized because its a direct assault on liberty. Everything the state does that is only possible through taxation should be thoroughly scrutinized, regardless of which party you're in favor of. When you take 30% of what someone produces to give to someone else, that is the same as that person being your slave 30% of the time, and that sucks. Partial slavery sucks and should be avoided unless there's a damn urgent reason for it. This shouldn't be a controversial position to take, and yet it is.

This is all good with me except the underlined bit. The title of the thread proposes a definition for taxation, equating it to theft. Quibbling over the definitions is kinda the point.

***
It may or may not be true that all cultures create a concept of ownership before they create a codified law. It is by no means certain or proven.

Anthropologically, when humans are gathered into tribal groups of ~150 or less, the concept of personal ownership is often hurtful to the survival of the tribe. It is only past a certain threshold of population that personal ownership begins to manifest. Any concept of ownership below that number exists only in the sense that it is "our stuff" and not "another tribe's stuff."
Historically, when humans were largely gathered into tribes of this size, with little interaction between tribes, it is entirely conceivable that the tribe would split before the concept of personal property arose.
I think it's entirely plausible for a tribe to have a rich, structured social contract in place before they grow large enough to see a benefit from personal property.

Outsiders may or may not respect that contract, in which the matter of ownership is not clear. It is unclear because opposing social orders are interacting with no overriding social order to arbitrate.

***
The exception for the gov't vis a vis taxation = theft is by no means arbitrary. It is by the gov't that either word has any meaning. It is by the gov't that the underlying concept of personal property has any meaning.

The notion that no other entity is treated this way is absolutely true. I wasn't born anywhere else. I didn't decide where my parents raised me. It was their choice for me as a child. Now that I'm an adult, it is my choice to stay or go. It is within the social contract that I will be raised to be a citizen here, but there is no gunpoint preventing me from leaving. I pay taxes here because my parents chose to pay taxes here. Up to a point. At some point, I am an adult, capable of making my own decisions.

[JKDS]

By here you're getting into different territory. You're talking more about logistics and how society works. I have pretty much no disagreement. But my original point (I can't find the older posts again for some reason) was always about the logic that we personally use to describe theft and how if we apply that logic to taxation it raises red flags. It's why I used the examples of powerful thugs systematically taking TVs and redistributing microwaves or whatever. The response people tend to have to this is it's theft if it wasn't for the social contract. We only discussed this briefly.

Anyways I'm not talking about how society works, I'm talking about how people think. It's likely that in your framework I wouldn't disagree with what you say, but I also think it's a different topic. It's cool to discuss different topics, but the point needs to be made that I don't see it as a rebuttal the point I'm trying to make.

It ONLY raises red flags if you use your own subjective interpretation of theft, and not the one that actually exists. In every single jurisdiction where Taxation and Theft exist, Theft is not Taxation. You can create a fantasy world by extracting government from the equation if you want, but you dont get to cherry pick the parts of government that you removed. If you did away with government, you did away with both taxes and property rights.

Libertarians use this "theft" analogy because its cheap. It a word that inspires outrage, and creates hostile feelings in people. It is no different than comparing everything to slavery (which has also occurred in this thread) or comparing everything to nazi germany. And this kinda shit works against a lot of people, because a lot of people are stupid. But taxation isnt theft. Theft doesnt even exist without government, and all laws regarding theft are subservient to tax laws.

I ask again to prove otherwise, but you cant. It is impossible to have theft without universally accepted property rights, and such rights would be a law. Call it oppressive government law, minimal government law, natural law, or whatever, its still a law. Without society's acceptance that someone owns something, there is no societal acceptance that something was stolen.

[JKDS]

***
It may or may not be true that all cultures create a concept of ownership before they create a codified law. It is by no means certain or proven.

I like your use of "codified" there, because laws have existed in uncodified form for far longer than codified ones. (One example, the English Common Law. Another example, monarchies prior to widespread literacy).

[wufwugy]

I am uninterested in getting into this aspect since I don't much disagree. My purpose has always been an appeal to personal logic, not societal constructs. But I'll make a few points.

It ONLY raises red flags if you use your own subjective interpretation of theft, and not the one that actually exists.

By "actually exists" you're referring to one endorsed by the law. I'm referring to the interpretations of theft that we all subjectively hold for all aspects of our lives except for the one exception of government. It isn't by the law that anybody feels "this is mine and it would be wrong if somebody took it". My agenda is to show why we use that sentiment for virtually all things yet we abandon it with regards to government.

In every single jurisdiction where Taxation and Theft exist, Theft is not Taxation.

To be clear, I am not denying this. I am not making a legal argument. I'm making a moral and conceptual one. I don't see the relevance of the law to this.

You can create a fantasy world by extracting government from the equation if you want, but you dont get to cherry pick the parts of government that you removed. If you did away with government, you did away with both taxes and property rights.

You'd probably technically do away with property rights but not the concept of property. I'm appealing to the concept and the logic typically used to describe theft and justify taxation.

Libertarians use this "theft" analogy because its cheap. It a word that inspires outrage, and creates hostile feelings in people.

I disagree. I used to believe this back when I wasn't a libertarian.

I think we care about the logic of it. In practice, all sorts of end runs can be made around taxation to say it isn't theft, but if the logic is fully deconstructed it turns into a situation where theft actions are justified for social contract purposes.

Theft doesnt even exist without government, and all laws regarding theft are subservient to tax laws.

Do you see why this isn't a compelling argument to me? I don't disagree with you if we're using exclusively a law framework. But I'm not talking about legal theft but the philosophical concept.

I ask again to prove otherwise, but you cant.

I have no idea what you're asking me to prove. This is conceptual, philosophical, logical stuff. I wouldn't know where to start to prove anything.

It is impossible to have theft without universally accepted property rights, and such rights would be a law. Call it oppressive government law, minimal government law, natural law, or whatever, its still a law. Without society's acceptance that someone owns something, there is no societal acceptance that something was stolen.

Cool. I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about the logic each individual uses to justify taxation. The type of point I hope to convey is that if we were to imagine some entity other than our own government engaging in taxation, we would be super not okay with it and call it all sorts of things like theft and extortion. As mentioned before, the appeal to a social contract is an acknowledgement that taxation is an immoral thing akin to theft and extortion but is okay in the scope of the social contract common good ideal.



BTW I wanna say you're bringing the goods. I like it. I hope this discussion can stay as cordial and substantive as it has been.

[wufwugy]

It's not arbitrary if it works. And you shouldn't walk away from something that works by mistaking it for arbitrary.

The only way in which I disagree with this is that it begs the question. How do we know it works? We don't. All we know is that there is some correlation along the way.

Besides, it is a different topic. Which is okay, just to be clear it isn't a rebuttal to the claim that taxation = theft.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is conceptual, philosophical, logical stuff. I wouldn't know where to start to prove anything.

How can anything can be considered logic which isn't based on axioms leading to conclusions through a highly ordered set of truth-preserving rules?

Without proofs, the field of logic is merely a dictionary.

Which is okay, just to be clear it isn't a rebuttal to the claim that taxation = theft.

You've rebutted your own claim. At least, you've convinced me why we don't agree on the finer points.

You are talking about a concept, and as such, not anything directly linked to the real world. Any conceptual similarities two things may have is subjective and an intellectual curiosity at most. Let the curiosity drive you to seek observable, measurable evidence of your suspicion. This may lead to innovation... or not... you never know if you don't check.

To equate taxes and theft beyond conceptually is simply a false statement in the context of the empirical world. It falls apart at your definitions, which presume your conceptualization is ubiquitous among humans. Which means it really falls apart at the equals sign which means that the two sides are exactly identical.

[wufwugy]

How can anything can be considered logic which isn't based on axioms leading to conclusions through a highly ordered set of truth-preserving rules?

Without proofs, the field of logic is merely a dictionary.

Fine. Reason, rationale, then. Everywhere everyday people use "logic" to mean that. I never implied axioms.

You've rebutted your own claim. At least, you've convinced me why we don't agree on the finer points.

You are talking about a concept, and as such, not anything directly linked to the real world. Any conceptual similarities two things may have is subjective and an intellectual curiosity at most. Let the curiosity drive you to seek observable, measurable evidence of your suspicion. This may lead to innovation... or not... you never know if you don't check.

I have no idea what you're getting at. As for "links to the real world", the links are to the rationale people use in the real world. It's like if we talk about the concept of love, we're talking about all sorts of things in the real world regardless of what the law says.

To equate taxes and theft beyond conceptually is simply a false statement in the context of the empirical world. It falls apart at your definitions, which presume your conceptualization is ubiquitous among humans. Which means it really falls apart at the equals sign which means that the two sides are exactly identical.

I've learned that sometimes I have to shy away from colloquialisms. It's not a mathematical equation and I never meant it to be. I meant it like saying "a bird is an animal"; whereas saying "a bird = an animal" is wrong when viewed as an equation.

[wufwugy]

Question: what's the endgame for the position that theft exists only as a legal concept? Wouldn't that mean some pretty unconscionable things? It's more than just might is right, it's might is moral. It would mean that our beliefs, any of them, are not valid without the law. It would mean that we are agents of the law instead of what I suspect most philosophers would claim in that the law is meant as an agent of the people. This sounds like a sci-fi dystopia to me.