[ahomescu1]

> Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

I'm not arguing that "taxes are theft". I'm arguing that giving money to poor people so they don't attack me is theft. buzaga was saying that if I/we don't "take care of the unfortunate", they'll decide to take our money/stuff by force. Sounds like a veiled threat to "give them money, or else..." That is theft, in my opinion.

I'm perfectly fine with taxes as long as they go to things that benefit everyone equally, including me (like roads, schools, police and courthouses).

EDIT: Also, please point out where I said (or implied) that "taxes are theft". You completely misread what I wrote, therefore I have to agree that we can't have a productive argument.

[rjtavares]

We are proposing a public funded program. That program is funded by taxes. This is what you said:

> why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that stealing is acceptable if you're desperate enough? I say it's never acceptable.

The implications are obvious. Taxes don't have different natures depending on the use we as society give to the money we collect. In fact, the very economic definition of taxes is that you aren't promised anything specific in return[1].

Regarding the tyranny of the majority argument, that would only apply if we were proposing a ridulous amount of taxation. We are not. It's been pointed out that this program could be funded by replacing it with current expenses, and by a minimal raise in taxes. That's not oppression, that'a a choice that we as society are well within our rights to make.

In short: spending taxpayers money can't be theft, and taxes aren't a service you pay if you like how the money is spent.

[1] > From the view of economists, a tax is a non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax)

[buzaga41]

+misery = +violence -misery = -violence +people participating in the economy = +business, +salaries better society = better society for everyone

You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.

Misery breeds violence, there's no "or else", there's no "they", it's reality, I could resort to violence to survive and so could you.

[ahomescu1]

By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.

[buzaga41]

You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.

[ahomescu1]

What box is that? I can't contradict or agree with you unless you're actually making an argument.

[buzaga41]

The discussion, and the topic, talks about a change that isn't so radical but that could improve things in society as a whole. But you're still talking in 'me' vs 'they' terms, and 'the criminals' and 'threats', mocking 'the unfortunate'...

This is not a conversation for the 'what about me?' mindset. The whole of this discussion(also to the other replies) you're only talking about yourself, I don't want to talk baseless opinions, the stuff I'm talking about is conceptual so you need to understand the concepts that precede the topic and don't seem to be there yet. I've made my argument at the first reply then tried expanding on it but you missed it

[ahomescu1]

Society is made of many individuals, you can't disconnect a discussion about society from one about individuals, including "me". If you make high-level society-wide decisions that trample on individuals' rights, that also has society-wide implications (even if it's just a minority of individuals). What you're proposing is a tyranny of the majority, where the opinion of a single individual is discounted "for the greater good".

On the other hand, I believe society is just a big group of individuals, so "what about me?" does matter (in fact, it's maybe the most important question in all of society).