Ok Jow Forums let's get this settled once and for all.
The way I've always seen it, is by being a citizen of a country and earning an income, you are agreeing to pay taxes at rates agreed by the citizens. And how the money is spent. You can't an income without paying into it, while benefiting from it's military, infrastructure, police, etc. because the citizens have voted to fund with money from all citizens. Even if you believe things could be done differently, that doesn't change the agreement
Anyway, I'd like to get your counter-arguments to this
That being said if you have a homogeneous society where people all pay into it for services received such as police/fire dept. it's fine.
The problem is when you have certain parts of your society always paying in, and other parts receiving extra benefits like welfare. Over time this breeds resentment.
>The way I've always seen it, is by being a citizen of a country and earning an income, you are agreeing to pay taxes at rates agreed by the citizens. I never agreed to that. What's my alternative? >benefiting from it's military The military is a drain on the middle class in both direct expense and human capital.
Oliver Ward
It's an agreement because you're choosing to an income in this country, which leads to my argument in the OP. The only alternatives are to not earn an income or leave to a different country and follow the rules established by their citizens
I also don't like my money going to useless wars, but I have no say how the taxes are spent except by voting and protesting the wars. If I felt strongly enough about it, I would leave but I feel I need the benefits provided by the US government so I stay here and pay what's asked of me
Jack Barnes
Taxes that are levied by legislative ‘representatives’ and not through a direct vote of the people is absolutely theft.
Unfortunately, this has been the way of things since February 3, 1913.
Not fake, just a different jew, Rachel something or other, there's an imgur of here somewhere
Kayden Bailey
> obligatory reading for all ancaps and lolbertarians
I would argue that the freedoms granted by the US Constitution allow for constant power struggle. This constant power struggle fosters innovation and more readily allows a change of power command. Questions:
1. Why is the US dollar the world reserve currency? 2. Why has the US and consequently, NATO been the most powerful military for the last century? 3. Why do the Jews control the US? Lust for power? 4. Why did I load these questions this way. It isn't inherently conducive to allowing the real question. It makes you think about power in relationship to modern geopolitics. The real question is.....
> What is the best way to govern the relationship between change and power while maintaining a functioning society, albeit "moral"?
yes, but in a similar way that self defense is violence. A government will impose itself on you if one isn't created. Maintaining this govt requires taxation. also like self defense, it can be taken too far and abused, however.
