It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Taxation is nothing but theft.

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Can you show where your money was taken without your consent?

If you consent to work and earn a paycheck, you consent to taxes.

If you purchase a product, you consent to paying sales taxes.

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always find a cash only and under the table job, and trade your services for goods.


Can I show where I didn't consent? That's like a police officer asking a victim of theft to show that he didn't consent. If someone breaks into my house and steals things the officer wouldn't ask me to show proof that I didn't consent. Theft is theft and it happened. If I'm a farmer growing crops and the government stops by and makes me give them thirty percent of it, that is theft. It isn't a valid argument to say he consented by growing the crops. They are his and they took the crops from him-without his consent. Does this make sense to you?
edit on 31-8-2017 by Aristotelian1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aristotelian1

But all the money that is issued in the system there because of debt. It's all owed to the Fed. anyway. Which makes all the money you have or have made simply a loan from them in the end. Unless you have enough to pay them off, it's all theirs. What you have left over after that would then be yours.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Listen. I'll say it easier just for you. I know your religion makes it hard for you to understand basic things.

When you accept money for a paid legal job, you consent to pay taxes.

There's no if, buts or maybes.

Solution? Don't work, don't buy anything and live in a cave.

Was that easy for you to understand? Or are you just going to pretend like you're right, when you're clearly wrong?



originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aristotelian1




"Your argument to my first premise is this?

1. I have provided an unsourced definition that alleges theft only to be nonlegal seizure of another's money.
2. This contradicts your first premise.
Conclusion: Therefore your first premise is wrong."

You didn't answer the above quote and ignored my objection to my challenge of your second premise rebuttal. Never the less, I'll address your "simplied" statement. I consent to earning a living, I do not consent to have it taken away from me. I consent to work, I do not consent to have it taken away- it really is that simple. That a man chooses to sustain his life and that of his families is not consent to theft. It is consent to remaining alive.
edit on 1-9-2017 by Aristotelian1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

But all the money that is issued in the system there because of debt. It's all owed to the Fed. anyway. Which makes all the money you have or have made simply a loan from them in the end. Unless you have enough to pay them off, it's all theirs. What you have left over after that would then be yours.

Huh? How do I owe the government money?



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around whatever personal, individual wishes are rattling around inside your head. We have roads to build. Fire departments to pay for. Police to pay for. Because these things are essential for the functioning of any large society.

Again, if you don't like living in a democratic republic, move somewhere else.
edit on 1-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Because if you're using dollars, those dollars are simply a loan to the Gov. which issued them out to the banks which then found their way to you.

Our money is based on debt.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?


No, it's not off topic. That is my rebuttal to your argument.

You CONSENT via the democratic process. In your specific case, you consent by not participating.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Because if you're using dollars, those dollars are simply a loan to the Gov. which issued them out to the banks which then found their way to you.

Our money is based on debt.

My government Got itself into debt, therefore I owe it money? That is nonsense.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?


No, it's not off topic. That is my rebuttal to your argument.

You CONSENT via the democratic process. In your specific case, you consent by not participating.

What? So if I voted then I wouldn't be consenting, but since I didn't vote, I am consenting?



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I gotta say, this thread is making me want to steal more of your money. Which I will do by participating in the democratic process.

I'm coming for your cash, Holmes. Go live on an island or cough it up.
edit on 1-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?


No, it's not off topic. That is my rebuttal to your argument.

You CONSENT via the democratic process. In your specific case, you consent by not participating.

What? So if I voted then I wouldn't be consenting, but since I didn't vote, I am consenting?


You consent regardless. That's what it means to live in a democratic republic. Whether you vote or not, you CONSENT to having decisions made via the election of representatives, and if you don't like their decisions, your recourse is to elect others.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?


No, it's not off topic. That is my rebuttal to your argument.

You CONSENT via the democratic process. In your specific case, you consent by not participating.

What? So if I voted then I wouldn't be consenting, but since I didn't vote, I am consenting?


You consent regardless. That's what it means to live in a democratic republic. Whether you vote or not, you CONSENT to having decisions made via the election of representatives, and if you don't like their decisions, your recourse is to elect others.
So I consent to taxation because I was born a US citizen? Thats nonsense. Did the Jews consent to being put in concentration camps? Hitler did win by election you know. Did American Japanese in world war 2 consent to being put in concentration camps? Roosevelt did win by election you know.
edit on 1-9-2017 by Aristotelian1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?


No, it's not off topic. That is my rebuttal to your argument.

You CONSENT via the democratic process. In your specific case, you consent by not participating.

What? So if I voted then I wouldn't be consenting, but since I didn't vote, I am consenting?


You consent regardless. That's what it means to live in a democratic republic. Whether you vote or not, you CONSENT to having decisions made via the election of representatives, and if you don't like their decisions, your recourse is to elect others.
So I consent to taxation because I was born a US citizen? Hats nonsense.

You consent by continuing to live here now that you're old enough to understand how a representative democracy works. Seriously, stop b*tching, grow up, and take more control over your situation.



Did the Jews consent to being put in concentration camps? Hitler did win by election you know. Did American Japanese in world war 2 consent to being put in concentration camps? Roosevelt did win by election you know.


A highly a-typical situation during a time of World War hardly equates to a normal, everyday function of democratic societies such as taxation.

Are you the same guy who made the rape comparison a couple of pages ago?

Get out of here with this nonsense.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.


You seem to think that living in a high-tech modern society with common infrastructure and services should be free. Seriously, if you want to avoid taxation you'll need to move somewhere where the benefits of society are nonexistent. Maybe the bottom of the ocean?



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?



Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.


You live in a democratic republic. If you don't VOTE, other people decide for you. That's what it means to live in a Democracy. Sorry dude, but we can't design our society around your personal wishes.

This is off-topic, good sir. Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?


No, it's not off topic. That is my rebuttal to your argument.

You CONSENT via the democratic process. In your specific case, you consent by not participating.

What? So if I voted then I wouldn't be consenting, but since I didn't vote, I am consenting?


You consent regardless. That's what it means to live in a democratic republic. Whether you vote or not, you CONSENT to having decisions made via the election of representatives, and if you don't like their decisions, your recourse is to elect others.
So I consent to taxation because I was born a US citizen? Hats nonsense.

You consent by continuing to live here now that you're old enough to understand how a representative democracy works. Seriously, stop b*tching, grow up, and take more control over your situation.



Did the Jews consent to being put in concentration camps? Hitler did win by election you know. Did American Japanese in world war 2 consent to being put in concentration camps? Roosevelt did win by election you know.


A highly a-typical situation during a time of World War hardly equates to a normal, everyday function of democratic societies such as taxation.

Are you the same guy who made the rape comparison a couple of pages ago?

Get out of here with this nonsense.


If someone's house keeps getting broken into, do they consent by not moving out of the neighborhood?



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.


You seem to think that living in a high-tech modern society with common infrastructure and services should be free. Seriously, if you want to avoid taxation you'll need to move somewhere where the benefits of society are nonexistent. Maybe the bottom of the ocean?

Free? No. I don't think that.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5
"A highly a-typical situation during a time of World War hardly equates to a normal, everyday function of democratic societies such as taxation." You missed the point entirely. They were persecuted in a democracy, regardless of their vote. They did not consent and voting did not help them. They were the persecuted minority.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join