Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Taxation = Theft?

I get into an argument about whether or not taxation is theft on a semi-regular basis.

 I believe that when an armed person demands you give them money against your will and makes it clear that they will hurt you or your family if you do not comply, this is theft, it is always theft, I don't even see how this is deniable. However, when I try to explain this to my liberal friends, I get the response that if the person doing the threatening works for the government then it isn't theft because the stolen money will be used to purchase "essential services" (i.e.shit my liberal friends like). I have to always wonder, when did the standard for determining what is and is not theft, become how the money that was stolen is spent? When did the act itself stop being how you determine if it was theft or not?

Not only does this logic seem crazy to me, but I hear it the loudest from people I know are too poor to actually have any serious tax liabilities, so them advocating more taxes to pay for more services they use works out great, they pay nothing and get a lot, this comes across as selfish and evil to me, especially when they are accusing people who pay millions a year in taxes as being “evil” and “greedy”.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Who gets that first TV?

I heard this cool little argument to make for a Marxist on the Peter Schiff show, it was an argument his father Erwin had used. The Marxist says "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Erwin then posed the question, "Suppose the television has just been invented, who gets that first TV?". Obviously in a capitalist society the answer is simple, whoever is willing to pay the most for the TV gets it. However, since nobody really NEEDS a TV and nobody currently has one, everyone has the same need and desire for a TV, how do you decide who gets the first one? In the story the Marxist answered that the government would have to make enough TV's for everyone and then distribute them to all at the same time.

This is one of the most absurd ideas ever. I guess the Marxist would think that producing millions of TV's and placing them into storage until they had made enough for everyone and then distribute them is a good idea, but then what happens if you have 20 million people in your communist society, but can only make 1 million TV's a year, and 5 years after you started making these TV's and storing them to eventually distribute to the population, Color TV was invented (probably by the neighboring capitalist society), then what do you do? Do you continue to make the black and white ones for another 15 years, give everybody a black and white TV and then start the process over with color? Do you throw away the 5 million TV's you have in warehouses and start making enough color TV's to give everyone a color TV, setting back the date when everyone will get a TV another 5 years? Do you change to color but then giver 5 million people black and white TV's and 15 million color TV's and if so doesn't this defeat the idea? Would you even get approval to make TV's for everyone as the usefulness would be suspect on a new invention?