Suppose I have $1,000.
Alice decides she wants some of my money. She asks me for $400. I don't want to give it away, so I refuse. Angry, Alice points a gun at me and demands that I give her the $400--or else. Rather than be shot, I give her the $400.
Alice has taken what was mine by threatening to harm me. This is wrongful, and we usually call it "robbery."
Suppose, I have $1,000. Alice and Bob want my money. They both point guns at me and ask me to give them the $400. Rather than be hurt, I give them the money. Still robbery.
Suppose Alice, Bob, and a gang of other people want my money. They demand I give up my money or else they'll hurt me. Still robbery? Certainly. If it's wrong for one person to rob me, and it's wrong for two people to rob me--a gang of people robbing me is still wrongful. Can you buy that?
Now pretend that Alice and the gang decide that Bob really needs my $400--or at least that Bob needs it more than I do. So, the group declares that Bob should have my money. And they threaten to hurt me if I don't cough up the cash. By agreeing amongst themselves to take my money and proclaiming their reasons for doing so, does this make the robbery less wrongful? Maybe Bob wants some crack, or needs to pay bills, or wants to pave his driveway...
If robbery is wrongful, can a group of people, by mutual agreement, rightfully do something that is otherwise wrongful?
Mull it over, as you prepare your tax returns.
Alice decides she wants some of my money. She asks me for $400. I don't want to give it away, so I refuse. Angry, Alice points a gun at me and demands that I give her the $400--or else. Rather than be shot, I give her the $400.
Alice has taken what was mine by threatening to harm me. This is wrongful, and we usually call it "robbery."
Suppose, I have $1,000. Alice and Bob want my money. They both point guns at me and ask me to give them the $400. Rather than be hurt, I give them the money. Still robbery.
Suppose Alice, Bob, and a gang of other people want my money. They demand I give up my money or else they'll hurt me. Still robbery? Certainly. If it's wrong for one person to rob me, and it's wrong for two people to rob me--a gang of people robbing me is still wrongful. Can you buy that?
Now pretend that Alice and the gang decide that Bob really needs my $400--or at least that Bob needs it more than I do. So, the group declares that Bob should have my money. And they threaten to hurt me if I don't cough up the cash. By agreeing amongst themselves to take my money and proclaiming their reasons for doing so, does this make the robbery less wrongful? Maybe Bob wants some crack, or needs to pay bills, or wants to pave his driveway...
If robbery is wrongful, can a group of people, by mutual agreement, rightfully do something that is otherwise wrongful?
Mull it over, as you prepare your tax returns.
Just think all the "services" we receive for our tax money. Roads, schools, nat'l parks, research etc. How much money should we give to get? Whatever each person thinks is right? My neighbor who didn't pay taxes for 5 yrs(convicted felon now) continued to use the roads, sewers, water systems and so on that others paid for. Where is the line for what is reasonable and what is robbery, oh wise one.
It's funny. After the first paragraph (I don't count your opening statement) I knew how you would end this. It makes me smile. I'll leave you to argue with your mother though.
Yes, Allen, I too knew how this was entry was ending. And I smiled. There is no real arguement here. Sounds like a disgruntled taxpayer (hopefully someday). Without any plan for change. Lip service. Like the rest of the sheep. One could also seek citizenship elsewhere to escape these unfair taxes. And Brandon, I'm not saying it couldn't be better because I think we get very little for our money. But if another taskforce committee is formed to fix it, we lose again. We've been beaten down but it took 200 years.
My original post was a poor rehash of an argument raised in Frederic Bastiat’s 1849 work, The Law. I only even thought of it because I’ve been trying to prepare small business papers—and trying to comply with the tax laws (and the penalties for failing) are simply nightmarish. I mean, completely nuts.
With news of the economy bombarding us everyday, it reemphasizes, in my mind at least, how important good legal structure is in supporting the economy.
FORTUNATELY, for your original question, Bastiat offered the following test (but what I called robbery, he called “legal plunder”):
I go so far as to call it robbery because of the force element: "Pay us money, or we will hurt you." For example, your neighbor went to federal prison--for essentially being stupid--now lumped into the same category as murderers, rapists, and thieves. Sweet, sweet, justice.
You give up far too easily, Madam.
I was awaiting the response to how I've given up so thank you for not letting me down. I am not familiar with your Frederic Bastiat. Was he a lawyer? Or just a Democrat? Who made all these tax laws? Your ancestrical peers? was that a word? Can you, Brandon D Ross, undo all that crap? When you were much younger, but old enough to be aware of politics, you asked me why people in office do things that are bad (meaning not in peoples' best interest) when they promised to help people if they were elected. I remember what I told you. Do you?
Side note: why is your name Brandonon on these posts right next to the date? Is that intentional?
I do remember.
Frederic Bastiat was an economist and legislator in the French government in the mid-1800s. Yeah, he was French. So I guess his name was really Frédéric.
Can I fix "all that crap"? ... Let's find out. But I think this will require help. Will you help?
Side note: On my screen, it displays as "By Brandon on (date)". The comment, that is.