Suppose that you want to move to Hawaii because it’s so beautiful, but you know (because you saw something on the internet) that upon arrival, someone will rob you. If knowing this information, you still move to Hawaii, does this mean that you are consenting to being robbed? Even if when you actually get to Hawaii, you make sure to explain to every potential robber that you really really don’t want to be robbed?
Your argument here is both circular, and committing the noncentral fallacy!
To recap:
In a debate with rohimshah over whether taxation can be consensual (and therefore theft),your argument reads:
Taxation is analogous to robbery
Robbery (even robbery that predictably occurs when I consume a good or service) is not consensual
Therefore, taxation (even taxation that predictably occurs when I consume a good or service) is not consensual
Therefore taxation is theft
I won’t ding your OP for assuming that taxation is nonconsensual, since you were merely responding to Scott’s arguments that had already conceded that point.
However, to argue that all taxes are always nonconsensual is clearly absurd.
Many taxes (especially local ones) are nearly identical to fees that private actors charge under similar terms (e.g. property taxes are equivalent to HOA fees and rents). Not to mention plenty of times when people explicitly consent to taxation!
If you want to strengthen your argument, limit it to: ‘nonconsensual taxation is theft’.
Your argument here is both circular, and committing the noncentral fallacy!
Then you may be interested in Aaron Bergman’s defense of circular arguments (begging the question) and my defense of the non-central fallacy here.
Jokes aside, I didn’t think robbery was essential to my argument there. I could have said “Suppose that you want to move to Hawaii because it’s so beautiful, but you know (because you saw something on the internet) that upon arrival, someone will kill you.” and the structure of my argument would be identical.
My point was that merely taking an action that predictably results in some effect does not imply that you consented to that effect. If I take an action that predictably leads to my enemy capturing me in battle (since I have no better options), that does not mean that I am consenting to enemy capture.
It would be difficult to precisely define consent. However, I think under any common sense definition of consent, something can still be non-consensual even if you knew it would happen to you as a result of taking an action.
If you want to strengthen your argument, limit it to: ‘nonconsensual taxation is theft’.
I agree, although I assumed that was already implicit in what I had said.
Your argument here is both circular, and committing the noncentral fallacy!
To recap:
In a debate with rohimshah over whether taxation can be consensual (and therefore theft),your argument reads:
Taxation is analogous to robbery
Robbery (even robbery that predictably occurs when I consume a good or service) is not consensual
Therefore, taxation (even taxation that predictably occurs when I consume a good or service) is not consensual
Therefore taxation is theft
I won’t ding your OP for assuming that taxation is nonconsensual, since you were merely responding to Scott’s arguments that had already conceded that point.
However, to argue that all taxes are always nonconsensual is clearly absurd.
Many taxes (especially local ones) are nearly identical to fees that private actors charge under similar terms (e.g. property taxes are equivalent to HOA fees and rents). Not to mention plenty of times when people explicitly consent to taxation!
If you want to strengthen your argument, limit it to: ‘nonconsensual taxation is theft’.
Then you may be interested in Aaron Bergman’s defense of circular arguments (begging the question) and my defense of the non-central fallacy here.
Jokes aside, I didn’t think robbery was essential to my argument there. I could have said “Suppose that you want to move to Hawaii because it’s so beautiful, but you know (because you saw something on the internet) that upon arrival, someone will kill you.” and the structure of my argument would be identical.
My point was that merely taking an action that predictably results in some effect does not imply that you consented to that effect. If I take an action that predictably leads to my enemy capturing me in battle (since I have no better options), that does not mean that I am consenting to enemy capture.
It would be difficult to precisely define consent. However, I think under any common sense definition of consent, something can still be non-consensual even if you knew it would happen to you as a result of taking an action.
I agree, although I assumed that was already implicit in what I had said.