Most Based Comments
Basedness: ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐
You're free to leave the United States. Staying implies consent. (-5)
Basedness: ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐
Listen here, bud! If you don't like giving half of your income to Israel, then you can get out of America any time. (20)
Basedness: ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐
Angriest Comments
Angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก
Angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก
Governments mandate comes from the electorate. Therefore consent has infact been given unless you dont agree with democracy (1)
Angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก
Biggest Lolcow: /u/RandJitsu
Score: ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐
Number of comments: 15
Average angriness: ๐๐๐๐๐
Maximum angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก
Minimum angriness: ๐๐๐๐๐
NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining! 
autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. 
Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If taxation is theft, then isn't rent also theft? Yet libertarians tend to see taxation as theft and rent as not theft. What's the difference though? Assuming that you don't live in an authoritarian shithole, you can avoid paying taxes to the country by giving up citizenship and leaving, just like you can avoid paying rent by moving out.
As far as I can tell, the only difference is that there is basically no place on the planet where the local authorities won't tax you. But if the same was true of rent, and there was literally no place a renter could go and live without paying rent or buying a house, which actually is pretty close to true, then would libertarians change their minds and say that rent is also theft? Like, at what point does "having no options other than to pay money to somebody" go from consensual economic exchange to theft, exactly?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Technically there is no point where this occurs, this idea relies on the idea one party is entitled to the shelter owned by someone else. "Theft" implies something was taken, this is just not providing something that was never held by the other party in the first place.
I think lolberts are r-slurred but this kind of argument seems to be easy to refute using their logic.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
One could argue that by not giving up citizenship and leaving the country, a person consents to eventually pay a bill in exchange for the services that the government provides him with over the course of a given year. Thus when the government demands tax money, it is simply demanding to be paid for services that it has provided, with both parties' consent to the agreement.
I suppose the difficulty is that there is no explicit contract which spells out the services that the government will provide in exchange for the taxes. There really should be one, as long as there isn't one the libertarians do have a point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
does this mean lolberts would be fine with taxes if the tax was purely levied on businesses, who then just only pay you half what they would have before? that way you never got the money then had some of it taken back (stolen), so there's no problem right?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context