The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: ReasonableVoice on October 22, 2014, 08:07:40 PM

Title: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on October 22, 2014, 08:07:40 PM
Sound Premise = There should be no tax on people ( no individual income tax, etc )
            and regardless of what some courts say, corporations are not people.

So then . . .

Business opportunities in a society belong to "the people" of society.

Tax on corporations is simply the purchase of business opportunity from the people.
( And the tax is to be used FOR the people)

For a corporation to do business without paying for the opportunity would be stealing from the people

Defensive force against a corporation for stealing (not paying tax) would not violate NAP (Non Aggression Principle )



PS: Too many Libertarians/Anarchists see the word "State" and then
           jump off the deep end without even knowing how to swim.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on October 23, 2014, 12:15:17 AM
How are corporations not people?
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on October 25, 2014, 06:44:58 PM

How are corporations not people?

Good question.
And that's sort of like asking "How is a State not people?" :-0)

Does the State have inalienable rights? No.
Why ? The State is a legal fiction.

But to answer more directly . . .
a corporation is a legal fiction, people are not.

A "corporation" is like a "private government".

Corporations are legal fictions because corporations
are created by a "public government (a State)"

And since the State that creates the corporations does not have inalienable rights,
then its offspring(corporations) cannot inherit them.

axiom: You cannot pass on(transfer) that which you never received.



PS:
government is a legal fiction under Common Law
a corporation is a legal fiction under government law
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on October 26, 2014, 03:51:36 PM
When you write in gigantic text, it's like you're screaming for attention. It's kinda like writing in all-caps.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on October 27, 2014, 08:46:22 PM
When you write in gigantic text, it's like you're screaming for attention. It's kinda like writing in all-caps.

Sorry. My vision is not good so I make it bigger to save on eye strain.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on October 27, 2014, 09:04:59 PM
Walmart has reading glasses for like $2.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on October 28, 2014, 08:54:15 PM
Walmart has reading glasses for like $2.

I appreciate the advice, but when one already requires prescription lenses (as I do)
then switching to non-prescription reading glasses only makes larger blurry objects :-0)
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on October 29, 2014, 01:42:36 AM
I still don't agree with your premise that a corporation not paying taxes is stealing and that using force against them is not against the NAP.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on October 29, 2014, 11:44:04 AM
At its core, a corporation is just people working together for common goals. As they exist now, they make deals with government for special benefits and therein lies the problem. In a stateless society, they are just people doing stuff together. They have no more rights than individuals and no fewer.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on October 31, 2014, 01:58:10 PM
I still don't agree with your premise that a corporation not paying taxes is stealing and that using force against them is not against the NAP.

You presented no basis for disagreement. Was that your intent ?
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on October 31, 2014, 02:10:31 PM
At its core, a corporation is just people working together for common goals.

OK, but I disagree.

The core of a corporation is its legal fiction (since that is its essence)
 thereby attaining benefits ( benefits which did not exist before the legal fiction ).



In a stateless society, they are just people doing stuff together. They have no more rights than individuals and no fewer.

OK, but I disagree, since it is the State that creates the corporation(legal fiction),
and in a stateless society there would be no corporations(as in legal fictions).



As they exist now, they make deals with government for special benefits and therein lies the problem.

I don't think deals is the problem . . . unless that is qualified that by saying "improper" deals.

Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on November 01, 2014, 01:09:38 AM
I still don't agree with your premise that a corporation not paying taxes is stealing and that using force against them is not against the NAP.

You presented no basis for disagreement. Was that your intent ?

My basis is your so called starting sound premise doesn't seem sound.  Dale is right a corporation at it's simplest is a group of people voluntarily working together (normally for mutual financial gain).  The legal fiction can (and regularly does) change but the corporation will still be the corporation.

Your statement that corporations not paying taxes is theft and that force used to collect said taxes are somehow defensive sounds like you are FOR IRS SWAT team deployment.  So does that mean refusal to buy mandatory Obamacare insurance qualifies as theft also and armed "defensive" forces should be employed to rectify said theft?

Lastly many if not most here believe in free markets.  We don't see corporations as the big evil that liberals do.  We realize that businesses are the real job creators and that any real economic growth is going to require business to thrive.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 01, 2014, 10:14:17 AM
I still don't agree with your premise that a corporation not paying taxes is stealing and that using force against them is not against the NAP.

You presented no basis for disagreement. Was that your intent ?

My basis is your so called starting sound premise doesn't seem sound. 

Can you expound on that any ( I don't see what is not sound) ?



a corporation at it's simplest is a group of people voluntarily working together (normally for mutual financial gain).

Since you don't need a corporation for a group of people to voluntarily work together (even if for mutual financial gain) the simplest form as you describe would be obsolete (extra layer of paperwork with no benefit ).
Who wants to do paperwork for no benefit ?

No, the simplest form ( in fact,, its very essence ) is a legal fiction.



The legal fiction can (and regularly does) change but the corporation will still be the corporation.

What do you mean by legal fiction changing ?



Your statement that corporations not paying taxes is theft and that force used to collect said taxes are somehow defensive sounds like you are FOR IRS SWAT team deployment. 

So, if I am for use of defensive force when a corporation steals your gold, etc.,
Would that also sound like I am FOR IRS SWAT team deployment ?



Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on November 03, 2014, 12:28:51 PM
It's really just a contract. It's people investing to own a portion of the proceeds that an endeavor produces. I'm not sure what YOU mean by a legal fiction. Maybe you can clarify. But contracts are very libertarian and simply represent clear terms for a voluntary agreement between people. The forming of a corporation might be a bit more complicated, but absent government and the whatever special benefits that governments decide to give corporations, a corporation is just an elaborate contract for collaboration of resources and efforts.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 03, 2014, 01:40:52 PM
RE: It's really just a contract.

Yes, that's it!
It's a contract that creates a legal fiction and access to benefits available to the created legal fiction.
The legal fiction created by the contract with the govenment is the core/central component of the contract.
Without the legal(access to government benefits) fiction, the contract is not a corporation.



RE: contracts are very libertarian

Agreed. ( note: corporations are contracts made with the government )



RE: The forming of a corporation might be a bit more complicated, but absent government and the whatever special benefits that governments decide to give corporations, a corporation is just an elaborate contract for collaboration of resources and efforts.

Absent government (and government benefits) there is NO NEED for a legal(government created) fiction called a corporation.
And there is no requirement that there be any collaboration(internal to the corporation) though corporations MAY collaborate internally(separate policy/contract) IF DESIRED.

NOTE: People can ALSO contract to collaborate resources and efforts WITHOUT a corporation.


Now then . . . the CONTRACT with the government to form the corporation includes not only benefits, but responsibilities . . . including the responsibility to pay the proper taxes to the government. TA DAH . . . NEW FIRE STATION

Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on November 03, 2014, 11:47:09 PM
Buying a fire house is in the contract?  I doubt it.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 04, 2014, 09:47:56 AM
Buying a fire house is in the contract?  I doubt it.


The "fire house" is not part the corporation contract,
but the "payment of taxes" which can fund building a fire house . . .
 IS part of the contract with corporations.
Note: By entering into contract with the legal fiction (called government)
the corporation (legal fiction with government) is bound(contracted responsibility)
by all of the "legal" aspects placed by government upon corporations.


The ability for the government to collect corporation tax money
is part of a separate contract (constitution) and that same contract
also stipulates how part of that money is to be used (general welfare).


On a separate but related topic . . .
The sixteenth amendment (which was never properly ratified),
even if it were properly ratified (enforceable as contract),
only stipulates tax on profit(income)
not the entirety of net receipts(such as wages).
http://agentfortruth.com


Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on November 04, 2014, 10:51:06 AM
As long as you're talking about government-recognized corporations in that specific context in which they do get special benefits from the state via their "legal fiction" status, then I don't really have beef with you about that. I agree that large companies (not necessarily just corporations but them too) get lots of benefits for the taxes they pay. It's actually a smart investment for Walmart to lobby the government to kick people off their private property rather than buy it on an open market on the premise that the government will collect a lot of taxes from them, taxes they're going to pay anyway so they may as well benefit from government force.

That said, the basic idea of people pooling their investments into one endeavor and divvying it up into property shares based on how much they've invested is just a (albeit complex) contract and doesn't justify them being stolen from. If someone did an agorist version of a corporation, that would be very different and I wouldn't wish violence upon them for it.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 04, 2014, 11:23:29 AM
As long as you're talking about government-recognized corporations
Not only government recognized, but created by the taxing government.

Government A cannot tax a corporation created by Government B
unless that corporation(of B) enters into a contract with Government A to allow it.

And I can't think of any other general use of the word "corporation" - - 
- - though you may prove me wrong :-0)

PS: By the same token,
Corporation B may not do business under the jurisdiction of Government A without contract(tax)
as that would be STEALING business opportunity
from the natural people within the jurisdiction of Government A



That said, the basic idea of people pooling their investments into one endeavor and divvying it up into property shares based on how much they've invested is just a (albeit complex) contract and doesn't justify them being stolen from.
I agree 100%

Private individuals should not be subject to a government tax
( unless, of course, they contract to allow it ).

Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on November 04, 2014, 07:03:34 PM
Of course once you eliminate taxes on individuals and keep it for corporations the corporations will no longer stay corporations and form a different collective style.  Plus not all companies and businesses are corporations so many will not be paying taxes under your initial premise anyway.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 04, 2014, 11:17:38 PM
Of course once you eliminate taxes on individuals and keep it for corporations the corporations will no longer stay corporations and form a different collective style.
What are you trying to say ?
Taxes(or no taxes) on individuals has nothing to do with taxes on corporations
or the incentives(government benefits) for corporations to remain corporations.



Plus not all companies and businesses are corporations so many will not be paying taxes under your initial premise anyway.
Plus? 0 + 0 = 0

Not sure what point you wish to make since this observation
does not change the premise or the validity of the premise.
The premise is not based upon any need for all businesses to be corporations(and pay taxes).

As long as there are some business who wish to incorporate, the premise is sound.
And the government can increase the benefits for businesses to incorporate
so there is not really a sound case that there would not be enough corporations
 to fund the building of a fire house :-0)
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on November 05, 2014, 01:18:25 AM
Sounds like only businesses that are incorporated are taxed in your initial "sound" premise.  If that is the case then they disincorporate to no longer pay taxes.  Fire house still not built - with Gubmint stolen money.  Why pay less taxes as a corporation when they can pay none if they disincorporate?

See here is the thing.  The stealing is the Gubmint taking it at gunpoint - not a corporation not paying.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 05, 2014, 08:32:57 AM
Sounds like only businesses that are incorporated are taxed in your initial "sound" premise.  If that is the case then they disincorporate to no longer pay taxes.
Basically correct. ( though with any restrictions on that process defined in the contract if any - ie timeframe, termination fees, etc )
But why would they dissolve the corporation when the benefits outweigh the taxes ?


Fire house still not built - with Gubmint stolen money. 
unsupported claim


Why pay less taxes as a corporation when they can pay none if they disincorporate?
To dissolve the corporation means to relinquish access to benefits including doing business as a corporation.
Even for small LLCs (limited liability corporations) the loss of benefit is almost always greater than the reduction in taxes.
 
Other than bankruptcies, it has been rare to see any business de-incorporate in any nation(state)
so your argument fails by simple historical analysis.

See here is the thing.  The stealing is the Gubmint taking it at gunpoint - not a corporation not paying.
Unsupported claim.

Someone gives you a benefit for which you agree(contract) to pay money in return.
Having received the benefit, you then decide not to pay for that benefit.
HOW is that not to be considered STEALING ?

Do you believe it is okay to break contracts and that there should be no consequence for doing so ?

Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on November 05, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
Your entire is premise based on unsupported claims - and you want you call me out for making assumptions too??

How is saying Gubmint taking money at gunpoint is theft an unsupported claim?  They may claim it is legal theft but it still theft.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 05, 2014, 02:13:08 PM
Your entire is premise based on unsupported claims
No, my premise can be seen in historical fact and example.


How is saying Gubmint taking money at gunpoint is theft an unsupported claim?
You misrepresent the point to which I responded.

First, you don't say whether the government is using defensive force or offensive force.
More information needed -- Did someone STEAL before being held at gun point ?

Second, and more importantly my reference was directed to part of
"The stealing is . . .  not a corporation not paying."
To which I asked --
Someone gives you a benefit for which you agree(contract) to pay money in return.
Having received the benefit, you then decide not to pay for that benefit.
HOW is that not to be considered STEALING ?

Got ANSWER ?


Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: SeanD on November 05, 2014, 11:22:16 PM
I'm done.  You build a premise based on assumptions.  I then make assumptions on how corporations will react.  You dismiss it because it doesn't match your myopic assumptions and desired outcome.  Go find some other sucker to play your what if game.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 06, 2014, 10:26:52 AM
You build a premise based on assumptions.  I then make assumptions on how corporations will react.

Hmm, let's look.
my Premise = There should be no tax on people ( no individual income tax, etc )
            and regardless of what some courts say, corporations are not people.

my assumptions are what ?
#1 people own themselves <-- clearly inherent properties are self evident
#2 corporations are not people <-- clearly non-inherent properties are self evident

your assumption = corporations will stop paying taxes
There is nothing self evident in that assumption as I pointed out it.
Is not self evident that relinquishing benefits that outweigh taxes is something that
a corporation would do (and historical evidence of corporation behavior suggests same).

If  you have evidence (to make up for not being self-evidenced) for your assumption, then please provide it.

Even though my assumptions are self evident, I can still provide you with evidence . . .

#2 corporations are not people
I can show an autopsy of a corporation in which there were no traces of human remains.

#1 people own themselves
If you need evidence that you own your self, then I agree you don't own yourself and I OWN YOU ;-0)
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on November 06, 2014, 10:39:41 AM
I understand Sean's skepticism completely. Right now, the benefits corporations gain for their taxes involve lots of violence. A couple of examples that come to mind are suppressing competition with various regulations and paperwork requirements that are daunting to smaller businesses and eminent domain to steal land and sell it to corporations at rock bottom prices. And maybe you have other benefits in mind that are less rights-violating but that's kind of what governments tend to do--violate rights. My belief is that people are generally looking out for their self interest and governments are unaccountable for their actions so it's a disaster when we give special rights and effectively consolidate power into a small group of people.

Not a hard proof you're wrong. It's just why I think it's kind of a fantasy to think you have figured out a way for people to get "free" stuff through governments.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 06, 2014, 02:57:54 PM
I think it's kind of a fantasy to think you have figured out a way for people to get "free" stuff through governments.

It's not "free" stuff.

It's the natural people "giving up some of their business opportunity"
(using government as the transfer vehicle - "society wide corporation" to effectuate that)
in return for "funding(taxes) for benefit of the people".

The premise on funding without stealing is sound.
It's the implementation(people's actions) that can fail.
And for the super majority of history, people's actions in implementing don't fail.

That said, the failure by people in their civic duty to keep government in proper bounds can happen.

So yes, history shows that near the fall of empires,
(after people have failed in their civic duties )
most corporations(the non-insiders) may no longer benefit,
and further, the people no longer benefit from the arrangement either,
but those times are very thin slices of history.

Arguably, yes, we are nearing one of those thin slices now, so I can understand skepticism too.
But the skepticism is misplaced.
The funding idea is sound (no need for skepticism of the idea)
but yes, the idea only works when civic duty has not failed and
it is NOT misplaced to be skeptical that people are failing in their civic duty
to keep government to its proper role.


PS many people who really do just want "free" stuff . . .
 are often the same ones who fail in their civic duties.


Liberty is not "free".
Liberty comes with responsibility.
Part of that responsibility is civic duties.

Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on November 07, 2014, 08:32:48 AM
So how is the corporation getting a good deal for it's taxes when they're funding services that benefit everyone and not just the corporations who paid for it, like fire stations? That just seems like a basic math failure. That actually raises a question. What exactly is the corporation getting for its taxes in this theoretical situation of a non-corrupt, non-aggressive government? Presumably it's not benefiting from eminent domain or oppressive regulations on its competitors, right?
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 07, 2014, 09:58:33 AM
What are the corporations getting ?

business opportunity and access to other legal benefits
-- for example, limited liability protection, preferred status in bidding on government contracts, etc


What is the math ?

When the profit derived from the business opportunity and legal benefits
exceeds the amount paid in taxes, everyone can clearly see succe$$ by the math.

That said, both business opportunity and legal benefits can be difficult to quantify
       as they can be valued differently (ie fuzzy value) by each person/corporation.
To someone outside of the corporation, this "fuzzy math" may make it look like failure even when it is success.

Also, a corporation may intend to suffer losses short term for longer term gain, etc.
Those who give up in business because their start-up cost put them in the red, don't understand business.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: dalebert on November 07, 2014, 10:57:07 AM
What are the corporations getting ?

business opportunity and access to other legal benefits

Vague

Quote
-- for example, limited liability protection,

So wiggle room to violate people's rights without repercussions? Not comfortable with that.

Quote
preferred status in bidding on government contracts, etc

The only money government has for contracts is what they've collected from corporate taxes. There's no way that's going to come out in the black in general. At best a few corporations could benefit at the cost of most.

Quote
When the profit derived from the business opportunity and legal benefits
exceeds the amount paid in taxes, everyone can clearly see succe$$ by the math.

Well, of course. This is the perfect example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Quote
That said, both business opportunity and legal benefits can be difficult to quantify
       as they can be valued differently (ie fuzzy value) by each person/corporation.
To someone outside of the corporation, this "fuzzy math" may make it look like failure even when it is success.

Still not doing anything to inspire my confidence in this idea.

Quote
Also, a corporation may intend to suffer losses short term for longer term gain, etc.
Those who give up in business because their start-up cost put them in the red, don't understand business.

No argument there. Don't see how it's at all relevant. This entire post is basically a non-answer. You're making corporations pay not just for benefits for them but for benefits for everyone. How is this going to make any economic sense? How are they not better off going with some alternative service in the market that only makes them pay for the benefits they actually receive?

BTW, your explanation for your giant text makes no sense. What you write is for OUR benefit and none of us is claiming any difficulty reading it. You're obviously reading our small text somehow. I still think you should observe some basic netiquette and not use obnoxious attention-whoring text style.
Title: Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Post by: ReasonableVoice on November 07, 2014, 02:25:56 PM
What are the corporations getting ?

business opportunity and access to other legal benefits

Vague
Not vague.  General, to give a reasonable short answer, but not vague.
In fact, I even listed an example to assist understanding those phrase/terms.


-- for example, limited liability protection,

So wiggle room to violate people's rights without repercussions?
What rights ?






preferred status in bidding on government contracts, etc

The only money government has for contracts is what they've collected from corporate taxes.
Erroneous conclusion.
The government can implement/create currency without any taxes.
Of course, that becomes a major problem if the government allows
a PRIVATE corporation to provide a currency instead ( END THE FED ).




When the profit derived from the business opportunity and legal benefits
exceeds the amount paid in taxes, everyone can clearly see succe$$ by the math.

Well, of course. This is the perfect example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.
Begging what question ?

There is nothing fallacious about this response to the comment, "That just seems like a basic math failure."
I simply identified how math does not fail.




Still not doing anything to inspire my confidence in this idea.
I'm not trying to inspire confidence. I am stating a potential way to fund building a fire house . . . without STEALING.
Alternatives do exist. A community of people could make private donations, etc.



You're making corporations pay not just for benefits for them but for benefits for everyone.
Not really.
I don’t mean benefit as in “free benefit”.
I mean benefit as in “receive something that is desired”.

The people offer (business opportunity) and desire (fire house).

The corporations pay (taxes) to the government for (business opportunity).
The government uses (taxes) to  fund (fire house).

The people and corporation have simply traded/bartered
and government was just the vehicle for accomplishing the trade.



basic netiquette ?
aRE YoU tHE NeT PoLIcE ?

obnoxious attention-whoring text style?
You are free to express your fallacious opinion. That’s liberty :-0)