>You don't have to agree, it's empirically evident. Try not paying your taxes and guys with guns will come get it. Now, maybe these guys with guns are justified -- but that's strictly your opinion.
Strictly my opinion? Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world. Some people want lower taxes, others disagree with specific tax laws, but statistically speaking, nobody is against taxes in toto. The issue does not even come into play into protests (except from bizarro minorities). People all over the world demand that their government is brought down, that they get better pay, they corrupted officials are punished, and tons of other things -- but "no taxes" is just not on the table.
>By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well.
Which is beside the point. Taxation WITHIN a democracy is voluntary and decided via the democratic process. That a dictatorship can also have taxation doesn't change this. A dictatorship can also maintain an educational system. That doesn't make it non democratic when a democracy maintains one.
>Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape?
For reasons obvious to any who accepts democracy and is not Ayn Rand? Because a dictatorship forces the people to do stuff, whereas in a democracy they get to vote for what they want to be done. That some people don't agree with the result it doesn't matter, as long as the majority of people agrees with the process -- ie. the polling for the aggregate popular opinion as expressed in presidential candidates and party platforms and representatives.
>You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?
Why do you insist in using BS non-sequiturs to make some bizarro point?
Slavery was not voluntary labor because the subjects of slavery weren't part of the democratic process that allowed it to happen. For one, they didn't vote. Even worse, they were victims of abduction and deprived of any citizen rights. They were mere objects to private masters.
In the sense that it's not fact. It's a personal preference which you and many others hold.
> Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world.
And here lies the crux of your argument. That by being a majority you're justified to act in a way you normally wouldn't. Taking x % of someone's income is normally unjust, but if you outnumber the guy -- all is fair. Because a mob approves of theft, you redefine it as taxation. I can go with that, but don't paint me as the bizarro one.
Strictly my opinion? Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world. Some people want lower taxes, others disagree with specific tax laws, but statistically speaking, nobody is against taxes in toto. The issue does not even come into play into protests (except from bizarro minorities). People all over the world demand that their government is brought down, that they get better pay, they corrupted officials are punished, and tons of other things -- but "no taxes" is just not on the table.
>By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well.
Which is beside the point. Taxation WITHIN a democracy is voluntary and decided via the democratic process. That a dictatorship can also have taxation doesn't change this. A dictatorship can also maintain an educational system. That doesn't make it non democratic when a democracy maintains one.
>Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape?
For reasons obvious to any who accepts democracy and is not Ayn Rand? Because a dictatorship forces the people to do stuff, whereas in a democracy they get to vote for what they want to be done. That some people don't agree with the result it doesn't matter, as long as the majority of people agrees with the process -- ie. the polling for the aggregate popular opinion as expressed in presidential candidates and party platforms and representatives.
>You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?
Why do you insist in using BS non-sequiturs to make some bizarro point?
Slavery was not voluntary labor because the subjects of slavery weren't part of the democratic process that allowed it to happen. For one, they didn't vote. Even worse, they were victims of abduction and deprived of any citizen rights. They were mere objects to private masters.
A tax paying citizen is not that.