Welfare almost never "makes people lazy"

[jordanriver]

So if you want to make the claim that Andrew Carnegie was not born poor but born into wealth, find the history to back it up.

oh good grief.

I am agreeing that Carnegie was not born into a family of privilege and wealth.

In USA that is irrelevant, which everybody else does not seem to realize.

[jordanriver]

question for my fellow Christians.

Are talents God given,

or did you have to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps

(dont forget, pride goeth before a fall)

[Catholicity]

oh good grief.

I am agreeing that Carnegie was not born into a family of privilege and wealth.

In USA that is irrelevant, which everybody else does not seem to realize.

BTW Carnegie was born in Scotland, not the US. And choices make a difference. Not everyone of the gilded age turned into an Andrew Carnegie or a John D. Rockefeller. There were merely a handful of the elite which is why Carnegie was "self-made" and spent his money teaching others how to be self-made. He also and unusually for a man of the wealth he created advocated for better labor standards. You should know the claims you make. You can be born in the US with an equal oppurtunity, technically, but its generally a matter of the right choice right time/right place for most else.

[Joel]

Though it perhaps does shed some light on how some people might be thinking along the lines of: I must help everyone, but I don't have the resources to help everyone, so it must be okay for me to steal resources from others to fulfill my moral duty.

If it is a moral imperitive to help those that you see to be suffering, then it is immoral to make excuses for not doing what you are able to in order to help alleviate that suffering. When you pay your taxes for this purpose your resources aren't being stolen any more so than they are being stolen in order to pay for the rebuilding of the countries infrastructure.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about me being stolen from. I'm talking about stealing from millions of our neighbors. If we take it from any one of them without their individual consent, that's stealing. Doing the same through the government doesn't magically make it not stealing.

And you didn't address your assumption #1. A moral imperative to help those that you can does not imply that it's morally okay to force others to do so. A moral imperative to give what is mine does not imply that it's okay for me to give that which is another's.

Efficient large-scale voluntary charities exist. Consider also that even the state consists only of individuals interacting. "The government" is not a magic thing that gives those individuals super powers. If it is possible to "pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all," then it is possible to do so apart from the state.

Anything can be said to be possible, but is it plausible? No it isn't.

If it's plausible for the state to do it, then it is plausible to do it apart from the state. As I said, there's nothing magic about the state.

Nor can it even be assumed that doing it through the state is the best or even a good way to do it. I don't think anyone has been able to prove that state welfare always reduces rather than increases the problem of poverty, let alone prove that there does not exist more-effective ways to decrease poverty.

We are not talking solely about poverty, people who recieve welfare are still impoverished. Conservatives have been fed this nonsense about welfare recipients living the good life on the public dole. Its nonsense. Their lives still suck, but they're alive, and their kids can eat and go to school. If you have a better, more effective way than government aid for dealing with the problems of the poor, then lets hear it.

You missed the point. If nobody has shown that state welfare will reduce rather than increase poverty/death/etc, then there is no logical need to present an alternative. E.g. if X makes things even worse, then refraining from X is better, regardless whether there is any other action that would make things better. And forcing upon everyone something that might make things worse is pretty questionable.

I'm not saying that people should do nothing. I'm just saying that suggesting alternative action is not logically required here.

Another claim you make regards the essence of government: "Thats what government is all about, we pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all." Because that can be done via any number of voluntary organizations, it seems clear that that is not the defining characteristic of government. (And if it really makes better the lives of all involved, then it can be done voluntarily--people would gladly contribute, if for no other reason than to better their own life.) Rather, the distinguishing thing is that the voluntary organization is the voluntary means, while the government is the coercive means. The essence of government involves the use of force. (And historically that generally meant force used against overt encroachment on person or property.)

Yes I know, there are many fortunate and selfish people out there who having theirs do not wish to be coerced by the government into paying taxes so that the less fortunate can survive, but you know we are coerced into paying our taxes for many different social purposes, and I just think the actual lives of human beings, the poor, should be the number one priority on that list. And btw, it is not only altruism, if you ignore the suffering of others, it will come back to haunt you. Take a look at the world around you!

This isn't a response to what I wrote. I didn't say anything about not wanting to help people and alleviate suffering. And you've said nothing here to support your claim regarding the essence of government.

[JimL]

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about me being stolen from. I'm talking about stealing from millions of our neighbors. If we take it from any one of them without their individual consent, that's stealing. Doing the same through the government doesn't magically make it not stealing.

And you didn't address your assumption #1. A moral imperative to help those that you can does not imply that it's morally okay to force others to do so. A moral imperative to give what is mine does not imply that it's okay for me to give that which is another's.


If it's plausible for the state to do it, then it is plausible to do it apart from the state. As I said, there's nothing magic about the state.


You missed the point. If nobody has shown that state welfare will reduce rather than increase poverty/death/etc, then there is no logical need to present an alternative. E.g. if X makes things even worse, then refraining from X is better, regardless whether there is any other action that would make things better. And forcing upon everyone something that might make things worse is pretty questionable.

I'm not saying that people should do nothing. I'm just saying that suggesting alternative action is not logically required here.


This isn't a response to what I wrote. I didn't say anything about not wanting to help people and alleviate suffering. And you've said nothing here to support your claim regarding the essence of government.

Is the government stealing your money or the money of others who do not want to pay taxes for national defense purposes? For police dept's? fire dept's? etc etc.. No? Then why do you call it stealing when it comes to only those things that you don't personally care about, like the lives of your fellow citizens?

[Carrikature]

Your argument here is that Sparko (and all others people, presumably) has the moral imperative to help not just all the people Sparko is capable of helping, but to help everyone in the world who is in need. That seems like a dubious premise. Though it perhaps does shed some light on how some people might be thinking along the lines of: I must help everyone, but I don't have the resources to help everyone, so it must be okay for me to steal resources from others to fulfill my moral duty.

It's a pretty inherent part of Christianity. I don't know why it's such a dubious premise.

But then you seem to assume that it is impossible for everyone in need to be helped by citizens acting individually. That seems obviously false. Surely it is logically possible that if enough individuals help all the people they reasonably can, that everyone in need gets helped.

But assuming for the sake of argument that people must act together in a coordinated way, then you add yet another assumption: that that is impossible apart from government coercion. This assumption too seems obviously false. Surely it is logically possible for people to voluntarily work together in a coordinated way. Efficient large-scale voluntary charities exist. Consider also that even the state consists only of individuals interacting. "The government" is not a magic thing that gives those individuals super powers. If it is possible to "pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all," then it is possible to do so apart from the state.

Nor can it even be assumed that doing it through the state is the best or even a good way to do it. I don't think anyone has been able to prove that state welfare always reduces rather than increases the problem of poverty, let alone prove that there does not exist more-effective ways to decrease poverty.

Another claim you make regards the essence of government: "Thats what government is all about, we pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all." Because that can be done via any number of voluntary organizations, it seems clear that that is not the defining characteristic of government. (And if it really makes better the lives of all involved, then it can be done voluntarily--people would gladly contribute, if for no other reason than to better their own life.) Rather, the distinguishing thing is that the voluntary organization is the voluntary means, while the government is the coercive means. The essence of government involves the use of force. (And historically that generally meant force used against overt encroachment on person or property.)

So that's at least 5 dubious premises in your argument there.

I'm curious why you inserted 'impossible' into all of these things. I don't see anyone claiming that it's impossible, only that it doesn't actually happen or that current efforts are insufficient (mostly the latter).

[Carrikature]

Is the government stealing your money or the money of others who do not want to pay taxes for national defense purposes? For police dept's? fire dept's? etc etc.. No? Then why do you call it stealing when it comes to only those things that you don't personally care about, like the lives of your fellow citizens?

Under a certain view, any taxes you pay which are spent on items you do not approve of can be considered stealing. Frankly, one could say that all taxes are stealing but that we raise a bigger fuss about certain uses.

But drop the "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. They're useless as an argument and only make yourself look bad. A lot of Christians, including posters on this forum, do care about the lives of their fellow citizens. They volunteer and donate or whatever else. They just don't want to be forced to do so, which is what effectively is happening.

[Joel]

Your argument here is that Sparko (and all others people, presumably) has the moral imperative to help not just all the people Sparko is capable of helping, but to help everyone in the world who is in need. That seems like a dubious premise. Though it perhaps does shed some light on how some people might be thinking along the lines of: I must help everyone, but I don't have the resources to help everyone, so it must be okay for me to steal resources from others to fulfill my moral duty.

It's a pretty inherent part of Christianity. I don't know why it's such a dubious premise.

It's a pretty inherent part of Christianity that each Christian has the moral imperative to help out more people than they are capable of helping? What makes you think that?

I'm curious why you inserted 'impossible' into all of these things. I don't see anyone claiming that it's impossible, only that it doesn't actually happen or that current efforts are insufficient (mostly the latter).

JimL's line of argument was that Sparko has the moral imperative to help all the needy in the country (why not the world?), and that the only possible way for Sparko to do so is to vote for the state to take resources from other people to give to the needy. And this was in response to Sparko saying he thinks there are better ways to give than through the state. JimL's conclusion was that Sparko must support a state solution, or else Sparko doesn't truly care about the needy, again implying that that is the only possible option.

If the problem is that current voluntary efforts are insufficient, but could be sufficient, then one could praise existing efforts and exhort people to give more, and more people to give, without arguing that the state is the only option.

Is the government stealing your money or the money of others who do not want to pay taxes for national defense purposes? For police dept's? fire dept's? etc etc..

Yes. I can't morally justify stealing from my neighbors to pay for security either. Doing it through a state doesn't magically make it moral. There are consensual ways to fund such things.
The only reason I'm focusing on state welfare, is because that's the topic of this thread.

They just don't want to be forced to do so, which is what effectively is happening.

More importantly, it's that I don't want others to be forced to do so, and I can't morally justify voting to force others to do so.

[lilpixieofterror]

who owns the natural resources in third world countries.

Depends on the country. Some are owned/controlled by companies, some by warlords, some by nobody, and some are not developed at all. You're again taking a black/white position and ignoring the gray areas that exist in between.

quit assigning motives to me.
Where have I judged anyone as "evil"

You're black/white thinking seems to indicate that.

My position is that all humans are evil (none that doeth good no not one, etc)

What are you defining as 'evil'?

I am not about blaming rich "evil fat cats", I believe they are just doing what comes naturally to them. The same way lions eat gazelles, one cannot blame a lion for eating.

Problem is, that is a black/white position to take that isn't reality. People are not animals nor always act like that JR. In reality, some rich have been rather giving and others haven't (just like some poor are rather giving and others are not).

And I know about Carnegie's philanthropy, because I spent a lot of time in the Carnegie Library in a town called Coffeyville Kansas when we moved from Texas in the 1960s.

And he built hundreds of those things, all over the world.

But I disagree with you that Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege.

Have you read his biography?

I think you are still using the old aristocracy European model there.

I am using the unique AMERICAN model. It has nothing to do with parentage. It has to do with individual abilities.

In the old world model, individual abilities didn't have as much to do with your outcome as it does in the set up here in USA, which involves capitalist COMPETITION (i.e., winners and losers)

And in USA type competition, even if one is born of parents of wealth, one can lose (squander through negligence or circumstance when someone with more ability comes along) their inheritance.

And with ability , here in the competitive climate of USA, a person born with nothing, not even parents, can rise to the top, no restrictions, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ABILITY.

And that refutes what I said because...

I think poverty serves as a catalyst to the few people who are born with administrative abilities.

Actually, most humans have lived (and in fact still do) live in poverty. Poverty seems to be the default human condition while wealth is not. If anything, the real question is why some are not poor and others are. Besides, not all rich people have great admin abilities (Walt Disney wasn't a very good admin, Roy Disney was more of the admin while Walt was the creative brains behind it).

oops my bad. I wasn't clear enough when I said "The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources"

In context I included how the bosses brought in scabs to force the workers to accept lower wages. The violence was not "revolting against people" , as in a revolt againt the owners or government, ...in context I was referring to the violence against scabs who were there to take away their jobs. And it did succeed.

And if you're going to react violently, why should you be surprised when others do the same back?

there you go again, SHEESH, will you stop it... stop assigning to me motives.
My official position NOBODY OWES me , (unless I worked for them or did something for them and there as an agreed upon trade)

The rich do not owe me.

So why do you take a communist position?

forget that.

It is some other situation.

The other situation is, humans need resources, for themselves and their families.

There are resources in the USA for example , and if you are starving Mexican FOR EXAMPLE , or you are watching your children starve, it does not matter that somebody else "owns" those resources, you got to somehow take them. Or die.

Mexico is far from the poorest nation on earth there JR. Starvation is rather uncommon in Mexico because Mexico isn't a third world nation.

I don't know OR CARE if the rich WINNERS owe anybody or exploited anybody.

So why are you going on about this?

All I am saying is , the losers can either starve, or band together and (by ballot hopefully) take.

I don't know of anybody, in the US, that is 'starving'.

Did it hinder our founding fathers that King George III "owned" the colonies.

And this has what to do with anything?

Did it hinder European-American pioneers that the land of American already had inhabitants?

Now those new winners may have found it necessary to demonize the British and the American indigenous populations to justify taking , but I am trying not to.

Maybe thats how its done, maybe it doesn't work unless a challenger (for food/resources) demonizes the ones who control the resources, but I am not.

A pragmatic pioneer could have said, look, here's the deal, the locals own the hunting around here, and they are good decent family types feeding their families, but we need deer too or we starve. Its them or us, and I vote for us, sorry.

....so maybe with other people you debate, its about good vs evil. But I am trying not to be concerned with those 'higher' philosophies. When its humans vs humans, according to my faith its evil vs evil, in a evil climate.

And if you're a sheep that does not have the abilities of a wolf, then you better try to get some type of cooperation going with the rest of the sheep.

Can you please go without ranting please? Thanks!

like I said, the person in America who is born "rich" is someone who just happens to be born with the marketable talent , not something inherited. Perhaps God-given. But not more evil. I dont know if I would be any different if I was born with a talent for skills that "pay more money" in America that the skills that i was born with.

Or it's both.

[JimL]

Under a certain view, any taxes you pay which are spent on items you do not approve of can be considered stealing. Frankly, one could say that all taxes are stealing but that we raise a bigger fuss about certain uses.

Well yes, one could say that, but in my opinion they would be wrong. Taxes are what we as citizens pay for services. We may not individually agree with each and every service that our taxes go to, but we all use some of those services and since we want them and use them, it is not theft. We also vote for taxes, which is why Libertarians who rale against taxes rarely get elected, and if they did get elected, guess what, we would still be taxed, and taxed sometimes for some things we might not personally agree with.

But drop the "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. They're useless as an argument and only make yourself look bad. A lot of Christians, including posters on this forum, do care about the lives of their fellow citizens. They volunteer and donate or whatever else. They just don't want to be forced to do so, which is what effectively is happening.

Yep, you are no doubt correct, everyone in my family is christian, excluding myself of course, and they are all very nice and caring people, but not wanting a government that forces you to pay taxes to help those in need, and voting against a government that uses your taxes to help for those in need, are two different things. If you vote against a government that taxes you in order to help the needy, then you may be being forced, but you can't at the same time say that you care.

[Cow Poke]

Yep, you are no doubt correct, everyone in my family is christian, excluding myself of course, and they are all very nice and caring people, but not wanting a government that forces you to pay taxes to help those in need, and voting against a government that uses your taxes to help for those in need, are two different things. If you vote against a government that taxes you in order to help the needy, then you may be being forced, but you can't at the same time say that you care.

How, exactly, does one "vote against a government"?

[JimL]

Yes. I can't morally justify stealing from my neighbors to pay for security either. Doing it through a state doesn't magically make it moral. There are consensual ways to fund such things.
The only reason I'm focusing on state welfare, is because that's the topic of this thread.

There are consensual ways? Sure, I guess if everyone consents. What if only two thirds of the people consent?

[Joel]

Well yes, one could say that, but in my opinion they would be wrong. Taxes are what we as citizens pay for services.

Paying for services is either consensual (You pay for something yourself, or someone voluntarily pays for you, or a group of people voluntarily get together to pay for something together), or non-consensual (Some person(s) forces other person(s) to pay.)
Taxation is non-consensual. So saying it's a way to pay doesn't answer the moral question about how the non-consensual method can be morally okay.

We may not individually agree with each and every service that our taxes go to, but we all use some of those services and since we want them and use them, it is not theft.

The various services can be considered separately. Just because someone voluntarily chooses to buy product X from a store, doesn't make it moral for the store owner to force the person to buy any other of the store's products. To do so would be a form of theft.

Neither does the fact that someone uses any particular service imply consent. Suppose a movie theater forced someone to buy a movie ticket (stole someone's money, but gave them a move ticket). That's theft. If the victim then goes ahead and uses the ticket and watches the movie, that doesn't retroactively make it not-theft. That's just the victim making the best of a bad situation in which the victim has no other recourse. It may be that the victim likes the movie and wants to see it, all else being equal, but the victim didn't consent, so it's still theft. (e.g. Maybe the victim would like to see the movie, but not at the price demanded.) Thus wanting and using the services one has been forced to pay for does not make it not-theft.

We also vote for taxes.

Voting doesn't convert something immoral into moral. If six neighbors agree together to steal from five other neighbors (letting the minority 5 have a 'vote', of course!), that's still theft. Voting is nothing but a majority conspiring to use force against a minority. It does nothing to determine whether the particular use of force in question is just or unjust.

Also, if voters are voting for candidates rather than for a particular statute, then voting is no evidence of consent at all, even for those who voted for the winning candidate, because any one (or all) of them may be voting as an act of self-defense, or voting for what they see as the lesser evil.


I have searched long and wide for an explanation for why taxation is not theft. I've asked lots of people. I have not yet encountered a sound explanation. If anybody has the explanation, please let me know.

There are consensual ways? Sure, I guess if everyone consents. What if only two thirds of the people consent?

What if only two thirds of the people consent to fund it? Well, if the funds they consent to pay are sufficient to provide the service, then that still is a consensual way to fund it.

It used to be the case that things like hospitals and schools were often funded by an endowment of some one or small number of donors who established it (before states got in the way). Most firefighters even today are volunteers. So it's possible even in the case where only a tiny number of people consent to give.

It has also happened that people voluntarily group themselves into organizations to voluntarily provide services within their groups. Voluntary mutual aid societies were common (again, before states got in the way).

It's also possible to provide such services in a free market. Consider fire protection. Home insurance policies would pay for firefighting services (cheaper than paying the whole cost of a completely destroyed building). In which case competing fire departments would compete to be the first to put out fires. That's how it used to work, from what I've heard.

[jordanriver]

Depends on the country. Some are owned/controlled by companies, some by warlords, some by nobody, and some are not developed at all. You're again taking a black/white position and ignoring the gray areas that exist in between.
.

OKTHEN,
who owns the natural resources in third world countries that have natural resources

..not the masses of people, right?

In the context of that exchange, I believe we were both referring to the fact that in third world countries the masses of their 'have-nots' do not have any opportunity to advance, whereas a born-winner in the USA does have the opportunity to rise even if not born into wealth or royalty.

(remember, my position is American success does not depend on your parents or ancestors, but on whatever talents you were BORN WITH , even though your other family members may not have those traits

....and leave out the exceptions to the rule, like "luck" or "lottery winners" or whatever, I know there are always exceptions to the rule so therefore exceptions to the rule really have no place in serious explanation of why some people find themselves in the 'have-not' groups or in the exclusive 'haves' group.

to me, "born rich" depends if I am referring to USA or to aristocracy based countries, (American born rich does not refer to any wealth or money the parents/family has,
...American style born rich to me refers to those who have been born with the brains or assigned talent (like healers, musicians/entertainers, money-manipulative-abilities, administrative) ...and i dont know if its genetic or where it came from, I just know they "got it" and some dont "got it"

....every time I run into someone who is a k-12 teacher, i always ask them, "say, for my own curiosity, can teachers tell by the time a kid is getting toward the end of their high school years, what they should pursue for a career, ....IOW, could that kid's teachers in a group, evaluate what the kid should do upon exiting H.S.?"

So far, they've all said "YES"

(granted I've only asked a little more than a dozen, so its anecdotal on my part, ...but still...

You're black/white thinking seems to indicate that.

how so?
here is what I said in this context, that you think indicates a black/white "rich cats are evil"?

But the workers learned to unionize instead of competing against each other (they knew they could not win one-on-one face to face with winners like Carnegie for example)

The workers found that they could COLLECTIVELY stand up to the gilded age bosses.

So the gilded age bosses had to go outside their labor force and bring in scabs to compete against them.

.

I was just putting a little bit of history into context... that does not mean Carnegie FOR EXAMPLE LIKE I NOTED was evil, (i am trying to withhold judgement here, thats for the Maker to decide, I am about the here-and-now, not the hereafter in this discussion)

What are you defining as 'evil'?

in context that was my bible-speak, explaining me, and I agree all humans are evil, based on the "none that doeth good no not one" that I have come to notice from living 6 decades is true so far.

so i cant judge the gilded age bosses any more than i can judge me, they were 'haves' just trying to keep what they took, from the 'have-nots' who need what the 'haves' have.

so quit trying to caricature me as a black/white thinker , I am the one trying to avoid the good vs evil narrative.

to me this is just people trying to have material. ....both sides....

....at the end of the day, a man's gotta eat (please no "Bob's leg" jokes)

Problem is, that is a black/white position to take that isn't reality. People are not animals nor always act like that JR. In reality, some rich have been rather giving and others haven't (just like some poor are rather giving and others are not).

again with the black/white caricature.

some of my best friends are rich (money and brains)

and most of the "poor" people i know, I don't like , although there are some people i know who are poor (as in always broke) who I do like, they work 2-3 jobs and just can't seem to make it.

just cut it out with this black/white crap

And he built hundreds of those things, all over the world.
Have you read his biography?

elementary school library over half a centure ago, along with dozens of other biographies 4th and 5th graders read , when reading about heroes, (i was a loner , did not play well with others , probably still dont it looks like)

And that refutes what I said because...

are you projecting?

look, everybody else is not in constant combat-mode contrarianism.

I am not always about refuting what somebody says, occasionally I drop my position when I see a more personally advantageous one. (i lack loyalty, even for things i think i invented)

SO, I was not refuting what you are for, I was just showing you what I am for. (some people want window seat, some prefer aisle, some smoking, some non-smoking, some Coke, some Pepsi, and some like me, Coke if its on sale, and lacking loyalty, Pepsi when its on sale)

i get it that everybody else is not like me, maybe even nobody else

And if you're going to react violently, why should you be surprised when others do the same back?

? ? ?

where did that come from.

Surprised?? huh what

I was citing known labor history , and as far as I know those guys were geared up for a struggle, no surprise,

...well, maybe a little surprised when the militia got sicced on them after they kicked the Pinkertons' butts (Homestead affair)

So why do you take a communist position?

I am not sure what the name is for what I think is best for the loser-sheeps

If communism requires the use of the tool we call "money" , then I am not one of them.

I am for direct democracy actually. Let the people decide what kind of culture they want to live in and let the chips fall where they may. I shouldnt be the one who decides for the rest of USA.

ALSO, am curious what kind of people is this. Do Americans want equal space and food and clothes and thingies for everybody, or do they prefer to give up the idea of a no-class system for the great designer jeans that only competitive Capitalism seems to produce.

Mexico is far from the poorest nation on earth there JR. Starvation is rather uncommon in Mexico because Mexico isn't a third world nation.

okok whatever, how about i leave it blank and you fill in correct 3rd world country name.

however relevant that is.

The point is, are you one of those winners who says the losers should be satisfied because at least they arent as bad off as (________) are .

if thats the case, why vote ?

arent you satisfied, you should be grateful you dont live in a third world country,

...a rapist could say, shut up and quit crying, you should be thanking me because im not going to murder you too. remember, no matter how bad it seems theres always somebody worse off, so shut up.


thats why I pointed out that this is called 'Fallacy of relative privation' ,, appealing to worse situations.

So why are you going on about this?

practice, to improve my argument. Finding the faults in the case, this is good testing ground.

why are you resisting? practicing too?

I don't know of anybody, in the US, that is 'starving'.

i know people without any food, but true, they didnt starve , they just had to swallow their pride first before they could swallow the charity delivered to their home.

some people just have to depend on the kindness of strangers.

some people have more skills and brains and can say, "As God is my witness, I shall never go hungry again" and they rise from their position.

Can you please go without ranting please? Thanks!

okwhatever

[JimL]

Paying for services is either consensual (You pay for something yourself, or someone voluntarily pays for you, or a group of people voluntarily get together to pay for something together), or non-consensual (Some person(s) forces other person(s) to pay.)
Taxation is non-consensual. So saying it's a way to pay doesn't answer the moral question about how the non-consensual method can be morally okay.

So you want to live in a society where only you count. Being required to pay taxes is moral because that is the only way to hold a society together. We vote our interests, sometimes we are on the winning side and our taxes go only to where we want them to go, sometimes we lose and they go to things we don't necessarily want. You didn't consent to live in this world either, a world with other people in it, but that is the way it is and the only just and moral way to live together in this world is democratically. We vote. If you belong to a club of some sort, you do the same, if you don't like it, no longer wish to be a member, you can quit the club, but you can't quit society, its a fact of life.

The various services can be considered separately. Just because someone voluntarily chooses to buy product X from a store, doesn't make it moral for the store owner to force the person to buy any other of the store's products. To do so would be a form of theft.

But your not being forced to buy anything in particular, you are just being forced to pay your taxes which goes into a big pot and funds all the services the government supplies. Just think of your particular contribution as going to only those things you support.

Neither does the fact that someone uses any particular service imply consent. Suppose a movie theater forced someone to buy a movie ticket (stole someone's money, but gave them a move ticket). That's theft. If the victim then goes ahead and uses the ticket and watches the movie, that doesn't retroactively make it not-theft. That's just the victim making the best of a bad situation in which the victim has no other recourse. It may be that the victim likes the movie and wants to see it, all else being equal, but the victim didn't consent, so it's still theft. (e.g. Maybe the victim would like to see the movie, but not at the price demanded.) Thus wanting and using the services one has been forced to pay for does not make it not-theft.

But the government isn't forcing you to use any of the particular services it funds with all of our tax dollars, use only those services that you want and think of your particular contribution as paying only for those things.

Voting doesn't convert something immoral into moral. If six neighbors agree together to steal from five other neighbors (letting the minority 5 have a 'vote', of course!), that's still theft. Voting is nothing but a majority conspiring to use force against a minority. It does nothing to determine whether the particular use of force in question is just or unjust.

But it isn't immoral, and it isn't stealing, it is the dues you are required to pay for being a member of society. We live in the world together, like it or not.

Also, if voters are voting for candidates rather than for a particular statute, then voting is no evidence of consent at all, even for those who voted for the winning candidate, because any one (or all) of them may be voting as an act of self-defense, or voting for what they see as the lesser evil.

Well, you know, the world is complicated, you can't always get what you want. The canidates and the parties arise from out of and are elected by the people based on the peoples agenda. We don't vote for those who we disagree with. You probably voted for Ron Paul, and some others voted for him as well, probably because he doesn't believe in our tax dollars going to the kinds of services that most of us seemingly do want them going to. Ron Paul and you call that theft, I call it democracy.

I have searched long and wide for an explanation for why taxation is not theft. I've asked lots of people. I have not yet encountered a sound explanation. If anybody has the explanation, please let me know.

You don't believe in democracy. It isn't the government stealing your money, its a duly elected representative government deciding where our dues should best be spent.

What if only two thirds of the people consent to fund it? Well, if the funds they consent to pay are sufficient to provide the service, then that still is a consensual way to fund it.

So if only two thirds of the people consent to fund the military, then only two thirds have to pay for it. What of the other third? They get it for free. What if only one third consents to it? How about the infrastructue? Would anything ever get done in such a system? Nobody would want to pay taxes for anything if they didn't have to.

It used to be the case that things like hospitals and schools were often funded by an endowment of some one or small number of donors who established it (before states got in the way). Most firefighters even today are volunteers. So it's possible even in the case where only a tiny number of people consent to give.

It has also happened that people voluntarily group themselves into organizations to voluntarily provide services within their groups. Voluntary mutual aid societies were common (again, before states got in the way).

It's also possible to provide such services in a free market. Consider fire protection. Home insurance policies would pay for firefighting services (cheaper than paying the whole cost of a completely destroyed building). In which case competing fire departments would compete to be the first to put out fires. That's how it used to work, from what I've heard.

Maybe it used to be that way, I don't know, if so it was long before my time, but perhaps the reason the state got involved was because that system didn't work.