Fundamental Question #4

[Hugo]

I am saying, that in practice, the only rights that you'll ever benefit from are those that your society extends to you. Whether you ought to have more or less or different is not part of my point.

That doesn't matter. We are discussing rights theory here, which deals with questions starting in 'ought' or 'should', not 'can' and 'does'. As I've said, if you argue that rights must perfectly coincide with practical possibility, then you're justifying all sorts of horrible crimes simply because you believe that if people have no ability to defend themselves they have no right either.

No, I'm not going to stop saying that until you give me a good reason to, e.g. a logical refutation. I'm not particularly scared by your bleating 'liar' every so often.

Your memory is very selective.

I said "the state is not a party".

You said, "Yes, it is." and added the above paragraph apropos of nothing.

I replied "No it isn't."

In this context, my reply is sufficient.

No, the above paragraph actually demonstrates that the state is a party of identifiable individuals. It is not something like 'society', which is just a concept without identifiable individuals. 'Microsoft' is a party, since you can identify all the individuals who work for Microsoft and distinguish them from those who don't, and they act with a unity of purpose. 'The state' is also a party for the same reasons. It has employees and beneficiaries, and acts as a unified organ.

If you'd reply, and I think you might, that everyone is a member of the state because democracy theoretically admits anyone to government (a highly debatable argument, but we'll let it stand for now), then that also means that everyone is also an employee of Microsoft because anyone (theoretically) could go and work for Microsoft.

The individuals in society HAVE done that and the RESULT is government.

No, they haven't. We are not talking about a universal agreement here, never have been and never will be. You are talking as though we were. So long as government remains a creation of less than all, it is an imposition. If what you are saying is true, perhaps you can bring out the historical evidence and documentation whereby the 'individuals in society' arrived at a consensus and formed a government?

What the f***? How can that be irrelevant to your point. Your point is that Canada will charge me with tax evasion if I leave Canada and the facts utterly refute that.

No, that was never my point. I originally asked you what you thought would happen if you refused to pay your taxes. You said that you'd be exiled. The letter of the law proves you were wrong since the penalty for tax evasion is up to five years and up to double the amount evaded, not exile at all.

If you were to voluntarily leave Canada while owing taxes, you can be sure that the Canadian government would attempt to have you extradited and punished as above. The truth is that the Canadian government wants what it decides you need to pay, and will make sure it gets it one way or another. The only way you could leave Canada and feel secure would be to pay the government everything it claimed you owed it before you left.