I doubt Lenin was referring to an analogy in which an old woman and a local community were being talked about. In this example, yes, the community could be the government - there is such a thing as local government as well as national government you know! So for example if the community being talked about has the powers to get people to donate and to punish people who don't give to a particular cause (elderly women living in their community and not able to survive or going back to the original one, not able to mow their lawn), then you have a form of government right there.

Now that's the concept I support, except I want the government to be democratic and not like in the Middle East and Africa.

Let people pay for what they use of the commons and not according to what they produce.

Wow... so in reality the little old lady who can't mow the grass has to buy cocain for the able bodied yong men in her neighborhood who don't want to help her?

Talk about perversion of ideals.

If anything then I would think that rather then demanding they be forced to do your lawn, at least eliminate the handouts, so that you would not be taxed as much, and they would not be able to buy their crack on YOUR dime... and then you can use that extra money to get lawn service.

Once you allow slavery, even if for ideals and good intentions, it is bound to be abused...

Evil? You're seriously trying to argue that having the government help out the most vulnerable in society is evil? Out of interest is invading another country, overthrowing their leader, and having your actions result in the deaths of thousands evil? What about producing harmful gases etc. that will damage the world for everyone in the long term so you can enjoy a slightly better standard of living at the moment?

Anyway Paul has a benefit - if Paul falls on hard times, he will be able to receive help from the government to allow him to survive.

No, because it is the government deciding this, not me. The government decides what will happen in the country (or jurisdiction) it is governing, and if you don't like it, you can move to a different country (or vote for a different government). If you choose to stay in their jurisdiction, then you abide by their rules - such as making people pay according to their ability to pay. I'm also fascinated to hear how taxing people according to their ability to pay is a religion!

As an individual? No. However the government isn't an individual. If it deems that in their country they want everyone to be entitled to something (such as food if they have insufficient income), then they need to fund that by taxes. If they tried just saying 'well you know, these taxes are optional, you can choose whether to pay them or not', you'll end up with free-riders, and it likely wouldn't work. It's also not stealing (depending on the taxes used of course), but rather the price you pay for being able to earn an income in this country - e.g. a % of your income, or maybe a fixed amount. Of course some taxes could in effect be stealing - for example if a company made $1bn in profits last year, you decide to retrospectively impose a windfall tax taking $500m of those profits as a tax (despite having told them previously they could keep those profits). Is that stealing? Yes. On the other hand telling that company in advance that their profits will be taxed at 50%, and then taxing them at that amount isn't stealing.

Changing the subject again I see.

Enslaving me for the benefit of another was outlawed 150 years ago in this country.  If I am forced to work for you for no wages, that is called slavery. Period.  Sugar coat it any way you want, but that is what it is.

Now, do you want to start another discussion on what YOU should do for the less fortunate in society?  Perhaps YOU should help out the less vulnerable out of a sense of morality and compassion.  And you are now going to force your morality on me?  Is that not what liberals are claiming the conservative christians are doing and so are condemning it?  But then that is another discussion.

So who is my massa today?

Separation of church and state.  Remember?  But the "you" is anyone that has no right to that money.  The government does to provide for common services, not to compensate some to the exclusion of others (back to slavery).  The You is anyone who does not belong there, so it may be a thief, or the government.  It is the same thing, just a difffernt perp.

Depends on your government.  As it is, here, it is not one, but several.  But certainly not all.  It boggles my mind to find out that 150years ago, half a million americans gave up their life for the elilmination of slavery and today we are in the same position - a sizeable portion of the population advocating - sometimes violently - for the return of slavery.

Your whole response is good.  And the above is the real key.  We are a free society and so we must abide all people, including these.  It is what a free society is all about.  Let these people go off and live as they want.  We are not going to change them by imprisoning them.  And they have as much rights as the rest of society that does rally around the less fortunate.  America has shown that it does care for all people.  But not all Americans do.

Government - American Government - is based on the fact that all men (taken as the scientific term) are free to live as they please as long as doing so does not infringe on other's rights.

Sadly, that is no longer the case.  We can no longer have the capacity for compassion, the freedom of religion.  Now it must be legislated.  And sadly, as history has shown us, it is just the first step into the eventual road of totalitarianism.  Where we become children to the all powerful government.  Some see that as utopia.  But that will be short lived.  Indeed, most of the "dissidents" in totalitarian regimes have not been hermits like you describe in the above quote, but very compassionate and caring people. That probably saw the start of the revolution as good - well intended - but not the eventual conclusion.

We are headed to that conclusion.  When we get there, the ones screaming loudest will be the ones that pushed us to it.

Not at all, in my view. That religious figures vocalized the words points to the fact that they saw others not living by them (those words) and the results of that.

How does "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or the variants of it (Rabbi Hillel actually was the source of those words) imply belief in a religion? In my view they don't.

If one benefits from society he should feel an obligation to do for that society. If he doesn't, the ethical act would be to leave it. The selfish act would be to stay and take without giving.

But not when those taxes are not used for benefits of all society.  At least that is not how the law was written. And the constutution.  There is a reason that they called it the "Wal-Mart" law (see Maryland) and it was ruled unconstitutional.  What is done must be done without penalizing people for who they are.

Until Obamanation.  NOw that is the only reason for doing it.  All hail il Duce.

Um, check the title of the article.

Changing the subject again.  That is not the article nor the comments.  Please reread and then repost - on topic if you want a response since we have already been over this (changing the subject).

No, to argue against it has nothing to do with your leap of logic.  SImply put, forcing me to work for another with no compensation is slavery.  Taxing me to pay for the society I live in is what is called democracy (or representative republic).  Nowhere does anyone argue against taxation, or against a tithing to the government.  SO how is it you keep trying to turn the debate to that?  Perhaps you should start your own blog and argue the merits of slavery.  For now, we are arguing the point of forced indenturedness of some citizens to others, without benefit of rights.

I didn't realise I'd need to spell out such an obvious thing, but since you're insisting issues are somehow off-topic, here you go:

Now what is the highlighted bit? That's taxation - the government taxes the man $40 a week (and spends that on a 'lawn welfare program' that gives elderly women money they can use to mow their lawns).

And there's your slavery link. Here's how it works:

Slavery ~= forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another ~= government taking money from one person+giving to another = taxation

=> Slavery ~= taxation. Still keep saying it's off topic+in no way related to either the original article or later posts to avoid answering any awkward questions if you want, I'm sure it will make a very convincing rebuttal . Oh and just to help you a bit more (incase you start reading the sequence in reverse), taking money from one person to give to another is taxation, but not all taxation is taking from one person and giving to another.

It seems you agree with me here as well (well, with the slavery~=forced labour link):

And you accused me of leaps of logic?! Taxing you to pay for the society you live in isn't democracy - democracies can tax you to pay for the society you live in and more as well, and they can not tax you to pay for the society you live in. Meanwhile dictatorships can also levy taxes. Hence democracy isn't the only form of government with taxation, and taxing you to pay for the society you live in isn't the only form of taxes featured in a democracy. Also the OP article is arguing against taxation, as are many of the posts contained within it. Maybe your problem is you're not fully understanding what taxation is. If the government takes 10% of everyones income/profit, that's taxation. If they take $1000 from every person, that's taxation. If they take 10% from the poor and 20% from the rich, that's also taxation. So if the government takes $40 from someone and give it to an old lady so she can mow her lawn, that's also taxation. Taxation isn't concerned with how the money is used.

No, that is not taxation. Taxation is taking money and paying government employees to provide a service for everyone. Not taking from person A to give to person B who provides nothing in return. That would be wealth redistribution, aka, slavery.

Taking money from people to provide the following is taxation: military, police, roads, schools (for everyone equally), healthcare, etc.

Some could argue that some of the above examples (for example, healthcare) should not be a government thing, that it is still wrong because it is taking from people disproportionately to provide disproportionately (aka, a rich person pays more for the army because the army protects more of his assets, but by paying more to cover other people healthcare he is getting nothing extra...)

But this is not here nor there... what you are calling taxation is way way WAYYYY beyond mere socialism and into the realm of pure theft and slavery.

If you take money from people against their will to give to: The nobles, the poor, the white skinned people, the black skinned people (zimbabwe) or any other group. You are engaging in slavery and theft. It is the worst form of wealth redistribution. It is apalling that you could say "nothing is wrong with that", that things have gotten so bad that people actually condone that. The serf system had money taken from the serfs to give to the nobles, the nobles provided nothing in return. That is why we had revolutions, they called it taxation, but it wasn't. it was indirect slavery. (compared to direct slavery, such as the owning of blacks in the USA, in direct slavery the slaves have no money; in indirect slavery they are allowed to make money, then you take it and give it to their lord).

well... back in the days of serfdom the serfs were all slaves, bound the land, owned by the lord. The lord would "tax" them... he would not provide a service, he would just take from them to give to himself. However the governments of that age called it a tax. Despite me oppsing the stupid remarks that "it is just taxation", I am left wondering, what exactly IS the definition of taxation.

wikipedia (I know, bad source...) says: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state.

If you look up state and so on, you get that basically a tax is when whomever controls an area / people (by means of might) takes money from everyone else it is a tax. (so if say, ghengis khan conquered your city and decides to loot it, it is technically a tax, since he is the effective government at the moment).

Anyways, does calling something a tax make it one? Would calling slavery a tax make it one?

The biggest issue is what is being represented. The argument that "it is just taxation" is evading the actual question. Rather then addressing the issue at hand, it attempts to deflect it by saying "this is just a tax, taxes are ok, therefore this is ok", and sparks a debate about exactly what is the defintion of a tax. (because there ARE very real examples of people referring to slavery as taxes).

So the question should be... what is this in of itself?

A. Taking to provide for everyone - public works. examples: army, police, roads...

B. Taking unequal amounts to provide in unequal amounts - socialism (taking from a few to provide for many)/corruption (taking from the many to provide for the few)... examples include: government provided healthcare, or tax payers funding a project that benefits a specific corporation thanks to corrupt politicians.

C. Taking to give to someone else - slavery. examples: serfdom, wealth redistribution from rich to poor.

BTW. Unemployment CAN be B or C, depending on how it is structured.

It is something EVERY employer must pay for by law, employees never pay into it directly (aka, you don't see a deduction on your income for it), and should you become unemployed, you claim it directly from the government.

So it is an insurence run by the government paid by all employers by law on behalf of employees. Not exactly the "typical" defintion of insurence.