Taxation = theft?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Norsefire, Mar 21, 2009.

  1. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    If we define theft as the taking of another's property without permission, would taxation not meet this definition?

    Yes, I know "but you consent to be taxed"
    Nonsense. Because you have no choice as to whether or not to consent...don't pay your taxes, and you are imprisoned and they, the government, take your property

    Therefore it's not only theft, but also extortion

    Taxes are unjustified. There is no good argument for them. Why can I not collect taxes merely on a whim?

    The government never asks in the first place, so there can't be a "social contract" argument made

    And the government might give me public services, but I never asked, and in the same way that I cannot wash your car without asking and then demand that you pay me, the government cannot demand payment for a service I never asked for (that could not be more efficiently provided privately)

    And then there's "but how will the government be funded?"

    Who said it needs to be? Government is unnecessary, and privatized courts, police, and mercenaries can cover any government service far more efficiently and more fairly.

    Welfare? If I want to donate, then I will by choice..and I do. But you can't force people to donate.

    What if I steal your car, but buy your poor brother a bike? Is it then fair? Of course not.

    The "How many men" argument. What if twenty men decide to steal your car, but they take a vote and allow you to vote as well, before stealing your car? It isn't fair no matter what.

    Taxes are theft, plain and simple.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Yes, we did consent ....we voted for the gov officials who agreed to the taxation in legal democratic fashion.

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    That's hardly true consent, because you still are forced to vote or forced to accept the outcome of a vote. Privatization allows for everyone to be satisfied.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,270
    Norsefire:

    Fine. If you agree not to pay tax, we'll agree that you aren't allowed to use any facilities payed for with public money. That means you aren't allowed to drive on public roads. You will get no garbage collection - you get rid of your own garbage from now on. You'll have to disconnect your house from the public electricity supply that is partly funded by taxes. Better install water tanks and a pump, because you're not using public water any more.

    And it goes without saying that you won't ever be paid any public benefits if you're unemployed. No health care provided by the government. You're not allowed to send letters to other people unless you courier them yourself - but don't forget that you're not allowed to use public roads!

    If somebody robs your house or assaults you, don't go crying for the police to help you. You have to provide your own police now, at your private expense.

    Agree?
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    james you forgot that if your house burns down we all get to stand around laughing, if your trapped we will just laugh harder
     
  9. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Taxes are theft and privately owned land is also theft. The day you are born you have as much right to the earth as any other human has but you must give up you birth right to the earth so that we may have an economy.

    It seems that we must allow theft in the form of taxes and private land ownership in order to have a police force to stop theft and in order to have private property. If we had no private property there would be no theft but we would all be poor.

    Bottom line: Theft is necessary to prevent theft but there could be no new theft if there had not been original theft.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,968
    And the first group of barbarians coming over the hill to kill you, rape your wife, and enslave your children will have you running back to whatever form of government you can find and begging it to defend you. Or perhaps it is just the neighbor that builds a dog racing track next door, keeping you up all night with the roar of the betting crowds, that would make you wish for some kind of building codes and zoning. Maybe the factory near your school is pumping out mercury or lead laced pollution, and you wish there was some regulatory agency to control it. All these aspects of a modern society take taxes. No one has perfect freedom, society requires less than perfect freedom, there are aspects of control in every one. Even the most primitive tribes use the threat of exile to control their members.
     
  11. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    This is a flawed statement. These "public" facilities are payed for with stolen money in the first place. Can I take your money to fund my goals? No. Neither, then, can the government take my money to fund theirs.

    Obviously, there would be no such thing as public goods as well.
    It doesn't matter how many "public services" are given to us....bottom line, it's with stolen money.

    If you really want all of these services, then in the free market, you can pay for them yourself. That's fair. And I'd have to as well. Quite simple, really.

    And as I said, everything must be privatized, which means there is no "public" anything.

    There is no public anything in a pure capitalist system. Again.

    We should have to anyway. It isn't fair to take your money to pay for my protection, and vice versa.


    James, and spidergoat, you both assume that because these services are helpful, it justifies theft in order to provide them. But these services can function far more fairly under a private system.

    If I really want roads, protection, and the sort, I will privately use them as employed privately by individuals voluntarily choosing to provide the service, and me voluntarily choosing to use them.


    If you really want free healthcare and education for everyone, why don't YOU fund it? You see?

    You're trying to justify theft because it is "helpful". It's like the "poor mother steals to feed her children" argument. It might be understandable, but it is still "wrong", a violation of property.

    Therefore these "public goods" are payed for with stolen money in the first place; you can't justify them at all.
     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,968
    It was never your own money in the first place. Governments are responsible for money having any value. Governments are responsible for the basic framework of any economy, through the court system.
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Only because if you try to produce independent tender here in the states, you get arrested. Used to be that banks printed their own money, but because the government decided that by pretending to protect everyone's best interests, they could outlaw it and take over the money supply with the Federal Reserve system.
     
  14. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    True anarchism won't work if you want an economy significantly more advanced than what the chimpanzees have. This mostly free market economy that we have depends on government to function.

    You can make a good case for a much smaller government but you can't make a good case for no government. I don't think we can get around some form of taxation. Even a small government probably won't be able to fund itself on contributions.
     
  15. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Money is anything of value. The government prints money, yes, but this doesn't mean we can't have other sources of money. I'm confident people would come to an agreement about a specific currency in a pure free market setting, voluntarily.

    Gold and silver, for instance, operate as currency. You don't need government to have currency.

    The government, in fact, has a monopoly on currency, just like defense, law, etc
     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,968
    I mean that, by enforcing contract law, adjudicating disputes, and establishing rules for business, an economy is made possible. No one can do this on their own. Any organization that does attempt it starts to resemble the very body you dislike.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,270
    Fine. In theory, you can declare your house an independent nation, like I said. But then your independent nation must provide all services, and not rely on the services that other people agree to pay for via the taxation system.

    If you want to opt out of society, that's fine with me. Go live in a cave. But don't expect my taxes to support you any more. I'm quite happy to pay taxes to the government in return for its services. I choose to do that. They aren't stealing from me. I have chosen not to live in a cave.

    Fine. Good luck to you and your three friends building a workable and independent road system.
     
  18. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    The Amish in America have done pretty much all that. That's why they don't pay taxes.
     
  19. desi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,616
    Currency is used to symbolize money. Currency has no intrinsic value. Money (gold, silver, grain etc...) does have intrinsic value. Things go to crap when the currency goes bad ie people lose faith in it or a government prints a crap load of it which dilutes its perceived value, as the government is doing now.

    Yes, mandatory taxes which we don't personally vote for is a form of robbery.
     
  20. cully5 Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Yes and they also have a social structure as with any large human groupings where specialization occurs. People have assigned duties to ensure the society can function... taxes are in this basis the same as forcing someone to do the garbage rounds 1 day a month, except they are more efficient as they allow for greater specialization and expertise in tasks.

    Taxes are necessary and more efficient than allowing market failures or having another social system such as the Amish.

    If you don't want any taxes or social constraints then you must also accept the fallout of specialization of labor so say goodbye to the work of Einstein and Mozart and say hello to toiling in the fields and hunting for food.

    Sure all taxation and social systems have shortcomings in both corruption, equity, freedom. There's a lot of nations and societies in the world and from what I've seen none are doing significantly better than the western 'democratic government' system. This is evidenced by the HDI rankings of these countries along with their technological achievements and the relative freedom afforded to its members.
     
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    No. Taxes are not property they are based on income and do have many exemptions which you can deduct before paying taxes.


    Not really. Taxes are part of any governments money making ways just as any business would have ways it makes money to keep itself going.
     
  22. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    That sounds fantastic! Instead of having to rely on the inept, costly and overly bureaucratic services of the gubbermint, I could choose a service provider who I feel gives me what I need, for a price that we both agree upon. Or even better, I could purchase a weapon to defend my life and property against intruders, a basic right which is not allowed in a 'free' society today.

    You're also forgetting that taxation does not only pay for services used by the individual. It pays for services *not* used by the individual, and also is used to fund benefits and welfare programs that will never be accessed by the middle and upper class.

    So what is essentially occurring is the government utilising force to redistribute wealth against the will of its citizens. *That* is tyranny.
     
  23. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    In the 'first place'? No. But once you have traded it for labour, then yes, it is rightfully yours.
     

Share This Page