Taxes are a form of Theft

[BK117B2]

"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:"
"to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
"to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission"
"to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal"
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully "
" to take surreptitiously or without permission"
"To take (the property of another) without right or permission"

Thanks to Merriam-Webster, TheFreeDictionary, and Dictionary.com for those enlightening entries.

Here is the definition of a legal right:

a claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it

b : the interest in a claim which is recognized by and protected by sanctions of law imposed by a state, which enables one to possess property or to engage in some transaction or course of conduct or to compel some other person to so engage or to refrain from some course of conduct under certain circumstances, and for the infringement of which claim the state provides a remedy in its courts of justice

Wrongful is defined, in legal contexts, as:

having no legal right; unlawful:
The court ruled it was a wrongful diversion of trust income.

The law recognizes that the state has the right to tax, therefore, not stealing.

So.....taking without permission.....that sure looks like a definition of stealing! Turns out, by definition, it IS stealing.....and thus theft.

It's not taking without permission. It's taking without permission without the right to do so. This is an important point. If I'm injured by your shitty driving, I can sue you. If I win, then I can force you to surrender property to satisfy that debt, even without your permission. Consent is not an absolutely necessary component of property transfer to be valid.

The government has that right to exercise taxation.

I see that you've given up attempting to actually discuss the point with some rambling about American legal definitions.

Also, the government (as an organizational structure) cannot have any rights that people do not have. People do not have any such right to extort others like that.

Don't need to prove it as it isn't relevant. The landowner (in this case me, not the government acting as a proxy for a group of people) has the right to set rent. Without a contract reserving that condition, you lose it when you sell off the property.

The 'contract' is in US code of federal regulations, and relevant state regulations, which you were aware of when you bought it.

Wrong. Without agreement, contracts do not exist.

No, it hasn't. The government gave away or sold the land. It is no longer the landowner.

It still maintains certain rights to the land it never sold, unless you can prove it sold them.

Unless it can prove that it reserved those rights in the contract, it does not have them.

No, you're using your 'logic' and falsely presenting it as mine.

Going with the 'nuh-uh' response, there, eh?

Wrong. When someone sells or gives away a property, their heirs don't get it.

Except it wasn't sold or given away. It was conquered. You just said you do not recognize the right of conquest, thus that conquering was invalid.

All subsequent sales are also invalid.

The heirs of the conquered own the land, since the conquered never sold it.

It has been sold or given away many times. Since being abandoned by the heirs of the original owner(s), it becomes perfectly valid.

You hold the mineral rights so long as the contract of sale states that you do. If it does not, then you do not.

Wrong. You do not have that right to terminate a third party's rights (namely mine, in this example) without my consent. Because you failed to include it in the contract when you sold the land does not terminate my rights which I have by value of the contract.

Now, the third party who bought the land could conceptually sue you, the original seller, for failing to disclose the mineral rights sale to a third party, in order to recover the value of those rights, but I, as the mineral rights holder, maintain my rights regardless.

It doesn't matter if I exercise those rights in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, or my heirs exercise them in 200 years. I bought those rights. They are mine. Your actions cannot dissolve my rights.

The thing is, if the person who bought the land KNEW of the mineral rights being sold to a third party, they could not sue you for failing to include it in the contract, because no actual damage was done. You knew what you purchased even if the contract contained a flaw within the text.

Except that, as has been repeatedly explained, that isn't relevant to the actual issue at hand.

[Sociobiology]

Not per se, no - they take legal action against you including levies and leins.

Just like anyone else who failed to pay what they were required to pay to any company ever.

But would they have a claim in the civil court for breach of contract?

If they sent a state lawyer and went before the civil court and said... ''I want to file a small claim because X here didn't pay his taxes and we had an implicit contract whereby we, the government, provided public services in exchange for him paying taxes...''

How do you think the judge would react? He would be very confused, especially as he'd be unable to find case law that ever explicitly said that a citizen is in a contract with the government whereby the entire taxation regime is a part of it.

because courts are PART of the contract, they are set up by it, with set jurisdictions.

[BK117B2]

That's nonsense. By my logic, for killing them I'd be locked away safely forever and thus would have no ability to go claim anything. Of course, by pretty much any logic, land ownership continuing with no regard for death would mean that all the habitable land on Earth is already taken.

That seems like a bit of a dodge. You'd still be able to claim it before you are locked away, so the point stands.

Only if the heirs don't wish to claim it. If it is abandoned, then others can claim it......and once you go to prison forever, it will be pretty abandoned and can be freely claimed.

[Haktiva]

as far as I'm concerned, they are a form of theft since you have no choice in the matter aside from staying out of jail or having your property seized. voluntarily paying for public facilities and infrastructure probably won't work though since people are naturally greedy, but there are certainly community minded people out there willing to contribute to the greater good, at least in a monetary fashion.

of course, a lot of tax money goes to very, very stupid things that don't help the public at large. i can only imagine what would happen to the US if tax money was used more or less how the Founders intended.

[Sociobiology]

you assume you have a right to it.
rights are social constructs, you don't have them unless the other people agree you do.
humans create rights, and they are among our better inventions.

Right up there with fire and internet porn.

and the banana.
we are ingenious little monkeys when we want to be.

[Ifreann]

Hang on. How is it not redistributing wealth to use taxes to pay cops and firefighters and builders and soldiers and postal workers?

Do you honestly consider paying a salary to be redistribution?

How is it not? The government makes the money go from where it is to a bunch of other places. Sounds like redistribution to me.

[Infected Mushroom]

But would they have a claim in the civil court for breach of contract?

If they sent a state lawyer and went before the civil court and said... ''I want to file a small claim because X here didn't pay his taxes and we had an implicit contract whereby we, the government, provided public services in exchange for him paying taxes...''

How do you think the judge would react? He would be very confused, especially as he'd be unable to find case law that ever explicitly said that a citizen is in a contract with the government whereby the entire taxation regime is a part of it.

because courts are PART of the contract, they are set up by it, with set jurisdictions.

I think you are distorting contract law beyond recognition

[BK117B2]

Incorrect. My contract was between me and the person selling it.

really? who enforces the contract?

I do. The person selling it does. A couple other parties involved in the sale do. The government does.

Only if you use those services and then refuse to pay.

which you do by remaining within the borders.

Incorrect. Not leaving your home is not the same as using services from someone else.

[removing yourself from the premises is part of terminating the contract (much like a rental agreement)

Which would be relevant if you're on their property. Since not, it isn't relevent

That's nonsense. By my logic, for killing them I'd be locked away safely forever

by whom?
remember no state to enforce murder laws.

Well, if they are stateless, then their friends/family/whatever. If not, then generally by their government.

Of course, by pretty much any logic, land ownership continuing with no regard for death would mean that all the habitable land on Earth is already taken.

which it is

No, I mean it would already be taken and still held by dead people. There'd be no habitable territory left for living humans

[The Liberated Territories]

Hang on. How is it not redistributing wealth to use taxes to pay cops and firefighters and builders and soldiers and postal workers?

Do you honestly consider paying a salary to be redistribution? They earned that payment. I should have noted it more clearly: paying an employee of the government is a valid thing to do because one's labor should be compensated.

Why can't one's labor be voluntarily compensated in the private sector?

[Sociobiology]

because courts are PART of the contract, they are set up by it, with set jurisdictions.

I think you are distorting contract law beyond recognition

No It just helps to remember states ate the penultimate contract, the one that supports all the other contracts made by its citizens.
Its half the reason we invented states, so contracts could be enforced even between what were essentially strangers.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think you are distorting contract law beyond recognition

No It just helps to remember states ate the penultimate contract, the one that supports all the other contracts made by its citizens.
Its half the reason we invented states, so contracts could be enforced even between what were essentially strangers.

the state doesn't see itself as part of a permanent contract with the people in its territory as they live, die, leave

it has never presented itself as such, instead, the state simply exercises territorially-contingent sovereignty

[Ifreann]

because courts are PART of the contract, they are set up by it, with set jurisdictions.

I think you are distorting contract law beyond recognition

Oh good, we're right back to you not understanding that the social contract isn't a legal contract.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think you are distorting contract law beyond recognition

Oh good, we're right back to you not understanding that the social contract isn't a legal contract.

its not a contract at all

it may not even be an agreement

[Sociobiology]

really? who enforces the contract?

I do. The person selling it does. A couple other parties involved in the sale do. The government does.

exactly , the contract is enforced by the government, you are again using their services, think of it like a buffet, you still have to pay for the whole thing even if you only eat the lettuce and crackers.

which you do by remaining within the borders.

Incorrect. Not leaving your home is not the same as using services from someone else.

it is if your home is inside a states borders.

by whom?
remember no state to enforce murder laws.

Well, if they are stateless, then their friends/family/whatever.

which is just might makes right, no real rights here.
you want rights you got to pay for them.

which it is

No, I mean it would already be taken and still held by dead people. There'd be no habitable territory left for living humans

there isn't it is all transfers from previous claims. and along every string of transfers you can find a claim by conquest.

[Sociobiology]

No It just helps to remember states ate the penultimate contract, the one that supports all the other contracts made by its citizens.
Its half the reason we invented states, so contracts could be enforced even between what were essentially strangers.

the state doesn't see itself as part of a permanent contract with the people in its territory as they live, die, leave

it has never presented itself as such, instead, the state simply exercises territorially-contingent sovereignty

and what do you think that mean. It is literally a service provided to everyone withing a defined space.
Its one giant contract, you keep thinking along the line of individual contracts not large scale ones.

[Infected Mushroom]

the state doesn't see itself as part of a permanent contract with the people in its territory as they live, die, leave

it has never presented itself as such, instead, the state simply exercises territorially-contingent sovereignty

and what do you think that mean. It is literally a service provided to everyone withing a defined space.
Its one giant contract, you keep thinking along the line of individual contracts not large scale ones.

there can't be a giant contract because people can't just be born as a party into a contract

[Sociobiology]

and what do you think that mean. It is literally a service provided to everyone withing a defined space.
Its one giant contract, you keep thinking along the line of individual contracts not large scale ones.

there can't be a giant contract because people can't just be born as a party into a contract

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

[Infected Mushroom]

there can't be a giant contract because people can't just be born as a party into a contract

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

thats impossible, parties can only enter into contracts voluntarily and children cannot consent, any such ''contract'' would be void

[Galloism]

Here is the definition of a legal right:



Wrongful is defined, in legal contexts, as:



The law recognizes that the state has the right to tax, therefore, not stealing.



It's not taking without permission. It's taking without permission without the right to do so. This is an important point. If I'm injured by your shitty driving, I can sue you. If I win, then I can force you to surrender property to satisfy that debt, even without your permission. Consent is not an absolutely necessary component of property transfer to be valid.

The government has that right to exercise taxation.

I see that you've given up attempting to actually discuss the point with some rambling about American legal definitions.

Also, the government (as an organizational structure) cannot have any rights that people do not have. People do not have any such right to extort others like that.

The government is only exercising the rights by proxy of its people. Since the government owns the sovreignty rights to all its land, the people collectively choose how to exercise those sovreignty rights. Those include taxation.

You have produced no documents where the US Government has surrendered its sovreignty rights to your land.

The 'contract' is in US code of federal regulations, and relevant state regulations, which you were aware of when you bought it.

Wrong. Without agreement, contracts do not exist.

You just yourself agreed that verbal contracts can exist without explicit agreement, via the restaurant example.

It still maintains certain rights to the land it never sold, unless you can prove it sold them.

Unless it can prove that it reserved those rights in the contract, it does not have them.

Sorry, the purchaser has to prove they have the sovreignty rights.

Going with the 'nuh-uh' response, there, eh?



Except it wasn't sold or given away. It was conquered. You just said you do not recognize the right of conquest, thus that conquering was invalid.

All subsequent sales are also invalid.

The heirs of the conquered own the land, since the conquered never sold it.

It has been sold or given away many times. Since being abandoned by the heirs of the original owner(s), it becomes perfectly valid.

It wasn't abandoned. It was stolen.

Wrong. You do not have that right to terminate a third party's rights (namely mine, in this example) without my consent. Because you failed to include it in the contract when you sold the land does not terminate my rights which I have by value of the contract.

Now, the third party who bought the land could conceptually sue you, the original seller, for failing to disclose the mineral rights sale to a third party, in order to recover the value of those rights, but I, as the mineral rights holder, maintain my rights regardless.

It doesn't matter if I exercise those rights in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, or my heirs exercise them in 200 years. I bought those rights. They are mine. Your actions cannot dissolve my rights.

The thing is, if the person who bought the land KNEW of the mineral rights being sold to a third party, they could not sue you for failing to include it in the contract, because no actual damage was done. You knew what you purchased even if the contract contained a flaw within the text.

Except that, as has been repeatedly explained, that isn't relevant to the actual issue at hand.

Actually, it is extremely relevant. If the person who sold the property to you did not have the rights to sell the sovreignty over that property, then those sovreignty rights cannot be cancelled by that person. Whether it's in the contract or not is irrelevant - you cannot sell another person's rights, or a group of peoples' rights.

The person who sold it to them didn't have the right to sell those sovreignty rights either. So they're still not cancelled. The person who sold it to them? Same problem. Since the rights were claimed, and never cancelled or abandoned, heirs successively and collectively still claiming those rights continuously, they still exist - including the right to tax

Now, you can try to sue them for misrepresenting that they had sovreignty rights over the land and those transferred to you, but please please tell me if you do. I want to drive to anywhere in the country where this trial occurs in order to observe.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Infected Mushroom, *** banned *** for advocating the illegal activity of not paying your taxes.
Also, the government of the United States of America is *** banned *** for advocating the illegal activity of theft.

---

Mysterious Stranger, Reincarnated Thunder God, Wielder of the Mighty Hammer Bjanmir, Nationstates Moderator of Doom

[Obexer]

Infected Mushroom, *** banned *** for advocating the illegal activity of not paying your taxes.
Also, the government of the United States of America is *** banned *** for advocating the illegal activity of theft.

[hr]

Mysterious Stranger, Reincarnated Thunder God, Wielder of the Mighty Hammer Bjanmir, Nationstates Moderator of Doom

Mysterious, I get that you're trying to be funny and all, but I'm pretty sure the mods DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE IMPERSONATING THEM. Even if you're just joking.

[Ifreann]

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

thats impossible, parties can only enter into contracts voluntarily and children cannot consent, any such ''contract'' would be void

...remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Infected Mushroom, *** banned *** for advocating the illegal activity of not paying your taxes.
Also, the government of the United States of America is *** banned *** for advocating the illegal activity of theft.

[hr]

Mysterious Stranger, Reincarnated Thunder God, Wielder of the Mighty Hammer Bjanmir, Nationstates Moderator of Doom

Mysterious, I get that you're trying to be funny and all, but I'm pretty sure the mods DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE IMPERSONATING THEM. Even if you're just joking.

You're right. I hate it when those losers in Moderation try to ban me. It's moderator impersonation and I don't appreciate it. Doesn't stick either.

[Obexer]

You're right. I hate it when those losers in Moderation try to ban me. It's moderator impersonation and I don't appreciate it. Doesn't stick either.

Don't say I didn't warn you.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=354843&p=26106436#p26106436

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

thats impossible, parties can only enter into contracts voluntarily and children cannot consent, any such ''contract'' would be void

Parents can legally consent for their children.