Taxes are a form of Theft

[Conscentia]

Given that most people who approve of charity give so little to charity, I doubt people would voluntarily provide sufficient funding.

The people that consistently give the largest percent of their income earn the least, and for those who earn more, usually >50% of their income goes to the government. So, people either can't afford to give to charity or believe government's doing it for them. Even with these obstacles, US charity contributions were $290.89 billion in 2010, which is almost 2% of GDP. That's huge.

It is insufficient.

[BK117B2]

Employment is voluntary. Taxation is not.

Employment is not what I said. I said the wage system.

The wage system is not voluntary as it is maintained through the force of the state. The system where workers create products, the capitalist boss sells these products, then pays workers a fraction of what their labor is actually worth. That system, because it is maintained under the threat of violence, is no different than a government taxing its citizens and giving them a fraction of their payments back in the form of roads (because most goes towards military spending and corporate welfare).

Quite wrong. The wage system exists because people choose to offer and accept wages. The instant they stop, the wage system ends. So long as they continue, the wage system continues.

One thing about wage systems though: I don't recall them being mentioned as part of the topic. Do you intend to draw any connection between them?

[Conscentia]

Employment is not what I said. I said the wage system.

The wage system is not voluntary as it is maintained through the force of the state. The system where workers create products, the capitalist boss sells these products, then pays workers a fraction of what their labor is actually worth. That system, because it is maintained under the threat of violence, is no different than a government taxing its citizens and giving them a fraction of their payments back in the form of roads (because most goes towards military spending and corporate welfare).

Quite wrong. The wage system exists because people choose to offer and accept wages. The instant they stop, the wage system ends. So long as they continue, the wage system continues.

One thing about wage systems though: I don't recall them being mentioned as part of the topic. Do you intend to draw any connection between them?

The instant they stop, chances are they starve to death unless they're farmers.
Not much of a choice.

[BK117B2]

Quite wrong. The wage system exists because people choose to offer and accept wages. The instant they stop, the wage system ends. So long as they continue, the wage system continues.

One thing about wage systems though: I don't recall them being mentioned as part of the topic. Do you intend to draw any connection between them?

The instant they stop, chances are they starve to death unless they're farmers.
Not much of a choice.

Or choose instead to engage in some other model.

[Gerisa]

If taxes are invested back into services, such as education roads and healthcare, it's not theft. It's just like an ordinary business transaction, were you would pay a business owner to sell you a commodity, if I may use the OP's analogy. It would be theft if we got nothing out of them in exchange, but the fact is that we do.

[BK117B2]

If taxes are invested back into services, such as education roads and healthcare, it's not theft. It's just like an ordinary business transaction, were you would pay a business owner to sell you a commodity, if I may use the OP's analogy. It would be theft if we got nothing out of them in exchange, but the fact is that we do.

Your post is based on the erroneous assumption that what is done with something after determines whether or not a theft occurred rather than the nature of how that something was acquired.

[Conscentia]

The instant they stop, chances are they starve to death unless they're farmers.
Not much of a choice.

Or choose instead to engage in some other model.

The vast majority do not have access to another model.

[Sun Wukong]

Or choose instead to engage in some other model.

The vast majority do not have access to another model.

A shame really. The world would be a happier place if all men had access to several models.

[Ifreann]

The vast majority do not have access to another model.

A shame really. The world would be a happier place if all men had access to several models.

The models would be awfully busy.

[BK117B2]

Or choose instead to engage in some other model.

The vast majority do not have access to another model.

I disagree. How are they prevented from doing something else?

[Conscentia]

The vast majority do not have access to another model.

I disagree. How are they prevented from doing something else?

Trade necessitates that the guy that has what one wants is willing to provide it. Nobody will give anything to a customer who has unilaterally quit the wage labour system and therefore cannot pay.

[BK117B2]

I disagree. How are they prevented from doing something else?

Trade necessitates that the guy that has what one wants is willing to provide it. Nobody will give anything to a customer who has unilaterally quit the wage labour system and therefore cannot pay.

Engaging in another system doesn't mean that you will be unable to pay.

[Conscentia]

Trade necessitates that the guy that has what one wants is willing to provide it. Nobody will give anything to a customer who has unilaterally quit the wage labour system and therefore cannot pay.

Engaging in another system doesn't mean that you will be unable to pay.

There is no other system. If you quit the wage labour system, unless you're a producer, you lose your source of income. No income, no trade. No trade, no food. No food, starvation. Starvation, death.

[Big Jim P]

The vast majority do not have access to another model.

A shame really. The world would be a happier place if all men had access to several models.

We need holodecks. Now.

[Ifreann]

A shame really. The world would be a happier place if all men had access to several models.

We need holodecks. Now.

They'll just keep malfunctioning and ruining everything.

[BK117B2]

Engaging in another system doesn't mean that you will be unable to pay.

There is no other system. If you quit the wage labour system, unless you're a producer, you lose your source of income. No income, no trade. No trade, no food. No food, starvation. Starvation, death.

Well, you know, no systems other than the various other systems people have come up with over time, like subsistence, collectives, joint employee ownerships, etc.

Since it's still out there, though, I'd still like to find out how this is supposed to be connected to the issue of taxation as theft

[Big Jim P]

We need holodecks. Now.

They'll just keep malfunctioning and ruining everything.

Which will give rise to an endless stream of paraphilias.

[Daburuetchi]

When will the Andrew Ryan circlejerk come to an end? Ever minute of social necessary labor time from the plowing of a field to the casting of steel is necessary to keep society running but no one calls the private apporpriation of the products of social means of production theft. No giving a small percentage of wealth to the state that maintains the external conditions of production is in op's mind theft.

The fact of the matter is if you want a middle class you need taxes. It is inherently undemocratic for the material interest of citizens to be made subservient to some ridiculous libertarian policy which would only benefit a small parasitical elite.

Let's stake Atlas Shrugged and leave it out for sunrise already

[Ifreann]

They'll just keep malfunctioning and ruining everything.

Which will give rise to an endless stream of paraphilias.

Or AI Moriarty taking over the world.

[Sun Wukong]

Which will give rise to an endless stream of paraphilias.

Or AI Moriarty taking over the world.

Why not both?

[Conscentia]

Or AI Moriarty taking over the world.

Why not both?

Why not Zoidberg?

[Maqo]

Nearly the same = enough difference to matter.

Just not in a way that changes the topic at hand.

The state hardly ever exercises its full rights. But the fact that it does have those rights is the opening needed for it to be the state.

States don't have rights, they are just organizational structures designed to act as proxies for people.

Essentially, property that is wholly privately owned is not part of the state. If the state completely sold all rights (or never owned the rights) that is tantamount to surrendering territory to a foreign state.

But as the state doesn't view it that way and doesn't actually behave that way, that's not how things work in the real world.

Now I just think you're trolling....
I can provide the agreement I have with the government which gives me proprietorship over my land. I can show the legislation which details exactly what that means, and how it still means that while I everyone would call my land 'privately owned' , the state still retains control. This agreement would be identical to 99-100% of agreements that other people in my country make when they make a property purchase. At least in my country, the state owns the land.

I get that you think the USA is different. I don't believe you are correct. If as you say, 'most' land is privately owned it should not be difficult for you to find a copy of someone's certificate of title (or whatever you call it over there) that indicates their allodial title. I think it is more likely that you are misinterpreting the colloquial 'privately owned' to mean the more political-science 'allodial title'. Think about what it would mean if you literally privately owned the land and the state retained no rights over it. You could sell yout land to other countries! Can you find some evidence of some land in the US being literally wholly privately owned?

As for the state not having rights... Simply wrong. Everywhere in the world, The state is a separate legal entity. Call it a proxy if you like, it doesnt change the facts. There is no theory stopping the state from being literally a single person. They are similar in most ways to a company - an entity legally distinct from the people who comprise and run it- and the USA has repeatedly been on the side of companies having rights of their own.

[Olthar]

What if it's the opposite? What if theft is a form of taxation?

[Ifreann]

What if it's the opposite? What if theft is a form of taxation?

ye gods

[BK117B2]

I get that you think the USA is different. I don't believe you are correct. If as you say, 'most' land is privately owned it should not be difficult for you to find a copy of someone's certificate of title (or whatever you call it over there) that indicates their allodial title. I think it is more likely that you are misinterpreting the colloquial 'privately owned' to mean the more political-science 'allodial title'.

I think that one problem here is a misunderstanding of what allodial title and fee simple mean with regard to the US government. Again, if things are done a certain way in your country, I'm not challenging that as I don't know much at all about this issue there.

Think about what it would mean if you literally privately owned the land and the state retained no rights over it. You could sell yout land to other countries! Can you find some evidence of some land in the US being literally wholly privately owned?

Ah, but see that's an area where you seem to be unfamiliar with the US. Just because you have a right to do something here does not mean that the government cares or will respect that right in any way. The government here regularly breaks its own laws regarding land use.

As for the state not having rights... Simply wrong. Everywhere in the world, The state is a separate legal entity. Call it a proxy if you like, it doesnt change the facts. There is no theory stopping the state from being literally a single person. They are similar in most ways to a company - an entity legally distinct from the people who comprise and run it- and the USA has repeatedly been on the side of companies having rights of their own.

You are quite incorrect. Sure, one person can be a state.....and the government of that state would simply be acting by proxy for that person. Governments have no source of authority or ownership OTHER than people. Where would you propose a state of one person gets any authority or right of ownership if not that one person? If that one person dies, then what?