Taxes are a form of Theft

[Nerotysia]

If you've somehow been accidentally using their property before then its up to them whether or not they want to bring a small claims court (ex in trespass).

Mushroom, you're literally using the language of a state while critiquing the state. You do realize courts cannot exist without a state?

The government, assumes from the very beginning that you are a ''customer (it doesn't care what you have to say verbally to them).'' The way it is charging you is also not contingent on you being a ''customer,'' its based on where you are geographically. There is also no possibility of you staying exactly where you are while opting out of this subscription, your subscription is determined not by your use or non-use of the government property, but simply by where you stand geographically.

Because society has agreed to be a "customer" for you. At least until you are capable of opting out.

[Galloism]

And typically the court will award them damages as if you had been customer, and, if you were reckless, certain punitive damages.



And live like a self-sufficient hermit - whereupon even under the current system you would pay no income taxes.



But what's the factual difference? What would the actual real world difference be in results between embargoing people until they subscribe to the tax system vs just doing regular taxes outright?

the difference would be that at any one point people can talk to a government official to renegotiate what they are paying and the government could offer to provide less (on a person by person basis),

And if the government has, as a policy, only one single subscription model that's all or nothing? Is that acceptable for them to do?

at any one point you could have people living in the same place (in a non-government housing) who subscribe or DON'T subscribe to the deal

How will the ones who don't subscribe survive given they can't buy sell or trade with the ones who do?

(just like how you can have some people who live in a neighbourhood who subscribe to cable TV while others living in the same place don't),

Very very different.

the government could sue people for using their services (roads, universal healthcare, state-provided electricity etc) if the people did so without paying the subscriptions (right now it isn't a cause of action for the government to sue someone for say... walking into a park while they don't pay taxes; suggesting a non-analogy between the taxpayer-government relation and the business-customer/subscriber relation)

I could go on

So, functionally, if you don't pay your taxes subscription cost, they could sue you for it, possibly use a levy or lein against you to collect it? How is that functionally different than what we do now?

Functionally. How is it functionally different?

[Redsection]

Mushroom,are you an anarchist?

[Infected Mushroom]

If you've somehow been accidentally using their property before then its up to them whether or not they want to bring a small claims court (ex in trespass).

Mushroom, you're literally using the language of a state while critiquing the state. You do realize courts cannot exist without a state?

The government, assumes from the very beginning that you are a ''customer (it doesn't care what you have to say verbally to them).'' The way it is charging you is also not contingent on you being a ''customer,'' its based on where you are geographically. There is also no possibility of you staying exactly where you are while opting out of this subscription, your subscription is determined not by your use or non-use of the government property, but simply by where you stand geographically.

Because society has agreed to be a "customer" for you. At least until you are capable of opting out.

what I am saying is that the dis-analogy between contracts and what the government-subject relation looks like is so discongruent that we should avoid it entirely and simply call it out for what it is

The state exercises power over a piece of territory, if you are in range of its territorially restricted power and cannot resist, you are forced to comply. If you escape its range (ex by going to another country), then it makes natural sense that its powers cannot reach you due to limitations in range

this analogy is far more useful than analogies involving contracts and commerce which don't work at all

[Nerotysia]

The state exercises power over a piece of territory, if you are in range of its territorially restricted power and cannot resist, you are forced to comply.

No. As Gallo has mentioned, you can opt out of paying taxes by removing yourself from society.

[Infected Mushroom]

The state exercises power over a piece of territory, if you are in range of its territorially restricted power and cannot resist, you are forced to comply.

No. As Gallo has mentioned, you can opt out of paying taxes by removing yourself from society.

which is how you might escape the range of the state's territorially confined reach (at least one state's)

but bears no relation to it being evidence of any sort of prior consent

[Nerotysia]

which is how you might escape the range of the state's territorially confined reach (at least one state's)

Yes. So what's the problem?

but bears no relation to it being evidence of any sort of prior consent

Because you can't consent to things when you're 2. Your parents consent to the state for you. After you reach 18, you can choose to stop consenting and remove yourself from society. What's the problem?

[Galloism]

which is how you might escape the range of the state's territorially confined reach (at least one state's)

Yes. So what's the problem?

but bears no relation to it being evidence of any sort of prior consent

Because you can't consent to things when you're 2. Your parents consent to the state for you. After you reach 18, you can choose to stop consenting and remove yourself from society. What's the problem?

That when brokers, telephone companies, and credit card companies do it that way it's a-ok, but when the state does it it's evil, horrible, and must be abolished?

[Ararat Mountain]

Mushroom,are you an anarchist?

Probably is...

[Nerotysia]

I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty.

Your government can't protect your freedom or liberty unless you give them the resources they need to do so.

[Galloism]

I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty.

Your government can't protect your freedom or liberty unless you give them the resources they need to do so.

Paying the government for services is theft.

[Infected Mushroom]

And if the government has, as a policy, only one single subscription model that's all or nothing? Is that acceptable for them to do?

The government, like any business, can offer such a package to the each and every person. Problem is, its never been offered. No one ever knocked on my front door to sell me this package. They simply assumed a right to tax me and assume jurisdiction over me because of where I am geographically.

Its dictated by geography (whether or not I am in the range of the government's powers) not whether I consent or not.

How will the ones who don't subscribe survive given they can't buy sell or trade with the ones who do?

I don't know. But you do realise that a lack of alternatives is likely to show that in this so-called ''contract'' there is undue influence/duress of some sort right? And that at common law even if such ''contracts'' were recognised the presence of a coercive element or a lack of reasonable alternatives is likely to establish that whatever consent (even if given) is void or voidable?

Very very different.

Indeed.

So, functionally, if you don't pay your taxes subscription cost, they could sue you for it, possibly use a levy or lein against you to collect it? How is that functionally different than what we do now?

Functionally. How is it functionally different?

The difference is in how the government chooses to approach it. It doesn't say to you, ''I am suing you because you used my property without my permission,'' it's saying ''I told you to pay up and you didn't.''

Tax law is structured as a command, not as an Offer people can accept or refuse before being bound.

[Infected Mushroom]

which is how you might escape the range of the state's territorially confined reach (at least one state's)

Yes. So what's the problem?

but bears no relation to it being evidence of any sort of prior consent

Because you can't consent to things when you're 2. Your parents consent to the state for you. After you reach 18, you can choose to stop consenting and remove yourself from society. What's the problem?

You can't be a party to a valid contract with liabilities (even though you can be a third party beneficiary) if you can't consent.

Also, even in an everyday type of sense, using consent so loosely loses all meaning. If someone can ''consent'' for you then what is the value of consent at all? The word completely loses meaning as to be rendered irrelevant.

When a parent sends a kid to a private school its meaningless to say, the parents ''consented'' on behalf of the kids. The parents did no such thing. They simply commanded the child to attend and the law recognises the scope for such a command. There is a contract to pay in exchange for providing a third party with educational benefits but the parties are the parent and the school, the child, though a beneficiary isn't a party. He's not liable.

[Geilinor]

Also, even in an everyday type of sense, using consent so loosely loses all meaning. If someone can ''consent'' for you then what is the value of consent at all? The word completely loses meaning as to be rendered irrelevant.

Children can't consent and so I'm not sure how mentioning them weakens the social contract.

[Galloism]

And if the government has, as a policy, only one single subscription model that's all or nothing? Is that acceptable for them to do?

The government, like any business, can offer such a package to the each and every person. Problem is, its never been offered. No one ever knocked on my front door to sell me this package. They simply assumed a right to tax me and assume jurisdiction over me because of where I am geographically.

Its dictated by geography (whether or not I am in the range of the government's powers) not whether I consent or not.

Irrelevant. I'm asking about the functional difference.

If you fail to take this contract, you cannot cross any street nor buy any service or good. You'll likely starve to death or die from exposure.

Is there any real capacity to refuse anyway?

How will the ones who don't subscribe survive given they can't buy sell or trade with the ones who do?

I don't know. But you do realise that a lack of alternatives is likely to show that in this so-called ''contract'' there is undue influence/duress of some sort right? And that at common law even if such ''contracts'' were recognised the presence of a coercive element or a lack of reasonable alternatives is likely to establish that whatever consent (even if given) is void or voidable?

However, if you compel the government to allow you to use its property without reasonable compensation, isn't that theft?

So, functionally, if you don't pay your taxes subscription cost, they could sue you for it, possibly use a levy or lein against you to collect it? How is that functionally different than what we do now?

Functionally. How is it functionally different?

The difference is in how the government chooses to approach it. It doesn't say to you, ''I am suing you because you used my property without my permission,'' it's saying ''I told you to pay up and you didn't.''

Tax law is structured as a command, not as an Offer people can accept or refuse before being bound.

The thing is, there is no practical way to avoid being serviced by the government. Such is the nature of public goods. You won't even find one person in all of the United States who does not receive services from the government. In Canada, you'll find the same situation.

Whether the government charges you for receipt of goods based on a subscription model that's income based, or does it directly through the tax code, you will wind up with universal subscription/application, regardless.

So I ask again, what's the functional difference between a universal subscription model and a direct tax model? what's the functional difference? A signature on a piece of paper to prevent starvation and exposure? It makes no sense to do the extra paper when it's ultimately irrelevant anyway.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Yes. So what's the problem?


Because you can't consent to things when you're 2. Your parents consent to the state for you. After you reach 18, you can choose to stop consenting and remove yourself from society. What's the problem?

You can't be a party to a valid contract with liabilities (even though you can be a third party beneficiary) if you can't consent.

Also, even in an everyday type of sense, using consent so loosely loses all meaning. If someone can ''consent'' for you then what is the value of consent at all? The word completely loses meaning as to be rendered irrelevant.

When a parent sends a kid to a private school its meaningless to say, the parents ''consented'' on behalf of the kids. The parents did no such thing. They simply commanded the child to attend and the law recognises the scope for such a command. There is a contract to pay in exchange for providing a third party with educational benefits but the parties are the parent and the school, the child, though a beneficiary isn't a party. He's not liable.

I'm not sure why you keep parading the concept that contracts are some sort of infallible ultimate legal force higher than laws and governments and that nothing legal can happen without a contract. I'm also not sure if you fully understand the purpose of contracts.

[Galloism]

You can't be a party to a valid contract with liabilities (even though you can be a third party beneficiary) if you can't consent.

Also, even in an everyday type of sense, using consent so loosely loses all meaning. If someone can ''consent'' for you then what is the value of consent at all? The word completely loses meaning as to be rendered irrelevant.

When a parent sends a kid to a private school its meaningless to say, the parents ''consented'' on behalf of the kids. The parents did no such thing. They simply commanded the child to attend and the law recognises the scope for such a command. There is a contract to pay in exchange for providing a third party with educational benefits but the parties are the parent and the school, the child, though a beneficiary isn't a party. He's not liable.

I'm not sure why you keep parading the concept that contracts are some sort of infallible ultimate legal force higher than laws and governments and that nothing legal can happen without a contract. I'm also not sure if you fully understand the purpose of contracts.

I'm still confused why going into a restaurant and ordering food is implicit acceptance of a contract (food now for money later), but getting in your car and driving down a street is not implicit acceptance of the social contract, whereby you pay taxes to pay for that road.

This has not been adequately explained.

[Tavok]

I'm not sure why you keep parading the concept that contracts are some sort of infallible ultimate legal force higher than laws and governments and that nothing legal can happen without a contract. I'm also not sure if you fully understand the purpose of contracts.

I'm still confused why going into a restaurant and ordering food is implicit acceptance of a contract (food now for money later), but getting in your car and driving down a street is not implicit acceptance of the social contract, whereby you pay taxes to pay for that road.

This has not been adequately explained.

The difference is that the government takes your money through taxes either way, regardless of whether you drive on the street. It would be like a restaurant stealing your money and then saying "but you're free to eat our food!"

Even if you decide that you may as well eat their food now that they've taken your money and there is no additional cost to you, they still stole your money in the first place.

[Maqo]

I agree

As I've said numerous times, the so-called ''social contract'' is nothing more or less than a misappropriation/misunderstanding of what a contract fundamentally is

the state starts to exercise jurisdiction the moment you are born, it doesn't wait until you ''consent''

its more accurate to say that until and unless you have the means to move somewhere else, you cannot escape the range of the state's powers, its not about consent, its about range

Want a simplification of the social contract?
You are born under the states jurisdiction onto land the state owns. You are trespassing, violating the states rights. Lets say that children belong to their parents until the age of majority. so In exchange for not deporting you upon turning 18, the state grants you citizenship.

We could set up the perfect contract bound societt where people were automatically deported at 18 unless they sign a literal social contract. That would be a perfectly valid voluntary state according to libertarian / property rights principles. But it would suck far worse than the current 'implied consent' system, so we don't do it

[Tavok]

I agree

As I've said numerous times, the so-called ''social contract'' is nothing more or less than a misappropriation/misunderstanding of what a contract fundamentally is

the state starts to exercise jurisdiction the moment you are born, it doesn't wait until you ''consent''

its more accurate to say that until and unless you have the means to move somewhere else, you cannot escape the range of the state's powers, its not about consent, its about range

Want a simplification of the social contract?
You are born under the states jurisdiction onto land the state owns. You are trespassing, violating the states rights. Lets say that children belong to their parents until the age of majority. so In exchange for not deporting you upon turning 18, the state grants you citizenship.

We could set up the perfect contract bound societt where people were automatically deported at 18 unless they sign a literal social contract. That would be a perfectly valid voluntary state according to libertarian / property rights principles. But it would suck far worse than the current 'implied consent' system, so we don't do it

No particular reason that the state is entitled to the land under their jurisdiction other than the fact that they have the biggest guns. And the state very rarely is the literal "owner" of the land people are born on; most land is privately owned.

[Conwy-Shire]

No particular reason that the state is entitled to the land under their jurisdiction other than the fact that they have the biggest guns. And the state very rarely is the literal "owner" of the land people are born on; most land is privately owned.

nope, all land is owned by the state, you should read up on your international and domestic law, start here

the law =/= the biggest guns

[Tavok]

No particular reason that the state is entitled to the land under their jurisdiction other than the fact that they have the biggest guns. And the state very rarely is the literal "owner" of the land people are born on; most land is privately owned.

nope, all land is owned by the state, you should read up on your international and domestic law, start here

the law =/= the biggest guns

Funny because that's exactly what the law is. Who determines the law in North Korea? The North Korean government. Who would determine the law there if South Korea took it over by force? The South Korean government. And if a band of vigilantes, led by me, managed somehow to take over North Korea, who then would determine the law there? I would.

In order to matter, laws must be enforced.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not sure why you keep parading the concept that contracts are some sort of infallible ultimate legal force higher than laws and governments and that nothing legal can happen without a contract. I'm also not sure if you fully understand the purpose of contracts.

I'm still confused why going into a restaurant and ordering food is implicit acceptance of a contract (food now for money later), but getting in your car and driving down a street is not implicit acceptance of the social contract, whereby you pay taxes to pay for that road.

This has not been adequately explained.

Because even if a theoretical person were to somehow never uses a government road or service, the government still maintains the unconditional right to tax him. Therefore, the government's power to tax the person is not triggered on or off by the person's use of non-usage or said services. Its merely a question of range (is the person within or outside of the range of the government's powers and capabilities?)

Now consider the restaurant.

If I never order any food, can the restaurant ever have a right to charge me? No. It doesn't have such powers by default. The complete non-order of any food by extension necessarily equates to the absence of a contract and therefore the absence of the contractual right of the restaurant to charge me.

As in the case of a road, there is no nexus. The government always has the power to tax me... whether or not I use any of its services at all. The reality that most of us inevitably use at least SOME form government service is irrelevant. The fact that someone can theoretically never use a government service, but by the mere fact that he is within range of the government's IRS capabilities be taxed... says to me that its not contractual. Its the exercise of power, not an idealisation of contract.

[Conwy-Shire]

Funny because that's exactly what the law is. Who determines the law in North Korea? The North Korean government. Who would determine the law there if South Korea took it over by force? The South Korean government. And if a band of vigilantes, led by me, managed somehow to take over North Korea, who then would determine the law there? I would.

The law is force.

Anarchist, I take it?

Should your horrible example prove true, then international law, law based upon the interaction between states over the centuries, would step in, not you nor your skewed ideologies; hence why I stated international law in my above post which you've blatantly skimmed over.

Selective reading is a bad habit you know...

[Infected Mushroom]

Funny because that's exactly what the law is. Who determines the law in North Korea? The North Korean government. Who would determine the law there if South Korea took it over by force? The South Korean government. And if a band of vigilantes, led by me, managed somehow to take over North Korea, who then would determine the law there? I would.

The law is force.

Anarchist, I take it?

Should your horrible example prove true, then international law, law based upon the interaction between states over the centuries, would step in, not you nor your skewed ideologies; hence why I stated international law in my above post which you've blatantly skimmed over.

Selective reading is a bad habit you know...

international law's only useful in so far as it can be enforced by the most powerful states

its yet another instrument of Might Makes Right