Taxes are a form of Theft

[Ashkera]

The government actually owns the land. You're just renting it. The taxes are the fee.

Well, actually no, you can own land, hence the constitution and the blm federal land ownership map, they just charge you for use, which is stupid but how it works.

That's a semantic argument. This entire thread is a lame semantic argument.

In practice, they own the land. That's why mineral rights can be sold separately, for instance. Ownership is about control and exclusion. They're the ones with the tanks and the helicopters. They are the ones that can kick you off at any time and prevent an outside power from just swooping in and taking it.

They control the land. They exclude people from the land. What you have is a license.

[Arkinesia]

Fine, I'll bite.

Taxation itself, as a matter of principle, is not theft. I will say there are certain examples of taxation being theft. If there is no way for taxpayers to represent themselves in government, taxation is, uhh…sketchy at best. But in the US for instance, taxation is conducted with representation through democratically-elected representatives.

Thus, taxation in the US at least, is not theft, nor is it theft in the UK, France (though I have my own thoughts on that), etc. The Western world, in general, conducts its governance with a modicum of ethics to say the least.

The reason taxation is not theft is because it pays for vital services the government runs. Roads, bridges, emergency services, common defense (military), regulatory boards that keep people from feeding you poison, and so on.

Now, if you're an anarchist, you're firstly wrong, but then you have some point in calling taxation theft. But for those of us living in the real world, taxation is not theft, it is a means of contributing to the wider community at large and ensuring the world around you keeps functioning as normal.

[Hurdegaryp]

In that cases the land held by states is also the result of theft. And since states are not states without a population, all people living in a state are thieves by default. So there you have it, everybody: stop stealing from yourself.

You just showed how inaccurate the statement of the government owns all the land is, thank you.

Technically speaking the state does own its territory to an extent, otherwise any private property would automatically become a microstate. That would make for rather fascinating UN meetings.

[United Dependencies]

If the government passes a tax through the proper legal channels, how could it ever be theft? As has already been stated:

Point taken.

While the definition precludes theft, I will concede that a tax that is passed can be foolish, immoral, unethical, and a whole host of other things.

[Dixie]

I still think that tax-avoiders getting 'evicted' via Coast Guard should be an option.

If they don't like it, they can just git out!

[United Dependencies]

Well, it depends. Our nation was in part founded on a governmental system on the provider nation levying taxes on us that were approved by the reigning monarch, and we revolted due to, just because it was legally passed doesn't mean it is correct, but the law stands until removal. We are taught, especially in the modern nations, you obey and respect the government, but then when the election cycle comes around, "the American people control all and they are the ones that matter", then we go back to having to follow what they say do. Its some what a oxymoron for election season.

Taxes only played a small part in our revolt against Great Britain.

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

As to your second part, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.

[Alvecia]

Smartphones. Wonderful until the browser crashes halfway through a response. Draft number 2:



There are some situations where force is the only option. However for it to be extortion, the act has to be criminal. For example, if you personal owned a property that you were renting out to someone but they suddenly refused to stop paying rent, but continued to occupy the property and make use of the utilities available, you would be with your right to forcible remove them, or have someone do it for you. Is this extortion? No. They were in the wrong and you were acting within the law.

"the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
"the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property"
"The act or an instance of extorting something, as by psychological pressure."
"The practice of extorting money or other property by the use of force or threats."

Thank you to Oxford/Merriam-Webster/yourdictionary.com/thefreedictionary.com for those examples. An act doesn't have to be criminal to be extortion.

You say that there are some situations where force is the only option, yet you've come up with no such situation which would apply to the topic at hand.

I noted your point made during and after I had posted and responded accordingly. I will repeat here.
I looked it up myself and it does indeed state, or rather does not state, that the act has to be criminal. I take fault with the logic however. Following logically, if a GO like the DEA were to seize money, drugs, guns and property from a drug cartel under the threat of imprisonment or during a raid at the point of a gun, that would be extortion. So while it is not implicitly stated in the definition I think the term can only be applied to the party that is in the wrong, be it morally or legally.

I cannot think of any particular example at the moment, but the lack of a real world analogy does not discredit the supposition entirely.

As explained, it would not be extortion

As explained, it would, by definition, be extortion. You are supporting extortion.

I disagree. That one of the options involves force being used against you does not detract from your ability to choose between A or B

I'd suggest looking up voluntary. When someone is using force or the threat of it against you, then it isn't actually voluntary.

I will concede the point, if only because it it devolving into semantics. But I would open up the point to involve a third option. Instead of either paying taxes or being imprisoned, why not pay your "dues" and remove yourself to somewhere that you cannot be taxed. Or a fourth, escape to somewhere you cannot be taxed or held accountable for dues not paid.

Admittedly it does seem like a non sequitur. I was referring to points I made earlier on property rights. I will concede that if you own the house and the land it I on, then i would accept that it is yours to do with as you will. However you should not be allowed access to utilities and amenities provide by the state or that use property owned by the state.

Utilities are mostly privately provided. Even government owned utilities are generally not funded by taxes, but by what you pay to receive them.

Is paying for utilities not just tax in a different mask. Or vice versa, are taxes not just paying for utilities but with a fancy name. The tone of your response indicates you are happy to pay for water, electric, etc.

[Christainville]

Well, actually no, you can own land, hence the constitution and the blm federal land ownership map, they just charge you for use, which is stupid but how it works.

That's a semantic argument. This entire thread is a lame semantic argument.

In practice, they own the land. That's why mineral rights can be sold separately, for instance. Ownership is about control and exclusion. They're the ones with the tanks and the helicopters. They are the ones that can kick you off at any time and prevent an outside power from just swooping in and taking it.

They control the land. They exclude people from the land. What you have is a license.

ehh actually no, we own the land. See, this is where the term "we the people" comes into effect. The land, depends upon us, the military that operate the machines, depends on us, the taxation to fund those operations, depends on us. Heck, every law they pass depends on us. For instance, what use would it be to make a tax code, if no on paid taxes. Or having a military if no one joined, even under conscription because they can run away, and if they killed them or jailed them they lose the army. With out the cooperation of the people none of this has value, and it doesn't matter how liberal or conservative you are, its by you , that the nation stays in tack. Lets be honest, even if he tried, Obama couldn't work a farm, drill for oil, run the bank, be a general, and be President. He is only President to administer the nation we live in. Same as the congress and courts. If they were the only ones here, they could only administer over the affairs of each other. If no one invests in a company, or no one starts a business, no one goes to college to become a educator or doctor, if no one uses the U.S. dollar; then everyone is government has nothing to administer. So, the system depends upon us. This is the idea that all nations are built on, we have a group of people who separate and a few either are elected, or take power over the rest to administer the day to day operations of where that group is and how it is funded. That's a modern day nation, and some, as I said, vote for people to be the administrators, hence a representative democracy. This is the difference between feudalism and modern day ownership. Yet, they both have one thing in common, both operate on people working the land for them, so they can charge fees, taxes, and make money of the labor. So, in all we do own the land the government just administrates it for us.

Case in point, who or what could the government tax if no one brought into land and worked the land. I do not see Boehner and Obama out plowing a field, and then taxing themselves for ownership of the field. With out us the system collapses on it self. So, the public sector, taxation code and national funding rely upon the people that live in it.

[Alvecia]

"Allowed theft"

This amuses me.
Would not misappropriation of funds be more accurate.

you could say that, but it goes between two different bodies, so it would have to be theft. I would think for it to be misappropriation it would have to stay in the same body to be misappropriated.

-to cut the round about wording, when something is stole it changes control of the item between to people, when some thing is misappropriated the same person makes the error-

That seems pretty semantical but I'll take your point

[Christainville]

Well, it depends. Our nation was in part founded on a governmental system on the provider nation levying taxes on us that were approved by the reigning monarch, and we revolted due to, just because it was legally passed doesn't mean it is correct, but the law stands until removal. We are taught, especially in the modern nations, you obey and respect the government, but then when the election cycle comes around, "the American people control all and they are the ones that matter", then we go back to having to follow what they say do. Its some what a oxymoron for election season.

Taxes only played a small part in our revolt against Great Britain.

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

As to your second part, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.

I will explain what I said. In the last republican debate Christ Christie's whole time was based upon the American people having control, and being the vip in all of this, only because they have votes. As a citizen, he only has one votes, he needs the other citizens votes to become President. So, lets say we do have President Christie, which I pray doesn't happen, if those same people were able to schedule a meeting at the White House, which would likely not happen, and gave President Christie a strategy on how to govern the nation, their ideas and thoughts would not matter, unless they gave him more votes for the 2020 election cycle.

Americans power is only vested during election time to politicians, after that politicians hold the power, and the people who fund their campaigns buy that power for private use.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

@op

If you truly believe all taxes are theft, I suggest you disconnect yourself from all power and water sources, move immediately to an unclaimed piece of territory perhaps in the South Pacific, and begin your own community where you can live freely and without oppression from taxation, but do NOT bring anything from the civilization in which you currently live, because in all likelihood, the items/tools you would want to bring will have been taxed and/or supported by government subsidy at some point.

[Christainville]

Well, it depends. Our nation was in part founded on a governmental system on the provider nation levying taxes on us that were approved by the reigning monarch, and we revolted due to, just because it was legally passed doesn't mean it is correct, but the law stands until removal. We are taught, especially in the modern nations, you obey and respect the government, but then when the election cycle comes around, "the American people control all and they are the ones that matter", then we go back to having to follow what they say do. Its some what a oxymoron for election season.

Taxes only played a small part in our revolt against Great Britain.

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

As to your second part, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.

Now with the American Revolution, don't use a American viewpoint because its made to make you feel patriotic and a nationalist.

Taxes were the main point of the revolution, but not the money alone.
1. Representation, by the charter rules they were under the King and not the English Parliament, so the parliament levying a tax was against their law code, but they did it anyway.
2. Requests about the taxation were denied, things like the Olive Branch were sent to patch things up and make things better; they were ignored.
3. The stamp act congress in 1765 found, as I stated, that only King George the 3rd, was over the colonies, therefore the colonial legislatures was the only legal body with power to levy taxes.
4. The prohibitory act removed the colonies from the King's protection, there fore by default making them a self governing a free body, which created the declaration of independence legitimacy, and which is why we got assistance from other nation with our war for freedom.

So, everything revolved around the taxes, if it was not for the taxes, it may not have been a revolution.

[Iwassoclose]

I enjoy living in a society where law and order exists.

The alternative would be living in anarchy, and you would probably be paying the current overlord in your particular region some form of tribute.

[The Grim Reaper]

The alternative would be living in anarchy, and you would probably be paying the current overlord in your particular region some form of tribute.

What a terrifying dystopia, thank God I pay taxes instead of tribute.

This isn't a rebuttal of the OP, this is just arguing that a specific potential alternative isn't a solution to the problem outlined in the OP.

[Iwassoclose]

The alternative would be living in anarchy, and you would probably be paying the current overlord in your particular region some form of tribute.

What a terrifying dystopia, thank God I pay taxes instead of tribute.

This isn't a rebuttal of the OP, this is just arguing that a specific potential alternative isn't a solution to the problem outlined in the OP.

What problem? That we pay taxes to have public schools, have an organized system to regulate products/services with most jobs to comply with safety standards to protect the population, to maintain and build our public infrastructure that we use on a daily basis etc.

Whats the alternative to paying taxes? Privatize? No, thanks.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not providing a definition of the state, I am providing guidance for how the state can behave ethically... but as we have seen, it is entirely possible for a state to instead choose to behave like a mafia

Then don't tell people "no, the purpose of the state is to provide for its people without stealing". That's stating the purpose of the state. The State's purpose, in political philosophy, is a subject of debate; but the purpose you define isn't mentioned by anybody. It's bullshit.

The State collects taxes and invests these in various programs which are too big to be managed by individuals. What these programs are and how many there will be are a subject of another debate. The point is, the State is meant to be a different thing than corporations. You see, you say "without stealing", but another person could say that a state operating for profit is "extorting" its citizens.

You'd whine about the state asking too high a price on use of railways, if you had your way. Your oh-so-feared taxes would be swapped by high prices. State capitalism - there you have it.

the state would have no incentive to charge above market price for the services because to do so would inevitably de-legitimize itself; also, the private sector would supplant it and provide the service instead

Then don't tell people "no, the purpose of the state is to provide for its people without stealing". That's stating the purpose of the state. The State's purpose, in political philosophy, is a subject of debate; but the purpose you define isn't mentioned by anybody. It's bullshit.

You are factually incorrect. It is not the case that the ''purpose... isn't mentioned by anybody,'' its mentioned by at least one person, me. One person = at least person=/= not mentioned by anybody. That's actually completely mutually exclusive. If at least one person said something, then its impossible that nobody said it.

[Wolfmanne2]

Taxation is not theft. It's society fulfilling their mutual obligation to each other; for those affluent to help each other, whether it is due to sickness (funding for universal health care), unemployment (funding for the welfare state) or due to conflict (funding to defence). I think you get the point. If you think it is theft, there is a place called 'prison' to correct your thinking.

[Infected Mushroom]

Taxation is not theft. It's society fulfilling their mutual obligation to each other; for those affluent to help each other, whether it is due to sickness (funding for universal health care), unemployment (funding for the welfare state) or due to conflict (funding to defence). I think you get the point. If you think it is theft, there is a place called 'prison' to correct your thinking.

so Might Makes Right?

Also, how convenient is it that the person who gets to define these obligations is the group with the most guns. After all, what is an individual worker or an individual family unit in comparison to the vast machinery of the state, the military, the tax collectors, the jailers? There is a vast power imbalance.

[United States of White America]

Agreed.

[Ifreann]

Taxation is not theft. It's society fulfilling their mutual obligation to each other; for those affluent to help each other, whether it is due to sickness (funding for universal health care), unemployment (funding for the welfare state) or due to conflict (funding to defence). I think you get the point. If you think it is theft, there is a place called 'prison' to correct your thinking.

so Might Makes Right?

Also, how convenient is it that the person who gets to define these obligations is the group with the most guns. After all, what is an individual worker or an individual family unit in comparison to the vast machinery of the state, the military, the tax collectors, the jailers? There is a vast power imbalance.

Amusing complaint from someone who wants the state to have more power.

[Infected Mushroom]

so Might Makes Right?

Also, how convenient is it that the person who gets to define these obligations is the group with the most guns. After all, what is an individual worker or an individual family unit in comparison to the vast machinery of the state, the military, the tax collectors, the jailers? There is a vast power imbalance.

Amusing complaint from someone who wants the state to have more power.

there's responsibly using the power of the state, and there's irresponsibly using it

there's using that power with honour and with benevolence, and there's abusing it

stealing from the populace is not good

[Wolfmanne2]

Taxation is not theft. It's society fulfilling their mutual obligation to each other; for those affluent to help each other, whether it is due to sickness (funding for universal health care), unemployment (funding for the welfare state) or due to conflict (funding to defence). I think you get the point. If you think it is theft, there is a place called 'prison' to correct your thinking.

so Might Makes Right?

Also, how convenient is it that the person who gets to define these obligations is the group with the most guns. After all, what is an individual worker or an individual family unit in comparison to the vast machinery of the state, the military, the tax collectors, the jailers? There is a vast power imbalance.

Laws are widely accepted as a greater good or a necessary evil at worst. Follow the law, you get your liberties as a citizen. If not, the justice system brings justice. It is the collective interest of individuals to ensure people aren't able to do whatever the fuck they please.

[Communes of Europe]

No OP, Atlas Shrugged is a terrible book.

[Infected Mushroom]

so Might Makes Right?

Also, how convenient is it that the person who gets to define these obligations is the group with the most guns. After all, what is an individual worker or an individual family unit in comparison to the vast machinery of the state, the military, the tax collectors, the jailers? There is a vast power imbalance.

Laws are widely accepted as a greater good or a necessary evil at worst. Follow the law, you get your liberties as a citizen. If not, the justice system brings justice. It is the collective interest of individuals to ensure people aren't able to do whatever the fuck they please.

just because something is the law, doesn't mean its right

[BK117B2]

I noted your point made during and after I had posted and responded accordingly. I will repeat here.
I looked it up myself and it does indeed state, or rather does not state, that the act has to be criminal. I take fault with the logic however. Following logically, if a GO like the DEA were to seize money, drugs, guns and property from a drug cartel under the threat of imprisonment or during a raid at the point of a gun, that would be extortion. So while it is not implicitly stated in the definition I think the term can only be applied to the party that is in the wrong, be it morally or legally.

I cannot think of any particular example at the moment, but the lack of a real world analogy does not discredit the supposition entirely.

By all means, let us use the version you would prefer: even then, as the party in the wrong, involuntary taxation would be extortion.

I will concede the point, if only because it it devolving into semantics. But I would open up the point to involve a third option. Instead of either paying taxes or being imprisoned, why not pay your "dues" and remove yourself to somewhere that you cannot be taxed. Or a fourth, escape to somewhere you cannot be taxed or held accountable for dues not paid.

The same would apply to other cases of extortion. A business owner being able to pack up shop and leave doesn't alter the nature of extortion.

Is paying for utilities not just tax in a different mask. Or vice versa, are taxes not just paying for utilities but with a fancy name. The tone of your response indicates you are happy to pay for water, electric, etc.

Paying for utilities is obviously entirely different based on the actual issue at hand: consent. You choose to exchange for utilities.

Yes, I'm fine paying for my utilities. I'm also just fine with paying my taxes. That's quite different from the issue at hand: INVOLUNTARY taxation.