Taxes are a form of Theft

[Communes of Europe]

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

I'm going to guess that if our benevolent Lannister overlord demands a yearly tribute from the smallfolk living near Casterly Rock, it's perfectly okay, right?

[Wolfmanne2]

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

Sure, ok. Go stop paying your taxes and rot in prison. The taxpayer will happily fund your stay. It would be cheaper to just shoot you but you know... laws.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No OP, Atlas Shrugged is a terrible book.

In an amusing subversion, even Ayn Rand was actually Ayn-OK (see what I did there?) with taxation and despised the 'right-wing hippies' who opposed such things used to fund the courtly and protection purposes of government.

[Ifreann]

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

Which doesn't really change that you want there to be a vast power imbalance between individuals and the state. That you want the group with the most guns to be making the decisions about what people can and cannot do, about where they are free and where they have obligations.

stealing from the populace is not good

Unless you're stealing their drugs, suits, and dogs.

[The Grim Reaper]

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.

The statement in the OP is that taxes are inherently coercive, not voluntary. In other words, if I pay taxes, it is not because I wish to support the legitimacy of the state, but because I fear the state.

The reason this is an important distinction is because it problematizes social contract theory, which is a fundamental hurdle between anarchist and statist theory. Anarchists believe that the means do not justify the ends, when it comes to taxation. This is a philosophy that in particular underpins pacifist-anarchist theory, whereby violence cannot be justified by overthrowing violent institutions - violence has to be the end to justify violence, wherein violence would be legitimized if you were trying to disarm someone attacking someone else, for example.

Anarchists believe that taxes cannot be voluntary. A person does not have the capacity to go somewhere that does not have taxes, because freedom of movement is never guaranteed. Furthermore, state institutions hold authority over /all/ of the Earth, with the exception of Antartica. Bir Tawil is not unclaimed. it is simply not claimed, which is a meaningful distinction because anyone setting up a state there will be infringing upon someone's sovereignty - you just don't know if it's Egypt's or Sudan's. Regardless of whether or not state institutions are a superior system of working does not change the fact that people, in theory, should have the choice to subject themselves to sub-optimal systems of governance. They do not have the chocie to subject themselves to institutions outside current sovereign states, as recognized by the United Nations, as far as I know.

Statists believe that the ends can justify the means - again, on a spectrum. There /can/ be a 'state of exception' - an authority figure that designs exceptions to the assumed rules of our world, when so justified. Taxation exists in that state of exception because it coerces people into utilizing what states claim is a superior system of distributing resources.

Having shown that the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is a /meaningful statement/ which can be either proved or disproved based on a /subjective/ philosophical framework, the implications of that statement /now/ become important. BUT IT ISN'T THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

You can preface the point all you want - by arguing that even though some people may interpret it as coercive, like theft, it is NOT theft because it has a justified ends. The problem is that the authorities who justify the ends - the circumstances under which taxes can be collected - are political representatives. The fact that you can differentiate taxes from theft is because of a /subjective/ framework of understanding the world, not an objective one.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying your rejection of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is based on your understanding of the state of exception, created by sovereign states, is based on the fact that states implement taxes in a way that they assume is generally optimal. By rejecting the statement, you're not proving it's false, just defending the fact that it has to be false for your view of the world to remain consistent. The statement is not one that is provable, because the definition of theft is being problematized - the statement becomes true or false depending on how you define theft. People who believe the statement is false believe it because the state of exception has a certain definition of the world theft that specifically excludes taxes. That's what the state of exception does, it acts as an extension of social legitimacy to produce the ability for the state to exercise means of acting 'optimally'.

Arguing in favour of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' means that you argue the state does not act 'optimally', thereby delegitimizing the state of exception.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

Sure, ok. Go stop paying your taxes and rot in prison. The taxpayer will happily fund your stay. It would be cheaper to just shoot you but you know... laws.

what does this have to do with the topic?

[Wolfmanne2]

Sure, ok. Go stop paying your taxes and rot in prison. The taxpayer will happily fund your stay. It would be cheaper to just shoot you but you know... laws.

what does this have to do with the topic?

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.

[Infected Mushroom]

what does this have to do with the topic?

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.

because the state has overwhelming firepower

[Iwassoclose]

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.

The statement in the OP is that taxes are inherently coercive, not voluntary. In other words, if I pay taxes, it is not because I wish to support the legitimacy of the state, but because I fear the state.

The reason this is an important distinction is because it problematizes social contract theory, which is a fundamental hurdle between anarchist and statist theory. Anarchists believe that the means do not justify the ends, when it comes to taxation. This is a philosophy that in particular underpins pacifist-anarchist theory, whereby violence cannot be justified by overthrowing violent institutions - violence has to be the end to justify violence, wherein violence would be legitimized if you were trying to disarm someone attacking someone else, for example.

Anarchists believe that taxes cannot be voluntary. A person does not have the capacity to go somewhere that does not have taxes, because freedom of movement is never guaranteed. Furthermore, state institutions hold authority over /all/ of the Earth, with the exception of Antartica. Bir Tawil is not unclaimed. it is simply not claimed, which is a meaningful distinction because anyone setting up a state there will be infringing upon someone's sovereignty - you just don't know if it's Egypt's or Sudan's. Regardless of whether or not state institutions are a superior system of working does not change the fact that people, in theory, should have the choice to subject themselves to sub-optimal systems of governance. They do not have the chocie to subject themselves to institutions outside current sovereign states, as recognized by the United Nations, as far as I know.

Statists believe that the ends can justify the means - again, on a spectrum. There /can/ be a 'state of exception' - an authority figure that designs exceptions to the assumed rules of our world, when so justified. Taxation exists in that state of exception because it coerces people into utilizing what states claim is a superior system of distributing resources.

Having shown that the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is a /meaningful statement/ which can be either proved or disproved based on a /subjective/ philosophical framework, the implications of that statement /now/ become important. BUT IT ISN'T THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

You can preface the point all you want - by arguing that even though some people may interpret it as coercive, like theft, it is NOT theft because it has a justified ends. The problem is that the authorities who justify the ends - the circumstances under which taxes can be collected - are political representatives. The fact that you can differentiate taxes from theft is because of a /subjective/ framework of understanding the world, not an objective one.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying your rejection of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is based on your understanding of the state of exception, created by sovereign states, is based on the fact that states implement taxes in a way that they assume is generally optimal. By rejecting the statement, you're not proving it's false, just defending the fact that it has to be false for your view of the world to remain consistent. The statement is not one that is provable, because the definition of theft is being problematized - the statement becomes true or false depending on how you define theft. People who believe the statement is false believe it because the state of exception has a certain definition of the world theft that specifically excludes taxes. That's what the state of exception does, it acts as an extension of social legitimacy to produce the ability for the state to exercise means of acting 'optimally'.

Arguing in favour of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' means that you argue the state does not act 'optimally', thereby delegitimizing the state of exception.

I am not claiming my stance is the objective truth here. You could have gotten that across with a lot fewer words.

[Communes of Europe]

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.

because the state has overwhelming firepower

They don't use heavy artillery to force people to pay their taxes.

Good idea though! I'll have to see if we can put that into practice.

[Alvecia]

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.

Well then we have to ask ourselves, if the method, in this case "extortion" is done by those in the legal and moral right against those in the legal and moral wrong to reach a legally and morally favourable outcome, is it not a force for good? In this case I would say yes.
Separately we must ask, if it is not good, yet it is still legal and moral, should it not be tolerated? Does the greater good outweigh the lesser evil. In this case I would say yes. The greatest Good more the most people.

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.

Perhaps, but now you can voluntarily choose between options 1, 3 and 4. The point here is that the closer the example gets to what might reasonable be assumed to be close to reality, the more and more the choice becomes a voluntary one.

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.

I think we will need to be more specific to argue this point further. Is there one particular tax or group of taxes that you consider to be involuntary?

'My' logic is just to go by the meaning of the word. Is the DEA in your example using force or threat of force to get those things?

Obviously there are forms of asset seizure that require no force or threat of force.....so how could it apply to those things?

I would say that in my example they are yes. Which by the meaning of the word means the DEA is extorting drug cartels by seizing property under threat of imprisonment or death (not a literal death threat, see my previous post). Is this a bad thing? Well that links quite nicely into my point above. As to the forms of asset seizure that do not require force? They only do not require force if the person whose assets are being seized refuses to consent to their removal. Which again, links into my point above.

[The Ridings of Yorkshire]

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.

because the state has overwhelming firepower

It's "overwhelming firepower" that won't blow you up if you just move to a tax haven.

[Communes of Europe]

because the state has overwhelming firepower

It's "overwhelming firepower" that won't blow you up if you just move to a tax haven.

Note to self: bomb all known tax havens after becoming supreme ruler for life.

[Alvecia]

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.

because the state has overwhelming firepower

I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?

[Infected Mushroom]

because the state has overwhelming firepower

They don't use heavy artillery to force people to pay their taxes.

Good idea though! I'll have to see if we can put that into practice.

I never said they did

[Infected Mushroom]

because the state has overwhelming firepower

It's "overwhelming firepower" that won't blow you up if you just move to a tax haven.

you're assuming its easy to find work in a tax haven as a foreigner, or that I have the means and the connections to settle there

[Infected Mushroom]

because the state has overwhelming firepower

I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?

ever heard of the American Revolution?

[Tekeristan]

I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?

ever heard of the American Revolution?

That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.

[Devon Teyson]

Define theft, please. Then we can see if taxes meet the definition.

[Infected Mushroom]

ever heard of the American Revolution?

That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.

no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

[Occupied Deutschland]

because the state has overwhelming firepower

I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?

Revolutionaries in the US, 'Salt Marchers' in India, Jews in Rome, French revolutionaries (a number of times, perhaps most famously in the 1790s and 1840s), and all manner of other times.
For more information, I refer you to the wiki on the subject.

[Communes of Europe]

That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.

no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

No, it was "no taxation without representation" with emphasis on the representation part. So "give us representation", not "don't make us pay taxes".

[Infected Mushroom]

no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

No, it was "no taxation without representation" with emphasis on the representation part. So "give us representation", not "don't make us pay taxes".

but it was still a war that was fought to avoid paying certain types of taxes

tell me, during the war, did the American troops continue to pay taxes to the British? Did the merchants who openly backed the revolution? Were many of them killed (some of them by artillery)? Yes.

You have here, both an example of people being killed for refusing to pay taxes (though not all taxes) AND some of those people being killed by the highest forms of state firepower available at the time period.

[Communes of Europe]

No, it was "no taxation without representation" with emphasis on the representation part. So "give us representation", not "don't make us pay taxes".

but it was still a war that was fought to avoid paying certain types of taxes

tell me, during the war, did the American troops continue to pay taxes to the British? Did the merchants who openly backed the revolution? Were many of them killed (some of them by artillery)? Yes.

You have here, both an example of people being killed for refusing to pay taxes (though not all taxes) AND some of those people being killed by the highest forms of state firepower available at the time period.

No, they were killed for taking up arms against their British overlords. That they didn't pay their taxes was not the main reason for them being killed.

[Genivaria]

That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.

no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

You clearly slept through history class.