Taxes are a form of Theft

[Infected Mushroom]

No, taxation is not theft.

You must pay in order for the government to supply you with certain amenities.

Where will the money come from to - say - pay the teachers' salaries in public schools?

You are deriving an ''ought'' principle from an ''is'' principle.

You are saying, ''it is the case right now that people are expected to pay and that seems to have some correspondence with the government's provision of certain amenities...'' THEREFORE ''it SHOULD be the case (because).''

That's a fallacy.

[Galloism]

churches also don't really provide anything tangible, its easy to stay afloat on donations if you don't have to produce anything.

they provide food, shelter, medicine, and basically a smaller version of everything a government can provide (I've even seen churches that offer shuttle bus services); the Catholic Church has enough guardsmen to form an effective police too if it wanted to and its largely run on donations

churches, unlike governments, do these things without stealing from the people. They have enough confidence in their legitimacy and in their mission to function on donations, and their followers respect them for it

Given some churches essentially threaten their followers with eternal torturous suffering if they do not provide funding, one could argue that there is no "free contract" there either. They have higher levels of coercion than the government.

I mean, you can argue such coercion is largely imaginary if you like, but it's very real in the mind of the person being coerced.

[No Serfdom]

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

The government simply imposed one upon you upon the very moment you were born. Thats not a contract, its a power relation. A child can't be born into a contract yet from the very moment you are born, the government exercises power over you.

You do not owe the government money because the government never negotiated the terms with you. They unilaterally imposed terms on you from the get go. You didn't go to the government and negotiate your benefits in exchange for money, the government chose to gave you benefits from the moment you were born. Then it demanded money from you at gunpoint based on its unilateral interpretation of what you owe them. Thats not a valid contract. There is no social contract. There is no valid basis for taxation and there is no sense in which you have meaningfully consented.

This social contract thing is just government propaganda to justify the status quo, promulgated by scholars who do not have a correct understanding of the fundamental principles of contract law (which require two parties to negotiate face to face in some sense, the exact terms and conditions of the contract before it starts running and before it has any binding effect)

Ok, so let's say you go into a building where they serve food, and you tell them you want some quesadillas, two martinis, and 11 margaritas. Then they present you with a bill.

Since you never specifically discussed the cost of all this food and alcohol, doing a dine and dash stagger is both ethical and moral. That's what we're saying here.

Correct?

The difference is restaurant owners actually legitimately own their restaurants.

[Infected Mushroom]

they provide food, shelter, medicine, and basically a smaller version of everything a government can provide (I've even seen churches that offer shuttle bus services); the Catholic Church has enough guardsmen to form an effective police too if it wanted to and its largely run on donations

churches, unlike governments, do these things without stealing from the people. They have enough confidence in their legitimacy and in their mission to function on donations, and their followers respect them for it

Given some churches essentially threaten their followers with eternal torturous suffering if they do not provide funding, one could argue that there is no "free contract" there either. They have higher levels of coercion than the government.

I mean, you can argue such coercion is largely imaginary if you like, but it's very real in the mind of the person being coerced.

there are no contracts between the church and its followers for the most part, its entirely come and go as you please

the church doesn't really run on a regime of rights and obligations, its completely based on free association unless you are a regular member of some priestly order

[Grave_n_idle]

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

Then there has probably never been any actual contract of any kind, ever.

The situations in which both parties sit down as equal parties, for any contract, are probably sufficiently rare that you can count them on the fingers of one head.

[Galloism]

The difference is restaurant owners actually legitimately own their restaurants.

The united states has legitimate claim to its territory as well.

The thirteen colonies received their property by right of rebellion, and formed the government. Other territories were gained via right of conquest.

The Louisiana Purchase was a direct purchase of land from France. That land was bought and paid for.

The same applies to Alaska.

California and Texas submitted themselves to the Fed voluntarily, including the area of Oregon and Washington. The other areas were gained via right of conquest.

[Len Hyet]

Jesus not this shit again.

As has been explained, probably something like a thousand times, you are in a social contract with the government. Or more specifically, your employer is. The government does not "take" your money. Your employer withholds a portion of your salary to pay your taxes. You are free to leave the borders of a civilized country and no longer enjoy the amenities provided by said civilized nation if you really really want to keep every cent you earn.

However, if I may, just for a moment, put forward a counter point. You could stay, stop it with the pseudo-anarchist pseudo-intellectual nonsense and realize that hey, I like driving on paved roads. I like having a fire department. I like having a police force. I like having hospitals.

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

The government simply imposed one upon you upon the very moment you were born. Thats not a contract, its a power relation. A child can't be born into a contract yet from the very moment you are born, the government exercises power over you.

You do not owe the government money because the government never negotiated the terms with you. They unilaterally imposed terms on you from the get go. You didn't go to the government and negotiate your benefits in exchange for money, the government chose to gave you benefits from the moment you were born. Then it demanded money from you at gunpoint based on its unilateral interpretation of what you owe them. Thats not a valid contract. There is no social contract. There is no valid basis for taxation and there is no sense in which you have meaningfully consented.

This social contract thing is just government propaganda to justify the status quo, promulgated by scholars who do not have a correct understanding of the fundamental principles of contract law (which require two parties to negotiate face to face in some sense, the exact terms and conditions of the contract before it starts running and before it has any binding effect)

Let me use an analogy that I think will best get the point across. Think of taxes as like paying rent. The state owns the land and if you want to live on the land you must pay rent. The state is like a shopping centre (or shopping mall for my American readers). If you want to enter it you must agree to abide by its rules. If you refuse, you will be punished by the security guards. If you don’t like this shopping centre go to a different one instead. A libertarian may complain that this is unfair because no matter where they will go they will have to live in a state and therefore be subject to someone’s rules. But if you refuse to go to one shopping centre you still have to go to one somewhere. Likewise if we abolished the state, then no matter where you went you would still be one someone else’s private property and therefore subject to their rules.

[The Grey Wolf]

Congratulations on discovering one of the most stale memes of this forum.

Dammit. Beat me to it.

[Galloism]

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

Then there has probably never been any actual contract of any kind, ever.

The situations in which both parties sit down as equal parties, for any contract, are probably sufficiently rare that you can count them on the fingers of one head.

Not sure if that was a typo or not, but I would leave that exactly as it is.

Because it's true even with the typo.

[Galloism]

Given some churches essentially threaten their followers with eternal torturous suffering if they do not provide funding, one could argue that there is no "free contract" there either. They have higher levels of coercion than the government.

I mean, you can argue such coercion is largely imaginary if you like, but it's very real in the mind of the person being coerced.

there are no contracts between the church and its followers for the most part, its entirely come and go as you please

the church doesn't really run on a regime of rights and obligations, its completely based on free association unless you are a regular member of some priestly order

Try showing up at church with no pants on. I'll bet you you discover an obligation really fast.

[Len Hyet]

there are no contracts between the church and its followers for the most part, its entirely come and go as you please

the church doesn't really run on a regime of rights and obligations, its completely based on free association unless you are a regular member of some priestly order

Try showing up at church with no pants on. I'll bet you you discover an obligation really fast.

Clearly you're attending the wrong churches

[The Grey Wolf]

I agree that people should not have to pay taxes.

So long as they don't use roads, call police or firefighters, or basically anything else that taxes go into.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

No, taxation is not theft.

You must pay in order for the government to supply you with certain amenities.

Where will the money come from to - say - pay the teachers' salaries in public schools?

Apparently those on a government salary would have to work for free or something in Infected Mushroom's tax free world.

[Galloism]

I agree that people should not have to pay taxes.

So long as they don't use roads, call police or firefighters, or basically anything else that taxes go into.

Given you receive the benefit of the justice system and military whether you like it or not, the only way to actually avoid receiving the benefit of government would be to move out of the government's territory.

[Infected Mushroom]

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

The government simply imposed one upon you upon the very moment you were born. Thats not a contract, its a power relation. A child can't be born into a contract yet from the very moment you are born, the government exercises power over you.

You do not owe the government money because the government never negotiated the terms with you. They unilaterally imposed terms on you from the get go. You didn't go to the government and negotiate your benefits in exchange for money, the government chose to gave you benefits from the moment you were born. Then it demanded money from you at gunpoint based on its unilateral interpretation of what you owe them. Thats not a valid contract. There is no social contract. There is no valid basis for taxation and there is no sense in which you have meaningfully consented.

This social contract thing is just government propaganda to justify the status quo, promulgated by scholars who do not have a correct understanding of the fundamental principles of contract law (which require two parties to negotiate face to face in some sense, the exact terms and conditions of the contract before it starts running and before it has any binding effect)

Ok, so let's say you go into a building where they serve food, and you tell them you want some quesadillas, two martinis, and 11 margaritas. Then they present you with a bill.

Since you never specifically discussed the cost of all this food and alcohol, doing a dine and dash stagger is both ethical and moral. That's what we're saying here.

Correct?

Going to a restaurant is a situation covered by contract law principles, even where you elect not to look at the menu and just order by item.

The contents of the Offer (containing the exact terms including the corresponding responsibilities... ex a Burger is 4.50 dollars) are located in the menu or on a signboard. Acceptance occurs when you make the order. There is an exact moment you can pinpoint to which clearly says... at this moment two parties (the restaurant and the customer) agree to be bound by the terms of the contract which starts running from that moment on. Before the meal was ordered, there were no obligations. After the meal is ordered, there is an obligation on the part of the restaurant to make and serve the food, and there is a corresponding set of obligations from the customer to pay the price in the Offer.

The fact that some customers may choose to NOT look at the exact contents of the Offer doesn't mean the moment isn't there. They have simply elected to enter into a standard form contract, whereby they agree to let the other party make all of the terms (and the courts wouldn't enforce such a thing, where the terms are clearly onerous but thats dealing with equity).

When you're dealing with the government, you really cannot point to an exact moment in time whereby a contract started running with an action on both sides that signify Offer and Acceptance. It cannot start from the moment you were born since under the common law a child doesn't have the capacity to consent to any kind of a contract (and in any case, there is no meeting of the parties here). Yet from this exact moment the government starts providing services to the child on its own accord (police, medical, educational etc). Later on, the government attempts to retroactively claim that the child VOLUNTARILY consented to the terms of a contract and then seeks to unilaterally retroactively impose terms (they decide how much is to be paid from the wages here on)... this is blatantly ridiculous.

The framework simply doesn't work. The word Social Contract is at best a terrible misappropriation of legal terminology, at worst it stems from fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts work.

[Len Hyet]

Going to a restaurant is a situation covered by contract law principles, even where you elect not to look at the menu and just order by item.

The contents of the Offer (containing the exact terms including the corresponding responsibilities... ex a Burger is 4.50 dollars) are located in the menu or on a signboard. Acceptance occurs when you make the order. There is an exact moment you can pinpoint to which clearly says... at this moment two parties (the restaurant and the customer) agree to be bound by the terms of the contract which starts running from that moment on. Before the meal was ordered, there were no obligations. After the meal is ordered, there is an obligation on the part of the restaurant to make and serve the food, and there is a corresponding set of obligations from the customer to pay the price in the Offer.

The fact that some customers may choose to NOT look at the exact contents of the Offer doesn't mean the moment isn't there. They have simply elected to enter into a standard form contract, whereby they agree to let the other party make all of the terms (and the courts wouldn't enforce such a thing, where the terms are clearly onerous but thats dealing with equity).

When you're dealing with the government, you really cannot point to an exact moment in time whereby a contract started running with an action on both sides that signify Offer and Acceptance. It cannot start from the moment you were born since under the common law a child doesn't have the capacity to consent to any kind of a contract (and in any case, there is no meeting of the parties here). Yet from this exact moment the government starts providing services to the child on its own accord (police, medical, educational etc). Later on, the government attempts to retroactively claim that the child VOLUNTARILY consented to the terms of a contract and then seeks to unilaterally retroactively impose terms (they decide how much is to be paid from the wages here on)... this is blatantly ridiculous.

The framework simply doesn't work. The word Social Contract is at best a terrible misappropriation of legal terminology, at worst it stems from fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts work.

Look if you don't like the term Social Contract either take it up with Socrates (you know, the dead greek guy) or stop arguing semantics.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

No, taxation is not theft.

You must pay in order for the government to supply you with certain amenities.

Where will the money come from to - say - pay the teachers' salaries in public schools?

You are deriving an ''ought'' principle from an ''is'' principle.

You are saying, ''it is the case right now that people are expected to pay and that seems to have some correspondence with the government's provision of certain amenities...'' THEREFORE ''it SHOULD be the case (because).''

That's a fallacy.

No, it's not. In order to rule out the possibility that "IS" situation is the result of an "OUGHT" situation, you need to show that it could have been otherwise.

Would you propose to replace the taxation by donations? I don't think that would work.

The only feasible alternative I can think of would be a more local kind of taxation system, where people have a direct say on where their money will be spent. Like building a bridge on a town, and requiring the local inhabitants to pay for the costs.

A utopic solution would be to establish a commune where everybody shares everything, as such no one would really be paying anything.

Still, you would actually be paying with your labour.

At the end, there is not a big difference.

[Infected Mushroom]

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

Then there has probably never been any actual contract of any kind, ever.

The situations in which both parties sit down as equal parties, for any contract, are probably sufficiently rare that you can count them on the fingers of one head.

The law recognises formal equality (hence why it IS possible for the government to have a contract with an individual, say in a lumber supply contract, equality is met so long as there isn't duress or undue influence etc... but that is not to say the two parties must be equal in wealth, firepower etc).

However, in order for the law to have the possibility of finding that a certain sit down between two parties is equal before the law... THERE NEEDS TO BE SUCH A MEETING.

There was never such a meeting between a representative of the State and the individual which forms the basis upon which the state exercises its jurisdiction and power over the individual to collect taxes. The state simply imposed it. And jurisdiction started running from the very moment a person was born.

There just isn't that moment where a person and the government met, and the person agreed to be bound by a set of obligations in exchange for some obligations on the part of the government, the moment doesn't exist. And since it doesn't exist, there can't be a contract.

[Galloism]

Going to a restaurant is a situation covered by contract law principles, even where you elect not to look at the menu and just order by item.

The contents of the Offer (containing the exact terms including the corresponding responsibilities... ex a Burger is 4.50 dollars) are located in the menu or on a signboard. Acceptance occurs when you make the order. There is an exact moment you can pinpoint to which clearly says... at this moment two parties (the restaurant and the customer) agree to be bound by the terms of the contract which starts running from that moment on. Before the meal was ordered, there were no obligations. After the meal is ordered, there is an obligation on the part of the restaurant to make and serve the food, and there is a corresponding set of obligations from the customer to pay the price in the Offer.

The fact that some customers may choose to NOT look at the exact contents of the Offer doesn't mean the moment isn't there. They have simply elected to enter into a standard form contract, whereby they agree to let the other party make all of the terms (and the courts wouldn't enforce such a thing, where the terms are clearly onerous but thats dealing with equity).

There is no requirement for the menu to contain prices or for said restaurant to have a signboard defining prices. At many higher class restaurants, they don't.

So if you go to a high class restaurant that does not define prices in the menu, you can dine and dash legally and contract principles don't apply?

When you're dealing with the government, you really cannot point to an exact moment in time whereby a contract started running with an action on both sides that signify Offer and Acceptance. It cannot start from the moment you were born since under the common law a child doesn't have the capacity to consent to any kind of a contract (and in any case, there is no meeting of the parties here). Yet from this exact moment the government starts providing services to the child on its own accord (police, medical, educational etc). Later on, the government attempts to retroactively claim that the child VOLUNTARILY consented to the terms of a contract and then seeks to unilaterally retroactively impose terms (they decide how much is to be paid from the wages here on)... this is blatantly ridiculous.

The framework simply doesn't work. The word Social Contract is at best a terrible misappropriation of legal terminology, at worst it stems from fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts work.

For arguments sake, let's say the contract occurs at age 18 when the person remains in the property owned by the government. It was accepted on a provisional basis before that by the person's parents while the person is underage. The person may leave the government's rental property at that point if they want to, and renounce their citizenship, and then they are not subject to that government's taxes anymore.

However, as long as they remain on the government's property, the terms of the contract still apply.

Think of the government like a landlord. As long as you live in the house, you must still pay the rent.

[Ifreann]

Jesus not this shit again.

As has been explained, probably something like a thousand times, you are in a social contract with the government. Or more specifically, your employer is. The government does not "take" your money. Your employer withholds a portion of your salary to pay your taxes. You are free to leave the borders of a civilized country and no longer enjoy the amenities provided by said civilized nation if you really really want to keep every cent you earn.

However, if I may, just for a moment, put forward a counter point. You could stay, stop it with the pseudo-anarchist pseudo-intellectual nonsense and realize that hey, I like driving on paved roads. I like having a fire department. I like having a police force. I like having hospitals.

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

No it absolutely does not. You might wank to contract law, but this is not true of every other mind in history.

[Infected Mushroom]

Going to a restaurant is a situation covered by contract law principles, even where you elect not to look at the menu and just order by item.

The contents of the Offer (containing the exact terms including the corresponding responsibilities... ex a Burger is 4.50 dollars) are located in the menu or on a signboard. Acceptance occurs when you make the order. There is an exact moment you can pinpoint to which clearly says... at this moment two parties (the restaurant and the customer) agree to be bound by the terms of the contract which starts running from that moment on. Before the meal was ordered, there were no obligations. After the meal is ordered, there is an obligation on the part of the restaurant to make and serve the food, and there is a corresponding set of obligations from the customer to pay the price in the Offer.

The fact that some customers may choose to NOT look at the exact contents of the Offer doesn't mean the moment isn't there. They have simply elected to enter into a standard form contract, whereby they agree to let the other party make all of the terms (and the courts wouldn't enforce such a thing, where the terms are clearly onerous but thats dealing with equity).

When you're dealing with the government, you really cannot point to an exact moment in time whereby a contract started running with an action on both sides that signify Offer and Acceptance. It cannot start from the moment you were born since under the common law a child doesn't have the capacity to consent to any kind of a contract (and in any case, there is no meeting of the parties here). Yet from this exact moment the government starts providing services to the child on its own accord (police, medical, educational etc). Later on, the government attempts to retroactively claim that the child VOLUNTARILY consented to the terms of a contract and then seeks to unilaterally retroactively impose terms (they decide how much is to be paid from the wages here on)... this is blatantly ridiculous.

The framework simply doesn't work. The word Social Contract is at best a terrible misappropriation of legal terminology, at worst it stems from fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts work.

Look if you don't like the term Social Contract either take it up with Socrates (you know, the dead greek guy) or stop arguing semantics.

I don't appreciate it when people confuse the words social contract with what is ordinarily and rightfully meant by the word contract. I find the term so problematic that it is entirely meaningless. There is absolutely no sense in which a social contract in any way even corresponds with any sensible use of the word contract.

The notion that we have any kind of contract with the government that justifies taxation is laughable. No, the government simply imposed it and the terms are completely unilaterally imposed.

[Len Hyet]

Look if you don't like the term Social Contract either take it up with Socrates (you know, the dead greek guy) or stop arguing semantics.

I don't appreciate it when people confuse the words social contract with what is ordinarily and rightfully meant by the word contract. I find the term so problematic that it is entirely meaningless. There is absolutely no sense in which a social contract in any way even corresponds with any sensible use of the word contract.

The notion that we have any kind of contract with the government that justifies taxation is laughable. No, the government simply imposed it and the terms are completely unilaterally imposed.

Ahem, to reiterate my previous point:

Let me use an analogy that I think will best get the point across. Think of taxes as like paying rent. The state owns the land and if you want to live on the land you must pay rent. The state is like a shopping centre. If you want to enter it you must agree to abide by its rules. If you refuse, you will be punished by the security guards. If you don’t like this shopping centre go to a different one instead. A libertarian may complain that this is unfair because no matter where they will go they will have to live in a state and therefore be subject to someone’s rules. But if you refuse to go to one shopping centre you still have to go to one somewhere. Likewise if we abolished the state, then no matter where you went you would still be one someone else’s private property and therefore subject to their rules.

[Infected Mushroom]

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

No it absolutely does not. You might wank to contract law, but this is not true of every other mind in history.

What are the Terms of this contract then? When did the parties meet to finalise/negotiate its contents and signify their intentions to be bound?

What did the State get out of this contract that it didn't already have the power to do from the moment the person was born? What did the person get out of the contract that the state wasn't already providing?

And as I've said, the contract simply can't start running from the moment the child was born, children can't enter into contracts as a capable party

[Len Hyet]

No it absolutely does not. You might wank to contract law, but this is not true of every other mind in history.

What are the Terms of this contract then? When did the parties meet to finalise/negotiate its contents and signify their intentions to be bound?

What did the State get out of this contract that it didn't already have the power to do from the moment the person was born?

The avoidance of violent rebellion mostly

[Infected Mushroom]

What are the Terms of this contract then? When did the parties meet to finalise/negotiate its contents and signify their intentions to be bound?

What did the State get out of this contract that it didn't already have the power to do from the moment the person was born?

The avoidance of violent rebellion mostly

At what moment did the person meet with the government and say to them in some form ''I want X, Y, and Z and I am willing to pay S, T, and U what do you think?... in exchange I will promise not to engage in violent rebellion?'' or agree to some variation of those terms provided by a representative of the government?

Or did the government decide from the very beginning and always had the power to decide and impose, how much any given person is required to pay?

Its more like the government said ''you will not rebel, you will pay S, T, and U and if you play nicely PERHAPS I will give you X, Y, and Z.'' Don't like it? Well guess what? You voluntarily consented to all of this... at some point apparently