Taxes are a form of Theft

[Nation of Lafayette]

Enjoyed a road? A public school? Gone on a field trip to the park with your public school? Maybe you if you're a poor senior you enjoy Medicare. Or enjoyed the preservation or beauty of the grand canyon. Or perhaps you like not being invaded by a foreign power.

Thank you taxes!

[Hurdegaryp]

the word contract is fundamentally legal in nature, anything else is a misappropriation of the term

The English language allows it to be used in other senses. It has been so used for centuries. Deal with it.

A contract is broadly defined as an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified, which does not make it necessary by default to get the law, a subject which the OP apparently is less familiar with than he wants us to believe, involved. Hence why the 'contract' part of the social contract is the right word at the right place, since social interaction tends to involve ALL the parties.

[Ifreann]

The English language allows it to be used in other senses. It has been so used for centuries. Deal with it.

A contract is broadly defined as an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified, which does not make it necessary by default to get the law, a subject which the OP apparently is less familiar with than he wants us to believe, involved. Hence why the 'contract' part of the social contract is the right word at the right place, since social interaction tends to involve ALL the parties.

Exactly so.

[Galloism]

No, but when theft must be illegal to be theft, which it must, and it's not illegal, it's not theft.

Words have meanings. Taxes cannot be theft because they do not meet the definition of theft.

So you've posted this many times on a topic about theft without knowing the meaning of theft.

Theft is "the action or crime of stealing." So, an action of stealing, even without any broken law, IS theft.

Stealing is defined as:

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Since they have the legal right to exact taxation, it's not stealing. Since it's not stealing, it's not theft.

It's never been fully abandoned, or, conversely, it was claimed by the government immediately upon such abandonment. The government has exercised these claims on behalf of the people the entire time. You just gave absolute right for the government, on behalf of the people, to have valid claims immediately once a property has been abandoned.

Because once a property has been abandoned, anyone can claim it. The government claimed certain rights to it, so now it has it.

Wrong. I haven't abandoned it, so it has not become communal property.

I didn't say you did, but it HAS lied abandoned at some point in the past while the government was in existence exerting these claims on behalf of the people. If the government existed at any point while the property was abandoned, and the government never explicitly repudiated those claims, the government still exercises them on behalf of the people it serves.

Has your land been continuously occupied for the entire time a government has exercised such authority over it plus some period before?

Prove it.

I read it, and you haven't answered the question. Why should I be the one to explain to you something that you came up with?

If this applies equally to the government as it does to you, then the only way, under your logic, for your claim that the government has no right is that the property has been continuously owned by people since before the government exerted such rights.

Since the government has continuously exercised those rights even though it has changed owners many many times, it never ceased operating the land as rights holder.

Then your property claim is not valid. Try again.

Ooooh, so you're going with 'nuh-uh' as your argument.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp of property rights or the transfer of those rights. I'm using YOUR logic to show why the government has every right to claim the property as its own. The fact that you can't see that is boggling to me.

No, but the original landholder either did, or the property sat abandoned at some point at some time. If it was ever abandoned while the government was in existence and exercised these claims, then you don't have a leg to stand on even by your OWN logic.

The original landholder is not relevant. They are dead and do not have any authority to give over my rights.

But their heirs do.

Then you should have a document clearly stating the government has surrendered sovreignty rights over your land upon its sale to whoever bought it from the government. I'll wait while you produce it.

That's illogical. Selling it without any contract reserving certain things for yourself means you don't have those things. Basically you're saying that 'since they never made something, you should be able to produce evidence of its existence'

Land rights only cease if they are given up or seized. Unless you can show that those rights have been either given up or seized, then they have not. A good example is mineral rights, which are tied to the land.

If you sell me your mineral rights for a sum, I own those rights.

Even if you sell the land to a third party, who has never met me nor knows I hold the mineral rights, I STILL hold the mineral rights. Those rights are attached to the land. I hold those rights even though he doesn't know I hold those rights. It may not say anywhere in the contract I still hold those rights, but those rights are mine. I own them, and I never surrendered them.

[Trotskylvania]

True. There, however, is such a thing as the social contract.

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

The social contract is prior to contract law.

Without the social contract, there is no state, no social system, no law, and no contracts. There is only the Hobbesian war of all against all, and the only agreements among men are pacts among wolves.

[Infected Mushroom]

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

The social contract is prior to contract law.

Without the social contract, there is no state, no social system, no law, and no contracts. There is only the Hobbesian war of all against all, and the only agreements among men are pacts among wolves.

the law of contracts (even if you are just looking at Western contract law in the common law tradition) predates the conceptualisation of the so-called social contract, hence why the social contract is a misappropriation

[BK117B2]

So you've posted this many times on a topic about theft without knowing the meaning of theft.

Theft is "the action or crime of stealing." So, an action of stealing, even without any broken law, IS theft.

Stealing is defined as:

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Since they have the legal right to exact taxation, it's not stealing. Since it's not stealing, it's not theft.

"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:"
"to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
"to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission"
"to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal"
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully "
" to take surreptitiously or without permission"
"To take (the property of another) without right or permission"

Thanks to Merriam-Webster, TheFreeDictionary, and Dictionary.com for those enlightening entries.


So.....taking without permission.....that sure looks like a definition of stealing! Turns out, by definition, it IS stealing.....and thus theft.

Wrong. I haven't abandoned it, so it has not become communal property.

I didn't say you did, but it HAS lied abandoned at some point in the past while the government was in existence exerting these claims on behalf of the people. If the government existed at any point while the property was abandoned, and the government never explicitly repudiated those claims, the government still exercises them on behalf of the people it serves.

Has your land been continuously occupied for the entire time a government has exercised such authority over it plus some period before?

Prove it.

Don't need to prove it as it isn't relevant. The landowner (in this case me, not the government acting as a proxy for a group of people) has the right to set rent. Without a contract reserving that condition, you lose it when you sell off the property.

I read it, and you haven't answered the question. Why should I be the one to explain to you something that you came up with?

If this applies equally to the government as it does to you, then the only way, under your logic, for your claim that the government has no right is that the property has been continuously owned by people since before the government exerted such rights.

Since the government has continuously exercised those rights even though it has changed owners many many times, it never ceased operating the land as rights holder.

No, it hasn't. The government gave away or sold the land. It is no longer the landowner.

Ooooh, so you're going with 'nuh-uh' as your argument.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp of property rights or the transfer of those rights. I'm using YOUR logic to show why the government has every right to claim the property as its own. The fact that you can't see that is boggling to me.

No, you're using your 'logic' and falsely presenting it as mine.

The original landholder is not relevant. They are dead and do not have any authority to give over my rights.

But their heirs do.

Wrong. When someone sells or gives away a property, their heirs don't get it.

That's illogical. Selling it without any contract reserving certain things for yourself means you don't have those things. Basically you're saying that 'since they never made something, you should be able to produce evidence of its existence'

Land rights only cease if they are given up or seized. Unless you can show that those rights have been either given up or seized, then they have not. A good example is mineral rights, which are tied to the land.

If you sell me your mineral rights for a sum, I own those rights.

Even if you sell the land to a third party, who has never met me nor knows I hold the mineral rights, I STILL hold the mineral rights. Those rights are attached to the land. I hold those rights even though he doesn't know I hold those rights. It may not say anywhere in the contract I still hold those rights, but those rights are mine. I own them, and I never surrendered them.

You hold the mineral rights so long as the contract of sale states that you do. If it does not, then you do not.

[Ifreann]

The social contract is prior to contract law.

Without the social contract, there is no state, no social system, no law, and no contracts. There is only the Hobbesian war of all against all, and the only agreements among men are pacts among wolves.

the law of contracts (even if you are just looking at Western contract law in the common law tradition) predates the conceptualisation of the so-called social contract, hence why the social contract is a misappropriation

It's funny how you treat contract law like it's some kind of divine wisdom when ultimately it's just a set of laws, exactly like tax law.

[Infected Mushroom]

the law of contracts (even if you are just looking at Western contract law in the common law tradition) predates the conceptualisation of the so-called social contract, hence why the social contract is a misappropriation

It's funny how you treat contract law like it's some kind of divine wisdom when ultimately it's just a set of laws, exactly like tax law.

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

[Geilinor]

It's funny how you treat contract law like it's some kind of divine wisdom when ultimately it's just a set of laws, exactly like tax law.

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

Government theft is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.

[Infected Mushroom]

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

Government theft is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.

it exists in the moral sense

the principles that underlie the crime of theft are what constitute theft in the essential sense, not whether or not a powerful entity sanctions it or not

[BK117B2]

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

Government theft is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.

Except that, by definition, it does.

[Apollinis]

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

Government theft is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.

Government theft could at least in theory exist. (If the state were to illicitly confiscate your stuff and either sell it and use the proceeds or just keep it itself, then I guess that that could be considered government theft.)

Taxes are not it, though.

[Infected Mushroom]

Government theft is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.

Government theft could at least in theory exist. (If the state were to illicitly confiscate your stuff and either sell it and use the proceeds or just keep it itself, then I guess that that could be considered government theft.)

Taxes are not it, though.

I disagree. They fall right at the heart of it.

[Apollinis]

Government theft could at least in theory exist. (If the state were to illicitly confiscate your stuff and either sell it and use the proceeds or just keep it itself, then I guess that that could be considered government theft.)

Taxes are not it, though.

I disagree. They fall right at the heart of it.

Not really, no.

The social contract is prior to contract law.

Without the social contract, there is no state, no social system, no law, and no contracts. There is only the Hobbesian war of all against all, and the only agreements among men are pacts among wolves.

the law of contracts (even if you are just looking at Western contract law in the common law tradition) predates the conceptualisation of the so-called social contract, hence why the social contract is a misappropriation

Fresh from his destruction of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, IM now triumphs over more than 350 years of social-contract-based philosophy.

Which long-held wisdom will this iconoclastic genius lay low next?

[Ifreann]

It's funny how you treat contract law like it's some kind of divine wisdom when ultimately it's just a set of laws, exactly like tax law.

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

I never consented to have the government enforce contract law on me. I never voluntarily agreed to be bound by contract law. Yet the government would employ overwhelming, irresistible force against me if I did not abide by these laws.

[Alvecia]

Does the moral good caused by taxes not outweigh government "theft"?

[Sociobiology]

sure there is, if you buy a piece of land under a contract, then fail to meet the contract, then the land isn't yours anymore.
in most states one of the requirements is paying taxes on the land.
In the states that do not have property taxes you can still own the land, you just can't live on it, unless you pay the other taxes for living in the country.
its not a difficult concept.

at the point you can legally buy land, you can also decide to leave the country if you don't like the contract. In fact the Government has made it painfully easy for you to leave.

Hmmm, I have a home and land....none of it involved me agreeing to pay taxes on it every year.

yes it actually did, when you signed the deed you agreed to pay taxes on it. (again depending on state, states without property tax again would be an exemption)

I do so, since I approve of the services provided in exchange.

so even by your own usage it is an exchange, you are paying for services, services that many of which you continue to receive if you stop paying taxes sounds like the only theft would be on your part if you stop paying for those services.

as are the original owners of any land.
If I steal your car how many people have to buy and sell it before its not yours anymore?

Once I'm long dead and gone, it is definitely not mine anymore

So those you willed it too have no claim over it?

then by what right do you claim the person you bought it from or inherited it from had a legal right to own it?
by your logic if you kill the people who own the land it doesn't belong to them anymore so you can then claim it, how is that NOT right by conquest?

[Vallermoore]

It depends what the taxes are used for. Some taxes in the UK are used well, others could be used better and others are just pissed away.

[Infected Mushroom]

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

I never consented to have the government enforce contract law on me. I never voluntarily agreed to be bound by contract law. Yet the government would employ overwhelming, irresistible force against me if I did not abide by these laws.

you enter into contracts because you want them to be enforceable by the law, otherwise the contracts have no practical force, it would just be an agreement

[Alvecia]

I never consented to have the government enforce contract law on me. I never voluntarily agreed to be bound by contract law. Yet the government would employ overwhelming, irresistible force against me if I did not abide by these laws.

you enter into contracts because you want them to be enforceable by the law, otherwise the contracts have no practical force, it would just be an agreement

Not necessarily. Could be entirely an admin issue.

[Sociobiology]

one involves the law of consent and voluntary agreements... the other involves laws legitimising and bureaucratising government theft

it is clear which stands on the higher moral ground

I never consented to have the government enforce contract law on me. I never voluntarily agreed to be bound by contract law. Yet the government would employ overwhelming, irresistible force against me if I did not abide by these laws.

sure you did, as soon as you reached the age of legal self direction, you chose to remain in the same country you had been living in, thus agreeing to the contract your parents had you living under which every citizen is under. Your parents signed you up, you chose to keep using the service after the point you could legally opt put.
Your still free to leave at any time.
It is a unique problem caused by you being born into it, but there is plenty of president, if you stay in a hotel room beyond the initial agreed upon time you either pay with all the implied contracts or you get thrown out, (you don't even get to pick which). In the case of citizenship your presence beyond the agreed upon time is agreement with the contract, heck they even provide you with schooling so you can better understand the contract of citizenship.

[Infected Mushroom]

I never consented to have the government enforce contract law on me. I never voluntarily agreed to be bound by contract law. Yet the government would employ overwhelming, irresistible force against me if I did not abide by these laws.

sure you did, as soon as you reached the age of legal self direction, you chose to remain in the same country you had been living in, thus agreeing to the contract your parents had you living under which every citizen is under. Your parents signed you up, you chose to keep using the service after the point you could legally opt put.
Your still free to leave at any time.
It is a unique problem caused by you being born into it, but there is plenty of president, if you stay in a hotel room beyond the initial agreed upon time you either pay with all the implied contracts or you get thrown out, (you don't even get to pick which). In the case of citizenship your presence beyond the agreed upon time is agreement with the contract, heck they even provide you with schooling so you can better understand the contract of citizenship.

You cannot ''sign someone up'' as a party to a contract.

[Rhyfelnydd]

Fine, if you want to call it theft and not pay, just don't use any public services including roads, hospitals, emergency responders, public schools, etc.

[Infected Mushroom]

Fine, if you want to call it theft and not pay, just don't use any public services including roads, hospitals, emergency responders, public schools, etc.

The government itself doesn't even claim to say that paying your taxes is a pre-condition for most of those services; as such, even the state isn't in the business of pretending this is a voluntary contract.

Think about it, if someone were late in paying his taxes... does the police suddenly stop protecting him? Are not the police still obligated to answer his 911 calls?

There is no corresponding obligation between enjoying the services that the state chose to promise to give you (on its own accord) and your payment of taxes. They aren't even corresponding obligations.