Taxation is Coercion

[Xomic]

As, I and others have pointed out, you have to pay taxes to leave, and pay taxes anywhere you go.

Did you not read 2?

2) A number of times, it seems to have been applied or assumed that we're talking about the United States. I don't really care if the United States taxes people exiting their country, because I might be living somewhere they don't. Some countries are easier to leave then others, so you can't really apply any difficulties you may have in exiting the USA with every country or possible country that might exist. I'm not saying, don't use real world examples, merely that you should consider that trying to refute an argument against the idea that taxation if theft (IE you have the choice to leave the country) by using a single example is not necessarily going to work. It's like arguing that, since no one can legally leave North Korea, it's impossible to leave a country.

On what land? If he buys the land he has to pay property taxes. Or he is trespassing.

You do realize the banks, landlords, etc represent different governments in this metaphor, and the woods would be somewhere governments were not?

The man has family, friends and there are homeless shelters. Tough shit.

Family is another 'government' in the example.

I don't see how defaulting on your mortgage entitles you to steal.

.... what? Who's stealing what now?

[Sibirsky]

As, I and others have pointed out, you have to pay taxes to leave, and pay taxes anywhere you go.

Did you not read 2?

2) A number of times, it seems to have been applied or assumed that we're talking about the United States. I don't really care if the United States taxes people exiting their country, because I might be living somewhere they don't. Some countries are easier to leave then others, so you can't really apply any difficulties you may have in exiting the USA with every country or possible country that might exist. I'm not saying, don't use real world examples, merely that you should consider that trying to refute an argument against the idea that taxation if theft (IE you have the choice to leave the country) by using a single example is not necessarily going to work. It's like arguing that, since no one can legally leave North Korea, it's impossible to leave a country.

On what land? If he buys the land he has to pay property taxes. Or he is trespassing.

You do realize the banks, landlords, etc represent different governments in this metaphor, and the woods would be somewhere governments were not?

The man has family, friends and there are homeless shelters. Tough shit.

Family is another 'government' in the example.

I don't see how defaulting on your mortgage entitles you to steal.

.... what? Who's stealing what now?

Exiting the US has no bearing on entering another nation with taxes. Banks are not governments. You do not have to deal with any bank. Families are not governments.

A person that defaults on their mortgage is stealing. The bank removes the person from their property. This has nothing to do with taxes, and no similarity to taxes.

[Bendira]

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate <SNIP>.

There's plenty of people who would disagree. I guess you're just not properly motivated.

Because you say so, makes it true.

The number of illegal immigrants to the US comes to mind as an example of people who don't find it to be, as you and Bendira claim, essentially impossible to emigrate...

What it really comes down to is you and all the other anarcho-capalists want to enjoy all the benefits of living in a civilised society without out having to pay any of the costs.

This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. I never said anywhere it was impossible to emigrate. I just said that it is barely considerable as a choice, because it metaphorically is the equivalent to commiting suicide on the way to the diner, instead of just chosing between car, bike or walk. It is such a rediculous option that "solves" the problem in such an inefficient way, that it is totally ridiculous. The better option is to stay in the United States, and fight for freedom here by disseminating information. The GTFO option has been disproven here so many times it is ridiculous. Even if the GTFO option is viable, it has abslutely NOTHING to do with disproving that taxation is coercion, because the threat of having to GTFO is indeed coercion within itself. So your constant spamming of this GTFO argument is not only logical irrationality, but it also helps proves my point.

No where did I ever say that I wanted to live in the United States, not pay any taxes and get the "benefits" of government services. I would be happy to cut off services, such as the police. Go read my rant a couple pages back on how the police actually prevent me from defending myself. So some of these so called "services" (the majority actually) just strip away my defenses, and force me to rely on the government. So your assertion that I would be living outside of a civilized society if I cut off government services is an immensely ignorant claim.

The fact is, I cannot cut off government services for TWO reasons. One reason, is that I will of course be violently arrested. This is the one we have discussed here over and over. The second that hasn't been brought up till now, is the fact that if I cut off government services, I would be completely defenseless. Why is this? Because like my example a couple pages back, if I choose to defend myself it is against the law. If I mounted a 50 caliber machine gun on the top of my house, it would be the safest house in the neighborhood. But I would also be arrested by the police. If the police actually cared about my self defense, they would let me keep the 50 caliber machine gun on top of my house. The fact is, they dont care about my self defense. They only care about hypothetical crimes that haven't even occured yet, as well as victimless crimes. The government strips me of my defenses, and forces me to rely on theirs.

[Xomic]

Exiting the US has no bearing on entering another nation with taxes. Banks are not governments. You do not have to deal with any bank. Families are not governments.

A person that defaults on their mortgage is stealing. The bank removes the person from their property. This has nothing to do with taxes, and no similarity to taxes.

Generally in debates, you're suppose to consider the opposing side as not being stupid, that is, even if they make stupid, or poorly worded or reasoned arguments, you're suppose to read them in the best possible manner. But reading your posts on this thread have seriously strained my ability to do so with you.

I don't know if you just have poor reading skills, don't know how to properly argue, or don't really have an understanding of how to argue for your position, and are using an iPhone app or website to try and 'refute' arguments.

A good example of this is your continual mention of people arguing from a legal definition of theft (IE Taxation isn't legally theft, so it isn't). You're not wrong, but the problem is that no one has seriously been making an argument from definition. It's like having a discussion about whether or not a certain law exists, and suddenly telling your opinion that appeals to majorities is a fallacious argument, when no one in the room has ever made any arguments from that position.

Or take this quote from this very post I'm replying to:

Exiting the US has no bearing on entering another nation with taxes. Banks are not governments. You do not have to deal with any bank. Families are not governments

Now, before I show the problem with this argument, I will point out that you've been arguing for a while that the choice to leave one's country isn't really a choice because if you exit you still have to pay taxes to exit. This is not universal, and this is why I'm saying this is a poor counter argument. If the United States had no exit tax, what would you argue then?

But even ignoring that, you seem to have a serious problem understanding things like metaphors or allegories. I'm <i>aware</i> that banks are not governments. I'm aware that families are not governments, and I'm also aware that people who rent homes are not governments <i>either</i>. But, in the allegory I gave, all of them give you a choice between paying them, either in money, or in labor, to live in their homes/apartments.

Now, I'm not sure if you're not understanding the metaphor, or if you're just intellectuality dishonest and don't or can't address the points.

Right now I feel sort of like a teacher trying to explain how refraction works, by saying light is a car on a road, which goes onto the shoulder, and the difference in materials between the wheels on the paved roads vs the wheels on the shoulder causing to car to turn, and, having said that, the children I'm explaining it to turn to me and say, "but cars aren't light."

A person that defaults on their mortgage is stealing. [...] This has nothing to do with taxes, and no similarity to taxes.

If you don't pay your taxes, you are stealing from society. Which is the point of the allegory. Which you obviously didn't get.

You're not wrong because you disagree with me, you're wrong because you apparently don't understand what's being said, which in and of itself doesn't make you wrong either, but posts like the one I'm replying to make me wonder if you're dishonest or just unable to respond.

[Jenrak]

You do know that if nobody pays taxes then nobody will find the incentive to fix the land lines, the roads, the labour unions and the quality control that ultimately gives us the goods and services we take for granted, right?

Right?

[Sibirsky]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

[Bendira]

You do know that if nobody pays taxes then nobody will find the incentive to fix the land lines, the roads, the labour unions and the quality control that ultimately gives us the goods and services we take for granted, right?

Right?

Not only would those things be taken care of, but far more efficiently in an actual free market. *Que the "WUT U BELIEVE IN MAGICAL INVISIBLE GIANT HAND THAT FIXES EVERYTHING?????/////"*.

[Xomic]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

[Jenrak]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

No, think outside the box for a bit and try to empathise.

Everybody uses a public good. Everybody.

From the air we breath to the police that defend us to the sidewalk that we walk on, everybody uses a public road. So how do we fund them? We can't just up and say 'we have an option!' because the world doesn't work that way. People free-ride all the time - look at the torrenting on the internet which bypasses and cuts into the profits of the companies that create movies, video games and music.

How, do pray tell, can we exactly support a public good with options? Because if there is an option, there is sure as hell as a possibility that people will be able to free-ride and opt not to pay. If I choose to not pay for sidewalks, then how is the government going to make sure that I don't use sidewalks? Using access cards? Using cameras? Using bees? Or dogs? Or dogs that bark and then shoot bees out of their mouth?

By being on the internet, you're using the lines that are maintained by your local municipal government. You are using the sealing that is kept to protect the line by your local municipal government. You likely phoned to get your internet, which is likely protected against long-term surge damage funded by your local municipal government. You likely ate your breakfast using ingredients under review by state or provincial agricultural review boards to ensure that you don't get poisoned left and right or don't all of a sudden swallow metal shards.

You probably go to work under protection by a labour policy board that ensures that you don't get fired for refusing to work one dollar an hour. You probably took a car or biked there, which means you likely took a road to get there paid and maintained by your municipal government. You probably walked on a sidewalk which means that you used something maintained by your local municipality. If you didn't, then you probably walked on public property (unless you didn't, which means that you constantly trespassed and therefore are violating bylaw which is supported by your municipality) which is maintained by government.

All in all, you get paid, and then use your money to pay for your internet possibly through internet (again using the lines) or through paper (and therefore using a public good again through delivery unless you shell out for UPS or FedEx for a single letter) to come onto NationStates to tell me to 'get over it'.

Now, presume that say you only have to pay for what you want to use. Firstly, how can anyone keep track of that in a nation of 300 million plus people? The amount of administration required would be staggering and raise costs to maintain that. Secondly, the economy of scale would be diminished and cost per user would rise exponentially. You'd have to pay more for the costs of the things that you do use than the things that you don't use.

Lastly, no, it's not theft. Theft is not saying 'you have to pay for this or else you're jailed', because you're applying theft to your own moral precedence. Theft is the acquisition of goods unsanctioned by the state without an equal perception in the transmission of fungible goods. In other words, you'd have to have nothing in return for it to be theft.

Governments play a role in providing the goods that private industries won't be willing to provide because it's just too costly. Anyone who runs their mouth and says taxation is theft based on their own lack of option is ignoring the idea of free-riding, economy of scale and basic economics.

You do know that if nobody pays taxes then nobody will find the incentive to fix the land lines, the roads, the labour unions and the quality control that ultimately gives us the goods and services we take for granted, right?

Right?

Not only would those things be taken care of, but far more efficiently in an actual free market. *Que the "WUT U BELIEVE IN MAGICAL INVISIBLE GIANT HAND THAT FIXES EVERYTHING?????/////"*.

No, it doesn't. Get out of your land of rainbows and sunshine because theory doesn't apply to the real world in that manner. Before you run off your mouth, understand basic economic concepts and components like 'cost of market entry' and 'free-riding' and 'monopolist practices', as well as 'mercantilism'. An entirely free market is a dangerous concept because there is no regulation other than those who are already at the top of the market.

[Jagalonia]

dogs that bark and then shoot bees out of their mouth?

Epic win lol.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

[Sibirsky]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Property rights are a necessary component to owning ones own body and actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with social contract theory in that regard, if my understanding of social contract theory is correct.

Incomplete answer at best.

You do not explain your theory of property rights, where they come from, or why they should be respected by others in modern society.

BTW, the reason I said "without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory" is that most "modern" theories of property rights ("modern" extending back to at least Thomas Hobbes) are part and parcel of a social contract philosophy.

(You also completely skipped the first 3-part question.)

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

Cat, I get really annoyed when people quote Adam Smith and think that it is the end all be all of the argument. It is true that Adam Smith was one of the many "founding fathers" of capitalism, but the word capitalism does not need to be directly associated with him. Just as I could talk about Transcendentalism seperate from Emerson or Thoureau as a phenomenon, and not in reference to Emerson or Thoreau's works specifically.

You are correct that Theft technically is a legal term that the government defines. So technically, if you want to argue semantics, you are absolutely correct that taxation is not theft. This is something that I have realized from this debate. However, taxation is theft without the legal connotation. If I want to reword it and skip the semantic arguments, I would say that taxation is violent coersion.

The idea that I have to accept the institutions the government provides is ridiculous, especially since I don't use many of them, or I feel that a hypothetical privatization of the service would result in a better outcome. For instance, I walk to work and walk to most places around town. Yet my taxes go to pay for maintenance of the roads. Another example is when the police arrest me for a law I don't agree with. I pay for this mans salary, and I have no choice but to pay him, and if I break a law that is supposibly mandated by society, I have my liberty taken away and I am thrown in jail.

I get really annoyed when someone's position is so intellectual bankrupt that they can only defend it by (1) ignoring actual counter-arguments, (2) attack strawmen instead, and (3) resort (however mildly) to personal attacks on opponents.

1. I never said, implied, etc., that Adam Smith's view on the matter ended all discussion. I merely said it was "food for thought." One strawman down.

2. I did not make the "legal" or "semantic" argument to which you object. You are correct that you would lose by either standard and your choice of the word "theft" is deliberately deceptive hyperbole, but, AS I SAID ORIGINALLY, your ethical argument is also without merit. Another strawman down.

3. There are many reasons why your final argument is wrong, beyond it also being essentially an attack on a strawman. Unless you can make a convincing ethical AND realistic argument that (1) there should be no government or (2) what government should or must exist can be wholly funded without any form of taxation, it is irrelevant that you may object to or reject some things on which a government would spend some tax money.

4. There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

I won't be holding my breath, but won't one of you at least try to answer the two points raised above?

Waiting, waiting, waiting .... rawhide!

[The Cat-Tribe]

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

*snip*
it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Could you please point out for where and when exactly you (and whomever) proved (1) the Social Contract is a lie, (2) the massive problems with the Social Contract, and (3) why the Social Contract is never legitimate?

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Waiting, waiting, waiting ... rawhide!

[Sibirsky]

No, think outside the box for a bit and try to empathise.

Everybody uses a public good. Everybody.

From the air we breath to the police that defend us to the sidewalk that we walk on, everybody uses a public road. So how do we fund them? We can't just up and say 'we have an option!' because the world doesn't work that way. People free-ride all the time - look at the torrenting on the internet which bypasses and cuts into the profits of the companies that create movies, video games and music.

How, do pray tell, can we exactly support a public good with options? Because if there is an option, there is sure as hell as a possibility that people will be able to free-ride and opt not to pay. If I choose to not pay for sidewalks, then how is the government going to make sure that I don't use sidewalks? Using access cards? Using cameras? Using bees? Or dogs? Or dogs that bark and then shoot bees out of their mouth?

By being on the internet, you're using the lines that are maintained by your local municipal government. You are using the sealing that is kept to protect the line by your local municipal government. You likely phoned to get your internet, which is likely protected against long-term surge damage funded by your local municipal government. You likely ate your breakfast using ingredients under review by state or provincial agricultural review boards to ensure that you don't get poisoned left and right or don't all of a sudden swallow metal shards.

You probably go to work under protection by a labour policy board that ensures that you don't get fired for refusing to work one dollar an hour. You probably took a car or biked there, which means you likely took a road to get there paid and maintained by your municipal government. You probably walked on a sidewalk which means that you used something maintained by your local municipality. If you didn't, then you probably walked on public property (unless you didn't, which means that you constantly trespassed and therefore are violating bylaw which is supported by your municipality) which is maintained by government.

All in all, you get paid, and then use your money to pay for your internet possibly through internet (again using the lines) or through paper (and therefore using a public good again through delivery unless you shell out for UPS or FedEx for a single letter) to come onto NationStates to tell me to 'get over it'.

Now, presume that say you only have to pay for what you want to use. Firstly, how can anyone keep track of that in a nation of 300 million plus people? The amount of administration required would be staggering and raise costs to maintain that. Secondly, the economy of scale would be diminished and cost per user would rise exponentially. You'd have to pay more for the costs of the things that you do use than the things that you don't use.

We're saying these things can be provided by the private sector. Which would compete to deliver cheaper, better goods. If economies of scale are so wonderful, why not ban the private sector entirely, and have government provide everything?

Lastly, no, it's not theft. Theft is not saying 'you have to pay for this or else you're jailed', because you're applying theft to your own moral precedence. Theft is the acquisition of goods unsanctioned by the state without an equal perception in the transmission of fungible goods. In other words, you'd have to have nothing in return for it to be theft.

So my argument, of taking someone's money and giving them something in return is not theft?

Governments play a role in providing the goods that private industries won't be willing to provide because it's just too costly. Anyone who runs their mouth and says taxation is theft based on their own lack of option is ignoring the idea of free-riding, economy of scale and basic economics.

Private industry is perfectly able, and willing to provide these good and services.

[Xomic]

*snip*

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

Cat, I get really annoyed when people quote Adam Smith and think that it is the end all be all of the argument. It is true that Adam Smith was one of the many "founding fathers" of capitalism, but the word capitalism does not need to be directly associated with him. Just as I could talk about Transcendentalism seperate from Emerson or Thoureau as a phenomenon, and not in reference to Emerson or Thoreau's works specifically.

You are correct that Theft technically is a legal term that the government defines. So technically, if you want to argue semantics, you are absolutely correct that taxation is not theft. This is something that I have realized from this debate. However, taxation is theft without the legal connotation. If I want to reword it and skip the semantic arguments, I would say that taxation is violent coersion.

The idea that I have to accept the institutions the government provides is ridiculous, especially since I don't use many of them, or I feel that a hypothetical privatization of the service would result in a better outcome. For instance, I walk to work and walk to most places around town. Yet my taxes go to pay for maintenance of the roads. Another example is when the police arrest me for a law I don't agree with. I pay for this mans salary, and I have no choice but to pay him, and if I break a law that is supposibly mandated by society, I have my liberty taken away and I am thrown in jail.

I get really annoyed when someone's position is so intellectual bankrupt that they can only defend it by (1) ignoring actual counter-arguments, (2) attack strawmen instead, and (3) resort (however mildly) to personal attacks on opponents.

1. I never said, implied, etc., that Adam Smith's view on the matter ended all discussion. I merely said it was "food for thought." One strawman down.

2. I did not make the "legal" or "semantic" argument to which you object. You are correct that you would lose by either standard and your choice of the word "theft" is deliberately deceptive hyperbole, but, AS I SAID ORIGINALLY, your ethical argument is also without merit. Another strawman down.

3. There are many reasons why your final argument is wrong, beyond it also being essentially an attack on a strawman. Unless you can make a convincing ethical AND realistic argument that (1) there should be no government or (2) what government should or must exist can be wholly funded without any form of taxation, it is irrelevant that you may object to or reject some things on which a government would spend some tax money.

4. There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

I won't be holding my breath, but won't one of you at least try to answer the two points raised above?

Waiting, waiting, waiting .... rawhide!

Sure, why not.

1) In order for a choice to be a choice, both opinions have to be of equal value to the chooser. For example, anyone might have the choice to bring a knife to a gun fight, but doing so would be fairly stupid because it would disadvantage you. So, in this case, the choice is not real because it unfair. With taxation, the choice is between paying, jail, or not living in the country, and two of those choices are simply not on an equal footing, much like a mugger gives you a choice between your money or your life.

2) One owns whatever one produces. For example, a wood craver might produce a statue from a piece of wood. He can exchange that statue for grain made by the farmer. Or, he can offer his wood craving skills in exchange for something like money, which is the conversion of skill that not everyone might want, into something more generalized.

/devils advocate.

[Xomic]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

Person 1: Should we go left or right on this path number 2?
Person 2: We cannot go right, because right is not an opinion.
1: How so? it's right there!
2: but it's not <i>left</i>
1: Of course it's not left, it's right!
2: Yes, but going right wouldn't be like going left, so there is no choice.
1: So you're saying, you want an opinion to go left, without going left?
2: I want all the benefits of going left, without actually going left. I want opinions with my left.
1: that doesn't make any sense. You can go right or left.
2: The 'go right argument' fails.
1: ...it's not an argument, it's a choice...
2: FREE MARKET!!!!
1:

[Xomic]

We're saying these things can be provided by the private sector. Which would compete to deliver cheaper, better goods. If economies of scale are so wonderful, why not ban the private sector entirely, and have government provide everything?

You know, where I live, power is provided by a private company. A single private company. There is no competition. Further, for a private company, they keep charging us more and more, and frankly, because they don't maintain their grids, the product has a tendency to disappear if it gets too windy out.

The problem with your argument is that you assume the existence of competition, you assume that corporations are going to fight one another and never die or be absorbed into one another. You're also assuming it's more profitable to engage in competition rather than price fixing.

[Bendira]

No, think outside the box for a bit and try to empathise.

Everybody uses a public good. Everybody.

From the air we breath to the police that defend us to the sidewalk that we walk on, everybody uses a public road.

Air isn't something the government owns. If it is you must be one of those global warming green fascists that taxes cow fart emissions. Police don't defend us, because they make us helpless by forcing us to give up our weapons. If the police wanted us to defend ourselves, they would let us have gun rights. They don't, so we are totally defensless and reliant on the police for protection.

So how do we fund them? We can't just up and say 'we have an option!' because the world doesn't work that way.

Yeah, of course! All instutitions in the world weren't first an idea...

People free-ride all the time - look at the torrenting on the internet which bypasses and cuts into the profits of the companies that create movies, video games and music.

Stealing music is actually mostly hurting the middle man that issue's the albums. And the middle man has no creative input on the project. So the free market is basically telling these record companies that they really don't feel like paying them for a service that the free market dosn't value. Heres an article posted on mises.org about how the Grateful Dead, one of the most successful bands of all time, continues and has continued to incorporate free market principles into the business aspect of their craft. It has very little to do with album sales, I will tell you that much.
http://mises.org/daily/4662

How, do pray tell, can we exactly support a public good with options? Because if there is an option, there is sure as hell as a possibility that people will be able to free-ride and opt not to pay. If I choose to not pay for sidewalks, then how is the government going to make sure that I don't use sidewalks? Using access cards? Using cameras? Using bees? Or dogs? Or dogs that bark and then shoot bees out of their mouth?

Just for an example, the building and maintenance of public roads. You are assuming that the people who would pay for the roads would be the users of the roads directly. However this is completely innacurate, because in a free market scenario, you have to look at where the incentive lies. If I am a business owner, and I start a shop in the middle of a cornfield, there obviously would be no way for people to get to my shop, unless a road was constructed. I would pay a private company to make a road leading from another "main road" to my shop. The cost of maintaining this road would most likely be built into the cost of the goods I provide. So obviously in this example, there is no free rider problem. Because anybody technically is free to use the road. Now lets say that another business opens up next to the road. You could say that this business could "free ride" on the road being there. But now that the road is the only form of access to their shop as well, obviously the maintenance of this road is of vital importance to them as well. Now lets look at a road where 50 shops are located. Obviously in this scenario, there would be shops that would most likely be free riders. But this free riding is actually not a negative thing, because the asymmetry in the maintenance of the road would create competition between the business. Whenever there is asymmetry in the market, obviously competition will arise, because that is the very definition of competition.

By being on the internet, you're using the lines that are maintained by your local municipal government. You are using the sealing that is kept to protect the line by your local municipal government. You likely phoned to get your internet, which is likely protected against long-term surge damage funded by your local municipal government. You likely ate your breakfast using ingredients under review by state or provincial agricultural review boards to ensure that you don't get poisoned left and right or don't all of a sudden swallow metal shards.

If I am eating a bowl of cereal, and my throat is torn to shreds by metal shards, most likely I will have a pretty good lawsuit on my hands. And I am pretty sure that the company that provided the tainted food would most likely go out of business. And I am pretty sure that nobody else would buy this cereal ever again, and the reputations of the manufacturors and suppliers would be damaged indefinately.

You probably go to work under protection by a labour policy board that ensures that you don't get fired for refusing to work one dollar an hour. You probably took a car or biked there, which means you likely took a road to get there paid and maintained by your municipal government. You probably walked on a sidewalk which means that you used something maintained by your local municipality. If you didn't, then you probably walked on public property (unless you didn't, which means that you constantly trespassed and therefore are violating bylaw which is supported by your municipality) which is maintained by government.

I will focus on the labour policy board part, where they save me from making one dollar an hour. That may be true that I am not recieving one fiat dollar an hour. But of course if everybody is being payed a base rate of 7 dollars an hour, clearly the 1 dollar in the other scenario is worth the same as the 7 in a truly free market. Because obviously the higher the minimum wage, the less the money will be worth. And of course the employment costs are built into the goods themself, so if you are a customer you will just be paying higher to pay the employees. If we are in a situation where you are being payed below the market price for your labour, then obviously a competitor would take all of your underpayed and under-valued employee's. Labour unions are only necessary when there are government backed monopolies.

All in all, you get paid, and then use your money to pay for your internet possibly through internet (again using the lines) or through paper (and therefore using a public good again through delivery unless you shell out for UPS or FedEx for a single letter) to come onto NationStates to tell me to 'get over it'.

I already disproved the free rider problem of public goods in a free market via the road example

Now, presume that say you only have to pay for what you want to use. Firstly, how can anyone keep track of that in a nation of 300 million plus people? The amount of administration required would be staggering and raise costs to maintain that. Secondly, the economy of scale would be diminished and cost per user would rise exponentially. You'd have to pay more for the costs of the things that you do use than the things that you don't use.

Disproven.

Lastly, no, it's not theft. Theft is not saying 'you have to pay for this or else you're jailed', because you're applying theft to your own moral precedence. Theft is the acquisition of goods unsanctioned by the state without an equal perception in the transmission of fungible goods. In other words, you'd have to have nothing in return for it to be theft.

I already have refrained from calling it theft, because theft is a legal term. So I now call it violent coercion. But you don't think its violently coercive to force you to pay me for a good that you can't refuse?

Governments play a role in providing the goods that private industries won't be willing to provide because it's just too costly. Anyone who runs their mouth and says taxation is theft based on their own lack of option is ignoring the idea of free-riding, economy of scale and basic economics.

Untrue for the reasons layed out above.

[Bendira]

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Property rights are a necessary component to owning ones own body and actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with social contract theory in that regard, if my understanding of social contract theory is correct.

Incomplete answer at best.

You do not explain your theory of property rights, where they come from, or why they should be respected by others in modern society.

BTW, the reason I said "without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory" is that most "modern" theories of property rights ("modern" extending back to at least Thomas Hobbes) are part and parcel of a social contract philosophy.

(You also completely skipped the first 3-part question.)

I don't remember the first parts, I will go back and try to answer them. Most likely I didn't feel they were anything not already discussed here.

The theory of social contract, from what I can gather, is the idea that you don't completely own your own body. Its the idea that society has partial ownership of your body. I personally am against slavery, and believe that we all are in complete ownership of our own bodies.

Now the reason why land ownership would have nothing to do with social contract, and actually completelythe opposite, is that without land ownership, we do not own ourselves. For instance, I own my own thoughts and actions. If I am on land that I own, and I own all of my possessions on that land, I am free to use those possessions to voice my opinion, my own thoughts and commit whatever actions I wish. However, if I am on your land, and I begin espousing neo nazi bigoted anti-semetic rants, you have the right to remove me from your property. But why? Technically I own my own thoughts and actions correct? Well, the only way I can truly fully own my own thoughts and actions, and openly display them is if the land below me is owned by my. This seems to have absoltuely nothing to do with social contract (from my understanding of social contract).

[The Cat-Tribe]

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Property rights are a necessary component to owning ones own body and actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with social contract theory in that regard, if my understanding of social contract theory is correct.

Incomplete answer at best.

You do not explain your theory of property rights, where they come from, or why they should be respected by others in modern society.

BTW, the reason I said "without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory" is that most "modern" theories of property rights ("modern" extending back to at least Thomas Hobbes) are part and parcel of a social contract philosophy.

(You also completely skipped the first 3-part question.)

I don't remember the first parts, I will go back and try to answer them. Most likely I didn't feel they were anything not already discussed here.

The theory of social contract, from what I can gather, is the idea that you don't completely own your own body. Its the idea that society has partial ownership of your body. I personally am against slavery, and believe that we all are in complete ownership of our own bodies.

Now the reason why land ownership would have nothing to do with social contract, and actually completelythe opposite, is that without land ownership, we do not own ourselves. For instance, I own my own thoughts and actions. If I am on land that I own, and I own all of my possessions on that land, I am free to use those possessions to voice my opinion, my own thoughts and commit whatever actions I wish. However, if I am on your land, and I begin espousing neo nazi bigoted anti-semetic rants, you have the right to remove me from your property. But why? Technically I own my own thoughts and actions correct? Well, the only way I can truly fully own my own thoughts and actions, and openly display them is if the land below me is owned by my. This seems to have absoltuely nothing to do with social contract (from my understanding of social contract).

Some of the following may sound insulting or condescending. It is NOT intended that way. Try to read it for what it says.

1. You haven't studied any (or much) political philosophy, have you? Not Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Rawls, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, or even the Declaration of Independence and other works of the Founders of the U.S. Republic. Have you even studied libertarian/capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Frederick von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard?

2. You aren't really answering the question -- because, I think you don't understand it. You just keep begging the question that you "must" own yourself and therefore own things and land. You don't address at all why any other entity should respect this "ownership."

3. You honestly don't seem to understand how the philosophy of property rights developed and on what basis property rights are usually said to exist. Instead, you take their existence and universal recognition as a given.

4. Setting aside that I don't think your characterization of social contract theory is accurate only any level of any majory social contract theory, you clearly don't understand that there are many different versions of social contract theory. Some wholly theoretical, some allegedly quasi-historical. Most importantly, most social contract theories come from the same philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, etc) that believe in natural human rights including property rights. They recognize, however, that not everyone will recognize and respect everyone else's rights. Thus, existence without government (or "the state of nature") is a state of war and we form government to protect our liberty:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

-- Declaration of Independence

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

--James Madison, Federalist No. 51(emphasis added).

5. John Locke, whose philosophy of natural rights most inspired the Founders of the United States, explained this connection between such rights (including property rights) and the formation of the social contract in his Second Treatise of Government:

Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
...
Sec. 127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to, by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power, as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

Moreover, in explaining the legitimate and necessary powers of government, Locke specifically included the power to tax -- based on consent of the majority or its representives. See, e.g.,

Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

This is why I quoted Adam Smith and others earlier. The "philosopher-kings" (so to speak) of property rights including not only Hobbes, Locke, and Smith, but also libertarians like Milton Friedman and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek, all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate and even necessary to protect property rights. This makes it rather mind-boggling that several of you say all "taxation is theft."

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

Cat, I get really annoyed when people quote Adam Smith and think that it is the end all be all of the argument. It is true that Adam Smith was one of the many "founding fathers" of capitalism, but the word capitalism does not need to be directly associated with him. Just as I could talk about Transcendentalism seperate from Emerson or Thoureau as a phenomenon, and not in reference to Emerson or Thoreau's works specifically.

You are correct that Theft technically is a legal term that the government defines. So technically, if you want to argue semantics, you are absolutely correct that taxation is not theft. This is something that I have realized from this debate. However, taxation is theft without the legal connotation. If I want to reword it and skip the semantic arguments, I would say that taxation is violent coersion.

The idea that I have to accept the institutions the government provides is ridiculous, especially since I don't use many of them, or I feel that a hypothetical privatization of the service would result in a better outcome. For instance, I walk to work and walk to most places around town. Yet my taxes go to pay for maintenance of the roads. Another example is when the police arrest me for a law I don't agree with. I pay for this mans salary, and I have no choice but to pay him, and if I break a law that is supposibly mandated by society, I have my liberty taken away and I am thrown in jail.

I get really annoyed when someone's position is so intellectual bankrupt that they can only defend it by (1) ignoring actual counter-arguments, (2) attack strawmen instead, and (3) resort (however mildly) to personal attacks on opponents.

1. I never said, implied, etc., that Adam Smith's view on the matter ended all discussion. I merely said it was "food for thought." One strawman down.

2. I did not make the "legal" or "semantic" argument to which you object. You are correct that you would lose by either standard and your choice of the word "theft" is deliberately deceptive hyperbole, but, AS I SAID ORIGINALLY, your ethical argument is also without merit. Another strawman down.

3. There are many reasons why your final argument is wrong, beyond it also being essentially an attack on a strawman. Unless you can make a convincing ethical AND realistic argument that (1) there should be no government or (2) what government should or must exist can be wholly funded without any form of taxation, it is irrelevant that you may object to or reject some things on which a government would spend some tax money.

4. There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

I won't be holding my breath, but won't one of you at least try to answer the two points raised above?

Waiting, waiting, waiting .... rawhide!

Sure, why not.

1) In order for a choice to be a choice, both opinions have to be of equal value to the chooser. For example, anyone might have the choice to bring a knife to a gun fight, but doing so would be fairly stupid because it would disadvantage you. So, in this case, the choice is not real because it unfair. With taxation, the choice is between paying, jail, or not living in the country, and two of those choices are simply not on an equal footing, much like a mugger gives you a choice between your money or your life.

2) One owns whatever one produces. For example, a wood craver might produce a statue from a piece of wood. He can exchange that statue for grain made by the farmer. Or, he can offer his wood craving skills in exchange for something like money, which is the conversion of skill that not everyone might want, into something more generalized.

/devils advocate.

Thank you for playing, but devil's advocacy isn't going to be helpful here. Regardless:

1. Not responsive and silly. Anytime reality is "unfair," you are a victim of "theft" because your options are not ideal and therefore your choices are "coerced"?

2. Begs the question of why one owns whatever one produces. Also raises a host of questions: Where does the wood carver get the wood, the tools, etc? What keeps the farmer or anyone else from just taking the carving? Etc, etc.

[United Dependencies]

snip

Thank you for that post. I found it quite fascinating.

[Bendira]

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Property rights are a necessary component to owning ones own body and actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with social contract theory in that regard, if my understanding of social contract theory is correct.

Incomplete answer at best.

You do not explain your theory of property rights, where they come from, or why they should be respected by others in modern society.

BTW, the reason I said "without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory" is that most "modern" theories of property rights ("modern" extending back to at least Thomas Hobbes) are part and parcel of a social contract philosophy.

(You also completely skipped the first 3-part question.)

I don't remember the first parts, I will go back and try to answer them. Most likely I didn't feel they were anything not already discussed here.

The theory of social contract, from what I can gather, is the idea that you don't completely own your own body. Its the idea that society has partial ownership of your body. I personally am against slavery, and believe that we all are in complete ownership of our own bodies.

Now the reason why land ownership would have nothing to do with social contract, and actually completelythe opposite, is that without land ownership, we do not own ourselves. For instance, I own my own thoughts and actions. If I am on land that I own, and I own all of my possessions on that land, I am free to use those possessions to voice my opinion, my own thoughts and commit whatever actions I wish. However, if I am on your land, and I begin espousing neo nazi bigoted anti-semetic rants, you have the right to remove me from your property. But why? Technically I own my own thoughts and actions correct? Well, the only way I can truly fully own my own thoughts and actions, and openly display them is if the land below me is owned by my. This seems to have absoltuely nothing to do with social contract (from my understanding of social contract).

Some of the following may sound insulting or condescending. It is NOT intended that way. Try to read it for what it says.

1. You haven't studied any (or much) political philosophy, have you? Not Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Rawls, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, or even the Declaration of Independence and other works of the Founders of the U.S. Republic. Have you even studied libertarian/capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Frederick von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard?

2. You aren't really answering the question -- because, I think you don't understand it. You just keep begging the question that you "must" own yourself and therefore own things and land. You don't address at all why any other entity should respect this "ownership."

3. You honestly don't seem to understand how the philosophy of property rights developed and on what basis property rights are usually said to exist. Instead, you take their existence and universal recognition as a given.

4. Setting aside that I don't think your characterization of social contract theory is accurate only any level of any majory social contract theory, you clearly don't understand that there are many different versions of social contract theory. Some wholly theoretical, some allegedly quasi-historical. Most importantly, most social contract theories come from the same philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, etc) that believe in natural human rights including property rights. They recognize, however, that not everyone will recognize and respect everyone else's rights. Thus, existence without government (or "the state of nature") is a state of war and we form government to protect our liberty:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

-- Declaration of Independence

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

--James Madison, Federalist No. 51(emphasis added).

5. John Locke, whose philosophy of natural rights most inspired the Founders of the United States, explained this connection between such rights (including property rights) and the formation of the social contract in his Second Treatise of Government:

Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
...
Sec. 127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to, by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power, as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

Moreover, in explaining the legitimate and necessary powers of government, Locke specifically included the power to tax -- based on consent of the majority or its representives. See, e.g.,

Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

This is why I quoted Adam Smith and others earlier. The "philosopher-kings" (so to speak) of property rights including not only Hobbes, Locke, and Smith, but also libertarians like Milton Friedman and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek, all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate and even necessary to protect property rights. This makes it rather mind-boggling that several of you say all "taxation is theft."

If you want to have a debate by proxy, where we talk through historical figures, I suppose I can do that.

"Property Rights and "Human Rights"
Liberals will generally concede the right of every individual to his "personal liberty," to his freedom to think, speak, write, and engage in such personal "exchanges" as sexual activity between "consenting adults." In short, the liberal attempts to uphold the individual's right to the ownership of his own body, but then denies his right to "property," i.e., to the ownership of material objects. Hence, the typical liberal dichotomy between "human rights," which he upholds, and "property rights," which he rejects. Yet the two, according to the libertarian, are inextricably intertwined; they stand or fall together.

Take, for example, the liberal socialist who advocates government ownership of all the "means of production" while upholding the "human" right of freedom of speech or press. How is this "human" right to be exercised if the individuals constituting the public are denied their right to ownership of property? If, for example, the government owns all the newsprint and all the printing shops, how is the right to a free press to be exercised? If the government owns all the newsprint, it then necessarily has the right and the power to allocate that newsprint, and someone's "right to a free press" becomes a mockery if the government decides not to allocate newsprint in his direction. And since the government must allocate scarce newsprint in some way, the right to a free press of, say, minorities or "subversive" antisocialists will get short shrift indeed. The same is true for the "right to free speech" if the government owns all the assembly halls, and therefore allocates those halls as it sees fit. Or, for example, if the government of Soviet Russia, being atheistic, decides not to allocate many scarce resources to the production of matzohs, for Orthodox Jews the "freedom of religion" becomes a mockery; but again, the Soviet government can always rebut that Orthodox Jews are a small minority and that capital equipment should not be diverted to matzoh production.

The basic flaw in the liberal separation of "human rights" and "property rights" is that people are treated as ethereal abstractions. If a man [p. 43] has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use. In short, to sustain his "human right" — or his property rights in his own person — he must also have the property right in the material world, in the objects which he produces. Property rights are human rights, and are essential to the human rights which liberals attempt to maintain. The human right of a free press depends upon the human right of private property in newsprint.

In fact, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy. There is no extra "right of free speech" or free press beyond the property rights we can enumerate in any given case. And furthermore, discovering and identifying the property rights involved will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights that may crop up."

By Murray Rothbard in The Libertarian Manifesto (Rothbard being one of the land ownership philosophers that I supposibly have no knowledge about).


This point of view tends to conflict with the idea that from the moment we are born, we sign a contract enslaving ourselves to society.