Taxation is Coercion

[JJ Place]

is anyone going to point out that you only pay taxes if you earn an income. you could avoid paying any income tax if you don't earn an iiiiinnnnnnnnnccccccooooooommmmmmmeeeeee rent a plot of land and farm it, work on someone else's land in exchange for room and board(i'm sure there are some cotton farmers in the south that would looove that arrangement) move to the woods and eat sticks and worm, i don't care and neither will the gov if you don't have any income or assets. there, a way to not pay taxes without leaving the country

Still get to pay renter's tax, and you still have to pay taxes on every trade, and you still have to pay money on the land if you buy it, and you still have to pay a number of other excess taxes; second, the goods that you produce are still up for taxes, as it can be justified that you still have to pay 'income tax' as your still making something, gaining resources; even if it's not money, resources can have counted as Income, more things can be taxed under income tax than just money, which is representation of resources. For thousands of years, governments have imposed taxation on income, even before currency in many parts of the world.

The argument that 'if you don't like it, you can just leave' has been a good one; not even in cases in which a group 'can' justify their right to say that, it definitely is not a good argument for if a group 'should'; and in the case where the answer to 'can' is no, the reasoning for 'should' is demolished even further.

Yes, but that's at least one thing (and a very important one) that legitimately can be taxed. I don't support taxing anything other than currency in most cases, but some forms of taxation are justified.

And why is that 'currency' is any different than other resources; currency is simply a representation of resources, the difference is not there, currency is simply another resource, it does not differ from any other resource in legitimacy of taxation; taxation is never legitimate.

[Sibirsky]

I suspect most of the people spouting their unconditional love for the state are the ones holding their hand out.

You mean like business leaders?

[Middle of somewhere]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

It's what you the employer and employee agree to. You have every right to it.

Where do you get these "rights" from? You aren't the one who decides what "rights" you have, it's the people in power. And you should be fucking gracious that you live in a liberal democracy where you get more than most every other person in the world, because right now you're acting like a spoiled brat who isn't content with everything mama and poppa give you, and can't take the fact that they occasionally ask you to do things in return.

I hope you were trying to be funny

[Sibirsky]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

the tax that always bothered me the most is property tax. I mean, if you're paying property tax, who really owns your home? What happens if you don't pay the property tax? Do they take your home? I don't see how you can own your land if you have to pay the government rent. Just saying.

You don't really own your land......

Is there a deed with his name on it?

[Sibirsky]

Taxation isn't a theft since when you live in a country you know that you have to pay taxes, you could easily move out. It is your fault for living in that country.

It's not easy to move out.

[DaWoad]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

Then we should execute people who refuse to pay taxes
/sarcasm

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services

you agree to them by using them. stop using them and you stop paying for them.

Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice

sure you are, you don't have to stay in this society and you do not pay taxes the moment you are born. In fact, you don't start paying taxes until you begin working (give or take)

It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

Coercion implies a binay solution set of "reasonable" options
"do this or I punish you"
(for example armed robbery, give me money or be shot, is coercion)

If you have another option it is not coercion.
(for example buying food from a grocers is not coercion essentially because I have the option to buy food and pay for it, buy food,don't pay for it and get punished or to not buy food and not pay for it)

Taxation in a society that will not permit you to leave is coercion because you have a binary set solution "pay taxes or be imprisoned"
Taxation in the west is not coercion because you have the option to go elsewhere to work. It may not be a "good" option but it certainly is AN option.

[Middle of somewhere]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

the tax that always bothered me the most is property tax. I mean, if you're paying property tax, who really owns your home? What happens if you don't pay the property tax? Do they take your home? I don't see how you can own your land if you have to pay the government rent. Just saying.

You don't really own your land......

So all of that money and time people go through is for a piece of paper that's worthless ...


no that's college nevermind

[Middle of somewhere]

Taxation isn't a theft since when you live in a country you know that you have to pay taxes, you could easily move out. It is your fault for living in that country.

It's not easy to move out.

Yeah, actually i change my mind after thinking about it. It's theft.

[Lelouche]

Taxation isn't a theft since when you live in a country you know that you have to pay taxes, you could easily move out. It is your fault for living in that country.

Really?
The bottom 80% of the world's population, can pick up, and move whenever they want?
So North Korea, people must like living there?

Excellent argument
/sarcasm

Moving is not, and has never been a valid argument for the legitimacy of government and taxes. It takes resources to move, it requires commitment to leave your family, friends and culture behind you.
People pay taxes and deal with oppressive society's, because they consider it a price worth paying to not have to abandon everything they know and love.
It's rare to find someone who actually agrees that taxes are anything other then "an unfortunate necessity" if that

Edit, ninja

[DaWoad]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

Then we should execute people who refuse to pay taxes
/sarcasm

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services

you agree to them by using them. stop using them and you stop paying for them.

Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice

sure you are, you don't have to stay in this society and you do not pay taxes the moment you are born. In fact, you don't start paying taxes until you begin working (give or take)

It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

Coercion implies a binay solution set of "reasonable" options
"do this or I punish you"
(for example armed robbery, give me money or be shot, is coercion)

If you have another option it is not coercion.
(for example buying food from a grocers is not coercion essentially because I have the option to buy food and pay for it, buy food,don't pay for it and get punished or to not buy food and not pay for it)

Taxation in a society that will not permit you to leave is coercion because you have a binary set solution "pay taxes or be imprisoned"
Taxation in the west is not coercion because you have the option to go elsewhere to work. It may not be a "good" option but it certainly is AN option.

[Lelouche]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

Then we should execute people who refuse to pay taxes
/sarcasm

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services

you agree to them by using them. stop using them and you stop paying for them.

Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice

sure you are, you don't have to stay in this society and you do not pay taxes the moment you are born. In fact, you don't start paying taxes until you begin working (give or take)

It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

Coercion implies a binay solution set of "reasonable" options
"do this or I punish you"
(for example armed robbery, give me money or be shot, is coercion)

If you have another option it is not coercion.
(for example buying food from a grocers is not coercion essentially because I have the option to buy food and pay for it, buy food,don't pay for it and get punished or to not buy food and not pay for it)

Taxation in a society that will not permit you to leave is coercion because you have a binary set solution "pay taxes or be imprisoned"
Taxation in the west is not coercion because you have the option to go elsewhere to work. It may not be a "good" option but it certainly is AN option.

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

[DaWoad]

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

in a democratic society it certainly is. There is absolutely nothing that has anything to do with the government that is stopping you from leaving.

or to give other examples:
if you were to inherit the house where your parents lived and inherited a mortgage alongside it you would not consider the mortgage coercive yet the option of selling the house to cover the cost may be as distasteful an option as leaving a country and for all the same reasons yet it IS an option and a mortgage is not coercion.

One would also not consider a grocery store selling food coercion yet you may be attached to your grocery store, it may take resources to change to another store it may not be an option for you because your family likes the food there yet that grocery store is not coercive for asking that you pay for their food.

[Lelouche]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

Then we should execute people who refuse to pay taxes
/sarcasm

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services

you agree to them by using them. stop using them and you stop paying for them.

Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice

sure you are, you don't have to stay in this society and you do not pay taxes the moment you are born. In fact, you don't start paying taxes until you begin working (give or take)

It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

Coercion implies a binay solution set of "reasonable" options
"do this or I punish you"
(for example armed robbery, give me money or be shot, is coercion)

If you have another option it is not coercion.
(for example buying food from a grocers is not coercion essentially because I have the option to buy food and pay for it, buy food,don't pay for it and get punished or to not buy food and not pay for it)

Taxation in a society that will not permit you to leave is coercion because you have a binary set solution "pay taxes or be imprisoned"
Taxation in the west is not coercion because you have the option to go elsewhere to work. It may not be a "good" option but it certainly is AN option.

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

in a democratic society it certainly is. There is absolutely nothing that has anything to do with the government that is stopping you from leaving.

or to give other examples:
if you were to inherit the house where your parents lived and inherited a mortgage alongside it you would not consider the mortgage coercive yet the option of selling the house to cover the cost may be as distasteful an option as leaving a country and for all the same reasons yet it IS an option and a mortgage is not coercion.

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

[DaWoad]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

[JJ Place]

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:



or this argument:



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.

[Bendira]

Taxation isn't a theft since when you live in a country you know that you have to pay taxes, you could easily move out. It is your fault for living in that country.

It's not easy to move out.

Not only is it not easy, but its a worse choice than staying, as I have outlined about a million times in this thread.

[Lelouche]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

[DaWoad]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

or to put it another way would you consider this to be a valid statement?
paying for food/Imprisonment/going to another store
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

[Bendira]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

(Copy and Paste from what I said earlier)

Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a ridiculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain ridiculous.

[DaWoad]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

(Copy and Paste from what I said earlier)

Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a rediculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain rediculous.

and I covered this already. It's not a metaphorical suicide choice any more than shopping somewhere else is a metaphorical suicide choice.

edit or to put this another way:
problem: you do not to wish to pay for the services your government offers,
Solutions:
1.Suicide-technically a solution but availble to everyone always and therefore coercive
2.imprisonment due to not paying-technically a solution but one that would be considered coercive (see above)
3.gritting your teeth and paying- technically a solution but one that would be considered coercive (see above)
4.paying while attempting to change that which is paid for/lessen that which you must pay- A solution not available to those in coercive situations
5.leave and do not pay- A solution not available to those in coercive situations

Example:
A coercive situation:
a thief walks up to you and demands you money or your life.
You have options 1-3 2=walk away and be shot/don't pay and be shot etc.. You do not have options 4 or 5

A non-coercive situation:
a grocery store raises it's prices for bananas as they are out of season
you have options 1-5 with 2 being theft, 4 being barter and 5 would be to go to a competitor

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

He didn't say that.

Did cat say that taxation is not theft because the government cannot commit theft, as it defines theft

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?

[Lelouche]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

I don't need to argue fact
Thus I made a statement of fact
You arguing against fact, is your issue entirely

If you tell me, I must leave my country of residence, or pay taxes, that is coercion, by threat of exile. granted I make that choice, but it is a coercive choice
If you tell me, I must pay taxes, or go to prison, that is coercion, by threat of enforcement, granted I make that choice by choosing to defy my government, but it is a coercive choice all the same.

Everyone of these choices, is backed by the threat of force. it is no different then being mugged, and your mugger telling you. "We'll at least your money will go to support the criminal community at large, if you don't like, you shouldn't be living in a neighborhood that has crime".

[Bendira]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

(Copy and Paste from what I said earlier)

Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a rediculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain rediculous.

and I covered this already. It's not a metaphorical suicide choice any more than shopping somewhere else is a metaphorical suicide choice.

Which isn't true, because it metaphorically is as inefficient considering the alternative is to either die of starvation on a deserted island, or put myself in the exact same position I was before I left, which is paying taxes. And in any event, the alternative to paying taxes is to either leave my loved ones behind, move to another country where I will have the same exact situation, or exile myself and possibly die from lack of clean water. At the very best live alone for the rest of my life. So the GTFO option is not only metaphorically similiar in terms of its inefficiency to solving the problem as our suicide choice would be, but it also is part of the coercion we are talking about.

[DaWoad]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

(Copy and Paste from what I said earlier)

Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a rediculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain rediculous.

and I covered this already. It's not a metaphorical suicide choice any more than shopping somewhere else is a metaphorical suicide choice.

edit or to put this another way:
problem: you do not to wish to pay for the services your government offers,
Solutions:
1.Suicide-technically a solution but availble to everyone always and therefore coercive
2.imprisonment due to not paying-technically a solution but one that would be considered coercive (see above)
3.gritting your teeth and paying- technically a solution but one that would be considered coercive (see above)
4.paying while attempting to change that which is paid for/lessen that which you must pay- A solution not available to those in coercive situations
5.leave and do not pay- A solution not available to those in coercive situations

Example:
A coercive situation:
a thief walks up to you and demands you money or your life.
You have options 1-3 2=walk away and be shot/don't pay and be shot etc.. You do not have options 4 or 5

A non-coercive situation:
a grocery store raises it's prices for bananas as they are out of season
you have options 1-5 with 2 being theft, 4 being barter and 5 would be to go to a competitor

quoted for the edit

[Bendira]

Right
Because leaving your family, friends, culture and lands behind, or pay taxes
Is the same as choosing whether or not you want to pay a mortgage

That's a ridiculous argument, Moving has never been a legitimate argument for the existance of states, or taxes., and it never will be, regardless of your insistence

Yes, right. I never claimed they were identical but the argument IS. Leaving your house may genuinely not be an option for you. It may be literally impossible for you to leave yet the fact that the you cannot leave does not make the mortegage that you must pay coercion.

Or, in other words, it is not the governments fault that leaving may be a horrible choice for you and therefore it is not coercion.

I make no claim on the legitimacy of the existance of states but this is a valid argument for taxation not be coercive.

There is a profound fundamental difference between a Coercive Choice, and a Valid Choice
Taxes/Imprisonment/Exile
is not a valid set of choices, regardless of your argument for them
It is a coercive set of choices.
It is Coercion

that's a statement, may I see an argument?

(Copy and Paste from what I said earlier)

Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a rediculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain rediculous.

and I covered this already. It's not a metaphorical suicide choice any more than shopping somewhere else is a metaphorical suicide choice.

edit or to put this another way:
problem: you do not to wish to pay for the services your government offers,
Solutions:
1.Suicide-technically a solution but availble to everyone always and therefore coercive
2.imprisonment due to not paying-technically a solution but one that would be considered coercive (see above)
3.gritting your teeth and paying- technically a solution but one that would be considered coercive (see above)
4.paying while attempting to change that which is paid for/lessen that which you must pay- A solution not available to those in coercive situations
5.leave and do not pay- A solution not available to those in coercive situations

Example:
A coercive situation:
a thief walks up to you and demands you money or your life.
You have options 1-3 2=walk away and be shot/don't pay and be shot etc.. You do not have options 4 or 5

A non-coercive situation:
a grocery store raises it's prices for bananas as they are out of season
you have options 1-5 with 2 being theft, 4 being barter and 5 would be to go to a competitor

quoted for the edit

Yes, because the threat or having to leave your loved ones behind, your friends, and your entire life to go move to another country where you will most likely have to adapt to a new language, customs and find an entirely new job is not coersive. And the fact that once you get there you will still be taxed is not coersive. If thats seriously your argument, then you are clearly just a statist ideologue that is afraid of the truth.