Is Taxation Theft?

I do agree that we have allowed the federal government to usurp the powers of the states and the people to a dangerous level. I don't see it going back any time soon unfortunately.

 

Whoever said a contract is between two equals doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. There is nothing that requires parties to a contract be equals.

Still have not seen any reasonable argument as to how the Constitution is not a social contract.

 

The worst theft if the wanton printing of money.

 

Even using your understanding, how does the Constitution, specifying a limited government, not address the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual?

That is exactly what it does.

- - - Updated - - -

It's much better for your silly argument when you don't have to address logic.

 

No one ever agrees on taxes and spending. From the very earliest day of the Republican when President Washington put down a revolt over taxes by the Tea Partiers of the day.

That is not the test for legitimacy of taxes.

 

I only have so much patience...I used your definition. You were too lazy to go beyond the first line.

I suppose if you can define a term to mean something and its opposite the whole world will make sense to you.

Feel free to be as wrong as you like. You keep your social contract that justifies the government dominating you. You deserve it.
I will stick with the Constitution where the government is constrained.

 

If we do not win the Article V fight then a bloody revolution must come to sweep away the ruling class. As in the French Revolution this time in America heads will roll.

 

Oh, but they are. A trade is A giving x to B in exchange for z. x might as well be labour, and z might be a wage.

I'm not talking legality here. Theft for this purpose is defined as A taking the possesions of B without B's consent. A could be government, or a bandit. What A uses the stolen stuff for is irrelevant, as is whatever justification they have. I'm not making the point that we shouldn't have taxes, I'm just making the point that taxation is theft. 'legality' is codified coercion. I know these are necessary, but I don't live under the false pretences that they're not coercion and theft.

Don't quite get your point.

Except that if I do that, I still have to pay taxes. Are there seriously still people that think government is a voluntary club?

When did I give consent? What right to people living inside the same artificial boundaries as me have to meddle in the affaris of other parties?

It's not a club for crying out loud, it's a government. The difference is force: the use of threat thereof.

hseiken, it appears you're a member of this sweden-club, and there's some dues that need to be paid. We'll spend it for your benefit, of course. When you signed up? Oh, you didn't really, you were just automatically so, when you were born. You can leave the club of course, you'll just have to leave your house and basically your whole life...

This 'government is a club' argument is silly beyond belief.

Ah, here we see the problem. In your view, government cannot possibly be based on something immoral. you just couldn't accept that moral conflict, and that's why we see these justifications.. the "social contract", "it's not theft because it's the law", "it's a club". Those are just sad attempts to give the impression that government is a voluntary insitution. I understand you don't like coercion, but this is just lalaland.

 

I was born here, so I'm staying. I don't have to leave, merely because the 51% wants to deny me my individual rights. If YOU don't respect the law of this land, YOU should leave!

 

You are more than welcome to stay, if you follow our rules and regulations.

 

When you decided to be part of the club.

Club rules.

Same principle. If you want to belong to the club, you have to pay the dues, even if you don't agree with what they spend the money on or how they apportion the dues. The fact that you have to pay the dues to belong to the club is not "theft".

Meaning it is an appropriate analogy that rationally explains Govt taxes to which you have no reasonable response.

Nice strawman. That isn't my view at all.

Way to dodge the question though. I can understand why you would, given you have no reasonable response.

 

Exactly how can you do that? (stay off public roads and bridges, keep your kids out of schools, fight your own fires, police your own house and when there's war don't rely on the military to protect you).

How will you get to the store?

You'll have to become a survivalist somewhere and not in a country where you refuse to pay taxes and as far as I know every bit of land on the planet belongs to some country somewhere.

 

In the 1960's there was a group of people who used to shout "My country: right or wrong!!" and "America, love it or leave it!!!".....but now that same group hates the country, the President, minorities, immigrants, Muslims, gays, and just about everyone and everything in it.

What happened?

 

As if I had any real choice. please

which are as valid as mafia's rules.

But membership in the "club" isn't voluntary, have you seriously missed that very important difference?

I do have a reasonable response which unlike yours, doesn't entail pretending that government isn't founded on coercion. I'm just honest about it.

Why do you keep pretending like government isn't founded on coercion then, when it very clearly is?

I could live on a farm and be self-sufficient, but I still would have to pay taxes. Point being, taxes aren't voluntary, so stop acting as if they were.

 

Of course you have a choice.

You're argument is that the mafia is the same as the government? LOL No wonder you've avoided making arguments.

Of course it is voluntary. This isn't the Soviet Union. No one forces you to be part of the club.

Still waiting to here it.

Every society has some decree of coercion. Society couldn't operate otherwise.

Where did I pretend that?

 

When I chose to be born in Sweden? When I chose my parents? When they asked for my consent before they registred me and made me part of the system? It's ridiculous, just stop it.

Tell me the difference then.

When did i voluntarily join the club then?

hear*. Why do you argue against me, only to agree with me in the next sentence?

Right, so you know that government is coercive, but haven't you figured out part of what they use that coercion for is to collect taxes? Taxes which, because they aren't voluntary, needs to be backed up with the threat of force.

 

I agree. Income tax is theft by way of extortion. Give us 10%-20%-30% of your income or we will confiscate all of your property and put you in jail. Pretty simple and run much the same as mafia protection rackets. The taxation of income was originally published as the second platform of the Communist Manifesto. The US supported itself and its government for the first 150 years without income tax, then it was oozed in at a very low rate in the early days. The IRS and the Federal reserve should be abolished immediately and replaced by excise taxes and tariffs. The US treasury could make up the difference in revenue by taking the banking concession away from the pack of international swindlers who control the Fed and buying up all US housing and small business debt at 2.5% interest.

Cheers

 

You didn't.

You didn't.

Who forced you and is forcing you to stay in Sweden?

Don't be silly. Are you seriously asking me to the difference between a democratic government and a criminal mob/gang?

Isn't it kind of a hint to you that when you have to resort to completely silly positions like that one that your position is a little unsound?

When you chose to stay in the club.

I never took the position that there isn't a coercive element with Govt. You break the law you get arrested and you go to jail.

Why are you wasting our time with such obvious straw men?

Again, why are you wasting time with strawmen?

Where did I ever say that there isn't a coercive element with taxes? If you don't pay your taxes the Govt can seizure your property or even put you in jail.

So what? Many of the Club's rules are backed up with the threat of force. You intentionally invade or damage someone else's property you can go to jail.

 

Unlike theft, no one forces you to pay US taxes. Renounce your citizenship and earn your money somewhere else.

But if you voluntarily decide to remain a US citizen and/or earn money in the US, thus taking advantage of the benefits of that, then you have to pay taxes.

The US system allows you the potential to make unimaginable riches and wealth in the billions of dollars. And you get to use our resources, infrastructure and people and take advantage of our rich markets. All you have to do is give back a percentage of it, and a pretty small percentage it is today for many.

Not a bad deal. They didn't let you do that in communist countries you allude to.

 

You can spin it any way you want champ, but forcing people under extremely coercive tactics to pay taxes is theft by means of extortion. As I related previously this is exactly how mafia extortion rackets operated before the IRS started using these effective tactics. Taxation of ones labor is an idea right out of the Communist Manifesto. There are other ways to raise the revenue needed to run this government which was created of, by and for the people. The current system has been installed by and for the benefit of a small group of international swindlers who live like modern day royalty off the backs of the labor and servitude of the general public by means of the income taxes they extort from us. We should move to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve and hand the monetary policy of our country back to the people in an open and transparent system.

Cheers


"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace & conspires against it in times of war. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who even question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe.


President Abraham Lincoln


What do you think President Lincoln was trying to convey by this statement?

 

You can spin it any way you want, champ, but no one forces you to pay US taxes.

Yet another one taking the position that a democratic government is the same thing as an criminal gang.

When you have to make such lame analogies to argue your position, it's a hint that your argument is silly.

Cheers.

Don't vote for folks who support the money power.

President Abraham Lincoln

He was trying to convey that people who have lots of money are often selfish and want more and more, because more is never enough, and they will bribe (directly or indirectly) politicians and fund propaganda like Fox News to exert influence and control over the sheeple and Govt to implement policies like "supply side" and "trickle down" that greatly expand the portion of the nation's income and wealth they get.

 

Whether you know it or not, Both major political parties here in the US are owned by the same group of international bank swindlers that President Lincoln spoke of. Also, Fox News and MSNBC are really both on the same team. If the Democrats didn't wholly support the money power, why did Obama appoint Goldman Sachs stooge Tim Geithner secretary of the treasury as soon as he got in? Republicans and Democratic operatives just each spew different rhetoric aimed at opposing personality types but in the end, it all ends up serving the elites. Get a grip mate!

 

False equivalency. It is not the Dems who proposed cutting taxes for millionaires, it was the Republicans. It was the not the Republicans who proposed a minimum tax on millionaires, it was the Democrats. It wasn't the Democrats who cut the investment tax rates and estate taxes, it was the Republicans. It wasn't the Republicans who raised investment tax rates and the estate tax, it was the Democrats.

The Republicans are totally beholden to the 1% and do everything in their power to coddle them, cut their taxes and regulations, and help them protect and gain more of the American pie.

The Dems are subject to it as well but to a far lesser degree.

If you are really concerned with money power, as well you should be, vote republicans out of power. Then if Democrats don't get the message, vote them out and others in who oppose money power and coddling the richest.

 

If someone does not agree with a contract then why would they sign or accept the contract? In the case of your real estate contract, someone made an offer, the other party accepted the offer...which signifies 'agreement' from both parties. Anything after the contract agreement is either performance as specified in the contract or a breach of the contract.

There are implied contracts which can exist for many reasons...

 

That was my point. Breach in contract is an after the signing fact. The agreement itself as a social contract is an implied contract which every legal resident must follow or they are in "breach" of contract, ie not legal.