Is Taxation Theft?

I do not understand. We have a written Constitution. It is not being followed. Why muck it up with imaginary social contracts? They do not exist. They are used, primarily by the fascistic Left, to superseded the Constitution after raping and assaulting her.

One cannot be in breach of a fairy tale told by fools to this willing audience.

Article V Now.

 

Whether or not our "social contract" is being followed is irrelevant as to what it is. I do agree that the federal government has usurped many of the rights of the states and the people. So in effect it is "breach of contract." But I wonder if you and I agree as to what part of our "social contract" has been breached, and how much of it has been simply given away or tacitly agreed to change without the formality of an amendment. Two examples are obvious to me:

1st. The founders did not focus on the "right to free speech" to mean that anyone could say anything they wanted just because it did not end in a danger to people. The courts finding that pornography is protected is one such breach I believe occurred.

2nd. It is highly suspect that the founders created the "right to keep and bear arms" such that it could include all the infringements that have come about with various regulations. I don't object to the elimination of seriously dangerous weapons like cannons or bazookas, or even full automatic firearms. But I do believe to prohibit firearms simply because they look dangerous based on similar appearance to military firearms is absolutely ridiculous.

 

I didn't see states fight much of this so called take over and in many cases they accepted it see the Federal government has its money gained by taxation ,100% Constitutional, and simply uses that to get states to comply they can opt out. Medicaid is a good example they took the money for this in return for Federal rules and must abide by them if Constitutional. Even with the expansion nixed the fat checks await states that opt in so refusing long term can be costly adding in the loss of funds to hospitals and other cuts made with the assumption the Medicaid expansion would clear. It didn't.

States can at any time refuse all Federal funds and the ties that bind them but in return lose money for lots of major things like roads, infrastructure, schools, research and disaster prevention.

As for the topic its not theft, you vote in the government at all levels and since your represented its something you agreed to pay if you don't like it vote in people who will repeal all taxes.

 

You want stuff you gotta pay for it. I think even libertarians would agree with that. And they WANT stuff just like everybody else.

 

I agree, taxation is not theft. But like it or not, the federal government has usurped many state and individual rights. Of course the states take the money. What alternative do they have? It was obvious they couldn't win on the 9th and 10th amendments so take the money and lower state taxes would be my advice.

 

We are at 53 pages and I have yet to see any good arguments why taxation isnt theft. I mean it can be called a justified theft (indeed I think it is lesser of two evils and thus justified in exactly the same way as stealing bread to feed the starving can be justified). However in the end it is forcibly taking other peoples money without their willing and freely given consent and thus theft it is, I am not going to lie to myself about its nature even if I support taxation.

 

There have been many sound logical reasons as to why it isn't theft.

We are at 53 pages and I have yet to see any good arguments how taxation is theft.

 

“I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17

 

The Constitution is not a social contract. It is a document created by the states and agreed to by the people to create a limited federal government, looking primarily outside
and looking at issues between the states.

A social contract is a theory to explain why we all belong to the state.

Those two are completely opposite each other.

No. It is called a tyranny and it must be resisted, by all means up to and including the use of arms when lesser means fail. Tyrants must be slain if they cannot be convinced or defeated. A breach of contract does not have that level of seriousness. You do the history of freedom damage.

It is not a social contract. It is a Constitution created by the states and ratified by the consent of the people.

No matter how you lessen the blow this is tyranny. The Constitution can be changed vie the Article V amendment process. What you are describing is a tyrannical usurpation of the power of the states or the people.

I do not believe the first amendment freedom of speech means "that anyone could say anything they wanted just because it did not end in a danger to people". I believe it means that Congress cannot make a law to prevent political speech.

From reading the few discussions in the debates that occurred during the ratification process the intention was to make sure citizens could be armed as the individual infantry soldier was armed. Today that would be individual arms that fire as single shot, semi-automatics and fully automatic weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

I do not believe there is anything that could convince you. You are a statist. We all belong to the state to use, consume and discard as the state wants.

Can you guys please fix your screwed up software?

 

I do not believe there is anything that could convince you. You are a statist. We all belong to the state to use, consume and discard as the state wants.

 

your income is your property and only you have the right to it.
life liberty and the pursuit of property
end of story

 

Metal, you are completely free to find ways to explain why the state must lord it over you. Just do not think that what is good for you--you need to be a slave--is good for me.

I do not need nor want to be a slave. So I will fallow the Constitution. You fallow your make believe.

 

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

 

The difference between Hobbe's and Proudhon's theories of social contracts was in regards to their validity among members of society. Proudhon proffered that the the concept of popular sovereignty (such as Rousseau's) was not valid, and as a result the theories of social contract based upon popular sovereignty was not valid. If you are requesting clarification, that fits under the first part of your definition but not the second part as any valid social contract can only be between individuals. I generally agree with that concept.

 

an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social contract

The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm

An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+contract

Which is exactly what our Constitution is.

- - - Updated - - -

I don not believe there is anything that could convince you. You are a 1% apologist, you're goal is to distribute even more of the nation's income and wealth to the richest, because for heaven's sake, the richest 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and controlling about 40% of the nation's wealth just isn't enough for you, is it?

 

You want to be part of the Club you have to pay the fees.

End of story.

 

Now tell us why the government can lay and collect taxes. There were only a very limited number of reasons. Can you name them for us please?
\

 

Exactly. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, since theft in its essence is taking something that belongs to someone else, whether sneakily or by force. For taxation not to be theft, it would have to be mutually accepted that what is taken in taxes belongs to the government taking those taxes, as in that portion of your monetary assets actually belongs to the government rather than to you.

 

This is a social model, a theory to explan why the state owns the subject.

Hobbes argued that the absolute power of the sovereign is justified by a hypothetical social contract in which the people agree to obey him in all matters in return for a guarantee of peace and security,

Locke believed that rulers also were obliged to protect private property and the right to freedom of thought, speech, and worship.

Rousseau held that in the state of nature people are unwarlike but also undeveloped in reasoning and morality; in surrendering their individual freedom, they acquire political liberty and civil rights within a system of laws based on the “general will” of the governed. The idea of the social contract influenced the shapers of the American Revolution and the French Revolution and the constitutions that followed them.

The Constitution is an actual document prepared between the parties to create a limited third party. What was selected? The created Federal government would be limited in its scope through a small number of delegated powers found in article section 8 of the Constitution. Amendments would ensure that the limited federal government protected the rights of private property, the right to speak freely, to worship according to conscience. This is the complete opposite of the social contract that say unlimited government has unlimited rights upon its subjects.

I don not believe there is anything that could convince you. You are a 1% apologist, you're goal is to distribute even more of the nation's income and wealth to the richest, because for heaven's sake, the richest 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and controlling about 40% of the nation's wealth just isn't enough for you, is it?[/QUOTE]​

 

its life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but you got the picture
i think that night i had a few beers in me

 

the point is that congress has the power to lay and collect taxes

the reason is that it takes money to run government, build civilization

provide for the common defence and general welfare of the country


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8