Is Taxation Theft?

I give you a C+ for making the effort.

1) pay the debts.
2) provide for the common defense
3) and general welfare of the United States.

There is no option to steal from one citizen to benefit another citizen. There is no restatement of Marxism's central principle of taking from each according to his ability to redistribute that wealth according to his need. Nearly everything today's federal government does is unconstitutional and therefor tyrannical.

 

i got an b in 9th grade civics circa 1972 and a's in my university poli-sci classes

but, this is no classroom and i showed you the answer my way, via evidence

so get busy following the constitution and pay your fair share of taxes

 

The legals aspects of political authority, or the moral correctness of norms both relate to social contracts.
As is commonly used, a social contract is the acceptance of government authority in return for protecting social order and national defense. It is generally based on tacit agreement to honor that "social contract" based on the concept that choosing to reside withing the area covered by the social contract is tacit agreement to accept the contract, or as is frequently stated is, "in mutual agreement between the people and the government."

This suggests that people tend to be self-oriented, and that in maximizing their personal interest they will act in a moral manner and agree to government authority.

Plato suggested that members of a society agree to the terms of "their" contract by their choosing to live in that society. It is a kind of Golden Rule, "I will not harm you if you don't harm me," type of understanding. The idea that morality was inherent in man, with or without religion and that men all had basic human rights as individuals and following that "Golden Rule was in everyones best interest.

Thomas Hobbes proferred that a social contract created a more useful society. I don't accept that as he suggested, this would best be considered in a totalitarian form of government, but the government must be in a position to "enforce" the social contract whether the government was dictatorial or freely elected. I do not share his opinion that people cannot be trusted, but rather that in recognizing self interest is furthered by accepting the rule of society.

It has also been stated that when those who choose to remain in the society but then break the rules of society they can lose their rights, be punished, and either submit to the rules or be expelled from the society; but that rebellion can be reasonably be justified should the leaders of society become tyrannical. (Tyranny it self can be another topic altogether as I suspect those who believe taxation should not be legal is in and of itself tyrannical.)

Proudhon considered that a social contract did not involve surrendering rights to the government but that the contract was between individuals, and that Anarchism was basically the result of the individual understanding that his rights ended at the nose of his fellow man. It could be argued that this kind of social contract could only be exercised in a small society, in which everyone knew everyone else, such that they could individually agree, or disagree, with those who disagree (depending on which is the majority) moving to either create their own separate society or finding a society which follow the same opinions.

I think it important to realize that in modern society with very little remote territory left to settle, the concept of a social contract being accepted as tacit agreement to accept the rules of society simply by remaining in that society. When and if the majority chooses to react negatively to what is specified in the contract seek to modify or renegotiate the contract. (amend the contract)

The reality of the situation is very simple whether we like the contract concept or not. It amounts to a "majority rules" concept with some veto power in the hands of a group of empowered individuals who allegedly review the contract for legitimacy and determine if the morality of suggested changes fit with the guidelines of our social contract or not. One might call them the final arbitors of our collective conscience. It is imperative that the idea of collective conscience in no way accepts Socialism as a form of government or economic system, as Socialism is not relevant to a social contract.

 

I believe your problem is that you know so much that is not true.

Unless you are in the top 4% of taxpayers I already pay way more than you.

 

my posts show that what i said is true, taxes are constitutional

what a joke

have you even got a camera and the ability to post a photo here?

 

The taxes that pay for constitutional programs are constitutional. All other moneys collected for unconstitutional things are stolen from us.

'Unless you are in the to 4% of taxpayers I already pay way more than you."

I lost my last real camera sometime after my trip to Italy and Switzerland. Today I have several decent options between my tablet and my cell phone. What is the relevance of that to my income? Or yours? Is the ownership of photographic equipment a proxy these days for income? Who knew?

It is entirely likely that just the illegal portions of the taxes collected from me every year exceed what you pay in several good years. But of course, I have no evidence.

 

i'm getting to that

you drink, right?

 

I'd say central banking, not taxation, is criminal.

 

why would you say that?

president washington signed the legislation that created our first central bank

 

Central banking is a control apparatus of Washington. It also lent credence to the Federal Reserve, which is neither federal, nor backed by a precious commodity.

 

you're mistaken

the federal reserve act is 100% federal

 

The Federal Reserve is a series of privately owned entities. So affirms Lewis v. United States.

 

you're naive at best

no private bank gives all its net profits to the government

 

You're right. They deduct operating costs and receive a dividend. That's a pretty sweet deal.

 

i think you're confused

the federal reserve gives all its net profits to the government

 

No confusion here. The Federal Reserve has returned approximately 95% of net earnings to the Treasury since its inception.

 

no private bank does that

just like private banks aren't operated by federal employees

 

Yes it does. The treasury takes out a loan on new money, the Fed injects new money into the economy through the banks, the banks loan new money out to customers, the customer pays the loan back, the bank takes a cut, returns the money to the Fed who takes a cut and returns the remainder to the Treasury who turn a profit on their loan. In fact that profit margin has grown for the past several years into record territory.

 

no, there's not a single private bank that gives all its net profits to the government

if you think there is, show me the evidence

 

Not, "no taxes," but rather only appropriate taxes.

 

1) I never said the bank is giving all net anything to the government. B) Check the washing machine, it's stuck on spin cycle.

 

Good for them.

The Constitution is the very definition of a social contract, as per the numerous definitions I cited.

 

You will continue to be wrong. They are opposites. The Constitution limits government. The theory of the social contract limits the subject. As I remain a citizen I reject this additional effort to turn me into a subject and a serf whose purpose is to serve the state.

When the time comes this may be decided by the force of arms.

 

that's completely ridiculous

what other country has more freedom than the usa?

 

Which kinda adds to my point, because this social contract isn't a voluntary one, as it was forced on me and I was signed into it without my explicit consent, something which contracts typically require.

Nobody is forcing me to stay in Sweden. But please, it's really as silly as me claiming that you're part of my club, and thus have to pay dues, as long as you are within a certain territory. There's really no difference, and aside from the practicality of government, it's really not any more or less justified.

The point I'm trying to make is that the social contract isn't like other contracts, and that if government is a club, it isn't like any other, and that the government is coercive in nature, and thus, per definition, not voluntary. And, I'm saying that if looking at it objectively, there's little moral difference between common theft and taxation. Note, that I'm not a bloody anarchist now, I'm just acknowledging the nature of the state, but I still view it as very necessary. I'm just making an obvious point, and you're seemingly in agreement with me. Really, what are we arguing about?

You're saying it's not theft to take your money to pave the roads and pay the soldiers, but it is theft to take your money to feed the starving and give shelther to the homeless? There's no difference between them really. You're already accepting that government has a right to your income, so you might as well drop the double standard.