Thread: Is Taxation Theft?

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons

You all are acting like this is a black and white situation when it's not. Government operates in a gray area called "color or law".

Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition

Tax, v. A precuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority.


Exaction. The wrongful act of an officer or other person in compelling payment of a fee or reward for his services, under color of his official authority, where no payment was due.

Between "extortion" and "exaction" there is this difference: that in the former case the officer extorts more than his due, when something is due to him; in the latter, he exacts what is not due, when there is nothing due to him. Co.Litt. 368.

There is no gray area.

There are two ways of getting resources from other people: coercively or voluntarily.

You can't threaten someone a little bit and call it voluntary.

You either use violence and the threat of violence to extract resources or you don't.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

There is no gray area.

Yes there is gray area. It is a defaco government operating under color of law and outside the scope of their authority.

DEFACTO
De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/[1]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

COLOR OF LAW
In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1]

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

There are two ways of getting resources from other people: coercively or voluntarily.

If you are coerced into giving up resources it is still voluntary. Nobody has to give into coercion if they choose not to.

The two ways of obtaining resources from other people is by stealing from the other party or the other party gives it to you.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

You can't threaten someone a little bit and call it voluntary.

The government does it all the time. Hell they threaten alot and call it voluntary. I believe that is one of the most common tactics of the IRS.They will send you one of these threats http://www.taxdebthelp.com/tax-probl...notice-of-levy until you voluntarily send one of these www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

You either use violence and the threat of violence to extract resources or you don't.

With some exceptions violence is illegal and with some exceptions threats are not. Don't use them like they are synonymous because thet are not.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...-violence.html

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons

Yes there is gray area. It is a defaco government operating under color of law and outside the scope of their authority.

DEFACTO
De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/[1]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

COLOR OF LAW
In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1]

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law

Wow, these two terms have absolutely nothing to do with an action being coercive or voluntary. What a waste of writing.

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons

If you are coerced into giving up resources it is still voluntary. Nobody has to give into coercion if they choose not to.

You just contradicted yourself. It isn't voluntary if it's coercive, they mean the opposite! You literally just said that if something is coercive, it is voluntary. Wow, are you serious? By your logic, rape is voluntary.

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons

The two ways of obtaining resources from other people is by stealing from the other party or the other party gives it to you.

I already said that, are you trying to prove my point?

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons

The government does it all the time. Hell they threaten alot and call it voluntary. I believe that is one of the most common tactics of the IRS.They will send you one of these threats http://www.taxdebthelp.com/tax-probl...notice-of-levy until you voluntarily send one of these www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

DING DING DING! That's the point I'm making! The government does threaten and coerce a lot! Just because they call it voluntary doesn't make it voluntary. It's like you're trying to prove my argument is correct.

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons

With some exceptions violence is illegal and with some exceptions threats are not. Don't use them like they are synonymous because thet are not.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...-violence.html

This has absolutely nothing to do with legality. This is about an action being coercive or voluntary. Threats are coercive. It has nothing to do with whether they are legal or not.

Murder can be legal and it would still be violent.

You seem really confused about the discussion. This is about an action being coercive or voluntary, it has nothing to do with the legality of said actions.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that putting words in really big letters doesn't make your point anymore valid, it's just really annoying.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

Murder can be legal and it would still be violent.

Actually I believe Murder is illegal by definition. It's unlawful killing. But I get your point.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Actually I believe Murder is illegal by definition. It's unlawful killing. But I get your point.

the government defines and differentiates murder and justifiable homicide or legal kill, that is why it is legal to kill in war or for self defense even if some belief systems consider any form of killing as murder.

same here just because ones belief system says taxation is theft, it is not so because the government defines and differentiates taxation and theft.

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons
You all are acting like this is a black and white situation when it's not. Government operates in a gray area called "color or law".

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

There is no gray area.

Originally Posted by nomoreneocons
Yes there is gray area. It is a defaco government operating under color of law and outside the scope of their authority.

DEFACTO
De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/[1]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

COLOR OF LAW
In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1]

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

Wow, these two terms have absolutely nothing to do with an action being coercive or voluntary. What a waste of writing.

Never said they did. Pay attention.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Actually I believe Murder is illegal by definition. It's unlawful killing. But I get your point.

Well I do agree with you on a personal & moral level but our convoluted legal system unfortunately doesn't. I do believe most taxes by the federal government is theft. No doubt in my mind.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

Okay so I've been seeing that a lot of people think that taxation is not robbery and I'd like to challenge that notion. I'd like to do a one on one debate with anyone who is willing to step up to the plate. We can decide on definitions for the purposes of the debate before it begins. Is anyone interested?

I get taxed all the time. Anytime I buy anything I get taxed. People who live here from other countries get charged at least 10 dollars every time they send money home by wells fargo and wall mart. How is that represented? What do they get back? I get law enforcement, roads, education for my community, and poverty control (and many other benefits) from my taxes. What do the workers from other countries get? Hatred, deportation and prejudice are the fruits of their sacrifice. They work hard so you can feel superior. Try paying a corporation for all you receive, see how cheap that is.

Originally Posted by liberalminority

the government defines and differentiates murder and justifiable homicide or legal kill, that is why it is legal to kill in war or for self defense even if some belief systems consider any form of killing as murder.

same here just because ones belief system says taxation is theft, it is not so because the government defines and differentiates taxation and theft.

Can a "taxing authority" garnish your wages or auction your house because they say you owe "taxes" even though you really don't owe but can't prove it? Is that legal or theft?

Legally speaking, taxation is not theft. Practically speaking, taking something from someone else without their consent is theft, so this viewpoint would make taxation, in many cases, theft.

My question is, so what if its practically theft? If you can take money from a billionaire to save the life a starving child, wouldn't you do it? In the same way, if you were walking around a small bed of water at a park and saw a toddler drowning in it, wouldn't you run in even if you knew you might destroy the shoes you were wearing? Seems entirely illogical and cruel to say no.