Thread: Is Taxation Theft?

Employers paying workers less than a living wage ($20/hour most places in America ?), is robbery. Taxation works to offset this to a degree. The people who complain the most about taxation, think nothing of robbing workers blind in their wages.

Originally Posted by protectionist

Employers paying workers less than a living wage ($20/hour most places in America ?), is robbery. Taxation works to offset this to a degree. The people who complain the most about taxation, think nothing of robbing workers blind in their wages.

You must have a different definition of stealing. So you're saying that stealing can be consenual and voluntary?

Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of it being stealing?

When someone forces you to give them your resources under the threat of violence, that is stealing.

Originally Posted by HillBilly

well , SonofOdin , you like to drive on good roads , don't ya ? when you dial 911 , you expect that ambulance or patrol car or firetruck to pull in your driveway pdq , don't ya ?

Taxes pay for that ... it's not an ambigulation of citizenship to pay taxes .

In my view , it is the market value itself that drives up taxes to provide those services , combined with pension plans and the size / economic base of their geographic area / locale' ..and with the property taxes my Yankee friends pay I can well understand the opinion that it's hi-way robbery , I couldn't pay it , I'd have to move down South ...

but hey , I'm already here ...

Ah, you're making a fallicious argument.

You are confusing the order of events.

What is done AFTER the act of theft does not change the act of theft.

If I stole your money at gunpoint and then, with that money, removed every toilet in your house and installed new toilets that I approved of and then you used those toilets, it is still theft.

Government cuts off options and only allows me to use government monopolized police or hospitals etc. Even if they didn't, it doesn't matter.

When you take something under the threat of violence from someone else, it is stealing. Period.

See? One thing comes before the other.

The money is stolen and THEN the services are paid for and "provided" with your stolen money.

Taxation cannot be theft, because theft is a legal term,
and as such it is the government which defines what theft is.
Most governments define theft as an illegal action,
and in general define taxation as the government's legal right/duty.

Government defines what is legal and what is illegal.
If any government defines theft as illegal,
and if the same government defines taxes as legal,
then it cannot then be said that taxes are theft.

So in general, taxes are not theft, they are not against the law, in fact, they are the law,
however, whether or not taxes are fair or good is another issue,
as many legal things are neither fair nor good in my opinion.

-Meta

Originally Posted by Meta777

Taxation cannot be theft, because theft is a legal term,
and as such it is the government which defines what theft is.
Most governments define theft as an illegal action,
and in general define taxation as the government's legal right/duty.

Government defines what is legal and what is illegal.
If any government defines theft as illegal,
and if the same government defines taxes as legal,
then it cannot then be said that taxes are theft.

So in general, taxes are not theft, they are not against the law, in fact, they are the law,
however, whether or not taxes are fair or good is another issue,
as many legal things are neither fair nor good in my opinion.

-Meta

Hey Meta. Should we get into the language debate again?

Government is a metaphysical institution, not an ontological principle. Perhaps that's why you're getting confused over the law.

The law is that which is necessary for people to coexist without taking anything for granted, and that's why taxation is theft. Taxation is predicated on property not being properly allocated, yet to project a definition of properness onto another would take for granted one's own ontological facility of understanding properness.

Originally Posted by HillBilly

well , SonofOdin , you like to drive on good roads , don't ya ? when you dial 911 , you expect that ambulance or patrol car or firetruck to pull in your driveway pdq , don't ya ?

Taxes pay for that ... it's not an ambigulation of citizenship to pay taxes .

In my view , it is the market value itself that drives up taxes to provide those services , combined with pension plans and the size / economic base of their geographic area / locale' ..and with the property taxes my Yankee friends pay I can well understand the opinion that it's hi-way robbery , I couldn't pay it , I'd have to move down South ...

but hey , I'm already here ...

I like to have my shop protected. Does that make the local mafia taxation on my property legitimate given that they provide protection in return?

Originally Posted by Meta777

Taxation cannot be theft, because theft is a legal term,
and as such it is the government which defines what theft is.
Most governments define theft as an illegal action,
and in general define taxation as the government's legal right/duty.

Government defines what is legal and what is illegal.
If any government defines theft as illegal,
and if the same government defines taxes as legal,
then it cannot then be said that taxes are theft.

So in general, taxes are not theft, they are not against the law, in fact, they are the law,
however, whether or not taxes are fair or good is another issue,
as many legal things are neither fair nor good in my opinion.

-Meta

If government defines the whole of the law, how can a government be legitimately formed since the law which defines it cannot exit until government does? Do you argue that it's existence justifies it's existence?

Hey Daktoria, lol.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Government is a metaphysical institution, not an ontological principle.

Is ownership not metaphysical as well?
If so, then there shouldn't be any issue with relating the two as I have.

The law is that which is necessary for people to coexist without taking anything for granted, and that's why taxation is theft.

You're saying that the purpose of law, is to make people grateful for the fact that they can coexist?
What exactly does that have to do with taxation or theft?

In my view, the purpose of law is to let people coexist, as you said,
and cooperate, all for the betterment of those people,
or the majority, if not ever single individual.

That is why taxes taxes are necessary, for without them,
the government which should function for towards the betterment of everyone,
would not work.

And that is also why theft is usually illegal,
because it is detrimental to the well-being of the majority of the people.

Taxes when implemented correctly, are not detrimental,
because they fund a government which in theory does for people in a collective fasion, what they cannot themselves do individually.

In both cases, it is the people that decide what is detrimental,
and what is helpful to them, and if they decide that theft is detrimental,
and taxes are not, then taxes cannot be theft.

Taxation is predicated on property not being properly allocated, yet to project a definition of properness onto another would take for granted one's own ontological facility of understanding properness.

Taxation is not merely about what is "proper".
It is about what is useful to the population as a whole.

Are you saying that the problem with taxation,
is that it can impose on an individual, a usefulness that they do not agree with?
That may be true, but I believe you cannot call taxation theft for this.
I also believe that you cannot call taxation wrong for this.
The same can be said of a government throwing a serial murder in prison.
The murder might not agree that such a thing is useful,
and from their point of view, maybe it isn't,
but does this make it illegal imprisonment?
Does it make it not useful for the majority?
Does it make it wrong?

-Meta

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

If government defines the whole of the law, how can a government be legitimately formed since the law which defines it cannot exit until government does? Do you argue that it's existence justifies it's existence?

No.

Whether a government's existence is legitimate or not is something which each individual must answer for themselves.

If you're asking me as individual, my personal opinion,
then I say that the government is legitimized when it works towards the good of the people it governs.
I also say that it is legitimized when the government is decided upon by the people it governs.


-Meta

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

I like to have my shop protected. Does that make the local mafia taxation on my property legitimate given that they provide protection in return?

What do mafia protect you from?
They claim to be the solution to the problem, when it is they who are the problem.
If the mafia were to simply go away, you would only be better off for it.

The government may ask you to pay for protection,
but what is it that the government primarily protects you from?
What would you face, if the government were to cease to exist?

-Meta