Is Taxation Theft?

When someone whines about the fiscal responsibility he incurs by participating in a society, one assumes he must have a preference.

If there is no such nation to cite, the whiner should make it clear that he is just indulging in fantasy.



.

 

I think quite a few people here are indulging in fantasy. Its like in the army, the big time "killer" types were the first to lay flat in a fox hole. I'll bet most of these whiners bow toward DC for their MASSAH IRS.

 

Where you were born doesn't matter. If you are a U.S. citizen then either you or your legal guardians (in the case of a child) elected for you to become an American citizen and signed that contract. To become a U.S. citizen you agree to abide by the laws of this nation, including those regarding taxation.

If you ever filed a W-2, requested a drivers license, provided a number when asked for your social security ID, you confirmed that choice.

If you now regret your choice (or the choice made on your behalf by your parents), you may end your citizenship at will. At which point our constitution will award you less rights than you might enjoy as a citizen.



​

 

That is a logical fallacy.

If we lived in the early 1800's and a slave confided in you that his master beat him too much, your response would him would be happy that your master doesn't beat you more, or even to death?

There is no way around the logic that demonstrates that taxation is theft (not tacit consent or any other theory of social contract). The only question is if an individual finds that acceptable.

 

Not according to webster. The definition of the word by any dictionary I've seen is based on law. You'll make a more compelling and credible case for your position if you recognize the accepted definition of that word and choose different words to express what frustrates you about how we collect taxes.



​

 

Most of us would. Where it get's contentious is determining what belongs to who.





​

 

All the objects you own belong to you. All the objects I own belong to me. And so on.​

 

They dwell in their Aynrandistan of the mind, apparently. With approximately 200 real nations on earth from which to choose, they get in a tizzy whenever pragmatism is applied and they are cordially enjoined to cite one of which they approve and would adopt as a paradigm.

The practical reality is that the most successful nations whose societies enjoy the highest quality of life are democracies that regulate capitalism and self-finance their operations, including their social services, via taxation of the citizenry.

Piracy or conquest and enslavement may be attractive alternatives to some, I suppose, but they really need to think them through.

 

And we pay for a democratic government that enforces such distinctions. If we own nothing, we do not incur that responsibility.

 

Yes, the purpose of the law and a system of governance is to enforce people's rights to property in scarce, rivalrous objects and in their bodies. As I said earlier, I opt for laws that preclude anyone, including the government, from taking what belongs to others, since I can find no ethical justification for violating the property rights of others.

 

Of course, such sentiments must be accommodated within a workable system of self-governance.

If you can cite any one successful nation that you would deem a paradigm for the US to emulate, what is it?

 

Can I cite any state that doesn't initiate violence? Nope. That's what states are.

However, there are infinite examples of people voluntarily cooperating and not taking violating the person or property of others: business firms, churches, clubs. social organization of all sorts.

 

I could not disagree more. I do not believe is political stasis. When Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.", He was not calling for Roman rule forever.

No tyrant has ever the power to subdue a nation of people. Every tyrant requires those complicit with the tyrant.
No tyranny has ever the power to subdue a nation of people. Every tyranny requires those compliant with the tyranny.
The true power of any tyrant, any tyranny, comes not from those complicit with it but from those compliant with it.

There may be a different intent, but there is no affective or effective difference between being compliant and being complicit.

 

Communists, progressives, islamists, socialists and fascists agree with your definition. So did 'Rome' and, for that matter, most governments in history.

I disagree.

 

So, of the 200 nations on earth, you cannot cite a single one that succeeds without taxation to support the system within which the citizenry thrives? None?

 

Correct. All states initiate aggression against the people in their jurisdictions. That is what characterizes them as states.

 

I'm glad you explained that you are not addressing reality. Whilst I enjoy fiction immensely, as a pragmatist, I look to real-world paradigms for actual appraoches to self-governance.

 

That's a circular definition.


​

 

If you disagree with the dictionary definition of an English word, you're not speaking English. Stating your opinion using words in a way contrary to their definition is like trying to present a math theorem utilizing a new definition of "2" — it only makes your position harder to understand.




​

 

I doubt you even know what a logical fallacy is.

I don't live in the early 1800s and I don't believe in the morality of slavery. So what is your point?

It is a logical fallacy that taxation is theft. The laws of the United States support taxation in varying ways and varying rates, ie taxation is legal and valid. Theft is defined as illegal taking of value from another. Therefore taxation is legal.

 

You have a strange dictionary. We are not a nation of laws, in which people are supposed to follow those laws. If you do not, you are a criminal. If you are a criminal you should be prosecuted. If you are prosecuted you should be found guilty and you should be punished. Either follow the laws, go to jail or find another country in which to live. Anarchism (living without laws) is not a good state to be in.

 

History is replete with good men who agreed that taxation had become theft. I stand with them.
I, for one, am ready to dressup like an indian and throw the tea into the harbor.

 

I have explained no such thing. We are talking about reality, not fiction -- the interactions between real, flesh and blood people.

I can find no ethical justification for assaulting or violating the person or property of those who have harmed no one. Thus, I cannot justify support for laws that allow anyone, including the government, to take what belongs to others.

 

What belongs to whom is currently established, and is not in question. Each of us currently owns various objects, so everyone is aware of what belongs to whom.

 

Playing dressup and insisting on misusing words is unlikely to do anything more than cause folks to confuse you with a village people reunion or dismiss your concerns as the rantings of someone who dresses funny and doesn't understand English.

You are not helping solve the problem.





​