Is Taxation Theft?

You believe everyone in the world agrees with all claims of ownership?



​

 

Probably not.

However, in the US, who owns what is currently established (or can be established in court), which was my context for my previous comment: "I would vote in favor of laws that preclude anyone, including the government, from taking what belongs to others."

 

In the U.S., the government only takes what belongs to it (or can be established in court).



​

 

Yes, those are exactly the law that I just said I oppose. Laws that transfer ownership of a person's money to the government.

There is no justification for claiming one owns the property of another person who has harmed no one and then using force to take what one has just claimed. Thus, I oppose laws that would allow anyone, including the government, to do this.

 

Same way your credit card company does, a debt was incurred.



​

 

Nope. When a person uses a credit card, he, via a contract, voluntarily transfers ownership of a specific amount of his property to the lender. Thus, the lender, though a voluntary property transfer, becomes the rightful owner of the property.

I can't support a laws that involuntarily transfer the property of someone who has harmed no one. I would consider such laws unjust, and would have no desire to impose them on my fellow man.

 

When someone becomes a U.S. citizen, either they or their legal representative, signs a similar contract.



​

 

I see no ethical justification for forcing a person into a contract against his will.

I would favor changing the law such that no implicit contract would exist. I would prefer the law only allow explicit, voluntary contracts as a means to transfer the ownership of property.

 

In that case, you should be able to cite a real nation you would emulate. If there is none, you are indulging in fiction, some airy fairy notion that does not exist.

As I noted, the paradigm is of advanced democracies with progressive social welfare programmes have achieved the highest quality of life on earth for their citizens. What has been shown to work best is what must be the best model to follow, not some theoretical ideological confection with no demonstrable success, right?


.

 

Are you actually making the argument that people can't do something that has not been done before?

I don't agree with establishing unethical laws in order to accomplish my ends. One can't do good by doing bad. 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.

 

The contract isn't implicit and no force was involved. Either you, or your legal guardian, had to explicitly make the choice to sign that contract for you to become an American citizen.



​

 

That has always been the prerogative of the individual. If you don't want transfer of ownership of a % of your income, you are free to live elsewhere. Residence in the US is ipso facto proof of acceptance of the laws of this country. Follow the laws, or go to jail, or leave are you choices.

 

The very worst things come from compliance. see Nuremberg 1945-46

 

I am being practical in noting that all societies that have established environments in which their members can thrive have done so via taxation, and am leery of any alternative methodology that has never been demonstrated to work. Taxation is not good, merely necessary.

I would find it unethical to take advantage of the venue my nation provides me that allows me to succeed. Defense, law enforcement, the judiciary, infrastructure, regulation of commerce, fiscal policies, etc. etc. etc. - All come at a cost.

Clearly, I owe my nation something for whatever I earn and acquire, and the more I amass, the more I demand that government protect from con men, criminals, and conquerers.

 

I am little swayed by the current fashion of law. Right and wrong are not defined by law. Legal and illegal are defined by law.

Those employed in governance pick and choose which laws to comply with, which laws to enforce, which people to enforce laws upon based upon their moral conscience. From the president to the attorney general on down, few take the idea of complete compliance with law seriously.

Compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with what is wrong. It does not ease my conscience. It is more important to not violate my equals than it is to comply with those who believe themselves to be my superiors.

Upon review, what I wrote above could have been written by the obama himself.

 

That is just absolute ignorent.
You need to tax to pay for firefighters, police officers, the army, judges etc etc etc.


And that sidewalk in front of your house didn't come for free, as well as that road you drive around on. Or would you like pay toll for walking on a sidewalk?

 

I'm not sure to what contract you are referring. Perhaps you could provide it.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously those are the choices under the current law. What I was saying is that I would like to see the law changed such that nobody (including the government) can take what belongs to others because I can find no ethical justification for doing so.

 

And of course, if a person voluntarily chooses to purchase such services, the seller of these services would expect to be paid, and rightfully so.

 

There will always be laws allowing a government to tax for the revenue needed to operate. That will never change. It cannot change. Living in the jurisdiction of those laws requires compliance.

 

I disagree with this opinion.

At one time, there were people who said, "There will always be laws permitting slavery." Those people were eventually proved wrong.

 

And if anyone does not choose to take advantage of the benefits that society affords him, he is entirely free to go elsewhere.

 

You would prefer some kind of law forbidding him from simply staying where he is?

 

If he doesn't pay his taxes he will move.....to jail where he belongs.

 

Yes, under current law, this is the case.

However, since I consider it wrong for a person to simply declare that another person's property now belongs to him, I cannot support such laws. I have no ethical justification for laws that collect taxes by force, so, as I mentioned earlier, I would advocate that the law be changed so that nobody (including government) be legally permitted to take the property of others.

 

That's the theroy.