I referred to taxation as theft, and he responded with something like this:
You can call a tax bad, or stupid, and you can say we should change it or get rid of it. But you can't call it "theft" unless you're being forced to live in and participate in society, because theft can only occur when the person being stolen from is a wholly unwilling participant.
I have no real retort to this. Can anyone help?
Thanks
He's relying on a social contract type justification. It's like he's trying to justify theft because a thief has been doing so for years, to the point where one's offspring are supposed to voluntarily acquiesce to this theft.
FYI, taxation isn't theft. It is retroactive slavery.
So if someone threatens to take your money at gunpoint, you should have to leave instead of him being put in jail?
I do not see how the fact that 200 million people are stealing from a person instead of just one person stealing from someone makes a difference. Using his logic, it is ok for someone to steal from you, if he then uses the money he stole from you to purchase your labor.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Inquisitor:He's relying on a social contract type justification.
He most definitely is. I was just reading a blog on Mises today about the social contract. Here is a link http://mises.com/blogs/irishoutlaw/archive/2008/03/15/social-contract-my-ass.aspx if you want to look into it.
wgeary:You can call a tax bad, or stupid, and you can say we should change it or get rid of it. But you can't call it "theft" unless you're being forced to live in and participate in society, because theft can only occur when the person being stolen from is a wholly unwilling participant.
We very well can't live outside of society, no can we? And people that have tried -- Randy Weaver, for example -- ended up paying heavily. A dead son and a dead wife, himself and his friend both shot. But that's a different matter. His thoughts are foolish. Fine, let's say it's not theft. Is it then not coercion? And is coercion somehow better than outright theft? Would I feel different if a thief broke into my house while I was gone and looted the place or if he held me at gunpoint and I -- having to choose the lesser evil -- hand over my money? And should I feel wonderful if, having been coerced and robbed, the thief gave the money to charity? The same goes with the government. If I refuse to pay taxes -- money that was the product of my labor, my sweat, and my lost time -- they will come after me, in due course; if I am remain as stubborn as I often am, I won't go in voluntarily. They will drive an APC through the wall and set the place on fire.
That may be a stretch, but the point remains. I have just two choices: accept that part of my labor magically belongs to another or risk an unpleasant encounter with Federal agents.
Two additional essays inveighing heavily against the social 'contract' nonsense:
On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy.
Inquisitor: FYI, taxation isn't theft. It is retroactive slavery.
All theft is retroactive slavery.
But yes, the ideology behind taxation is just an extention of slavery.
Taxation is a unilaterally declared transfer of property, which is the same as theft.
Not all forms of taxation are slavery though. Property taxes or eminent domain are only physical. Income taxes, because they are conditional on labor, are slavery.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
All taxes are slavery and theft. In today's society we cannot alienate ourselves from where we live. In essence we are forced to participate in our societies and therefore any forced tax is theft. A sales tax is a tax on living as you must pay a tax on everything you buy, much of which is necessary to survive in todays reality. The income tax implies that the government owns your labor and therefore owns all the fruits of it. By letting you keep a percentage of your income is their way of saying that though they own your labor and the fruits thereof they will allow you X amount of money to live off of but reserve the right to take more if necessary. Taxes on your land and home are nothing more than modern serfdom. You can spend 30 years paying off your mortgage but if you failt to remit the taxes for it at the end of the year Uncle Sam will come and take it from you. If you don't pay your income tax you are subject to jail time or a bullet in the head. How can taxes be anything but theft? I don't want to pay sales tax but I am compelled to if I want to buy anything at the store. I don't want to pay income taxes but they are taken from my paycheck before I ever see the money and if I refuse to pay I may be subject to fines, imprisonment or death if I resist hard enough. I certainly don't want to pay a tax on my land or home but if I do not the sherriff will come and take it away.
Taxes are theft and that's all there is to it.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
I thought someone might say it. I wouldn't say so though, because taxes are institutionalized. Theft tends to be random. In that regard, taxation is like institutionalized theft, which is no different from slavery. To put it another way, all slavery is theft but not vice versa.
At any rate, anyone who thinks that taxation is not a form of theft is divorced from reality IMO. I love it when some people try make it analogous to club dues. If they try say one has no option but to work for a boss in the current system, concede the point (to an extent), but then point out why this is so (due to the State.) This will blunt the analogy, and put the person on the defensive, unless they're evil.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, if someone lived on someone else's property and refused to pay rent, what would happen to them?
Thanks,Robin
Robin: In an anarcho-capitalist society, if someone lived on someone else's property and refused to pay rent, what would happen to them?
That person would probably be evicted and would be taken to the courts for the debts. However, unlike today, if the defendant refused to abide by the courts' decisions, I don't think that the person would be thrown in jail. They would simply receive a bad credit review, and have a very difficult time finding another place to live and/or work.
wgeary: But you can't call it "theft" unless you're being forced to live in and participate in society, because theft can only occur when the person being stolen from is a wholly unwilling participant.
But you can't call it "theft" unless you're being forced to live in and participate in society, because theft can only occur when the person being stolen from is a wholly unwilling participant.
considering that you are taxed for giving up citizenship(for 10 years!) i would call this theft. you are being forced to live in and participate in society(especially if obama introduces his mandatory service programs).
luckyday: Robin: In an anarcho-capitalist society, if someone lived on someone else's property and refused to pay rent, what would happen to them? That person would probably be evicted and would be taken to the courts for the debts. However, unlike today, if the defendant refused to abide by the courts' decisions, I don't think that the person would be thrown in jail. They would simply receive a bad credit review, and have a very difficult time finding another place to live and/or work.
Ok thanks, that was helpful. But what if the person didn't want to leave? Would the landowner initiate force against them?
Thanks again,Robin
Robin:Ok thanks, that was helpful. But what if the person didn't want to leave? Would the landowner initiate force against them? Thanks again,Robin
The person who is refusing to leave is the one who is initiating the aggression by unjustly squatting.
sirmonty: The person who is refusing to leave is the one who is initiating the aggression by unjustly squatting.
Would the force used to kick them off have to be reasonable, or can the landowner just shoot the guy? Would this all be decided by the private courts?
Rothbard discussed this question and other questions about violators of property and punishment here: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp
Robin: Would the force used to kick them off have to be reasonable, or can the landowner just shoot the guy? Would this all be decided by the private courts?
Robin: sirmonty: The person who is refusing to leave is the one who is initiating the aggression by unjustly squatting. Would the force used to kick them off have to be reasonable, or can the landowner just shoot the guy? Would this all be decided by the private courts?
That depends upon whom the squatter appeals to.
tax is rent. all property on earth is currently owned by people with nukes. countries without nukes are not sovereign. They nominally exist for the sake of appearances.
Giedrius pointed a great source, but I'll sum try to sum up the situation anyhow.
In a case where no contract has been made, and at this point in time, the landowner has asolutely no right to shoot the squatter because - (up until this point) - the squatter's only aggression has been to occupy the landowner's property (which is an extension of his life, and thus, an aggression against the landowner himself). If the squatter had actually threatened the landowner's life, the landowner would be more justified in shooting the squatter (however, if taken to court later, the landowner may be required by the court to pay restitution to the victim's heirs depending on the circumstances).
In most cases, though there will have been a prior contractual aggreement between the two parties. This voluntary agreement would outline the "law" that determines when and where the landowner has the right to use force against the squatter.
In the anarchist society, almost all "law" will be private. That is, private individuals will voluntarily agree to laws with other private individuals via contractual agreements. There's more to this, but I'm low on time.
I hope this helps. Definitely read the Ethics of Liberty if you're interested. Also, Robert Murphy's Chaos Theory is a decent introduction to private law and private defense. Its short, to the point, and I agree with almost all of it.
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap