Incredible condemnation of government. - I am not defending government.
All I am saying is that Taxation=Theft is not true, and does not work well as a slogan.
The reason it is not true is that exactly who owns what is not entirely clear, and throught history people generally object to the level of taxation, not taxation itself.
Look at Vallejo Ca. They are able to seek legal redress through chapter 9 bankruptcy. In theft you cannot just go to court and be declared to poor to be robbed.
See ibvallejo.com for vallejo news.
geo8rge: Incredible condemnation of government. - I am not defending government. All I am saying is that Taxation=Theft is not true, and does not work well as a slogan. The reason it is not true is that exactly who owns what is not entirely clear, and throught history people generally object to the level of taxation, not taxation itself. Look at Vallejo Ca. They are able to seek legal redress through chapter 9 bankruptcy. In theft you cannot just go to court and be declared to poor to be robbed. See ibvallejo.com for vallejo news.
I own my money, the government takes it from me by force = theft. How is ownership in contention here?
Also, the city of Vallejo is bankrupt, meaning the city council made promises to pay out more money than they managed to steal. They are not seeking protection from being robbed by anyone else, they are trying to default on their debts.
Just because theft is codified in our current legal system as "tax" doesn't mean it's not theft.
force = theft
You are defining theft in any manner you choose.
The exact definition of theft is a religious/theological/philosophical problem. But at some point the definition must by codefied, and once that happens people will disagree with it. If you are a Vallejo cop you would say I worked my job for 20 years, and now you owe me. You did nothing to stop my pension accumulation while I was working for you, so you ineffect agreed to it.
Lets say I agree to pay you an amount of money a week from now in exchange for something. I do not pay you. If the sheriff forces me to pay, have I been robbed? When the sheriff retires do you have an obligation to pay his agreed upon pension, and if you don't?
geo8rge: If you are a Vallejo cop you would say I worked my job for 20 years, and now you owe me. You did nothing to stop my pension accumulation while I was working for you, so you ineffect agreed to it.
If you are a Vallejo cop you would say I worked my job for 20 years, and now you owe me. You did nothing to stop my pension accumulation while I was working for you, so you ineffect agreed to it.
This is some brilliant reasoning here. Since I chose not to incur violent reprisal by said cop, I must have agreed to pay cop in the first place. Your logic is amazing.
As to me defining theft, I didn't come up with that one. I think it's pretty commonly agreed upon that taking someone's property against their will and under threat of force is theft. And a rose by any other name...
geo8rge:force = theft
You took what he said out of context. He said "taking my property by force = theft", not "force = theft".
However, this is wrong. Governments do not use force to collect taxes. They simply take our money without consent. They take my money out of my paycheck every week. And if I owe money at the end of the year and do not pay it, they will simply garnish my wages. When I buy something in the store, the tax is added to the product automatically. The only way to avoid a sales tax is to not buy anything from licensed shop owners. Which is why it is theft. Because it is taken from me without my consent.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: geo8rge:force = theft You took what he said out of context. He said "taking my property by force = theft", not "force = theft". However, this is wrong. Governments do not use force to collect taxes. They simply take our money without consent. They take my money out of my paycheck every week. And if I owe money at the end of the year and do not pay it, they will simply garnish my wages. When I buy something in the store, the tax is added to the product automatically. The only way to avoid a sales tax is to not buy anything from licensed shop owners. Which is why it is theft. Because it is taken from me without my consent.
The government uses the threat of force to exact payment. I'm a small business owner, and don't agree with the vast majority of government spending. I would not voluntarily give them my money to carry out their machinations. I am not willing, however, to go to prison for tax evasion, so I pay my taxes. The threat of using force (sending me away to prison) compels me give up my money against my will.
As a wage earner, it's even easier for them to collect taxes from you, making the "force" more removed from your experience. If you were to claim the maximum number of dependants, and thereby keep the most possible money from your paycheck, you might wind up "owing" them money at the end of the year. If you refused to pay, then the force would become more evident.
The only way that the state can continue with it's theft is through first the threat of force, and then the use of it if the threat fails to provide the desired results.
The threat or use of force does not mean theft. All societies eventually will have a dispute that cannot be settled without use of force. I would also point out that you choose to live in the USA (or wherever). I agree there is a whole system to keep you in place, but the fact is if you choose to live somewhere you choose to accept its laws. Socrates drank hemlock to prove that point.
One problem with your reasoning is you want to have a system of property ownership, but don't anticipate disputes that cannot be resolved without force. That is not possible.
Did you want to create a rather large strawman, geo8rge?
geo8rge: The threat or use of force does not mean theft. All societies eventually will have a dispute that cannot be settled without use of force. I would also point out that you choose to live in the USA (or wherever). I agree there is a whole system to keep you in place, but the fact is if you choose to live somewhere you choose to accept its laws. Socrates drank hemlock to prove that point. One problem with your reasoning is you want to have a system of property ownership, but don't anticipate disputes that cannot be resolved without force. That is not possible.
Are you being willfully ignorant? There's a lot of thinking that's already been done on this subject, some of which has already been discussed in this thread.
I'm not saying the threat of force = theft, taking something against the owner's will = theft. How do take something aganst someone's will without employing force, or the threat thereof?
We, the people, grant the state it's monopoly on violence. If we revoke it, and allow a market in violence, we'll get less, and better directd violence = better justice.
That's the theory, and I'm willing to see how it plays out, because I'm confident in myself and believe that the majority of my fellow human's are decent people that just want to earn a living and get on with the pursuit of happiness.
hardway:The government uses the threat of force to exact payment. I'm a small business owner, and don't agree with the vast majority of government spending. I would not voluntarily give them my money to carry out their machinations. I am not willing, however, to go to prison for tax evasion, so I pay my taxes. The threat of using force (sending me away to prison) compels me give up my money against my will.
In the case of businesses, I would think it is more a threat of force, since you would probably lose your business license for not paying, and if you still tried to do business, they would probably literally send someone out to shut down your operations.
My point is simply that they do not always have to use force. If a thief breaks into your house while you are on vacation, was any force used against yourself? No, but it was still theft nonetheless. And I get tired of libertarians always saying how the government uses force to steal from us. A lot of the time, it does not.
Spideynw:They simply take our money without consent. They take my money out of my paycheck every week.
Technically they take your employers' money out of your paycheck. Normally you never have to write a check to the government. Only very few people do that, that's how they keep the tax revolts down.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Hey, you guys should check out the new about page on my website:
http://decentralize.tv/home/about/
It explains why people shouldn't support any form of government and what we can do to stop oppression.
Good work Robin. Make sure you submit it to Digg, Reddit and Stumbleupon.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Good work Robin. Make sure you submit it to Digg, Reddit and Stumbleupon.
Thanks man. I will.
Not all taxes are theft. Most of the time it would be considered extortion. Currently roads are owned by the public. Those who use the roads should pay for them. Those who don't use the roads shouldn't have to pay for them. Those who don't use the roads and are still forced to pay taxes for them to be built are being robbed. Those who use the roads and pay exhorbitant prices for them because of lack of competition are being extorted. The problem is that regardless of overpaying for a service due to inefficient workers/managers there are very reasonable taxations and very unreasonable taxes. Unreasonable taxes would be like me going to the Movie Theatre and expecting someone who didn't go to help pay for my way in. The problem with democracy is that a majority of people can oppress a minority by expropriating the minority's property for their own special interest. The problem with a legislation is that a minority can oppress a majority by passing laws of taxation which the majority did not explicitly agree to. The latter should be less of a problem, since at any time the majority can simply overturn the minority. The only way this would happen though is if the majority changes its opinion of the use of the legislation. We must set a brush fire in the minds of the people. America was founded on the idea that neither a majority or a minority has the right to oppress each other and thus a government pursuing the preservation of individual liberty was born.
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