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, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
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.
Peace
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.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation
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
nazgulnarsil: 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.
That's an interesting way to look at it
Thanks for the links, everybody. I've already read Chaos Theory, it was pretty cool.
Taxation is not statutory theft. If it were you could use those same statutes for relief.
Other issues to be addressed is constitutionality. And beyond that perhaps there is a possible violation of biblical principles if you are the sort of person that accpets those types of arguments. BTW, if you disapprove of taxation on biblical principles all it means is you cannot be involved in collecting taxes, you still have to pay them.
Sorry taxation is not literaly theft.
geo8rge: Taxation is not statutory theft.
Taxation is not statutory theft.
Agreed. Statute = Formal written enactment of a legislative authority
But this is irrelevant to the question, which was: Is taxation equivalent to theft?
Theft = Taking someone else's property without their freely-given consent
The Government does not ask for consent. It simply takes. Therefore, taxation is equivalent to theft.
geo8rge: Other issues to be addressed is constitutionality. And beyond that perhaps there is a possible violation of biblical principles if you are the sort of person that accpets those types of arguments. BTW, if you disapprove of taxation on biblical principles all it means is you cannot be involved in collecting taxes, you still have to pay them.
Irrelevant
geo8rge: BTW, if you disapprove of taxation on biblical principles all it means is you cannot be involved in collecting taxes, you still have to pay them.
BTW, if you disapprove of taxation on biblical principles all it means is you cannot be involved in collecting taxes, you still have to pay them.
Jesus was non-union
You have to? Where does it say that?
Give on to Ceasar that which is his. Old testement may differ on this point, I vaguely remember the Israelites in Eygpt moving to a different tax juristiction. You will note they did pay Pharoh while they were there.
Suicide is also against most world religions. Non payment of taxes would at some point result in your self destruction if not death.
As to the theft question, at some point what is and what is not theft has to be codified. In biblical terms the old testimate, even with commentaries(Torah) was not enought, so the Jews created the Talmud which is a codification of exactly what is meant by the old testimate. If the definition of theft is not codified then as a practicle matter obtaining relief from theft is impossible. This is particularly true in a complex society with a large division of labor.
It is the same with killing and murder. Murder is statutory illegal. Killing, maybe maybe not. Exactly when killing is not murder is the subject of written laws and debate.
It is certainly possible for laws to be the problem. But in that case the trouble is not taxes it is the laws.
geo8rge:Give on to Ceasar that which is his.
You'd probably be better off quoting Romans 13 here than this verse. The whole verse is: “Well, then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
It's very ambiguous, and was phrased in such a way to pacify the pharisees without really giving anything away. He never actually says the roman coin belongs to Caesar, he just asks whose face is stamped on it. And God owns everything, so how do you separate what Caesar owns from what God owns even if you assume he was in fact giving ownership of the coin to Caesar?
On the other hand, I find Romans 13 very straightforward. I've read some commentary that attempts to refute the idea that we should pay taxes, but I've not been too convinced by it.
1Let every person(A) be subject to the governing authorities. For(B) there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you(C) will receive his approval, 4for(D) he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God,(E) an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also(F) for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7(G) Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
geo8rge:You will note they did pay Pharoh while they were there.
Okay, didn't notice this in my first response. They also looted Egypt on the way out of town to pay them back for years of extremely high taxes. They were kept essentially as slaves for most of their time in Egypt after Joseph died.
I've blogged at length about this topic before:
Essentially, you are being forced to live/participate in a society because the government bundles all its goods/services together and you can't buy just the ones you want. There's also the pesky little problem of territorial monopoly, and the fact that you are literally not allowed to lawfully extricate yourself from the State's jurisdiction.
Also, you never consented, and even if you had, you're not allowed to withdraw your consent. And if you're not allowed to withdraw it (let alone, having never been asked!) they clearly don't give a damn about your consent in the first place. So the social contract/consent argument is pretty ridiculous, really.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
The problem with your reasoning is that you are starting with "Thou shalt not steal" and ending with taxation is theft. Unfortunately the starting point is codification of laws that define what property is and is not and what stealing is and is not. Taxation may be inconsistent with those laws and therefore illegal and theft. But the act of taking something you claim is yours with the threat of violence is not necessarily illegal. Under all property schemes you will eventually have a dispute and that property dispute will not be settled to the satisfaction of the parties involved and will require the equivalent of a sheriff. The party that does not accept the result of the dispsute will claim theft.
Then I am the State's property? Or, 28% (or 35% or whatever) of me is the State's property?
Theft is defined by the law. In theory things codified in the law that contradict the constitution and perhaps religious scriptures are not laws, or you can demand relief from those laws.
Slavery was not theft of service. Indian 'ethnic cleansing' was not theft. ect. I know this as I am not giving any of my land back to the Indians nor am I paying reparations for slavery. If you really believe that taxation was theft then why not return the value of the services slaves provided (minus the cost of their upkeep) and the value of the Indian lands. That is the problem with theft. Once you go down that road people with claim to own things they do not, and that transfers of their property were illegal.
Slavery ended with the civil war and the overthrow of the governments in the south.
You are relying on an absolute definition of theft. That is fine as long as you understand that an absolute definition of theft is not a legal but a theological concept. Taxation is theft because god meant it that way is fine with me, but understand that in other religions they will not see it that way. The more or less secular Constitution of the US permitted taxation, maybe not progressive income taxation, but it did allow taxation.
geo8rge:Slavery was not theft of service. Indian 'ethnic cleansing' was not theft. ect. I know this as I am not giving any of my land back to the Indians nor am I paying reparations for slavery. If you really believe that taxation was theft then why not return the value of the services slaves provided (minus the cost of their upkeep) and the value of the Indian lands. That is the problem with theft. Once you go down that road people with claim to own things they do not, and that transfers of their property were illegal.
How does this possibly follow the other? I don't owe anything to a decendent of a slave because I didn't force him to work for me, period. I own myself and the result of my labor, and anyone forcibly taking the product of my labor has commited theft, be it a government or individual.
Treating the involuntary, forced surrender of person/property to another is certainly not a "theological" construct.
I'm most definitely aware of the "subsidy of history" by which some people have been enriched, and others impoverished unfairly. Unfortunately, there isn't a clear answer to the redistribution problem. The world isn't a perfect place, this I know. I don't dispute the fact that the State codifies law, but nowhere have I made any claims to the contrary. You'll not see me citing the U.S. Constitution.
Sure, it's technically correct, since the government defines what is (and is not) law, and therefore what is (and is not) legal, but relying on "If the government does it, it's not illegal" is kind of a stupid argument to make. It's like saying that oranges are orange because orange is the color of an orange, or "whatever god says is good, because god is good." It's an inter-subjective proposition, and it's just intellectually lazy.
geo8rge:Slavery was not theft of service. Indian 'ethnic cleansing' was not theft. ect. I know this as I am not giving any of my land back to the Indians nor am I paying reparations for slavery.
I'm willing to run the risk of being moderated to point out that this is probably the single dumbest thing I've read on Mises.org. Slavery was not theft of service? Ethnic cleansing was not some sort of crime? You deduce these "facts" because you're not currently compensating the victims for the actions? In terms of post hoc ergo propter hoc, this really takes the cake. "Since I haven't been punished for someone else's crimes, therefor those actions weren't crimes in the first place."
No, no, no, no. THINK GOD DAMN IT!
Are we supposed to believe that the institution of slavery was AOK, hunky-dory until that fateful day in 1865 when the Confederacy surrendered? That at that instant, it became wrong to hold another man against his will and force him to labor for you? That it simply became wrong overnight?
Are we supposed to believe that the ethnic cleansing of native tribes, the expropriation of settled lands, was anything but outright murder, writ large? Is it fundamentally any different than the soviet reclamation? Can I invoke Godwin's law? Six million jews systematically murdered, but it wasn't a crime because the German Government said it was the law? Are you out of your mind?
These things were wrong at the time they happened. They are wrong today, and they will be wrong tomorrow and the next day.
Good day, sir.
I disagree. Slavery is command over your 'natural person', IE the body you inhabit. Theft is the appropriation of some property you have acquired without your consent. Taxes are theft, it just so happens that because of the way we keep money that stealing half of someone's money is similar to partial slavery in economic results.
Taxation is theft by the conventions that govern the behavior of most people, legally, it is not.
Had the thief compelled one to labour for a certain good and then simply expropriated it, that'd be slavery. They do exactly this, only with no preceding commandment. They do not presume to own one's labour, indeed. But what they do is scarcely dissimilar from forcing a slave to produce goods for their merriment.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I need some help responding to a friend's argument... again :) 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
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
"single dumbest thing I've read on Mises.org. Slavery was not theft of service? Ethnic cleansing was not some sort of crime? "
The 'crimes' were not prosecuted at the time. Nor do you think compensation should be paid now. So how are they crimes?
My original point is that you can start with 'thou shalt not steal' but beyond that it gets murky.
What property do you own and why do you think you own it. Do you own it after you are dead. Why can you decide what happens to you your stuff when you do not exist. What if there is a dispute about who owns what you say you own. Sadly 'thou shalt not steal' does not get you to those answers. That is where codificatin of laws takes place. Courts come into play. And eventually the Sheriff to enforce court judgements.
Slavery was not illegal in the US, so it was not theft. Then the South lost the civil war. Then it was theft.
Taking Indian lands under the Jackson administration was theft, but POTUS had the loyalty of the legions (in Georgia) so nothing was done about it.
Taking Indian lands in the late 1800s was evidently legal.
The problem you are having is you have a religous concept of property and theft, which is fine. The problem is that God is not talking and people with other beliefs run the government.
Back to the original question taxation in general is allowed by all mainstream religions. It is allowed by the constitution. So it is not theft. The income tax used to be theft, but now it is legal, so it is not.
If you worked for the government or received a pension from the government you would think quite the opposite, if you do not pay taxes you are stealing their services. So not paying taxes it theft. Talk to anyone with Social Security and they are indignant about what they paid into it.
Just because something is permitted does not mean it is good, or wise, it just means it is legal.
It may also be useful to call taxation theft in politcal arguments.
geo8rge, you're espousing a strange variant of legal positivism. Are you sure that's what you want? Or perhaps are you just stating what was legally vs what should be?
Knight_of_BAAWA: geo8rge, you're espousing a strange variant of legal positivism. Are you sure that's what you want? Or perhaps are you just stating what was legally vs what should be?
One does not have to be a 'legal positivist' in the narrow sense to reject legal anachronism. Also, the reason why slavery is so 'obviously' theft to many people is only because the people on here tend to accept all sorts of incompatible moralism.
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