Current Events > what makes taxation not theft

(+) Yeah! (+)

DevsBro posted...

Suppose TC does use the roads. What portion of tax dollars goes to that, and what portion does he get no benefit from?

Taxes are for public good. The public is benefitted. It's not only about him using the roads. It's about a functioning, efficient economy. Commerce benefits from the use of roads. With the public education that you fund, medicinal advances, a functioning economy, literacy, less crime etc. flow. You benefit approximately from these things. Perhaps not most directly, but it's not all about me-me-me. This is what living in a society is about.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Jabodie posted...

I mean, if you're fine living without laws or currency, that's fine.

There are parts of the world where those things don't exist. And some people actually do go to these parts, believe it or not.

But I mean this just sounds like wanting to have all the benefits of being in a regulated and taxed society without being regulated and taxed.

This. No one is stopping you from going and creating your own self sufficient home if you have the ability to do so. Some people are actually fine without the comforts of society. There's tribes all over the world that live without formal taxation or anything like the modern state.

The thing is, that's the level of living you can have without the stability and investment provided by the state. You could try to build something with a group of like minded individuals, but there would need to be a pseudo state set up pretty quickly.

You don't wanna deal with any of that though, you just wanna use all the benefits provided by the state while hollowly claiming you don't need them and could provide them for yourself.

But if there's the option to have one person go live somewhere that has no taxes or government rule, then other people should be able to follow as well. And together they could build infrastructure so they can trade and survive much easier than doing it on their own. Government isn't an essential component of this. It's just that anywhere on the planet that has natural resources or some sort of viable means of economic survivability has been claimed by governments. So this whole argument is quite invalid and unfair.

A government of some type is required to maintain the laws of the land and settle disputes between parties or it will quickly because the rule of who has the biggest stick. Any lasting government needs to have a way to pay the people to run it because you can't use goodwill to feed the armies needed to prevent other nations from deciding that they want you land.

Plus the only reason the green pieces of paper have any value is because the US government says that they have value.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Donomark posted...

This topic is infantile. If there is no tax, there is no government, which, put simply and idealistically, is organized public good. If you don't want to pay tax, go live in a wilderness and survive on your own.

This is silliness. People, resources, and skills don't come from government. You can absolutely have a society without government.

Please, point out all of these well-functioning societies with no government. You cannot, I repeat, cannot have a society with the size of the United States, with no government.
---

Small groups of people don't count. I'm talking about sophisticated communities the size of a modern state.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Donomark posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Donomark posted...

This topic is infantile. If there is no tax, there is no government, which, put simply and idealistically, is organized public good. If you don't want to pay tax, go live in a wilderness and survive on your own.

This is silliness. People, resources, and skills don't come from government. You can absolutely have a society without government.

Please, point out all of these well-functioning societies with no government. You cannot, I repeat, cannot have a society with the size of the United States, with no government.

That doesn't prove that government is essential. It can just as easily prove that governments have simply occupied all the best places to live, and that all the resources and stuff in those places outweighs the cons of having a government, even though things would be even better in those places without a government. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Wit all due respect, I understand that you're engaging in a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical while entertaining a fantastic coincidence amidst resisting the force of the point.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

If the computer or internet was created through unlibertarian-like methods

...you should maybe start questioning your meme ideology.

Sorry Philo, "You didn't build that."

National Infrastructure even if not used by you is used to protect you and the country and make your products cheap and quickly. Such as your internet and devices.

In other words, don't like it, leave. Try to find a country with no taxes that agrees with you.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Jabodie posted...

I mean, if you're fine living without laws or currency, that's fine.

There are parts of the world where those things don't exist. And some people actually do go to these parts, believe it or not.

But I mean this just sounds like wanting to have all the benefits of being in a regulated and taxed society without being regulated and taxed.

This. No one is stopping you from going and creating your own self sufficient home if you have the ability to do so. Some people are actually fine without the comforts of society. There's tribes all over the world that live without formal taxation or anything like the modern state.

The thing is, that's the level of living you can have without the stability and investment provided by the state. You could try to build something with a group of like minded individuals, but there would need to be a pseudo state set up pretty quickly.

You don't wanna deal with any of that though, you just wanna use all the benefits provided by the state while hollowly claiming you don't need them and could provide them for yourself.

But if there's the option to have one person go live somewhere that has no taxes or government rule, then other people should be able to follow as well. And together they could build infrastructure so they can trade and survive much easier than doing it on their own. Government isn't an essential component of this. It's just that anywhere on the planet that has natural resources or some sort of viable means of economic survivability has been claimed by governments. So this whole argument is quite invalid and unfair.

How could this idea be falsified then? If you claim that the government has taken over literally every livable space on the planet earth, is there any way to disprove your theory? It conveniently can't be tested. If it can't be tested, it must be believed without testing, on faith, and I'm not of the libertarian faith.

Yes, a group could go out on their own away from a government and do these things, but what do you do when the child of one of those zealous individualists doesn't have that same spirit and doesn't wanna contribute? Or if someone gets too powerful and takes over other people's lands and property? Very soon you start getting state like things like taxes and police. Society already went through all these stages and it already happened everywhere. It's not like people wanted government, it just happens when people want nice things.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

All the feasibly inhabitable locations to live on this planet have been occupied by government. Do you really think there's a place in the world where I can just move to, start building my own irrigation system, power source, roads, etc?

Hmmmm. How legal is it to build a floating island in the middle of the ocean and make it work?
---

Taxation isn't theft because "social contract" and infrastructure. Now I'm going to mow your lawn for $4,000 whether you like it or not and if you don't pay, men with guns will come to your house.
---

Imagine being an ancap.

CoinBoxBaller posted...

Imagine being an ancap.

You can try to make the case that taxes are necessary. You can't make the case that they aren't theft.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

CoinBoxBaller posted...

Imagine being an ancap.

You can try to make the case that taxes are necessary. You can't make the case that they aren't theft.

Agreed. The posters here made a fair point that taxes do help your neighbor (i.e. the common good). It does help other people when the money is used properly. Unfortunately, they have not explained how it is not basically a racket, as in similar to the extortion that a gang would force on a shopkeeper for "his own protection." You either pay it or men with guns come to your house and you could end up in a cage, or you flee by leaving town, which is what many here have said is a legitimate option.
---

Actually, jobs and transactions are both defined by an exchange of good for good, or service for service, or service for good, whereas slavery and robbery are defined as the use of threats, violence, or intimidation to force someone to give you a good or service in exchange for nothing.

This 'against all taxes' movement is so stupid, though.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

CoinBoxBaller posted...

Imagine being an ancap.

You can try to make the case that taxes are necessary. You can't make the case that they aren't theft.

Agreed. The posters here made a fair point that taxes do help your neighbor (i.e. the common good). It does help other people when the money is used properly. Unfortunately, they have not explained how it is not basically a racket, as in similar to the extortion that a gang would force on a shopkeeper for "his own protection." You either pay it or men with guns come to your house and you could end up in a cage, or you flee by leaving town, which is what many here have said is a legitimate option.

Okay. Well, if we're being technical (but also perhaps a bit obtuse) it's not theft because theft is defined by the state. In their constitutions, states (and the federal government, of course) grant themselves the power to tax. The people have created the government through their constitutions. Therefore, in democratic political theory, or republican theory, taxation is not 'theft' because the People (as a political institution) consented to taxation in the forming of their government, and can vote to dissolve their government or alter the structure of taxation if it fails to suit them.

But, more to your point, I think you're making a moral case here, I have not been persuaded that taxation (or 'theft') in your eyes is immoral, inefficient, or wrong, in its own terms. It is not literally the same as a mob enforcer coercing you to provide money for protection. On the contrary, I'm eager to hear your idea of why taxation is immoral or how a government as large as the United States' is supposed to function without the 'theft' of taxation.
---

Donomark posted...

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

CoinBoxBaller posted...

Imagine being an ancap.

You can try to make the case that taxes are necessary. You can't make the case that they aren't theft.

Agreed. The posters here made a fair point that taxes do help your neighbor (i.e. the common good). It does help other people when the money is used properly. Unfortunately, they have not explained how it is not basically a racket, as in similar to the extortion that a gang would force on a shopkeeper for "his own protection." You either pay it or men with guns come to your house and you could end up in a cage, or you flee by leaving town, which is what many here have said is a legitimate option.

But, more to your point, I think you're making a moral case here, I have not been persuaded that taxation (or 'theft') in your eyes is immoral, inefficient, or wrong, in its own terms. It is not literally the same as a mob enforcer coercing you to provide money for protection. On the contrary, I'm eager to hear your idea of why taxation is immoral or how a government as large as the United States' is supposed to function without the 'theft' of taxation.

If you want me to pay for your groceries and you mug me for the money, everybody recognizes that as theft. If you vote for a thrid party to steal part of my paycheck every month and send it to you, that's still theft because you can't morally delegate rights you don't hold yourself.

I think the last bold part is what is really hanging you up which is understandable. It's not comfortable call violence from the government by it's true name. Libertarians are split between minarchists (minimum government, basically just cops, military, and courts) and anarchists. Neither will be achieved in our lifetimes and neither are supposed to fund a massive government with bases all over the world, a shitty public school system, and trillions in entitlements.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

If you want me to pay for your groceries and you mug me for the money, everybody recognizes that as theft. If you vote for a thrid party to steal part of my paycheck every month and send it to you, that's still theft because you can't morally delegate rights you don't hold yourself.

The society you live in does have that right though. Did you forget what multiple people above have said and VOTE?

Oh, your policy positions are unpopular and heartless? Not voted for. Move to a state or another country then I guess.

(yes, sometimes votes even pass 51% vs 49%! So unfair to those 49%... except you don't have a better system. No regulation is the best regulation is just naive and myopic)
---

Is this topic supposed to be a Proudclad shitposting signal or something
---

Notti posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If you want me to pay for your groceries and you mug me for the money, everybody recognizes that as theft. If you vote for a thrid party to steal part of my paycheck every month and send it to you, that's still theft because you can't morally delegate rights you don't hold yourself.

The society you live in does have that right though. Did you forget what multiple people above have said and VOTE?

Oh, your policy positions are unpopular and heartless? Not voted for. Move to a state or another country then I guess.

(yes, sometimes votes even pass 51% vs 49%! So unfair to those 49%... except you don't have a better system. No regulation is the best regulation is just naive and myopic)

Obviously I was referring to voting. You're not describing anything that could be considered a universal principle unless you think anything is morally legit as long as 51% of people in a certain geographic region vote for it. I doubt you want to go down that road.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Donomark posted...

This topic is infantile. If there is no tax, there is no government, which, put simply and idealistically, is organized public good. If you don't want to pay tax, go live in a wilderness and survive on your own.

This is silliness. People, resources, and skills don't come from government. You can absolutely have a society without government.

No, you can't. If you have 2 people, and one is stronger than the other and uses their power over the other, boom, you now have a government. A small dictatorship. The only way for there to be no government is if you were alone, and even then, you're just governing yourself. Or if you could somehow get everyone agree to just not interact with eachother at all. As soon as people start doing shit, there are going to be disagreements, and they have to be settled somehow. Boom, government. The only sort of not government is anarchy, and even then small governments will form in that situation. The only way to get rid of government is to kill yourself.
---

This is an amazing topic. Nice job, Philo.
---

"If you vote for a thrid party to steal part of my paycheck every month and send it to you, that's still theft because you can't morally delegate rights you don't hold yourself."

Well, you voted and knew we were going to vote, and understood the consequences of the vote, yet you participated anyway and remained within the country, extracting benefit from it.

We have to just agree to disagree. I don't agree on the use of terminology. I don't consider the income tax to be 'stealing'.

The analogy between an errant robber and a functioning government does not work because it completely ignores the consent given by the People, the parties' (taxpayer and government) expectations, and the purpose of the taking of money. It ignores the structure that contextualizes the taking.

I don't really see the purpose of using the word 'theft' if you're not going to make a moral claim. It's less moral to have benefitted from the government all your life, stay here but not chip in, and complain afterward.
---

Donomark posted...

"If you vote for a thrid party to steal part of my paycheck every month and send it to you, that's still theft because you can't morally delegate rights you don't hold yourself."

Well, you voted and knew we were going to vote, and understood the consequences of the vote, yet you participated anyway and remained within the country, extracting benefit from it.

We have to just agree to disagree. I don't agree on the use of terminology. I don't consider the income tax to be 'stealing'.

The analogy between an errant robber and a functioning government does not work because it completely ignores the consent given by the People, the parties' (taxpayer and government) expectations, and the purpose of the taking of money. It ignores the structure that contextualizes the taking.

I don't really see the purpose of using the word 'theft' if you're not going to make a moral claim. It's less moral to have benefitted from the government all your life, stay here but not chip in, and complain afterward.

You're framing a situation where voting is like entering an optional business arrangement. It's not optional and no social contract actually exists. So the government took money from people to build roads and I use those roads. Does that show consent? Not to be melodramatic and say that my life is similar to that of a North Korean, but that's like saying if I eat prison food given to me I consent to being a prisoner.
---

Funkydog posted...

You aren't forced to live in America and can move elsewhere if you dislike the laws of the country. You could also go live out in the country away from any public services and live off the land so you don't need to pay taxes. No one is stopping you do either.

Living off the grid is illegal
---