Tax=theft ?

[Mathieu]

I've seen that this assumption is making a lot of noise in this board. So here is thread where you can discuss this question . Now, you can stop hijacking every thread to go on this issue. So now you can argue here. So PLEASE, to keep a good board info/noise ratio, bring your argument or anything related to this subject here, thanks.

Here is a starter so you can all fight to death ...


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
When Theft is Moral
By Amod Lele

We live in an age of tax revolts, when people are no longer willing to give the government money that it might need to support public education, public health care, or income for the needy. A central plank of these revolts is that taxation is theft. As the bumper sticker says, "Don't steal. The government hates competition."

Is this true? Absolutely. And there's nothing wrong with it.

What is theft, after all? Theft is taking money without the consent of the one it is taken from. And in an important sense, all property is theft.

One way or another, most property rests in its current hands because of coercion and non-consent. You may have worked honestly for your money, and I don't begrudge you that. But simple work is not enough to obtain money. You can work your ass off arranging grains of sand into little neat lines, but if nobody wants your work, you don't get a cent for it. Who gets money in the end is decided by who has money in the beginning. Trace any money back far enough and you will find robbery. Someone, at some point, said "This is my stuff, because it's on my land, and even if this land used to be your land, I have a gun and you don't, and therefore it's mine." This is most obviously true, of course, in the case of North America.

Move beyond that and there's a broader issue. What produces property? What forces are there that cause us to live under a system of private property rather than, say, the system of communal ownership used in the Ju/'hoansi tribes of Africa? In short, coercion. You own what you own because the government -- or, increasingly these days, a private security force -- has decided that you own what you own and it is worth taking measures to keep it in your hands.

Libertarians loathe this line of argument. Yes, they say, we use force to defend our property, but it is not *initiatory* force. Like children pulled apart from a fight, their argument against a thief is "He started it." The main thrust of libertarianism here is reaction against change; the status quo is good. Property has to stay in its current hands irrespective of past coercion because, well, those are its current hands.

How wonderfully this all works to defend existing inequities. Libertarians' anti-tax rhetoric attacks any coerced movement of property out of its current hands. Coercion today is anathema, but coercion in the past is way cool. We are unjustified in using force to siphon off some of Bill Gates's money to feed starving homeless people; what we are justified to do is use force to ensure that the homeless people can't get any of that money, because they "initiated" the force. Excuse me while I retch.

Okay, disclaimer time. Do I seriously believe that people should be out breaking into houses and pickpocketing more often? No. But not because they are crimes against property; rather, because they are crimes against order. When uncontrolled, they make people live in the state of the Hobbesian war of all against all, never knowing what they will have to do to hold on to their earnings, turning people against one another with mistrust.

When the government steals "your" money, you know exactly when it's coming and what is coming. Taxes and death are certain. There is no breakdown in public trust or order that results from taxation. You can plan for it. And, more importantly, it goes -- at least in theory -- to a just cause, decided upon with at least a semblance of popular participation. (There are many places our taxes shouldn't be going, but that's an issue of how we decide to allocate resources as a society, nothing to do with theft or not-theft.) This is what distinguishes taxation from the (also orderly) tithes taken by organized crime.

I don't begrudge the starving person who steals from me for dinner; I simply take measures to ensure it doesn't happen, thus preserving order. In the same way, I don't begrudge the employer who suddenly lays me off; rather, I take care to continually upgrade my skills and send off job applications even while working, so that I know I won't have too hard a time finding the next job. Both people have done me a disservice and broken down public trust, even though -- depending on the particulars of the situation -- they may have done no moral wrong. I don't waste my time blaming them and telling them what awful things they have done; I just make sure that they don't have too great an impact on my ability to lead the life I choose.

Of course, a lot of people tell us that stealing is morally wrong, whether or not you have any other opportunity. Certainly most of our religious instructions tell us something of the sort; you'll find a prohibition against it in just about every work of organized religion. But of course this shouldn't come as a surprise. The people writing these works are our well-paid church authorities, the ones who have an interest in making you think stealing is always immoral because then you won't take from them. As some Hindu brahmans once put it, "Whoever attempts to take away the right of these brahmans to their lands shall suffer reincarnation for a thousand years as a worm in dung." I Got Mine and don't you take it away from me.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

continued here ...

[eburchelli]

What the government giveth, the government can take away. Taxes are our right to title. Don't pay your property taxes and see how long it takes for the government to swope in and reclaim its right of ownership.

[Mathieu]

And what is property ?

[dotcoma]

Our nation is a snake eating it's tail...

[forecg]

All property is indeed acquired by force, but all forms of force are not equally effective. In a society that recognizes the usefulness of justice, it takes a lot more force to steal things you want and avoid getting caught than it takes to produce things other people want and then physically trade them for money and then things.

You can complain all you want that taxation and production both involve the use of force, but it doesn't lend a bit of credence to the claim that they're equally just. Taxation, production, theft, trade, corruption, murder and oppression all rely on force to varying degrees. Does that prove they're all equally just?

I say taxes are theft, and you say "so what?". You don't seem to understand the thrust of my argument, so I'll elaborate: taxes are theft, and theft is bad because there are better alternatives; taxation is less just than production and honest trade, so we shouldn't use taxation. Production and honest trade are good because they use force to very effectively produce and distribute wealth, while soak-the-rich tax plans and corporate scandals don't produce anything but are able to redistribute wealth through a sizable use of force.

What part don't you understand?

[Mathieu]

It is not about me not understanding or understanding... It is about having people who have something to say about that to say it here, and not in unrelated thread in unrelated discussion . You express your opinion , too much for you, and I have mine. That's not the point, the point is that there is no more needed or wanted to have people debate about this subject elsewhere than here.

Thank you.

[jose]

The only tax i pay is sales tax currently @16% my house is owened by an off shore company and im not registered as liveing where i live i am a perpetual tourist or PT look it up on the web and join me in not paying taxes

[Mia]

Now that's something to really be proud of!

[Leopard]

it could be...

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And what is property ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Propety is a tangible object that you are in control of.

As far as tax=theft....yes of course it is.

The only way that it wouldn't be is if they gave you a choice to pay it or not.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I've seen that this assumption is making a lot of noise in this board.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There is no assumption, but rather an honest accounting. Take any non-arbitrary description of theft, and you will find that taxation is necessarily a central case or example of theft.

So to call this an assumption is akin to proclaiming that noting that humans are mammals is merely an assumption.

All property is theft eh? Marx tried in vain to make this claim as well, in similar methods, but even this all too often touted populist could not make a coherent point, instead offering circular reasoning, appeals to emotion, and a distinct absence of reason.

To cut to the chase, if all property were theft, then necessarily no property cold exist, therefore there is nothing that was stolen so... no theft occured. You see, starting with this assumption/conclusion, you can derive its contradiction. This demonstrates to us that the assumption conclusion is necessarily false.

It appears that Amod could use some time reading any of the literature on the nature and form of property. He could begin with Locke's On Property which is but a few pages. One would expect that anyone who puts themselve up as Amod has, would at least be somewhat familiar with the most basic elements.

[Mathieu]

And how do you gain control of it , how , at the beginning, one gain control of something ?

Us governement control his land , so it is its property,as a state or as a corporation whatevever, so it have all right on his property , no ?

So if it want you to pay tax, you must agree as you are on its property, else , you have the choice to leave this property, no ?

Mathieu,

We each own our bodies and have an exclusive right to our own labor. When on mixes his labor with that which is unowned, property in the result is created.

Naturally this is the shortest statement of the creation of property. Locke gives a fuller account in the Second Treatise on Government. Just to be clear, I am not appealing to Locke as an authority, but rather to his writings as he offers a fine description of the creation of property, though certainly not the only one.

It is worth noting that through the use of modus tolens, if one choses to deny private property they deny the right to their own body, labor, effort, and existence.

[forecg]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
And how do you gain control of it , how , at the beginning, one gain control of something ? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You use force to take and produce it from nature. You tell people "This is mine, and if you try to take it from me, I'll hurt you." You and your neighbors don't want to waste all your time fighting, so you recognize their property claims in exchange for their recognizing yours. You develop a system of justice to help enforce these agreements, and you may even form a government to make that arrangement of force more orderly and effective.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Us governement control his land , so it is its property,as a state or as a corporation whatevever, so it have all right on his property , no ? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You control your land, unless you're not strong enough to hold on to it, in which case other people will take it from you by force through the government. The government may be more powerful and control more land than you do, but its reach is finite. It doesn't have ALL of the control and it doesn't have ALL of the property rights.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

So if it want you to pay tax, you must agree as you are on its property, else , you have the choice to leave this property, no ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A mugger has territory too. By your logic, you must agree to give a mugger your wallet if you choose to enter his territory because, after all, you chose to enter his territory. What is the difference?

[Mathieu]

I'm not deny anyone right to own his own body. However the actual definition of property go further than that .

How do you keep private property ? If someone try to rape you, to take control of your body , you need to fight ,no ?

As far as I know, to declare something yours , you have to prevent others to "own it" , that despite the fact you work for it or not.

So isn't property coercicion ?

[Aequo]

Theft: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

The government doesn't tax you with the intent of simply taking your money. Instead, they use it to fund public goods, such as police, roads, postal services, the military, and a variety of other such things that in the end are there to benefit the citizen: you.

[foldvary]

The British philosopher John Locke wrote that one could appropriate nature (land) only if some of that quality was available free to others. If not, the implication is that the title holder only has the rights of possession, not the rights to the yield, i.e. the rent.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As far as I know, to declare something yours , you have to prevent others to "own it" , that despite the fact you work for it or not.

So isn't property coercicion ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Only if one were to accept your strawman position rather than the facts of the matter. The ability or willingness to prevent others from committing theft, plays no role in property ownership.

Also, you make the error of assuming that even though your strawman statement does not include all instances of ownership (or better said claimed ownership) your assumption that all property is necessarily coercion does not even follow from the misrepresentation (strawman) that you created.

A thief does not own the property he has stolen, despite the fact that he may control it.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Theft: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

The government doesn't tax you with the intent of simply taking your money. Instead, they use it to fund public goods, such as police, roads, postal services, the military, and a variety of other such things that in the end are there to benefit the citizen: you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

First the "definitino" you offer is arbitrary for it introduces law into the equation, when theft can and does occur regardless of law. Property exists regardless of law.

But to make matters worse for this position, you argument does not even support this misrepresentation of theft. Regardless of what you personally value, the fact is the individual ARE deprived of their property, time, and labor with taxation.

So with this approach defeated in two ways, let us be extremely generous and examine yet a third way that this approach fails: the prisoner situation.

Applying your reasoning, the innocent prisoner is indebted to his captor for the captor provides shelter, some food, and perhaps other "benefits." Furthermore if theft is so justified by what OTHERS perceive to be benefits, then so too is the very imprisonment itself regardless of justice or truth. So of course you can see that by the exact same line of reasoning we have "discovered" that theft is always justified, imprisonment is always justified, and if we continue along these lines of thought almost every heinous act is perfectly justified and good, including rape if the victim experiences an orgasm.

Surely none of us is willing to grant these absurd conclusions are true, and if we are not, then we must recognize that the argument form itself is necessarily invalid, so neither is the conclusion that theft is justified a true or reasonable conclusion.

[koi]

Taxes are theft. Not only because the government does not give us a choice as to whether or not we pay them, but that we, the tax-payer, have no direct say on how they are spent.
I would much prefer to remain in possesion of all my monies, and to be able to give to the charities and foundations that I decide. Not the government. It is the product of my labour, and should therefore be mine to spend however I should choose. To deny me this is wrong, it is saying that my work is for naught because someone else has chosen not to work and the all-knowing government has elected to forcibly steal my earnings and give them to this other person.

I cannot abide how the only defence statists can come up with are "well who could feed the homeless" or "what about wellfare" or "who would pay for healthcare"
these are all tools of the government and would of course be non-existant in a libertarian non-state. private enterprise will deal with all these things at a higher level of efficiency.