# Start Here > Guest Forum >  How would Paul answer: Taxation is theft

## Unregistered

Hi group,

I have been interacting with a Sanders supporter and I like to be consistent with my libertarian principles. I hold to the notion that taxation is theft, but it occurred to me that since we all advocate *some* level of taxation (excluding hypothetical 100% voluntarism based society in the future), does this mean that libertarians (and Ron Paul) believe some theft is unavoidable? Or is there a more satisfying answer to this?

The only answer I can think of goes back to government being a necessary evil, and that minimal force/theft is required for some level of order, and after that, liberty picks up where minimal government ends. Let me know what you think and if Ron Paul has addressed this before.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Neither Ron nor Rand are libertarians, nor claim to be.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ibertarianism/

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

I personally would answer that "Taxation is theft", but that's just me.   Most people are fine with stealing from Peter to pay Paul as long as they can send someone else to do their dirty work...

----------


## erowe1

> we all advocate *some* level of taxation


You'll find that around here that is not true. I'm not sure how many regulars here advocate some level of taxation, but my guess is that it's less than half. I certainly don't advocate any taxation.

----------


## erowe1

To answer the question, I can only speak for myself and not libertarians. But of course some theft is inevitable. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we can have a world with absolutely no theft in it. But that is irrelevant when it comes to what we advocate. No matter how much theft there is, less is always better. There won't come a point where it will ever be right to say, "This amount of theft is just right. To have any less would be bad."

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Hi group,
> 
> I have been interacting with a Sanders supporter and I like to be consistent with my libertarian principles. I hold to the notion that taxation is theft, but it occurred to me that since we all advocate *some* level of taxation (excluding hypothetical 100% voluntarism based society in the future), does this mean that libertarians (and Ron Paul) believe some theft is unavoidable? Or is there a more satisfying answer to this?
> 
> The only answer I can think of goes back to government being a necessary evil, and that minimal force/theft is required for some level of order, and after that, liberty picks up where minimal government ends. Let me know what you think and if Ron Paul has addressed this before.


Who is "we"?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

----------


## Ronin Truth

Try the youtube video, "America: Freedom to Fascism" for a taxation answer from Ron.

----------


## oyarde

Taxation by Federal is limited  specifically to Article One , Section Eight. States and counties are different.Sanders , H Clinton , Biden , Obummer people are basically , all evil communists.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*taxation is theft ron paul
*
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...93.ESvWljlyMjM

----------


## Unregistered guest

In the final crunch, poorer than average people or the middle class have an extra cost of filling out paperwork in order to account for their would-be deductions. Since they are being taxed instead of them setting aside a modest portion of their allowance for charities to better distribute their funds.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Neither Ron nor Rand are libertarians, nor claim to be.
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ibertarianism/


And neither is Lew Rockwell.  But unfortunately he does claim to be.

The definition of libertarianism is not anarchism. You can be an anarchist and a libertarian but it doesn't make you more pure.  Here is what Mises thought of all this taxation is theft and anarchist stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWfrsXQgEtc

And taxation is not theft. There is a legitimate role for government. People should be coerced to pay for it. If people don't like it they can always move to floating islands in the sea. Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Hazlitt and numerous other prominent libertarians have no problem with taxation.

----------


## erowe1

> And taxation is not theft. There is a legitimate role for government. People should be coerced to pay for it. If people don't like it they can always move to floating islands in the sea. Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Hazlitt and numerous other prominent libertarians have no problem with taxation.


If I came to you and coerced you to pay for a product I provided you that you didn't like, and your only recourse was to move out of the country, would that not be theft?

Friedman was certainly not a libertarian. I don't think Hayek or Mises really were either. I don't know about Hazlitt. If anyone agrees with what you just said about taxation, then that disqualifies them from being libertarians.

----------


## Krugminator2

> If I came to you and coerced you to pay for a product I provided you that you didn't like, and your only recourse was to move out of the country, would that not be theft?
> 
> Friedman was certainly not a libertarian. I don't think Hayek or Mises really were either. I don't know about Hazlitt. If anyone agrees with what you just said about taxation, then that disqualifies them from being libertarians.


So basically no one is a libertarian under your definition.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And neither is Lew Rockwell. But unfortunately he does claim to be.
> 
> The definition of libertarianism is not anarchism. You can be an anarchist and a libertarian but it doesn't make you more pure. Here is what Mises thought of all this taxation is theft and anarchist stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWfrsXQgEtc
> 
> And taxation is not theft. There is a legitimate role for government. People should be coerced to pay for it. If people don't like it they can always move to floating islands in the sea. Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Hazlitt and numerous other prominent libertarians have no problem with taxation.


*Q:* What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
*
A:* Twenty years.

How did government acquire that legitimacy (so called), exactly?

Well then, it's a really good thing that libertarians don't have any official spokespersons or shepherds.
*
theft definition

*https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...84.SPWzeF-Nslk

----------


## erowe1

> So basically no one is a libertarian under your definition.


No. Why would you conclude that? But the word "libertarian" has a meaning. And it doesn't include people who support coerced taxation.

Do you have another definition of "libertarian" that you could provide us that would include advocacy of coerced taxation?

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Christian Liberty

> To answer the question, I can only speak for myself and not libertarians. But of course some theft is inevitable. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we can have a world with absolutely no theft in it. But that is irrelevant when it comes to what we advocate. No matter how much theft there is, less is always better. There won't come a point where it will ever be right to say, "This amount of theft is just right. To have any less would be bad."


The thing is an anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist would say that even the promise of stopping more theft is not enough to justify some government taxation/theft while the minarchist would say that the promise of stopping more theft justifies (or at least makes worthwhile) government taxation/theft.  The ancap agrees that there will always be theft but is against the use of taxes to stop it even if that means stopping more theft than is caused.

(not commenting on whether this is good or bad now as I reject the fundamental assumptions of the debate.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No. Why would you conclude that? But the word "libertarian" has a meaning. And it doesn't include people who support coerced taxation.
> 
> Do you have another definition of "libertarian" that you could provide us that would include advocacy of coerced taxation?


Eh.... normally libertarian is mused more broadly than that.

----------


## dannno

> Neither Ron nor Rand are libertarians, nor claim to be.
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ibertarianism/


Right, Ron Paul claims to be a Voluntarist.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Right, Ron Paul claims to be a Voluntarist.


And a CONstitutional GOP conservative statist, sad to say.  

Lately though, he really hasn't seemed too happy about or comfortable with it.  

There's still hope for him, in epiphany reform.  

Voluntaryist works for starters! 

http://voluntaryist.com/

----------


## erowe1

> Eh.... normally libertarian is mused more broadly than that.


More broadly than what? Really, what is libertarian if it includes advocacy of taxation?

----------


## erowe1

> The thing is an anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist would say that even the promise of stopping more theft is not enough to justify some government taxation/theft while the minarchist would say that the promise of stopping more theft justifies (or at least makes worthwhile) government taxation/theft.  The ancap agrees that there will always be theft but is against the use of taxes to stop it even if that means stopping more theft than is caused.
> 
> (not commenting on whether this is good or bad now as I reject the fundamental assumptions of the debate.)


The key to understanding your point, and why it doesn't work, is that the promise of which you speak is a broken promise.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> More broadly than what? Really, what is libertarian if it includes advocacy of taxation?


Answer: Hypocritical, since taxation violates the NAP.

----------


## Knowledge

Some amount of taxation is necessary

----------


## presence

You might find these helpful


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> And a CONstitutional GOP conservative statist, sad to say.  
> 
> Lately though, he really hasn't seemed too happy about or comfortable with it.  
> 
> There's still hope for him, in epiphany reform.  
> 
> Voluntaryist works for starters! 
> 
> http://voluntaryist.com/


I believe he's more of a prachmatic constitutionalist and in his heart a voluntarist.

----------


## presence

> Some amount of taxation is necessary

----------


## acptulsa

Here's what Ron Paul's favorite president had to say about it:




> 'To reduce war taxes is to give every home a better chance...  Of all services which the Congress can render to the country I have no hesitation in declaring this one to be paramount.'--_Calvin Coolidge_
> 
> 'I am for economy.  After that, I am for more economy.  At this time, and under present circumstances, that is my conception of serving the people.'--_Calvin Coolidge_


So, is 'less is more' all there is to it?  Or is there an underlying philosophy behind it that can give us a nice, pat, quotable answer?




> 'It is our theory that the people own the government, not that the government should own the people.'--_Calvin Coolidge_


Is there a philosophy that can explain, codify, or quantify that?




> `The American people must be free, and the way to do this is to have what government you have to have on the closest level to the people.'--_Calvin Coolidge_


Is the principle that government should never do what someone else can do, and that the central government should never do what a more local government can do, something that is inherent in our system as it was designed to work?




> "I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800


Even if this Sanders supporter is unwilling to admit taxation is theft because presumably the taxpayer gets some value for his or her money, he or she is bound to admit that corruption is theft.  And since a genuinely free market ensures the consumer a way to avoid corruption (by doing business with or making donations to someone else), the only ways to limit our vulnerability to corruption is to have government do nothing that someone else can do instead, and to have what services only government can provide be provided by the smallest and most local government possible, because the voters have the most control over that.  And to violate this is to, if not engage in theft, to enable theft.

If there is corruption in your local fire department, and your local fire department is run out of Washington, D.C, you have to convince twenty million voters nationwide that your fire department's problems are more important than gay marriage, abortion, national defense, and their own fire departments combined.  Think you can do that?

Therefore, to push to give Washington any manner of legal or financial control over your local fire department is to enable thieves.  Indeed, to sit by while Washington demands enough revenue of us to even be able to redistribute to local fire departments is to allow power to be usurped from local voters, which is enabling theft, and is therefore morally wrong.

Taxation without representation is tyranny.  Taxation which enables the central government to exert control in local matters unnecessarily bypasses local representation, and is therefore the road to tyranny.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And taxation is not theft. [...] If people don't like it they can  always move to floating islands in the sea.





> 


If taxation is not theft, I wonder what it is that Ron Paul thinks the government is stealing. Bubblegum and ginger snaps?

Or maybe he's just a crank who needs to move to a floating island in the sea so as not to discomfit decent pro-tax folk ...

----------


## Cabal

> Some amount of taxation is necessary


Necessary for the State? Of course. Necessary for everything else? Of course not.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Necessary for the State? Of course. Necessary for everything else? Of course not.


+rep !!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> The thing is an anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist would say that even the promise of stopping more theft is not enough to justify some government taxation/theft while the minarchist would say that the promise of stopping more theft justifies (or at least makes worthwhile) government taxation/theft.  The ancap agrees that there will always be theft but is against the use of taxes to stop it even if that means stopping more theft than is caused.
> 
> (not commenting on whether this is good or bad now as I reject the fundamental assumptions of the debate.)


There are consequentialist and even utilitarian anarcho-capitalists. The dichotomy you raised is one of utilitarianism/deontology, not anarchism/minarchism.

----------

