Is Taxation Theft?

[nickcoons]

Ok, with your argument in mind, for me it comes down to this. Do you respect their jurisdiction or not.

I want a government. Most people want a government (I also realize most people are sheep ). I accept the jurisdiction of the United States as do most people. For those of us who want a government, we are agreeing to pay for it by living under its jurisdiction (and should expect to pay for it). It is not theft when they tax me as described by the constitution. I am paying for their service.

If you are living here and feel that you own land and you have jurisdiction over the land and don't want a government I suppose it does come down to who has the bigger guns and it is theft.

To some it up it is not theft if it is legal (as decribed by the constitution) and I respect the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government (and therefore the law of the land, the constitution).

What you're describing is basically voluntarism. Basically, that anyone wanting to take advantage of government services (i.e. live under their jurisdiction) should pay for those services, and libertarians (including myself) don't have an issue with that. The problem with our government (even if they did abide by the Constitution) is that you cannot voluntarily remove yourself from their authority without abandoning your property and effectively life as you know it (i.e. by moving out of the country). That being the case, and in answer to your question.. no, I do not respect their jurisdiction. I do not acknowledge that they have any claim on me or my property. But just as I would probably give an armed mugger my wallet on demand, I also pay my taxes for the same reason -- Self-survival.

Here is an excellent article...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts

...which describes taxation as theft and refutes every argument I've ever heard claiming that it is not theft, including:

- The "majority rules" argument
- The "debt for services rendered and benefits received" argument
- The "social contract" argument (your favorite )
- The "moral debt to those in need" argument

I don't mind having a government. Government's sole purpose is to protect our rights, but it cannot infringe upon our rights in the process.

 

[DFF]

Yes, yes, and YES!

 

[jack555]

What you're describing is basically voluntarism. Basically, that anyone wanting to take advantage of government services (i.e. live under their jurisdiction) should pay for those services, and libertarians (including myself) don't have an issue with that. The problem with our government (even if they did abide by the Constitution) is that you cannot voluntarily remove yourself from their authority without abandoning your property and effectively life as you know it (i.e. by moving out of the country). That being the case, and in answer to your question.. no, I do not respect their jurisdiction. I do not acknowledge that they have any claim on me or my property. But just as I would probably give an armed mugger my wallet on demand, I also pay my taxes for the same reason -- Self-survival.

Here is an excellent article...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts

...which describes taxation as theft and refutes every argument I've ever heard claiming that it is not theft, including:

- The "majority rules" argument
- The "debt for services rendered and benefits received" argument
- The "social contract" argument (your favorite )
- The "moral debt to those in need" argument

I don't mind having a government. Government's sole purpose is to protect our rights, but it cannot infringe upon our rights in the process.

I agree with most of what you said.


However the question at hand is, "Is taxation theft."

to say yes would mean that it is always theft.

After reading your arguments I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.


edit- I will say I was originally wrong and your article says exactly why I am wrong (as others have).

 

[nickcoons]

After reading your arguments I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.

Most people pay their taxes voluntarily, but that's only because they know what will happen if they don't. Most slaves would do as their masters told them without the masters ever having to break out the whip, but you could hardly argue that people were slaves voluntarily. As you can see, this is sort of a skewed definition of "voluntarily".

Perhaps there are people out there that would pay their taxes even if there were no consequences of not paying taxes. Then again, perhaps there are people out there that would give their wallet to a mugger even if they knew they could decline and nothing bad would happen to them. I don't happen to know anyone like that .

 

[jack555]

Most people pay their taxes voluntarily, but that's only because they know what will happen if they don't. Most slaves would do as their masters told them without the masters ever having to break out the whip, but you could hardly argue that people were slaves voluntarily. As you can see, this is sort of a skewed definition of "voluntarily".

Perhaps there are people out there that would pay their taxes even if there were no consequences of not paying taxes. Then again, perhaps there are people out there that would give their wallet to a mugger even if they knew they could decline and nothing bad would happen to them. I don't happen to know anyone like that .

Well now you have met one and there are many more like me. I would gladly pay taxes as described by the constitution.


So again

I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.


Anyone care to challenge my claim?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well now you have met one and there are many more like me. I would gladly pay taxes as described by the constitution.


So again

I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.


Anyone care to challenge my claim?

If you volunteer, it is no longer taxation-but charity. You can do this all you want. Using government force to collect money from others on behalf of another person or group is coercion, and therefore wrong.

 

[nickcoons]

Well now you have met one and there are many more like me. I would gladly pay taxes as described by the constitution.

So again

I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.

Anyone care to challenge my claim?

Taxes come with the threat of force implied. If the threat of force is removed (i.e. we make all taxes voluntary), then I will say that those are the only taxes that are not theft.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Looks like your claim has been sufficiently challenged, jack555. You may respond whenever you are ready.

 

[smeg]

i know this may be a sidetrack from original discussion, but it's of relation to the title:

although i now live in NH, i was born and raised in portland, OR. while in oregon, over the course of about 15 months, i was the victim of several crimes. these included home invasions, robberies, a car break in, assaults, and even a mugging/stabbing. every time one of these happened, i would file police reports; however, i was charged $10 for a copy of this report (which was the extent of police involvement in these crimes... they don't "investigate" anything that doesn't get them revenue now).

my question is, would this $10 charge for a copy of a police report be considered a "victim tax" to anyone? cause thats what i felt it to be. i didn't choose to be the victim of crime, and now i don't have the choice of paying $10 to the police bureau as a result.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

i know this may be a sidetrack from original discussion, but it's of relation to the title:

although i now live in NH, i was born and raised in portland, OR. while in oregon, over the course of about 15 months, i was the victim of several crimes. these included home invasions, robberies, a car break in, assaults, and even a mugging/stabbing. every time one of these happened, i would file police reports; however, i was charged $10 for a copy of this report (which was the extent of police involvement in these crimes... they don't "investigate" anything that doesn't get them revenue now).

my question is, would this $10 charge for a copy of a police report be considered a "victim tax" to anyone? cause thats what i felt it to be. i didn't choose to be the victim of crime, and now i don't have the choice of paying $10 to the police bureau as a result.

I would consider it a "victim tax". If the city was responsible, they should have allocated funds to take care of that stuff. (another reason why private police would be more effective than government police)

 

[nickcoons]

my question is, would this $10 charge for a copy of a police report be considered a "victim tax" to anyone? cause thats what i felt it to be. i didn't choose to be the victim of crime, and now i don't have the choice of paying $10 to the police bureau as a result.

This is one of those tricky areas. Police are funded by stolen money (taxes), so questioning how a taxpayer-subsidized entity should function is secondary to asking the more important question; should they exist in the first place?

I agree with the concept of private police forces. Additionally, I would like to see multiple police forces working a common geographical area to provide competition much the same way any other business does. As with any monopoly, your local police force has no competition, and no concerns as to your satisfactory with their performance.

Dr. Ruwart puts forth an excellent scenario of a private police force, where the criminal pays not only for the cost of their crimes to the victims, but also the cost of their capture, trial, and imprisonment. When you combine all of these costs, it far exceeds what the criminal gained by engaging in the crime, so it makes crime very unprofitable. And because police are paid by convicted criminals, they are far more likely to be interested in actually investigating and capturing criminals, lest they not be paid.

 

[smeg]

This is one of those tricky areas. Police are funded by stolen money (taxes), so questioning how a taxpayer-subsidized entity should function is secondary to asking the more important question; should they exist in the first place?

I agree with the concept of private police forces. Additionally, I would like to see multiple police forces working a common geographical area to provide competition much the same way any other business does. As with any monopoly, your local police force has no competition, and no concerns as to your satisfactory with their performance.

Dr. Ruwart puts forth an excellent scenario of a private police force, where the criminal pays not only for the cost of their crimes to the victims, but also the cost of their capture, trial, and imprisonment. When you combine all of these costs, it far exceeds what the criminal gained by engaging in the crime, so it makes crime very unprofitable. And because police are paid by convicted criminals, they are far more likely to be interested in actually investigating and capturing criminals, lest they not be paid.

i am currently writing to my reps from oregon about this very issue. last year, two of my tires went flat after being punctured by nails spilled on the street by a construction site. of course, having to leave my car parked on the street till i could repair it, i gained a lot of parking tickets. when i returned to downtown portland a month later to speak with a judge about these fines(my first time parking downtown since getting the tickets), my car was towed and impounded for "excessive delinquent fines". all my tickets had more than doubled in cost, totaling almost $1000; the towing fee was $548 (for towing my car, literally, 2 blocks); impound fees were $150 plus $50 each day it remained impounded... and all these fees had to be paid in full before i could regain possession of my car; however, if i did not pay these within 30 days, my car would become property of the state, and i would be charged an additional $2000 "relinquish of title fee".

so, my complaint was basically, law enforcement not only fails to protect or defend the people who pay their salaries from crimes; they target these people in order to enforce laws that are only successful in creating revenue, as apposed to safety. this creates a community that tolerates and therefor perpetuates crime, while also creating a shared animosity towards the police for being greedy and abusive... and that can snowball into an "us v. them" issue that has it's obvious effects.

bottom line: law enforcement are for keeping people safe, not generating revenue.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Income taxation is theft.

 

[mediahasyou]

Can people voluntarily contribute money to an organization?

Political campaigns, clubs, and charities all survive this way. But once the word "organization" is switched to "government", people come up with the notion that the idea is inconceivable.

 

[denison]

You don't. If you believe taxes are theft (they are), then every state you could dream up is inherently immoral.

earlier related thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202101

I was thinking of ways a taxless society would work. More importantly how roads, parks, and defense would be funded in a small limited government scenario where the government doesn't collect any taxes.I think it could work if the government ran 10% of the country's businesses and used the profit to fund the essentials of the country. The government would have an incentive to provide good service, because it would raise there profit, therefore expand their budget.