Taxation as theft.

[Sparko]

I'll get right on changing my nationality to something else.

What? Facebook? TRAITOR!!!

And if they didn't get those services? Also what if you charged some members more than others just because they earned more for the same service?

That would be the choice of the owners. Since tweb belongs to us we could charge however we wanted and for whatever services we gave or didn't give. Nothing would be forcing anyone to stick around. they would have to pay or leave. Just like living in a country. If tweb were a democracy and the members voted me as owner, I could still charge "taxes" but then they would have the choice to pay, leave, or depose me and replace me with someone else. Which citizens in countries also have a right to do. After all, that is how the USA got started because they thought the taxes were unfair without representation.

The people who are choosing to donate do it using their own will. A person giving money they choose to give is not being stolen from.

If you are benefiting from their payment for a service then you are basically stealing from them. They are carrying you, allowing you to have free access to a paid service. That is one way to look at it. Lets say it takes $300/month to run tweb. And we have 10 people who donate $30/month, and 10 people who refuse to pay. Instead of each person paying $15/month (20 x $15 = $300) you end up with half of the people paying the entire bill and half of the people benefiting from their payment. It is like they are taking $15/month out of the payees pockets to pay tweb.

But again, I dont want anyone to think I am calling any twebber a thief or freeloader. We want to make tweb as free as possible. In fact most of the costs are paid for by the owners and staff. We appreciate any donations but only if someone wants to help and only as much as they want to donate. If we could make tweb completely free for us and the members, we would be overjoyed.

[Joel]

I notice that when I make a point, you defer by saying "we could go into detail but that would be off topic"

Sure, when it's a different question than whether it's theft. Whether taxation is necessary for something X, is a different question.

Also you seem to think a private security company charging money to protect you is not robbery, yet if that same private security company were in charge of defending your entire city/county/etc. and wanted to charge you, then it would be robbery.

No the size and scope of it does not determine whether it is robbery. It is not theft if I can decide that instead of that company XYZ, I'd rather hire company ABC, or form my own organization for defense with like-minded people, or trust to my own luck, etc. Maybe people think that XYZ is uneconomical, or doesn't do a good enough job, or is too invasive of privacy or whatever. There are all kinds of tradeoffs, and if people are coerced to fund XYZ, then that's theft.

In other words you only think it is not robbery if you have them personally protecting you but not if you are being protected as part of a group.

Not at all. Any number of people can voluntarily organize or fund together whatever project they want, such as protecting the whole group. The question turns on consensual vs coerced. Taking that which is someone else's without their consent.

Recall that my original argument in this thread was simply:

- Taking that which is someone else's without their consent is theft.
- Taxation is taking that which is someone else's without their consent.
- Therefore, taxation is theft.

Even if you had "insurance" how would that work in the case of public defense? Would the Army simply tell the enemy, ok we are going to defend this guy and this guy, but Joel over there didn't buy insurance so you can attack his house, and we won't interfere, ok?"

Unlikely, in that case of a single free rider. It would still likely be cheaper for the insurance company to defend the neighborhood than to pay the insured damages that would otherwise occur.

It's highly questionable whether a majority of the people supported or consented. But even if a majority did, how would that help your argument? How did those people gain the right to take that which belongs to the dissenting minority? How did they confer upon themselves the moral ability to do that which would otherwise be theft, without it being theft?

welcome to democracy. The majority wins.

That doesn't answer the question. The question isn't who wins, but a question of morality. A successful mugger or mafia "wins", but that doesn't mean it isn't theft. A band of robbers can't cease to be robbers merely by increasing the size of their band.

The minority could have just moved out of the new USA (most of the continent was still open) or went back to England.

That's still theft. "Your money, your land, or your life." is still extortion (a form of theft). In no way would the majority, by entering a compact among themselves gain any right to extort those who did not consent to sign the contract.

but the reality is the rest of the world will stomp you out of existence if they want what you have.

Just like a mugger or mafia.

They were put there by the very people you claim are being robbed and given their "robbing powers" by those very people.

That would be true only in the case of unanimous consent.

No, that's begging the question. That follows only if you start out assuming some particular entity has the right to tax. It for example, would not follow that if you moved in next door to me and I started regularly robbing you, that you implicitly consent to the takings as long as you continue to live in that house.

The government does have the right to tax. It made the law. You can live by it or leave.

As I said, you seem to be assuming the very thing to be proved.

Key word there. A just government does not own all the property. That would be communism and would be unjust. Just government is created not to seize all the property but created to protect people's property rights from aggressors--such as those that would try to seize all the property.

The country owns the base land. It sells off parts to citizens. Read your history of the great land rush. When the USA bought a territory (with taxes!) the real estate belonged to the federal government, who then sold it to private individuals. Ultimately the land still belongs to the government as a basic level. You can't just wall your yard off and declare it independent from the country. As owners of tweb, we own the base site, but we grant you a private section via password that lets you have private messages, your own avatar and profile, etc. But we still have the power to ban you and take away your private area. Because we own the site.

As I said, not only is that not essential to forming an organization for joint defense, it would be contrary to the purpose.

And if you are going to justify taxation based on state ownership of all the land, then it becomes a historical question whether any existing entity claiming to be a state rightfully owns all the land. I seriously doubt that a reasonable such case could be made for any existing entity. Assuming claims to jurisdiction are the same as claims to ownership, the states in the western hemisphere go back mostly to arbitrary, nonsensical claims by European states to vast tracts of unknown land. Elsewhere lands trace back to conquest (theft). Even in a hypothetical scenario where people in a geographical area would unanimously consent to form a governmental organization for their common defense, it seems incredibly absurd for them to at the same time hand over ownership of the land to said organization, when their very purpose for forming the organization is to protect their property rights, especially in the land.

Voting does not imply consent. Lysander Spooner pointed this out well, writing, "Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to."

Get enough votes and you can change the government. If you don't believe it, then again, you have the right to move. Nobody is holding you hostage.

That's not a response to what I said. It does nothing to show voting to imply consent.

[Joel]

If you are benefiting from their payment for a service then you are basically stealing from them.

No, as I showed earlier in the thread, being benefitted by someone else's voluntary actions does not give them the right to demand compensation. Stealing entails lack of consent, not voluntary giving.

[Darth Xena]

That's some seriously loony stuff there...

www.reformedlibertarian.com

[Darth Xena]

No, as I showed earlier in the thread, being benefitted by someone else's voluntary actions does not give them the right to demand compensation. Stealing entails lack of consent, not voluntary giving.

I guess if I go out in the streets and play music, I get to pick the pockets of anyone who walked by and heard it since they "benefitted" from my "services." No matter if I did a terrible job, or whether they even wanted music, or if they did, would have preferred a different performer. Because, state.

[Darth Xena]

Sure, when it's a different question than whether it's theft. Whether taxation is necessary for something X, is a different question.


No the size and scope of it does not determine whether it is robbery. It is not theft if I can decide that instead of that company XYZ, I'd rather hire company ABC, or form my own organization for defense with like-minded people, or trust to my own luck, etc. Maybe people think that XYZ is uneconomical, or doesn't do a good enough job, or is too invasive of privacy or whatever. There are all kinds of tradeoffs, and if people are coerced to fund XYZ, then that's theft.


Not at all. Any number of people can voluntarily organize or fund together whatever project they want, such as protecting the whole group. The question turns on consensual vs coerced. Taking that which is someone else's without their consent.

Recall that my original argument in this thread was simply:

- Taking that which is someone else's without their consent is theft.
- Taxation is taking that which is someone else's without their consent.
- Therefore, taxation is theft.


Unlikely, in that case of a single free rider. It would still likely be cheaper for the insurance company to defend the neighborhood than to pay the insured damages that would otherwise occur.


That doesn't answer the question. The question isn't who wins, but a question of morality. A successful mugger or mafia "wins", but that doesn't mean it isn't theft. A band of robbers can't cease to be robbers merely by increasing the size of their band.


That's still theft. "Your money, your land, or your life." is still extortion (a form of theft). In no way would the majority, by entering a compact among themselves gain any right to extort those who did not consent to sign the contract.


Just like a mugger or mafia.


That would be true only in the case of unanimous consent.


As I said, you seem to be assuming the very thing to be proved.


As I said, not only is that not essential to forming an organization for joint defense, it would be contrary to the purpose.

And if you are going to justify taxation based on state ownership of all the land, then it becomes a historical question whether any existing entity claiming to be a state rightfully owns all the land. I seriously doubt that a reasonable such case could be made for any existing entity. Assuming claims to jurisdiction are the same as claims to ownership, the states in the western hemisphere go back mostly to arbitrary, nonsensical claims by European states to vast tracts of unknown land. Elsewhere lands trace back to conquest (theft). Even in a hypothetical scenario where people in a geographical area would unanimously consent to form a governmental organization for their common defense, it seems incredibly absurd for them to at the same time hand over ownership of the land to said organization, when their very purpose for forming the organization is to protect their property rights, especially in the land.


That's not a response to what I said. It does nothing to show voting to imply consent.

Before I go Joel I have to say that was a most excellent response. Very well done.

[Truthseeker]

. . . barely civilized, and only civilized to the extent they were taxed.

Maybe you are assuming that without government, the Israeli were savages. Tell me, how could savages form a government that was able to turn them into good citizens?

Many libertarians argue on the contrary that governments are decivilizing. I think the drone strikes in the ME are evidence of that.

[Truthseeker]

It still seems necessary to point out that debate on whether taxation is theft or not is not complete without discussion of the goods and services that the government produces (e.g., laws, roads, national defense). Supposedly these things justify the taxes. If the government did nothing for its subjects, it would be in very serious trouble. For the government to continue to rip off its subjects, they have to tolerate that somewhat. One way to keep their consent (willing or not) is to make a show of production.

I wish to assert here that everything--I do mean everything should be left to the free market to produce or perform. In other words, no government as we know it. Sparko for one may not believe that the free market can produce things or perform services that bear on national defense. One problem here is that my assertion would take many weeks to debate thoroughly, unfortunately.

[Carrikature]

Like I said, the door is behind you. People who don't like the USA leave it all the time.

...

The government does have the right to tax. It made the law. You can live by it or leave.

...

Get enough votes and you can change the government. If you don't believe it, then again, you have the right to move. Nobody is holding you hostage.

I think it's worth pointing out that "you can just leave" isn't as viable as it's often made out to be. If your objection is based on taxation, there's literally nowhere to go. It's not as if desertet islands are readily accessible or even necessarily livable.

Funding is an issue, too. Illegal immigrants coming up from Mexico are paying someone to take them. People fleeing the Middle East are getting on boats and floating across, but the oceans are a bit big for that.

[Raphael]

I think it's worth pointing out that "you can just leave" isn't as viable as it's often made out to be. If your objection is based on taxation, there's literally nowhere to go. It's not as if desertet islands are readily accessible or even necessarily livable.

Dubai. no personal tax and you can get a work visa extremely easily (you just can't get residency or citizenship)

[Teallaura]

Yeah but that was your choice (and ours). Our costs are low enough that we can exist on donations alone. But as owners of TWEB, we do have the RIGHT to "TAX" our members if we wish. We could charge a subscription to all of our members and they would either have to pay, or leave our jurisdiction. It would not be theft. They would be paying for services they are receiving. In fact, you could probably argue that those who benefit from being members here who do not donate are being thieves, relying on the money of others to provide them free services. [I do not think that at all, just using it as a debate point. We purposely allow free membership to tweb and only ask those to donate who are willing to]

A membership fee isn't a tax. The power to tax is the power to compel payment without a direct exchange of goods/services. Dee Dee's assertion is utterly, completely wrong - Tweb isn't a jurisdiction and it has no political government.

[Teallaura]

All I'm reading here is that it is within a governments power to steal from the people. At it's core, what is happening is that people are having money taking from them without their permission. That is theft by definition. If you are advising that a governments power means that they cannot steal, then you are pretty much saying that it is impossible for a government to steal.

Consider the following. The Nazi government took businesses' off of Jews in the 1930's. Using your definition they weren't stealing those businesses'' since it is impossible for a government to steal.

It is not impossible for a government to steal - you are mistaking illegal confiscation for taxation. Illegal confiscation is indeed theft - but taxation isn't (unless the government makes it illegal first...).

[Teallaura]

http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/...nd-government/

http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/...ts-and-states/


Likely out of here again until my next random drop in.Sometimes I just gotta see how decent people justify their positive rights and entitlements against other people. And like to see how conservatives do it just as much as a big bad evullll liberals

1) A government has a jurisdiction - period.

2) A government can choose not to tax, but not have the power? Eh, theoretically possible and practically silly.

3) Never said a government had to have a state - it has to have a jurisdiction. The state is a form of jurisdiction.

[Truthseeker]

Dubai. no personal tax and you can get a work visa extremely easily (you just can't get residency or citizenship)

But U.S. citizens living abroad have to pay income tax (and I think other taxes) to the USFG. The only way to legally stop that is to renounce U.S. citizenship. That situation is nearly unique in the world.

[Truthseeker]

I am not sure but I think many people have renounced their U.S. citizenship and are living abroad. Why? Usually many reasons, but it's not utterly unreasonable to imagine someone who left U.S. rule that way just to escape high taxes. Many places are much cheaper than the USA, including low taxes. If the last two sentences are true, why are we arguing over the assertion "Taxation is theft"? Surely it is obvious that some emigrates do think so.