Proving that taxation is theft seems impossible.

[DaVinci]

If a person is walking down the street and gets punched in the face by someone, that is assault, and is a crime. But if a person gets punched in the face in a boxing ring that is not a crime. It is just considered a sport. It's a voluntary interaction.

 

This seems to be how most people approach the idea of taxes. They say they are cool with it, and thus it becomes a voluntary interaction. Or they claim that there is just as much proof to support the idea that taxation is moral, as someone else has to cliam that taxation is immoral.

 

So what do you think of these claims? How do you respond to them?

[Kevin Beal]

It's the same argument people use for spanking. It doesn't matter if they are cool with it.

You can just ask them what would happen if they stopped paying. They would get a letter, then another one, a court summons, a thug at the door and finally kidnapped and stolen from. If they resist the kidnapping effectively, they will be shot.

The usual defense that I've heard is that this arrangement (as disgusting as it is) is voluntary because they drive on public roads, went to public school and send their children there etc. (a.k.a. the "social contract"). Except that they have no choice other than to be bound by this "contract" that they never signed or were ever even aware of (maybe) prior to arguing about the role of the state. This, to me, is an absurd defense. Do I or any other private party get to bind infants to a contract and steal their future productivity? Of course not, but the state claims this right and calls it an obligation.

If they can't seem to understand what is so obvious to you and I, then you might consider talking to them about their childhoods and how they could be familiar with this sort of conflation between theft and charity.

[Alan C.]

People use metaphors to avoid dealing with discomforting truths.

The way to deal with the claims you mentioned is to focus on the fundamental nature of taxation (eg. threats, coercion, expropriation, violence).

There are people in prison who didn't pay taxes in a manner which appeased some bureaucrats.

There are people whose homes, bank accounts, and other property was confiscated for the same reason.

An act cannot be both voluntary and coerced simultaneously; it's one or the other.

If taxation is voluntary then it's not taxation; it's donation or reciprocation.

[DaVinci]

But then how is taxation different from a man raping a woman where she actually likes being dragged into an alley and held at gunpoint and being forced to have sex? It's not rape because she is okay with it. Isn't that voluntary in the same way that taxation is voluntary to the people who are okay with it happening to them?

[Skreimey]

In the analogy of boxing, one is making a voluntary decision to engage in sport. My participation in taxation is involuntary and cannot be avoided without great cost (monetary in the case of expatriation and opportunity cost in the case of being a nomad or outlaw). Even assuming that the social contract and democracy itself are moral (and I don't think so) in the United States, there is almost no meaningful representation of American's wishes at the federal level (ie, TARP. [80%+ public oppositon; legislators pass it anyway]), which renders these arguments invalid.

To liken it to the boxing analogy, it would be like someone saying that by simply being on a certain street, you have an implicit agreement to pay for and participate in a boxing match, and if you wish to leave, then you must pay a hefty toll at all of the exits.

The core of my argument comes down to this:

1) Taxation is enforced by violence

2) Most Americans (or anyone for that matter) have no meaningful representation in the law making process, therefore taxation is involuntary.

3) Democracy (popular opinion) is not equal to morality.

4) Individuals are not exempt from moral behavior simply by acting on behalf of the state (an abstraction)

If taxation is done without representation, relies on a system of government which lacks moral justification, and is enforced by morally self-responsible individuals whom are aggressing against the taxed, then I can hardly see how somebody could justify that there is any morality in taking somebody's money at gunpoint to buy them something they didn't want because you think that it's good for them.

--EDIT--

@ DaVinci,

The problem with the second argument you made is one of individual vs universal applicability. If a woman enjoys or wants to be subjected to a series of actions most reasonable people would consider rape, that's her prerogative and choice. It's a false analogy, though. If an individual wants the oppression of a god-state, then I see no reason why they could not go live under one . . . just leave ME out of it. I am not waving guns at people and trying to force them to live an anarchistic lifestyle. I think I should be given the same courtesy.

[Nash]

You don't have to "prove" it, per se. It's in the definition.

Some rape victims tell themselves that they want it and that it's not rape. It's obvious that they're just avoiding the pain of being consiously aware of their trauma, and it's just as obvious that most people are doing the same thing with taxes.

On the other hand, if the person you are talking with is genuinely enthusiastic about paying for murder, indoctrination, economic destruction, etc., they are probably not safe to debate with. I think most of the time you're dealing with the former case, though.

[JKPgamer]

 

But then how is taxation different from a man raping a woman where she actually likes being dragged into an alley and held at gunpoint and being forced to have sex? It's not rape because she is okay with it. Isn't that voluntary in the same way that taxation is voluntary to the people who are okay with it happening to them?

 

I really like using Stef's Against Me argument for people that "like" to pay taxes.

"Well you are totally allowed to do with your money what you want to do.  I respect your right and position to give the government your money and would never use force to stop you.  Would you respect my right to disagree in not wanting to pay taxes and not use force against me?"

"Well of course."

"Well then...you can see that I don't have the option to withdraw my financial support.  I have to pay whether I agree or disagree so there is no voluntary exchange."

[Agalloch]

If a person is walking down the street and gets punched in the face by someone, that is assault, and is a crime. But if a person gets punched in the face in a boxing ring that is not a crime. It is just considered a sport. It's a voluntary interaction.

 

This seems to be how most people approach the idea of taxes. They say they are cool with it, and thus it becomes a voluntary interaction. Or they claim that there is just as much proof to support the idea that taxation is moral, as someone else has to cliam that taxation is immoral.

 

So what do you think of these claims? How do you respond to them?

Is it just me that thinks everyone is completely missing the point? If people are ok with it, great, good for them, call it voluntary if you like - similar to how Religion is voluntary given that the organisation that does the taxing educates the children but that's beside the point. I am not ok with it, when I am taxed, I am being stolen from, if you want to be taxed, then send cheques voluntarily to the State Revenue Collection organisation of whatever Government you like.

 

As metaphors seem obligatory in this topic - Boxing might be a sport, but it's immoral to throw someone who doesn't want to be in a boxing match into the ring and beat them. Boxers might be ok with it, and like taxation that might be the result of trauma, but I'm the one being stolen from, not the people who are ok with it.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

But then how is taxation different from a man raping a woman where she actually likes being dragged into an alley and held at gunpoint and being forced to have sex? It's not rape because she is okay with it. Isn't that voluntary in the same way that taxation is voluntary to the people who are okay with it happening to them?

 

 

Well if she likes it then it's not rape. If people like being taxed then they can do that. They can arrange to have some authority force them to pay for services. The problem comes when they make it universal and claim everyone must be taxed. 

[Pepin]

Acting as though an interaction is voluntary does not make the interaction voluntary, especially when there are repercussions from the opposing party upon withdrawing from such an interaction. If taxation were voluntary, then one must claim that it is immoral for a government to prosecute those who do not wish to associate with them, as a voluntary relationship cannot be one in which one is forced to partake in. At least in my experience, the discussion from that point will lead towards the concept the social contract, which is just another way to claim that the interaction is voluntary.

It essential to take into consideration the indoctrination that occurs in schools, and the projection of the family onto the state. I also feel as though it is important to realize that these people don't have the ability to take the other side of the argument, which is a sign of incompetency in their belief.

[Robert Stempien]

Ask them if it would be ok for a private company to tax people, and if not, then why is it ok for the government? For most people to realize that an activity done by the state is bad they must first picture a non-state entity doing it.

[dveb8886]

I think Skreimey basically nailed it here, but to summarize this answer as a direct response to the question:

If you are in a boxing match, you have the choice to leave it at any time. With taxes, you do not have that choice. 

A voluntary interaction is voluntary only if you have the ability to exit. without that ability, it's not voluntary (even if you initially agreed to it)

[MysterionMuffles]

Have you read UPB, DaVinci? An easy way to expose immorality is to attempt to universalize it. People get fazed quickly when you ask why THEY dont get the right to tax the government back and enforce violence if they dont comply. They might make the excuse the government provides services but hey....so dont you create value in society with the job you work for?

[prohexa]

If a person is walking down the street and gets punched in the face by someone, that is assault, and is a crime. But if a person gets punched in the face in a boxing ring that is not a crime. It is just considered a sport. It's a voluntary interaction.

 

In a boxing match both contestants enter the ring voluntary, and either of them may leave at any time they choose. In the case of taxation you are instead born right there in the boxing ring, and if you try to leave you'll only exit into another boxing ring, and so on. See the difference?

 

 

But then how is taxation different from a man raping a woman where she actually likes being dragged into an alley and held at gunpoint and being forced to have sex? It's not rape because she is okay with it. Isn't that voluntary in the same way that taxation is voluntary to the people who are okay with it happening to them?

 

Rape is by definition coerced sex against the will of the other person. It does not translate to "rough voluntary sex".

 

Even if a person has been so tragically manipulated that he "wants" to pay taxes, he still has no option to to decline. Asking for money while leaving no option to decline is by definition theft.

 

Let's assume a mugger points a gun to me and asks for my wallet. With your logic one could claim that I'm in fact voluntarily trading my wallet in return for my life. Do you see the flaw in that reasoning?

[Kawlinz]

Imagine someone a mugger puts a gun to SuzyQ and says "hey, I need money for food" and SuzyQ says "hey, if you need money I'm more than willing to give it to you, just put the gun down - please". the mugger says "no, the gun stays".

 

When people say they pay taxes voluntarily, it's easy to test. All they have to do is ask the tax collector to put the gun down - take away the threat of violence and imprisonment. See how far they get.

[JSDev]

This can be empirically decided. Just go ahead and "opt-out" of the income tax and see what happens.

[Tadas]

Imagine someone a mugger puts a gun to SuzyQ and says "hey, I need money for food" and SuzyQ says "hey, if you need money I'm more than willing to give it to you, just put the gun down - please". the mugger says "no, the gun stays".

 

When people say they pay taxes voluntarily, it's easy to test. All they have to do is ask the tax collector to put the gun down - take away the threat of violence and imprisonment. See how far they get.

In fact they will get pretty far with that.

most people will really volunteer to pay taxes.

 

however there sill be one problem If there is neighborhood of  10 people and we think that it would be good idea to build a new road we all could use but you decide that you are going to opt out because you can use old road just as it is.

 

so how to deal with that?  if they will build a road you will get to use it for free anyway. nobody can prevent you from using it

they may say what the heck lets build it anyway we still have 9 people who want it.

 

but in that case I will be also smart and claim that I don't need that road either so i wont pay and still enjoy results

 

in result we get free ride while other idiots do all job

 

you can avoid taxes if you completely reject concept of public property that way you just pays taxes to the owners of specific roads land etc as much as they demand you.

so taxes dont go anywhere.  or if we alocate some unowned property  we can partially fix some problems but nobody will maintain that properety so you cant expect usable road which is just empty land allocated for walking or driving.

[Kawlinz]

I meant - see how far they get [with getting the government to put down the gun]