Why Is Taxation Theft?

[Camel Glasses]

I am currently in my final year of secondary school (high school) in the UK and I am about to write a dissertation on the illegitimacy of taxation as apart of my EPQ (Extended Project Qualification) which is the equivalent of a single AS Level. I am posting this here in order to ask for your assistance and opinions on the issue so that I can articulate strongly why having to submit a portion of one's income in tribute to the state is just theft a not some act of goodness. I would appreciate your thoughts greatly. 

[Rob_Ilir]

Hello CG, and welcome to the board. It is so good to hear that at your tender age you are developing these ideas, and are willing to share your thoughts here. 

 

As per the topic, the glass of water metaphor comes to my mind, taxation is the drop of blood in the water that deforms the whole substance of the water. We have been passing this polluted water for generations and called it healthy, until now, that we know that not polluted fresh water is actually healthier.

[stigskog]

http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

[Wesley]

What makes it theft is the threat of force. The threat of force is masked behind letters, social contracts, propaganda, etc.

 

In code, there are 2 ways to hide a message. 1 is to hide it by sneaking it in to some place unusual or under a plate or to join it with another file and then change the file extension. The other way is to obscure the message so that you can look at it perfectly fine but cannot read it until it is decoded. 

 

Some of these masks are designed to hide the force. Other ones redefine force as good. 

 

The only goal is to remove masks expose the force that is used to make it apparent and then to properly define that force as evil (the "decode" step). The rest and much more will take care of itself. 

 

See Stef's argument from morality as the "decode" step. Associating violence with taxation is the "reveal" step.

[TheRobin]

Make sure, they won't fail you just because of that first, imo. No need to waste all the prior work in the public hellhole known as school for some ideological reasons.

[Formelyknown]

I would start your introduction with something like:

 

If I put a sandwich in your mouth and ask you to pay me and you believe I have no right to force you to pay. You already agreeing to the conclusion of this thesis.

[Mister Mister]

  Ordinary "citizens" cannot levy a tax on one another.  If we did it would be perceived as extortion.  The mafia protection racket is comparable.  The mafia claims to be offering a service, and may even perform that service to some extent -  they might protect your business from other mafias - but it is not negotiable, and there is the threat of force.  So it would be perceived by most as immoral.  Supposedly, governments can tax because they have a social contract/consent of the governed.  But as Larken Rose puts it, you cannot delegate a right you don't have.  He sums up the absurdity of it very succinctly and humorously in this great little video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

  Also if you want to go into more detail you could mention how every democracy in the world has a serious national debt problem, and so the taxes are going to pay for money already spent, on policies which young voters were not able to affect.

[Camel Glasses]

Thanks very much for your help guys, it has been very useful. Thanks particularly to Formerlyknown whose analogy I will be using in my essay.

[Camel Glasses]

One specific criticism has stumped me. How am I meant to respond to the argument that all property was originally acquired by force in ages past, and that humans have no right to own pieces of the Earth in the first place? 

[Wesley]

Those are two separate arguments.

 

1. All property was once acquired by force.

 

When restitution is possible and can be proven, then provide restitution. If someone is dead, then I should not be held responsible for the sins of my father, let alone for ages past.

 

2. Property (external to the body) is an invalid concept.

 

This one always annoyed me and I usually just ask them for their money and their clothes if they have no just right to own it. They never give me it. It is impossible to eat, produce, or live in any way without either having things that you have some ownership claim over (renting included) or to take something that is unowned and acquire ownership over it. No one has ever explained to me how this can be done without them fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of property or ownership and without in the process of explaining it, not currently exercising ownership of property external to their body.

[Camel Glasses]

Ah. Thanks very much Wesley, you have been very helpful!

[NoTreason]

Wesley is mostly right.

 

One thing i wanted to add... Hoppe's argumentation ethics is amazing to use while calling these people out.

 

Tha fact that they'll even attempt to argue or reason with you over property rights presupposes that both individuals in thr arguement are respecting the other individuals right to property in their body or whatever other property is being argued over (if there wasnt a presupposrd respect for individual property rights it wouldnt be an arguement it would be an assault or a theft).

 

So the simple fact theyre even engaging in a peaceful argument completely contradicts their argument.

 

People have a hard time defining private property. It means the individual with the best claim to the control of a rivalrous good or resource.

 

I'm using my phone to type this, by doing so i claim i have the best claim to it, otherwise it'd be theft. This is a philosophical fact rather i realize i am making that claim to it while using it or not, the claim to private property still exists regardless of my realization or denial of it.

I also want to add, that even if i did steal my phone to write this, i would still be making a claim to it as my property. However, i wouldn't have the moral and best claim to it as private property because i did not aquire it through voluntary trade with the origional owner.

 

The claim to it as private property is still there though.

 

Point being, every peice of property you touch or use you are making a claim to as private property, you literally can't touch or use anything without making the claim to it. It's the dispute of who has the rightful claim to property that the arguement should be over, not if there's property at all.

[magentawave]

What he said. I don't know how the government racket in England handles the collection of taxes but if you don't pay your protection fee (i.e. income taxes) in the US you will get a series of computer generated letters from the IRS with each one becoming more aggressive with threats of seizure of property. If you ignore those letters then eventually armed thugs with guns will break down your door to kidnap you and put you in a cage. If you resist they will murder you. That may sound extreme but violence, or at least the threat of violence, is at the core of everything the state does.

 

Murray Rothbard published a timeless paper years ago called "The Anatomy Of The State". You can download and read it for free at Mises.org or listen to it on Youtube.

 

It would be cool if you posted your paper on here after completing it and let us know what the teacher said about it.

 

 

What makes it theft is the threat of force.

[NoTreason]

I agree with all of that.

 

The important thing to remember is that when someone in the majority to tax other people, that each individual person within that majority of people is claiming an individual property right to the money (property) that other individuals are in the possession of. They are claiming that they have a better right to it that the current owner, as illogical as that is.

 

All property rights are individual rights no matter how people frame their arguments to make it seem as though that is not so.

 

Democracy is nothing more a property claim. People thinks they can get social change from democracy but that's impossible as nothing can be done with democracy but the immoral claim of a right to other people's bodies and properties with the use of force.

[Camel Glasses]

Thanks again all! I will post my essay onto this board later to see what you make of it.