Taxation different from Theft?

[GRosado]

So recently I got into a debate with a family member over taxation & welfare. I told him that taxation is theft & presented him with a comparison of a thief & government. He then kept saying that there is a difference between the two to which I replied no there isn't & he kept saying yes. While that family member has shown their highly irrational thought process what are some other approaches I could take in regards to convincing someone that taxation is theft.

[Alan C.]

Reason might not work on him; especially if he has an emotional investment in his nationalism.

 

Ask him to explain the difference.

 

Ask him to explain what happens to people who refuse to pay.

[GRosado]

Reason might not work on him; especially if he has an emotional investment in his nationalism.Ask him to explain the difference.Ask him to explain what happens to people who refuse to pay.

He's definitely not a nationalist but he is a State worshipper. However thank you for the suggestions, for some reason whenever I get into a debate I get a sort of Tabula Rasa mind state.

[Pepin]

Though likely not needed, I'll outline a few key characteristics of the issue with this sort of rebuttal.

 

Concepts are abstractions of properties observed in reality, with the particulars omitted. The concept of numbers rely on the perception of discrete entities, a measurement of the quantity of discrete entities, and then a retention of the perception of quantity with the omission of the entities being measured. The result is being able to speak in terms of numbers without referring to any entity.

 

The implicit argument being made in the concept of numbers is that each entity retains its properties. This allows for addition, subtraction, and all of the other basic mathematical procedures. We are able to do addition with entities of a class because the addition does not change their nature, rather it is preserved. If we count wolves, the base property of a wolf does not change when we count a particular number, the wolves do not become something else. This is the law of logic, that A is A, that when counting wolves all of the properties of a single wolf are retained in the measurement of many wolves.

 

The concept of integer based numbers is very useful when there is a perception of entities that come in in discrete quantities, as the concept can immediately be applied. The concept is not applicable to existent that do not come in discrete form, or have new behavior when added. The measurement of the behavior of a sodium molecule and a chlorine molecule in isolation are far different than when combined into the compound sodium chloride. Though we have the ability to count clouds when they are are apart, when they move into each other, the measurement of quantity is not preserved as it is now one big cloud.

 

I bring the above up as this is likely to be the first line of defense, that the concept of theft does not apply to taxation as they are different things altogether, theft is A and taxation is in a different class altogether. It is like asking what color the number two is. This ought to be easy to rebut by referring to the measurements, that is the actions properties involved.

 

To get to the heart of the argument, the application and validation of a concept to a particular case depends upon the abstractions which the concept is defined. A wolf can be defined as an animal with four legs, eats meat, has

, these genetic markers, and so on. With this concept of wolf, upon observing an entity with these characteristics, we are able to identify that the entity is a wolf due to its characteristics.

 

The concept of theft can be defined as the removal of property against the preference of the owner of said property. Granted this definition, the identification of theft simply requires the observation of a property which is rightfully owned and a removal of this property by another against the owner's will. The concept refers to consciously acting entities, as it would not be said that a hurricane which blows a beloved paperback book miles away, or an infestation of flies into one's food is theft.

 

In regard to taxation, the property in question is money, and it can be established that one rightfully owns it. It can also be established that there is a removal of this property from consciously acting agents against the person's preference. There are many ways to confirm that the removal is against the person's, a primary one being the threat of the use of force in the case non-compliance. Since the observation meets all the criteria for the concept, it must be concluded that the taxation is theft.

 

Arguing that "it is different" must be answered with "how?". If the definition of theft is valid, and all observers can agree on the measurements made, then there can be no artificial division. For such a division to be made would be to invalidate the concept of theft. To say it is different without reference to any differences is the measurements is to perform a contradiction, it is to say that A is not A.

 

The most common retort is that there is a social contract, which invalidates the measurement of the removal occurring against one's preference. Though the person does not wish to pay the bill now, but they did agreed to pay their taxes in order to receive access to the services at a previous point. If someone takes out a loan to buy a house and they later do not wish to pay, they still have an obligation to pay as they made an agreement, and it is valid for the bank to use force against to get the owed money if the person does not pay.

 

There is also this idea that a person makes a contract implicitly to pay taxes, and that they can simply move if they do not agree to the rules everyone else agrees to. The idea of the social contract is difficult to take apart, but can be done by references the concepts and the measurements involved. Some behavior will be labeled as voluntary, and all that needs to be done is to define voluntary and to assess if the concept applies to that particular instance. 

 

If you are to continue with the debate, I'd advice focusing on the definition and the application of the definition. The purpose will not to be to convince the person that taxation is theft, as propaganda is designed to be very difficult to cut through with a single slice, yet rather to get them to agree on the principal of theft and to differ on the measurements. Then the conversation will begin to focus on the social contract, and the same methodology applies. It may be helpful to ask them about situations where taxation would be theft, and to have them expand upon what the differences are. It is likely good to focus on corrupt governments overseas as opposed to your own.

 

I hope this wall of text was useful. I realize that this is information that you likely know, but putting it in a more technical language is useful for really understanding what is occurring in a debate. Something I wish to bring to the movement is a strong understanding of concepts which will allow for people to have a very organize conceptual structure in their mind. This makes a big difference in a person's perception of you because they start to notice that everything that you are saying is connected, that part of an integrated whole. My hope is that people will see this, and want it.

[TheRobin]

well, technically speaking, it's not theft but armed robbery. But I guess that doesn't make for as good a bumper sticker (at least in the english language).

[LovePrevails]

Do you acknowledge that if you do not pay your taxes you will be put in a cage with murderers and rapists?

So you acknowledge that your duty to pay taxes is enforced by a threat?

Well in that case can you demonstrate the difference between taxation and theft I am not clear on it.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Not that I think that it will help much, but here is the logical proof that taxation is theft from start to finish:

 

1. Theft is taking something that belongs to someone else.

2. The money you earn/inherit/legitimately acquire is your money.

3. Taxation is when the government takes your money.

 

Therefore taxation is theft.

 

I can take this further.

 

4. Extortion is when a person is threatened in order to frighten them into giving someone their property (usually money).

5. The laws governing taxation state that if you do not pay your taxes, you will be kidnapped and locked in a cage.

6. Taxation laws are enforced as per the above.

 

Therefore taxation is extortion and kidnapping.

 

7. Theft is immoral.

8. Extortion is immoral.

9. Kidnapping is immoral.

10. Taxation is theft, extortion and kidnapping

 

Therefore taxation is immoral.

 

11. Government, and all government programs, are funded through taxation.

 

Therefore government is immoral.

 

12. Immoral institutions should be abolished.

 

Therefore government should be abolished.

[GRosado]

You guys fuckin rock!!! Seriously

[Vuk11]

I like the example of slavery when responding to the common response "But you use the roads!"

It's like saying Slavery is fine because the Master feeds and shelters the slaves and they have no other option besides perhaps choosing different slave masters (states). Daniel's response is pretty much all that needs to be said though.The problem is the irrational backlash and emotional responses you get after that.

[J-William]

sure taxation is different than theft.

 

All taxation is theft, not all theft is taxation.   

[square4]

So recently I got into a debate with a family member over taxation & welfare. I told him that taxation is theft & presented him with a comparison of a thief & government. He then kept saying that there is a difference between the two to which I replied no there isn't & he kept saying yes. While that family member has shown their highly irrational thought process what are some other approaches I could take in regards to convincing someone that taxation is theft.

 

 

Besides the subject of welfare, maybe it is useful to first prepare the ground by talking a bit about stupid, arbitrary, and evil purposes that tax money is spent on, and ask if he can justify the use of violence to collect money for those kind of purposes, and if not, if you are allowed to deduct this amount from the taxes.

 

Another approach could be to ask if he agrees that the same moral standard should apply to everyone. Then, you could try to point out the double standard that is applied:

- Suppose a charity organization would collect money from people through threats and violence, and use it for welfare purposes, would this be considered acceptable?

- If a stranger asks you how much money you earn, are you required to answer that question?

- Suppose a company uses violence against his competition to enforce a monopoly, would such a business be entitled to receive whatever they charge for their services?

- Suppose a company would provide you with a "service" you did not ask for, would it be fair if this business sends you an invoice and demands payment?

 

 

I hope this helps, and wish you good luck.