Help me make "taxation is theft" watertight!

[DSEngere]

It is my intention to make the “taxation is theft” argument completely watertight, even from a legal perspective. That is, I want to beat statists at their own damn game. I, and I think everyone here, understand the philosophical meaning of land ownership, homesteading, etc. But I need to make sure I understand the legal side of property ownership. I need some people who have a good legal understanding (and/or philosophical) to make sure everything I’m saying is correct. So please, shoot holes in my arguments and tell me where I’m wrong. Be brutal!
 

First though, we should make some definitions clear. Ownership of property means that it is YOURS, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you are not aggressing against others or violating some other contract that you agreed to (example: I own my windows and I can paint them pink UNLESS I have agreed with my homeowner’s association not to make my house look ridiculous). Also, you do NOT have the right to enter onto someone else’s land (or house, etc.) without their permission, much less demand payment from them without their agreement. To do so would be known as armed robbery.

When you are on someone else’s land (or using their property) you must abide by their rules. The rightful owner does not have the right to aggress against you or use any more force against you than is necessary to remove you from their property (should they chose), but you still must abide by their rules, otherwise you are aggressing against them. I cannot walk onto your lawn and set up a lemonade stand unless you agree to this. You cannot use my weed-whipper unless I allow you. This is all basic voluntarism, non-aggression principle stuff. Hopefully this is all obvious.

Now, onto the legalese; suspend reality with me for a little bit while we dive into the world of government insanity:

 

1. “A land patent is an exclusive land grant made by a sovereign entity with respect to a particular tract of land.”

A land patent gives you alloidal ownership over land. 

Allodial — Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.

In other words, completely, unconditionally, and privately yours; The intuitive and commonly understood definition of "property". 

 

The US government did and does hand out “land patents” to supposedly grant you complete, thorough, and permanent ownership. In other words, IT'S YOURS. 
 

So LEGALLY (according to the gub’ment), one does not actually own their land unless they have a land patent in their name. So that means even if you own a house and have paid your mortgage, you don’t legally OWN your land in the traditional, obvious sense of private ownership.  

Hopefully some red flags are already popping up in your head.

For the government to be able to grant you ownership of something, they have to actually have ownership of it before they give it to you, otherwise they have no authority over said thing.

So, for the moment, let’s pretend that the government actually DID have ownership over a certain piece of land (it does not, but I’ll get into that in a minute). Say it gave a land patent for that piece of land to “Bob”. So now, Bob completely and privately owns this piece of land. Yet legally, if Bob sells this piece of land to Mary, she does not actually privately own this land like Bob did, until she pays the government to get the land patent updated in her name. Legally, is this true? If so, clearly this makes no sense, for if Bob wanted to sell HIS land to Mary, it automatically now belongs completely to Mary. If it reverts back into the hands of the government, then it never really belonged to Bob in the first place, but instead to the government. Once you voluntarily give some property (land or otherwise) to someone through selling it or by giving it freely, you have voluntarily given up all right to that property. That’s what PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is all about. If you want to retain any kind of authority over that property, then that needs to be spelled out in a contract, and there is NOT unconditional, free-and-clear ownership of said property. Yet, the wording in land patents would suggest that they DO grant you free-and-clear, private ownership of land; The government claims that about 60% of land in the US is privately owned. They either do not truly mean privately owned, or they are clearly violating the rights of private land owners. Clearly, the way the government handles this makes no sense, and for them to claim the right to tax you or take your land through eminent domain implies that either they own your land or that you agreed to said taxes/eminent domain previously, which of course you never did.

This is why the concept of taxes (property taxes in particular) make no sense, for if you actually OWN your land, nobody has the right to come onto your property and demand continued payment for it- that is no different from renting property. Is it feasible that you could only own your property conditionally, on the agreement that you are subject to the government’s laws on your land? If so, this is not spelled out anywhere (correct me if I’m wrong). Moreover, the government cannot simply impose laws on private owned landowners who occupied their land before the government tried to establish authority over their land.

 

Now, back to the concept of government ownership (this is very important!): Does the government actually own anything? I would say “no”. Why?

Firstly, when governments form, they steal money (and land) from people who rightfully owned their land and money before the government encroached on their territory. Again, this is nothing more than armed robbery with a badge. So right from the beginning, the government is an illegitimate, criminal organization because it operated using stolen money. As a consequence of this, government doesn’t actually rightfully own anything, and thus have no moral legitimacy to establish new taxes, laws, etc. over private property. I believe it’s really as simple as that. Am I missing anything important? 

[AustinJames]

If your main goal is to prove that taxation=theft, much of what you have written is superfluous.  Property rights and ownership is a diversion from the main idea of taxation=theft.  Property rights and ownership do not require the initiation or threat of force, while taxation does.  Instead of trying to pin down these abstract arguments, just drive the point home: taxation is theft because theft is the seizure of property by use or threat of force.

 

Anyone who says that taxation is not theft has the challenge of defining theft in such a way that taxation does not qualify.  I have never known anyone to succeed in furnishing this definition, so I must accept the rational consistency of taxation=theft, based upon the definition of theft, and of taxation.

 

If your goal is to make the argument "taxation is theft" legally enforceable, I would say that's pretty silly.  That's akin to asking, "how do I PROVE to the mafia that murder is not an ethical business practice?  There must be a way to really stick it to them!"  Or, "how do I PROVE to Obama that it's murder to bomb innocent civilians?"  Taxation is theft because that's what it's called when no contract is signed, and somebody demands a portion of your property with the ultimate threat of force.  The argument is a lot more simple than you're making it.

[DSEngere]

You said, "taxation is theft because theft is the seizure of property by use or threat of force."

Not quite true. If someone AGREES on a contract and fails to pay for something or to provide a good or service that they were paid for, then their property can be taken by force with moral legitimacy. 

I'm trying to show people the obvious truth that the state does not have any morally legitimate reasons for taxes. A lot of people believe that the government actually rightfully owns property, and this alone is one of the most central pillars to the idea that  taxes could be morally legitimate. 

I appreciate your reply though, thank you. 

[ausppc]

With the NAP in mind, Marc Stevens questions IRS bureaucrats (police, lawyers and so forth) on a regular basis.  He often refers to Lysander Spooner and, just recently, I had occasion to broadcast a Spooner quote too - http://ondemand.4zzzfm.org.au/the-little-v/2014-06-21

 

There's a lot of material on Marc's site: http://marcstevens.net and he has a long running, weekly radio show here: http://lrn.fm/shows/#NSP  He's even had Stephan as a guest a few times in the past. 

[thelizardking52]

I believe Austin James interpreted the title correctly as you stated it that "taxation is theft". It seems that you are saying that now you want to change the point you wish to argue and that being the government's claim to the land.   I'll throw in a few arguments you will no doubtedly hear a statist make so you can prepare your counter arguments. 

 

-  You can't have land without government regulation as you could poison drinking water or other water on your land that goes downstream to other people's land.  To regulate you must tax. 

 

- The government maintains the land for the wellbeing of the public as well as the environment(blm anyone). 

 

- You don't have a right to own the land and refuse a needed road or public edifice such as a hospital or school to be constructed. 

 

- You can't just build anything on the land without government permission, ensuring any construction have adequate safety measures for anyone you may allow on the premises. 

 

I still have to agree with Austin James that this should be simpler. It's better to argue on a moral level and much broader scale before you jump into these finer detailed arguments.  But you can count on hearing some of these if you are going to debate this.

[labmath2]

Power is justice

Government is God

Law is moral

 

This is what the motto of all government is. 

[thelizardking52]

You said, "taxation is theft because theft is the seizure of property by use or threat of force."

 

Not quite true. If someone AGREES on a contract and fails to pay for something or to provide a good or service that they were paid for, then their property can be taken by force with moral legitimacy. 

 

 

taxation being theft isn't the same thing as someone not holding their end of an agreement. When was the last time any of us agreed to the money confiscated from us under the guise of "paying taxes"?

 

additionally,  if you are not holding your end of an accord for a product or service you agreed upon then you must provide equitable refund or it is you that are breaking with NAP, not the person who tries to recover their lost money or goods.

[DSEngere]

taxation being theft isn't the same thing as someone not holding their end of an agreement. When was the last time any of us agreed to the money confiscated from us under the guise of "paying taxes"?additionally, if you are not holding your end of an accord for a product or service you agreed upon then you must provide equitable refund or it is you that are breaking with NAP, not the person who tries to recover their lost money or goods.

I agree completely

[ausppc]

I forgot to post this the first time...  If you don't want to fight the tax fight but still want to stick it to 'em, check out the affidavit of fear - http://marcstevens.net/projects/affidavitoffear/affidavit-of-fear.html

 

I just read a comment elsewhere that jogged my memory and it probably deserves its own thread but, for those having children and also having doubts about the true intentions of others insisting that you register the birth...  Wait a while.  Wait until you get that demanding, threatening letter in the mail - then you will have actual evidence of coercion to throw back in the face of anyone that claims you or your child consented to anything. 

[Anuojat]

In my experience "Taxation is theft" and "Faith is (self)delusion." Are the same regarding ones own convictions.

 

Reason i turned away from religion is because i saw that MY faith was simply self delusion that i was keeping up and nothign else.

 

"Why do you think taking money from me at gunpoint is good and virtuois and not simply theft?"

 

As soon as the person admits thats money is taken from you at gunpoint can you only work with all the more complex stuff.

If they do not, then just ask what happens if you dont pay.

 

And if they aftell all of that think deporting, threatenign or attacking you is totally cool. Dont waste your breath, other than to maybe point out that then theyre ok with violance as long as THEY agree with it.

 

"As long as I consent to force being used againts you its legit." Is what thigns really boil down to. ITs not about "arguements" its about them being content being in the cage with you.

[QueechoFeecho]

I tried to do this once, but then I looked up "theft" in the dictionary.  The definition of theft involves the word "illegal".  Taxation is legal, as it is specifically made allowable via the law.  Therefore taxation is NOT theft.  The only difference is that one is legal for a certain group of people to do, and the other is not legal for anyone to do.

[ausppc]

The law, aside from being Judge Dredd's porn name, is an opinion backed by a gun.  Whether theft, murder, rape, kidnapping...  be deemed legal or illegal makes no difference to the people victimised in these ways.  Try not to confuse legal with moral - allowing statist mind tricks to inform the perception of right and wrong leads people into labyrinthine bs. 

[Culain]

Facts don't matter in the face of culture, having more supporting points to prove that taxation is involuntary and the result- you be ready to be thrown in a cage or attacked if you disagree won't change this basic cultural stigma because they're so heavilly invested in keeping the delusion.

[ausppc]

To paraphrase: 'Taxation lacks the quality of illegality because the government does it and therefore isn't theft'. 

 

Someone's been getting their inspiration from Richard Nixon. 

[cobra2411]

There are two facets here. One, talking to normal people and two, trying to "beat them at their own game". The second one requires there to be an actual rule of law in order to have any hope at winning. While there may have been at some point, there isn't anymore. First, they won't give you proof or a get out of jail free card just because you've made the correct argument to them. Our current system is based on case law, so you'll have to go to court. To have standing in court you have to levy charges against someone or be the someone that charges are brought against. The latter is more common and the former, while doable, is extremely unlikely in this case. I think you'd have better luck winning the lotto. So now you are charged with some tax violation and you go into court armed with your Marc Steven's motion to dismiss and scripts questioning the judges authority and questioning the procedure and the judge rejects your motion and gives you the ultimatum "Question my authority or the courts procedures again and you'll find yourself in contempt of court". You may be 100% right on your original argument, but you violated a direct order from the judge and are now in jail. Good luck appealing that one. 

 

I'm not saying it can't be done, you just have to be willing to go to jail if you're wrong, you mess up or they simply ignore the rule of law. Ten years ago I would have been more supportive, but over the last 10 years I've been learning as much as I can and I've seen first hand that we no longer have a rule of law. Go to any court you want and just sit and watch. Before you do anything that may have legal consequences, go to that court and watch proceedings. Don't do it just once, do it many times. Then decided if you think you can enter the ring with the MMA style ultimate legal fighters. Again, I believe it can be done, but if you're going to play with tax law you're playing with very high stakes and can quickly find yourself in hell even if you do everything right. 

 

My solution: Re-evaluate your life and figure out what you truly need to be happy and only produce to that level. I used to think the fancy house in the suburbs with the fancy new car every couple of years was the answer - look how successful and happy I am! Now that I realized that's not me and it didn't lead to happiness I'm getting rid of all those things that aren't me and don't make me happy. In the end I should be able to reduce my income needs to 1/3rd of my former level. That includes selling the posh suburban home to get away from the property taxes. At least for now, they can't tax what you don't make, so by reducing my income I'm reducing theirs as well... I've got a friend who's got the ultimate deal in regards to reducing his income. He bought a used travel trailer and found a place where he can setup in the driveway behind the house. There's a sewer cleanout pipe for him to dump his waste and he hooks the hose up for his water line. He skirted the bottom of the trailer to get through the winter and for rent he maintains the yard and does some handyman work around the house. He does odd jobs here and there for food and that's it. It's a bit extreme, but if you really want to stick it to them that's a good way in my opinion. 

 

As for a watertight argument for other people? You can have the most watertight argument there is and people still won't accept it. You first have to get them to accept that government isn't out benevolent, all loving protector. Once they see the government for what it is, then they'll accept that taxation is theft by force no different than the mob getting it's protection money. 

[MrLovingKindness]

I too, would like to see an airtight argument for taxation = theft.

 

This guy:

 

is arguing that taxation does not equal theft, because participants in taxed transactions know in advance they are going to be taxed on the transaction and are thereby volunteering to be taxed by participating in the known-to-be-taxed-in-advance transactions.

 

It seems to me that the counter-argument would involve showing that a third party is using force to restrict the kinds of transactions two other parties can engage in, which while arguably immoral, doesn't seem to fall under what I think most people would consider theft.

[QueechoFeecho]

In order for it not to be theft there would have to be an option one could choose that doesn't render living a normal life relatively impossible.

[MrLovingKindness]

In order for it not to be theft there would have to be an option one could choose that doesn't render living a normal life relatively impossible.

 

I agree. In the Justicar's video I posted, he says that's still voluntary, if inconvenient, but then again I don't have to comply with the mugger either. It would just be inconvenient for me to do so, so I think the Justicar is wrong on this point. That said, arrogant affect aside, I have watched a number of the the Justicar's videos, and he makes (other) well reasoned arguments, but I do think he fell down on this one.

First though, we should make some definitions clear. Ownership of property means that it is YOURS, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you are not aggressing against others or violating some other contract that you agreed to (example: I own my windows and I can paint them pink UNLESS I have agreed with my homeowner’s association not to make my house look ridiculous).

 

It seems to me that painting your windows pink can be considered an act of aggression toward your neighbor, if it lowers the value of your neighbor's property, even without a prior agreement not to do that.

[Abolitionist]

 

First post btw.I too, would like to see an airtight argument for taxation = theft. This guy:

 is arguing that taxation does not equal theft, because participants in taxed transactions know in advance they are going to be taxed on the transaction and are thereby volunteering to be taxed by participating in the known-to-be-taxed-in-advance transactions. It seems to me that the counter-argument would involve showing that a third party is using force to restrict the kinds of transactions two other parties can engage in, which while arguably immoral, doesn't seem to fall under what I think most people would consider theft.

 Instead of a mugger I think the mafia is a better analogy. The mafia doesn't use violence directly like a mugger would (unless it has to, it mainly relies on threat, which is why its more profitable), but it leans on the store owner to pay protection money aka taxes. The store owner can say no and get killed or have its place burned down, windows constantly broken, or just have a guy in the mafia scare away customers. We know this is immoral and force. Whether the store owner agrees or not, the mafia is evil and trying to exert pressure to steal. And in the case of the state there is no higher authority to appeal to, at least with the mafia there are WPP's and police etc.We could also use the "What is justice?" argument from The Republic. Justice is paying your debts (taxes). So is it just, if a man lent you his knife, to give it back to him when he is going to kill someone? No obviously not. And we know the state kills people and uses the money to do evil. This argument would probably sink better into liberals while the previous would work better towards conservatives. Always make sure your arguments fit the person, you have to work with what they don't like already to show them how the state does evil against them. This means argue anti drug war and anti war to the liberals, and argue taxation and abortion and welfare to the conservatives. But yes, its still voluntary to give the knife back.Basically it is a choice. But regardless of it being a choice the state is evil because it will use violence against you. We accept the choice because it is the only way to get rid of the evil, by staying and fighting (mentally). So yes it is mutually beneficial to us, the business, and the state, to all work together. But the state is a violent parasite. It is evil. And we would be better off without it. This is why Stefan says "don't take up guns against the state" because you really can't win.I mean imagine if someone told abolitionists that they agree to slavery because they support it through taxes. Basically a Jew in a Nazi concentration camp using Nazi services, so they must support it and it must be good for them. The solution isn't to leave or to fight with violence, the solution is basically slave morality, since you are too weak and unable to fight, you must work in other ways to gain power.What are your choices? There are no countries to escape too. You can't go in the ocean or on it (although this is an idea and why offshore banks exist), you cant really go in nature because you are still on government land, you can't go to Antarctica or the moon because you can't survive. If you go black market that is the same because if you get caught then you risk violence by government (not to mention violence in black market). So there are no choices any sane person would pick (I know there are a few exceptions).I don't know how watertight this is, but I do think its voluntary to trade with taxes (I could be wrong), but the state is still evil and uses threats and force and is not necessary. So yes we choose to pay taxes so we can stay in society and someday have freedom for everyone including the 99% majority who wants to kill us for being peaceful.....

In this video he says "its unconscionability" due to power disparity between the state and the people, so we should use that argument. I'm really tired so I hope this makes sense.