Taxation is not theft because the government owns the land - Help with argument

[Sabras]

 

Let me use an analogy that I think will best get the point across. Think of taxes as like paying rent. The state owns the land and if you want to live on the land you must pay rent. The state is like a shopping centre (or shopping mall for my American readers). If you want to enter it you must agree to abide by its rules. If you refuse, you will be punished by the security guards. If you don’t like this shopping centre go to a different one instead. A libertarian may complain that this is unfair because no matter where they will go they will have to live in a state and therefore be subject to someone’s rules. But if you refuse to go to one shopping centre you still have to go to one somewhere. Likewise if we abolished the state, then no matter where you went you would still be one someone else’s private property and therefore subject to their rules.

 

 

I could use a good argument against the above.

 

The only thing that comes to my mind is the argument against "social contract" which we never signed.

 

I'd love to hear your take on this.

[Koroviev]

How/why does the government own the land?

[Mister Mister]

to own land you must develop the land, and compete through claimstaking/homesteading with other people who might want to own that land.  governments just draw lines on maps and claim taxes.  this is an arbitrary distinction in property rights, between the citizen, who has to work and produce, yet still owes everything to the state that it claims, and the government, who just gets to claim whatever it wants.  also, the discrepancy in enforcement is great.  if someone owes you money, it is not acceptable to send an army to their house.  but of course this is how the state enforces its debts.

however I will say its fascinating that a statist would admit that government owns everything.  I might add to the argument, the fact that governments not only tax people on land, but borrow against the future labor of people who will be born on that land.  So this implies that the government owns not only the land but the people who are born in that land.  Does this person agree with this as well?

[jpahmad]

tell them that people change the rules of the state all the time. There is nothing wrong with changing the rules, that's what politicians do everyday.  It's not like the rules are set in stone.  Isn't this what democracy is supposed to be all about?  You are simply proposing a new rule to be considered: no property taxes.  Then eventually, no income taxes.  Perhaps then you we could propose private police forces.

[Romulox]

however I will say its fascinating that a statist would admit that government owns everything.  I might add to the argument, the fact that governments not only tax people on land, but borrow against the future labor of people who will be born on that land.  So this implies that the government owns not only the land but the people who are born in that land.  Does this person agree with this as well?

 

I agree; usually that's the first argument against "love it or leave it".  The only person who can legitimately force you to leave an area is the owner; therefore the state owns the country.  In that sense, the statist is accurately describing the world we live in today, where every piece of land is "owned" by a state.  Usually, when you point this out and relate it back to communism, people think twice.  But I find it incredibly odd that this person started with that argument. 

 

This argument basically claims that whoever has the most guns is the legitimate owner of the land.  Is the person you quoted a friend?  If so, next time you go over his house, make sure to take a couple of guns with you and then go raid his fridge, or maybe walk out the door with his tv.  If he complains, simply point out that you are applying his standards in a universal manner, and you are the legitimate owner of his property now. 

 

Also check out the "But You Can Just Leave" thread from not too long ago.  You'll find some similar arguments there. 

[dsayers]

"The State" is a concept and concepts can't own property.

[David Ottinger]

 

 

I could use a good argument against the above.

 

The only thing that comes to my mind is the argument against "social contract" which we never signed.

 

I'd love to hear your take on this.

 

 

 

Given you're asking for help, I take it you don't think your argument is a valid counter argument.  Why is that?   And, don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you for asking for help, or anything of the sort.  What I'm trying to understand is why are you so certain he is wrong and you are right when you're lacking an argument? 

 

 

And, to clarify my perspective a bit more:  When I present my anti-thesis of the state, I am met with a lot of knee-jerk reactions  -- none of which are arguments.  Their comments are simply disdain disguised as an argument.  And, in order to argue against someone's position, an individual is required to understand the premise as well as the logic that leads the given debator to his/her conclusion.  After all, how else can one argue against something if he/she does not understand the other persons position?

 

 

You cannot.  And given that we can never be omniscient, the best method to overcoming this dilemma in the future is to use the Socratic method. 

 

So, I hope you understand my reluctancy to just hand the rebuttal over to you.

[Sabras]

http://whistlinginthewind.org/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft/

 

Here is the source guys.

Given you're asking for help, I take it you don't think your argument is a valid counter argument.  Why is that?   And, don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you for asking for help, or anything of the sort.  What I'm trying to understand is why are you so certain he is wrong and you are right when you're lacking an argument? 

 

 

And, to clarify my perspective a bit more:  When I present my anti-thesis of the state, I am met with a lot of knee-jerk reactions  -- none of which are arguments.  Their comments are simply disdain disguised as an argument.  And, in order to argue against someone's position, an individual is required to understand the premise as well as the logic that leads the given debator to his/her conclusion.  After all, how else can one argue against something if he/she does not understand the other persons position?

 

 

You cannot.  And given that we can never be omniscient, the best method to overcoming this dilemma in the future is to use the Socratic method. 

 

So, I hope you understand my reluctancy to just hand the rebuttal over to you.

 

 

Those are some very good points, you are absolutely right, I should not assume that the other person is wrong without having a valid argument myself.

 

I guess I have heard some excellent rebuttals to the argument made by this person, I just cannot remember.

[dsayers]

I guess I have heard some excellent rebuttals to the argument made by this person, I just cannot remember.

Holler as you think of them. I haven't found one that withstands rigorous analysis.

[Will Torbald]

http://whistlinginthewind.org/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft/

 

Here is the source guys.

 

This article is a goldmine of sophistry.

 

 

The very notion of property is dependent on the state.

 

Taxes are a payment to support civilisation and avoid a descent into anarchy.

 

[Libertarians] act as though, I and I alone earned my wage and therefore it belongs to no one else.

 

If taxation really was theft, then such a party would easily win a landslide and could promptly end the theft.

 

It is not theft if you receive something in return.

 

Taxes are no more theft than rent is extortion.

 

Our common humanity unites us and means that the suffering of others is our suffering too.

 

In reality, libertarians do not truly object to coercion or taxes, they only object to the government doing so. 

 

If the government was replaced by a private landlord, there would just as much coercion and arbitrary rules, without any of the democratic rights we currently have.

 

Boy, that last one is a real killing joke. But I think this is the core of the statist myth. The real jugular vein that drives the molasses:

 

 

[Libertarianism] That is not a political ideology but a mental problem called sociopathology. We do have responsibilities to others in society and the government exists to enforce them.

[Sabras]

So, let's assume there are no good arguments which hold, does that mean that the argument that state owns the land therefore we have to pay is correct?

 

It is a hard cookie to break, that's why I thought that collectively we could conjure up some good arguments

[dsayers]

does that mean that the argument that state owns the land therefore we have to pay is correct?

Pardon my ambiguity. No argument FOR the State as righteous holds. Saying the State owns all the land is not an argument because concepts owning anything isn't an accurate description of the real world. It's the injection of fantasy into an examination of what is true.

 

Does Obama own the US for example? If so, how did he come to acquire it? Can he own the land I live on, as well as Ohio, and the county, and the city simultaneously? What about the fact that most of these rules were in place before he was even born? Or that people magically consent just by being born?

 

The interesting part is that by making this claim, the person is basically conceding that consent IS a requisite. Then they try to redefine ownership to imply your consent is a given. Which makes the extra mistake of saying consent isn't implicit and intentional.

[thebeardslastcall]

There's no difference between a King claiming rule over land and taxing it by force and a government, which is basically just a group of lords, claiming right to rule lands. Fact that the players are a bit more in number and shifting and people get voted for just obscures that it's still the same immoral game. Them 'giving' you a vote for some limited scope within their rule is irrelevant, as if a King letting you vote on your dinner meal gives them the legitimization to own and rule you. Common democracies are no more legit than kings and they're way more insane due to all the competition for power and division of power. Governments 'own' in the same way successful thieves 'own' what they've got.

[DaVinci]

Historically borders are where war lords ran up against one another. Does the fact these borders still exist even make sense? Why are people born today subject to dotted lines on paper drawn hundreds, or thousands of years ago? 

[Waffles]

Historically borders are where war lords ran up against one another. Does the fact these borders still exist even make sense? Why are people born today subject to dotted lines on paper drawn hundreds, or thousands of years ago?

 

Yeah, but culture is a thing, and different populations are different, and still are. However I think it's important to note that geopolitical power is slowly (or not so slowly) disintegrating with the rise of the global economy and market economy. Borders just don't mean as much as they used to, especially with the new existence of the world wide web.

 

On a somewhat relevant note, possession is ten tenths of the law. Ownership is the ability to use, and the current states have ownership because we consent to it by actually paying taxes, and following laws. We don't actually have to obey, but they don't want you to know that, its bad for business. So geopolitical entities exist because the populous allows it, but I think the growing dominance of the market economy will eventually empower the people to break the monopoly on governing by legitimizing another provider. This is essentially what lots of organized crime is, alternate governing providers.

[dsayers]

current states have ownership because we consent to it by actually paying taxes, and following laws.

Saying we consent is begging the question. Saying we follow commands backed by threats of violence is proof of consent is the opposite of the truth. A rape victim might choose not to fight and scream so as to not escalate their rape to a murder, but that isn't consent.

[Agalloch]

I checked my Title Deeds, no mention of Mr Goveernment on there. Debunked.

[David Ottinger]

I'll break down the article:  http://whistlinginthewind.org/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft/

 

 

Just as all political debates inevitably end with someone making a Hitler comparison, all debates with libertarians sooner or later involve the claim that taxation is theft. It doesn’t matter whether you are discussing the welfare state, universal healthcare or a TV licence, at some point a libertarian will accuse the government of acting like the mafia and stealing people’s money (just the last day a commenter asked me to “stop promoting the use of force against me or my family“, by which he meant don’t regulate bitcoin). Of course we all know this argument is melodramatic hyperbole, but it would be useful to spell out why.

 

 

 

 

Governing according to the rule of law is a commitment to governing according to sound moral theories.  And, a grievance is a moral objection to a piece of legislation.  "Taxation is theft," is an accusation that expresses a grievance.  And, in the first paragraph, this writer is claiming that the particular grievance is without merit.  But, he doesn't just do that.  He outright mocks it thereby belittling anyone who expresses such objection.  Personally, I'm glad that he's so confident in his standing, but let's see if he's on solid ground.

 

 

Let me use an analogy that I think will best get the point across. (1) Think of taxes as like paying rent. (2) The state owns the land and if you want to live on the land you must pay rent. The state is like a shopping centre (or shopping mall for my American readers). If you want to enter it you must agree to abide by its rules. If you refuse, you will be punished by the security guards. If you don’t like this shopping centre go to a different one instead. A libertarian may complain that this is unfair because no matter where they will go they will have to live in a state and therefore be subject to someone’s rules. But if you refuse to go to one shopping centre you still have to go to one somewhere. (3) Likewise if we abolished the state, then no matter where you went you would still be one someone else’s private property and therefore subject to their rules.

 

 

(1) Why would I assume consent?

 

(2) Given that all ownership is a claim of right, by what right does the state own the land?  (i.e. de facto vs de jure)  Also, who or what is the state?

 

(3) What relevance does 'private vs public realm' have in an anarchy?  By what right am I subject to their rules?  In other words, how was my sovereignty surrendered when I stepped upon another's land? 

 

 

 

So far, we have a false analogy. 

 

 

(4) It is not theft if you receive something in return. If someone steals my car, that is theft. If I have to sell my car in order to pay my rent, that is not theft. (5) Libertarians sometimes act as though taxes disappear into a black hole and are never seen again. (6) In reality, we receive from the government protection and a commitment to justice. We also receive education, healthcare, transportation, safe food, employment protection and enforcement of contracts. There is also redistribution and welfare in the event of sickness, poverty and old age. So libertarians make the bizarre argument that the government is a thief who gives more than he steals (due to economic inequality most people receive more than they pay in taxes).

 

 

 

 

(4)  No, when I lose possession of property without my consent, it is theft.  Even if the thief returns the property, that does not absolve him/her of the transgression.  In short, the write is making a false equivalence because he assumes consent is a factor of the exchange. 

 

 

(5) This is a good example of what real melodramatic hyperbole looks like. 

 

 

(6)  The writer is setting up and buying into a false dilemma whereby these services and commitments cannot exist without the government.  And, because of this false dilemma coupled with the false analogy, the writer cannot see that what libertarians are arguing in favor of is the ability to withdraw economic consent thereby leading to better services. 

 

 

(7) Furthermore, what sort of thief lets you decide how your money is spent or how much he takes? If I told a car thief that myself and the neighbours had decided that he shouldn’t take my car, would he listen? Yet the government is subject to the will of the people. We choose whether we want our taxes to be higher or lower when we vote. (8) Based on the failure of libertarians to win elections, most people seem quite content with taxation. There’s nothing stopping a libertarian party from being set up and winning an election. If taxation really was theft, then such a party would easily win a landslide and could promptly end the theft. A key element of the definition of theft is that the victim does not consent to it. But if people do not vote for parties that promise to reduce taxes, but instead for parties that keep taxes at the current level, then must not consider themselves the victims of theft. They must consent to taxes.

 

 

(7)  Anthropomorphizing the state like this is leading to the writers confusion as to the nature of the dilemma.  If the writer was willing to acknowledge that a tyranny of the majority is possible and a valid threat to moral governance, then maybe we could have ourselves some real discourse instead of this constant mockery of other people's grievances.  So, again, we have ourselves a false equivalence because the state has no agency as it is a fictitious entity, albeit a legal fiction, but nonetheless a fiction. 

 

(8)  Why must someone first consent to a system in order to withdraw economic consent?  That logic does not follow.  That means what I'm really doing is trading all my economic buying power for a single currency, and that currency being a vote.  No, I refuse to *subject* myself and my property to the whims of a mob.  And, when you and your mob decide to use force to get me to surrender my property by calling it taxes, you have engaged in economic conquest against your fellow human beings.  I do not care how many people stand with you, no one has the right to achieve ends by might.   Any group that does that is not upholding justice; i.e. any such group is not committed to the rule of law.  Instead, that group is governing according to rule by might.  Hence, why the tyranny of the majority is a real threat.  Meaning: just because something is NOT voted into power, that doesn't mean it is absent of moral legitimacy.  This sort of moral relativism simply leads to a system of order that is arbitrary.  Mob rule is not rule of law.
 

 

 

(9) But a libertarian would argue that they never agreed to this. Even if they receive more than they pay, they never consented to pay anything. (10) But that is an implicit part of citizenship. Being a citizen comes with rights and responsibilities. You have a right to protection and certain services but also a responsibility to pay for these services. You have a right to vote but a responsibility to accept the result even if your party does not win. Sure I never consented to being a citizen of Ireland, but then again I never consented to capitalism either. I never agreed to live in a society with either democracy or private property. I never agreed to elections being held every five years or the current distribution of property. Do we have to have a social revolution every time someone disagrees with the way things are? The fact is that there are lots of things we never agreed to, but have to live with. We have to live under some sort of political and economic system that will be to some extent arbitrary, but it simply isn’t feasible to have everyone make up their own rules.

 

 

 

(9) Yes, a libertarian would rightfully protest this legal standing, i.e. that the state has legal right to seize property, by pointing out that explicit consent has not been achieved thereby alluding to the unlawful nature of the act called taxes.  What is happening is that consent is assumed just as this writer has been doing this whole time.  

 

(10)  No, consent is not implicit.  This is an unconscionable bargain as no individual in his/her right mind would willfully surrender his/her sovereignty for citizenship (a lesser legal standing) or for protection or any other services because any such lesser legal standing is not necessary for the performance thereof.  Any such standing simply restricts my right of contract by putting it in the hands of another.  And, should I ever desire to delegate my right of contract to another, then all I need is a power of attorney.  The abdication of my sovereignty is never necessary except by those who dare to engage in acts of conquest.  I reserve the full right of contract.  That is my natural right.  Understanding the difference between natural rights and legal rights is an imperative.  But, statism indoctrinates people into believing that the state is some higher power therefore has authority to subjugate others simply because they were born or stepped upon these lands, except it is all fiction.  No man is under the legal decree (i.e. juris-diction) of another.  However, everyone is subject to natural law.  So, it's not possible to simply make up my own rules.  That's not how logic and reason works. 

 

The problem with most libertarian arguments is that it assumes we have only rights but no responsibilities. It assumes that we have no duties to the poor, the sick, the elderly or even to children. If a man was starving and a libertarian had two loaves of bread, he wouldn’t share it with the man unless he felt like it. That is not a political ideology but a mental problem called sociopathology. We do have responsibilities to others in society and the government exists to enforce them. Our common humanity unites us and means that the suffering of others is our suffering too. We cannot rest easy if the streets outside our house are full of destitute. A libertarian world would be a cold and empty one, where people sit alone counting their money, blind to poverty, hunger and misery.

 

 

 

'Duties' are the product of contract. They are not to be confused with moral obligations.  What the writer is attempting to assert is that everyone has the moral obligation to end the suffering of others thereby claiming that each individual is responsible for the circumstances of others.  But, how can I be held responsible for the circumstances of others if I do not have to be responsible for my own circumstances?   It's a contradiction.  Also, this perspective is just factually incorrect.  I (or anyone for that matter) cannot possibly be responsible for the circumstances of others because I did not create those general circumstances.  Such circumstances are simply the product of life and one's own choices.  Overall, that is to say that no one has the natural right to have his/her survival needs met.  Suffering is simply a fact of nature.  Nature does not guarantee anyone happiness.

 

And recognizing that this is the way life is does not make people sociopaths.  It makes them realistic.  And appeals to emotions like, "Libertarians don't have a heart," does not address reality. 

 

 

 

Libertarians make the mistake of thinking of people as isolated individuals isolated from the rest of the world. They act as though, I and I alone earned my wage and therefore it belongs to no one else. In reality, we are hugely dependent on others and society. Would we earn anywhere near enough money if we did not have public roads, education, health, energy etc? I did not create everything myself, but instead built on the work of previous generations and worked alongside other members of society. No man is an island and there is no such thing as a self-made person, in reality we are standing on the shoulders of giants. We got to where we are today due to in large parts due to the society we live in, so it is only fair that we pay something to support it. If you don’t believe me, compare your life to what it would be if you lived in a Third World country? Isn’t it worth paying to avoid that?

 

And, here is that false dilemma I mentioned earlier, being:  X cannot exist without government.  Basically the writer cannot distinguish society from government.  More importantly, the writer has stopped dealing with what libertarians think and has instead decided to tell them what they think. 

 

 

 

In reality, libertarians do not truly object to coercion or taxes, they only object to the government doing so. If a private landlord compelled people to live by onerous rules about drugs, guns and religion, libertarians would have no problem. Yet when the government does the same thing, libertarians are up in arms crying oppression. If a starving man agreed to work for half the normal wages because otherwise he would die, a libertarian praises the free market. If a man has to pay half his wages in taxes without which he would die, a libertarian is outraged. Every abuse of government power that libertarians rail against would still occur in a libertarian society, the only difference would be that it would be even worse. If the government was replaced by a private landlord, there would just as much coercion and arbitrary rules, without any of the democratic rights we currently have. The very notion of property is dependent on the state, without which we would be reduced the endless strife and the rule of the strongest. Taxes are a payment to support civilisation and avoid a descent into anarchy.

 

 

False equivalence.  The landlord doesn't have a real-estate monopoly.  The government does.  In the former, people have recourse.  In the latter, people only have the illusion of recourse. 

 

 

Theft is the taking of assets of from people without their consent and giving nothing in return. Taxes on the other hand are consented to by citizens (as seen by their continual support for taxation parties and their refusal to vote for libertarian parties or move to tax havens) in exchange for services. Citizens choose the level of these taxes and where they go as well as consenting to abide by majority rule if their preferred option is not selected. Taxes are no more theft than rent is extortion, by living in that location we are agreeing to abide by its rules and pay the charges. If we don’t agree we can either change the rules or move.

 

 

So, the writer concludes by redefining theft by including an absolution clause; i.e. you're absolved of theft if you return something.  He omits the grievances of the minority by holding that the majority has authority to dictate rules.   So, I suppose if you asked this guy, "How many people does it take to make god real?" His answer would be, "The majority.  And if you don't like it, you can leave."   Although, the Protestants already did this, but I guess some people have difficulty seeing the parallels in that sort of reasoning, or rather lack of reasoning.

 

 

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I checked my Title Deeds, no mention of Mr Goveernment on there. Debunked.

 

Statist Against Selfist

 

Mr. Government protects your title against people who have insufficient claims against your property rights.  If I think I can take a shortcut through your yard to get to my house, who do you call to have me arrested for trespassing?

[Agalloch]

Statist Against Selfist

 

Mr. Government protects your title against people who have insufficient claims against your property rights.  If I think I can take a shortcut through your yard to get to my house, who do you call to have me arrested for trespassing?

Really? You'd call the Government because someone walked through your garden. That's some seriously adult conflict resolution and social skills you're bragging about there.

[Mister Mister]

Statist Against Selfist

 

Mr. Government protects your title against people who have insufficient claims against your property rights.  If I think I can take a shortcut through your yard to get to my house, who do you call to have me arrested for trespassing?

There's no evidence to suggest that government is good at protecting your property.  I'm guessing you've never had to call the cops about a property crime, or had to go to court over a dispute.  And since the government takes your property by force in order to protect your property, the burden is on you my friend, to prove that governments are the only and best way to protect property.

[David Ottinger]

So, let's assume there are no good arguments which hold, does that mean that the argument that state owns the land therefore we have to pay is correct?

 

It is a hard cookie to break, that's why I thought that collectively we could conjure up some good arguments

 

 

Hopefully my above posts gives you some ideas to think about. 

[Carl Green]

where's the contract that was signed by both entities agreeing on a payment for services?

[shirgall]

where's the contract that was signed by both entities agreeing on a payment for services?

 

And the consideration in both directions...

 

"Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consideration

[Sabras]

Hopefully my above posts gives you some ideas to think about. 

 

You have dismantles and crushed the arguments from the article. *respect*

[Anuojat]

"Theft is the taking of assets of from people without their consent and giving nothing in return."

 

After reading those lasts words of his defination of theft i had to stop just to say:

 

Stop referring to your parents again!

 

Seriously, he does this continually with "rights and responceabilities" and "you consent by staying" and "It is not theft if you receive something in return."

 

And most strikingly: "In reality, we receive from the government protection and a commitment to justice. We also receive education, healthcare, transportation, safe food, employment protection and enforcement of contracts."

 

I know theres no direct evidence, but based on everything ive learned and we have talked about in podcasts and on forums and with other FDR member and theraphists read books on psycology and how we know the defence of state begins in childhood trough parents and teachers, i will bet to eat my hat that this is EXACTLY what the person is emotionally and subchounchessly referring to.

[RotYeti]

Even if the government owned the land, the only thing that would justify is removing people at will, not imprisoning or killing people for breaking laws.