How Taxation is Not Theft

[MysterionMuffles]

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

 

Any thoughts on this? I'm still mulling it over myself on how to refute it or if there's any arguments possibly worth accepting. What do you guys think?

[DCLugi]

It assumes legitimate ownership by government and consent by citizenship without showing either. Just saying you're already god's child doesn't make it so.

[Gabranth]

I would ask them to point to any one person that actually owns this land in is entirety.

 

It's not like renting at all, because you may still have to pay taxes even if you do not live in the country taxing you. Imagine if a private land owner tried that! 

 

Also, getting things in return is irrelevant to the definition of theft. As long as the definition is met, anything extra is irrelevant and does not magically change the fact that its still theft. If I steal a persons purse or wallet and give them back a nickel. According to their logic, its not theft anymore. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The state doesn't own the land. Landlords do own their land. The state is forcing you to pay for their service. landlords are not. 

[dsayers]

Rent is chosen. It is consented to in advance.

[EuanM]

If you read all the way though carefully, there's no actual argument, just a series of assertions and dubious (I think we would all agree false) analogies. Rent is just because the people charging it have just title to property they are charging rent for and because of explicit agreements with those they are collecting the rent from. The state has no just title to anything and does not usually seek explicit agreement with the people it is taxing, therefor the comparison made is fallacious. 

 

If rent and taxation (and by implication private property and the state) are synonymous then why are we not demanding the abolition of rent, as theft? Some people do believe that private property is theft, they're called socialists; so the question for the author of the piece is if rent and taxation are equatable then why are the movements to resist them (Socialist and Libertarian) not allied (instead of being at odds with each other and more or less opposites)? The fact that the people claiming that the two are synonymous are different people should tell the author that he has made a mistake somewhere when he equates the two. 

[nixy]

The state doesn't own the land. Landlords do own their land. The state is forcing you to pay for their service. landlords are not. 

But surely it is only the state (or more precisely, state officials) that give legitimacy to 'landlords' 'ownership' of 'their' land

?

 

edit:-   Of course, when I say 'state officials' ...... I meant to say 'some people'.

[dsayers]

But surely it is only the state (or more precisely, state officials) that give legitimacy to 'landlords' 'ownership' of 'their' land

?

This is provably false, but also fails to infinite regression. By this standard, who then imparts legitimacy to those state officials? Then who gave legitimacy to those people... and so on.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

But surely it is only the state (or more precisely, state officials) that give legitimacy to 'landlords' 'ownership' of 'their' land

?

 

edit:-   Of course, when I say 'state officials' ...... I meant to say 'some people'.

 

Unless the landlords stole the property, no. Property is created. People often conflate property with something like homesteaded land. 

[nixy]

This is provably false, but also fails to infinite regression. By this standard, who then imparts legitimacy to those state officials? Then who gave legitimacy to those people... and so on.

You are right ..... Sorry, I worded it clumsily. I tried to clarify with the edit ...... the state having no legitimacy..... it is just some people reliant solely upon violence. 

 

...and this is the problem..... even I can not get the terms correct..... have to chose words more carefully.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

It assumes legitimate ownership by government and consent by citizenship without showing either. Just saying you're already god's child doesn't make it so.

And the support for capitalism assumes legitimacy of the capital owners and the consent of the wage laborers. While this is perhaps more voluntary than the citizen/government relationship, it's still not very voluntary.

 

The state doesn't own the land. Landlords do own their land. The state is forcing you to pay for their service. landlords are not.

This seems like natural rights mysticism to me. How can you say someone doesn't own something when they successfully defend their property right? And likewise in what way does someone own something which they fail to defend? Asserting that human slaves owned themselves did nothing to the fact that they were de facto property of other humans, it required defensive action to acquire their self-ownership.

 

Rent is chosen. It is consented to in advance.

About as much as citizenship is chosen in advance.

 

Your decision to stay and be subject to taxes is almost as voluntary as a tenant or “wage slave” deciding to stay at their job despite poor working conditions (or whatever they may dislike about that job). Certainly leaving a nation is harder than leaving a job, and there are many more competing employers than competing nations. But would this imply that if there were simply more nations with more fluid borders that taxation would become voluntary? No, just a bit more voluntary than it currently is.

 

If rent and taxation (and by implication private property and the state) are synonymous then why are we not demanding the abolition of rent, as theft? Some people do believe that private property is theft, they're called socialists;

Libertarians and anarchists used to be against rents. See: Benjamin Tucker's Four Monopolies as well as all other early libertarians influenced by Proudhon and the likes. Only in recent decades have libertarians come to fetishize capitalism, likely due to American indoctrination, same reason people are so religious and patriotic.

[dsayers]

Your decision to stay and be subject to taxes is almost as voluntary as a tenant or “wage slave” deciding to stay at their job

Nope. People enter into jobs voluntarily. Also, nice try at poisoning the well by assuming that "deciding to stay" is both a behavior and coupled with "being subjected to taxes." Which is just a way of concealing the aggression of theft.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This seems like natural rights mysticism to me. How can you say someone doesn't own something when they successfully defend their property right? And likewise in what way does someone own something which they fail to defend? Asserting that human slaves owned themselves did nothing to the fact that they were de facto property of other humans, it required defensive action to acquire their self-ownership.

 

What it seems like is irrelevant. I've never said someone doesn't own something when they've successfully defended their property right. I'm not even sure what that means.

 

If a woman fails to defend the property of her vagina does she then not own it? 

 

Slaves where effectively stolen property.  The fact that we can distinguish slaves from employees is itself proof of the objective nature of self-ownership and as such the objective nature of property. 

 

You don't acquire self-ownership through defending your self-ownership. That's clearly retarded. 

 

Smarten up.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Nope. People enter into jobs voluntarily. Also, nice try at poisoning the well by assuming that "deciding to stay" is both a behavior and coupled with "being subjected to taxes." Which is just a way of concealing the aggression of theft.

Just the same as how people become/remain citizens "voluntarily", that was my point... besides the fact that there are more competing landlords and employers than competing nations, what's the significant difference?

 

And taxation is aggression (though not theft), I'm not trying to conceal that.

 

What it seems like is irrelevant. I've never said someone doesn't own something when they've successfully defended their property right. I'm not even sure what that means.

You don't know what it means yet you're sure you didn't say it?

 

You said the state doesn't own the land. Meaning that you don't believe they own something of which they've made a property claim they have successfully defended. This is likely because you have some mystical criteria for what true property is, though I'm not sure.

 

If a woman fails to defend the property of her vagina does she then not own it?

Of course not. If neither her nor any social body or legal organization aren't capable/willing to defend it, she has no property right. Whether it's her vagina or something else.

 

Slaves where effectively stolen property.  The fact that we can distinguish slaves from employees is itself proof of the objective nature of self-ownership and as such the objective nature of property.

Or... the fact that you can distinguish the two means you find one form of slavery acceptable. Even if Marxists were to agree that wage slavery is preferable to chattel slavery, it doesn't mean that they recognize any sort of self-ownership. I have no idea how you make the leap to this "objective" conclusion. It's almost like you don't understand that people disagree with the foundations of your arguments.

 

Something isn't "stolen" if it's written in the enforced law that it's a justified property claim. It would be considered stolen only if you could convince everyone else and have your claim enforced/protected.

 

You don't acquire self-ownership through defending your self-ownership. That's clearly retarded.

Property ownership is a claim, something you're asserting. If you fail to assert it by being overpowered, then in what way are you an owner?

[dsayers]

Just the same as how people become/remain citizens "voluntarily",

Already refuted. I didn't choose to be born here. Also, if you say I have to move, then you are conceding that it is not voluntary.

 

Test your theory. Walk up to the next person you see and punch them in the face. When they press charges for assault, tell the judge that they are free to stay at greater than arm's length, so clearly it was voluntary.

[Mister Mister]

in common law there are generally accepted homesteading principles with regards to ownership of land - specifically, you have to enclose land, and develop it, OR have it transferred from someone else who owns it.  the government doesn't adhere to these principles, it just draws lines on maps and says MINE.  Oftentimes, no one from the government has even set foot on the land in question when they seize it.  So, if this is a legitimate form of owning land, the government should allow it for you or me.  I should be able to draw a circle on a map in the forest in Montana, plant a flag in it, and start taxing everyone who lives within those lines...what do you think the government would to?  I do think it is interesting to hear a statist concede that governments own all the land however.

 

his second point is "it's not theft if you receive something in return".  That's fascinating.  Again, if it is just for them to do, it should be just for all of us.  Try washing your neighbors car, and stealing $20 from his house.  How would the government respond?

 

The third point about how we get to choose how the money is spent, is hugely problematic.  let's say we accept that: it only makes any kind of sense in a Republic, when only those who pay into the system have a vote, and the government cannot perpetually run deficits.  but if we accept his premise, the fact that nearly half of voters take more out of the system than they pay into it, AND that future generations are forced to pay for the debt which was borrowed to spend money they never voted on, still makes the system entirely illegitimate and unjust.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Already refuted. I didn't choose to be born here. Also, if you say I have to move, then you are conceding that it is not voluntary.

 I didn't choose to be born into my rental property and HOA. My parents did that (just like your ancestors "voluntarily" immigrated here. When I grew up I decided to move out. You have decided to stay (in the country), right?

Test your theory. Walk up to the next person you see and punch them in the face. When they press charges for assault, tell the judge that they are free to stay at greater than arm's length, so clearly it was voluntary.

How in the world is that my theory? I'm saying that both landlordism and statism is aggression. Neither your rents nor your citizenship are voluntary. If anything, your scenario is more relevant to your own position: that it's somehow voluntary for a vagrant to be compelled to live on other people's land, working for others using rented tools belonging to others. Because somehow it's libertarian for people to amass capital over generations so they can exploit those born without and lend things to them for exorbitant amounts of labor.

[labmath2]

Already refuted. I didn't choose to be born here. Also, if you say I have to move, then you are conceding that it is not voluntary.

 

Test your theory. Walk up to the next person you see and punch them in the face. When they press charges for assault, tell the judge that they are free to stay at greater than arm's length, so clearly it was voluntary.

There is something to be said for the moral case vs the prsctical application.

 

I had this discussion with my brother and he posited something interesting.

Imagine an homeowner who has a sign above his home saying "all who enter may be raped by owner." Does that affect the rape in any way? While the sign cannot create consent, it changes the rape in some conceptual sense. It at least leaves the victim somewhat blamewordy for being raped.

So at least for immigrants, taxation as theft may no not be a valid position. For natives is whete it gets complex.

 

Lets imagine the rapist homeowner who owns multiple houses. He has sign on all of them saying "all who enter may ne raped by owner." Fortunately for a young unattractive couple it makes the house substantially cheaper than all surrounding homes (they are not exactly afraid of being raped). They have a daughter in the house. One day after her 18th birthday they come home to find the landlord raping their daughter. No one contests the immorality of such act, but you have this clause that mitigates his actions.

 

I know this is by no means a very realistic thought experiment, but i think it helps understand those whose objection hinges on avoidability. Its not about someone cold clocking you out of no where when you step into arms length. Its about someone that has a sign saying he may/will punch any who come within arms length, then delivering on that promise.

[dsayers]

You have decided to stay (in the country), right?

Already covered in my first reply to you. Talking in circles will not alter reality. Inaction is not action and "choosing to stay" is not concentric with "choosing to be stolen from."

 

Neither your rents nor your citizenship are voluntary.

You've been arguing that citizenship IS voluntary. Also, rent is voluntary. You have no criteria by which you're basing your random claims, so we are done here. Thanks for just repeating things you've heard other people say.

[ObserveandReport]

Theoretically, one could justly acquire (buy, inherit, or homestead) a vast swath of land. A part of living on this land would be signing an agreement to pay something like a property tax. Additionally, to continue living on the land you might be subject to further taxes if approved by a homeowners association you become a part of by living there and signing on. If all of this is in the contracts and more or less explicit, you could get something that looks very similar to a state. However, it would be entirely voluntary. Other than this, what are some differences which may always exist between a private construction and a state or is the voluntary aspect the only necessary difference?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Inaction is not action and "choosing to stay" is not concentric with "choosing to be stolen from."

I never said inaction is action. Are YOU saying that inaction is not a choice? I fail to see how action could be considered a choice if inaction isn't. Mind you this is independent from the idea that the choice is voluntary, most choices aren't.

You've been arguing that citizenship IS voluntary.

Then you're not even reading what I'm saying. You likely have your fingers lodged in your ears too, pathetic. If you're going to bother replying to me, at least read first. Tell me where I said citizenship is voluntary. Here's what I said:

 

"Your decision to stay and be subject to taxes is almost as voluntary as a tenant or “wage slave” deciding to stay at their job"

 

This is to say that both aren't voluntary (and nearly equally so), though like I said, citizenship is less voluntary than being a tenant or wage laborer.

 

Also, rent is voluntary. You have no criteria by which you're basing your random claims, so we are done here. Thanks for just repeating things you've heard other people say.

Of course I have a criteria. Though notice how you don't even ask what it is and imply that I'm just repeating things. It's almost like you prefer to hold to your dogma than be faced with opposing perspective, which is why I initially compared this capitalist fetishism to religious folk.

 

Something (e.g. rent and taxation) is categorically involuntary when it systematically limits your available options, compelling you to make a decision you wouldn't make in the absence of these external influences. I'm curious why you think rent isn't applicable here, or perhaps you use some other definition of "voluntary"?

[Fleedoom]

Taxation is extortion under the threat of theft, violance and caging. But as slaves there is NOTING we can do. If we protest the hammer WILL come down. I would love to hear solutions to reducing taxation that actually would work.

[dsayers]

I never said inaction is action.

 

Every baby that isn't actively leaving a country is consenting to theft according to you multiple times.

 

Are YOU saying that inaction is not a choice?

 

No. The real world tells us that things cannot be themselves and the opposite of themselves simultaneously.

 

the idea that the choice is voluntary, most choices aren't.

 

Then it's not a choice.

Something (e.g. rent and taxation) is categorically involuntary when it systematically limits your available options, compelling you to make a decision you wouldn't make in the absence of these external influences.

 

Vague language to conceal the sophistry.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You don't know what it means yet you're sure you didn't say it?

 

You said the state doesn't own the land. Meaning that you don't believe they own something of which they've made a property claim they have successfully defended. This is likely because you have some mystical criteria for what true property is, though I'm not sure.

 

I don't know what you're talking about? What is the argument here?

 

 

 

Of course not. If neither her nor any social body or legal organization aren't capable/willing to defend it, she has no property right. Whether it's her vagina or something else.

 

Okay so who owns it in that case? 

 

 

 

Or... the fact that you can distinguish the two means you find one form of slavery acceptable. Even if Marxists were to agree that wage slavery is preferable to chattel slavery, it doesn't mean that they recognize any sort of self-ownership. I have no idea how you make the leap to this "objective" conclusion. It's almost like you don't understand that people disagree with the foundations of your arguments.

 

Something isn't "stolen" if it's written in the enforced law that it's a justified property claim. It would be considered stolen only if you could convince everyone else and have your claim enforced/protected.

 

No the fact you can distinguish between the two is that one is voluntary and the other is coercion. 

Why do I care what Marxists think? I do understand that people disagree with the foundations of my arguments. That's why I'm on a philosophy board debating those foundations. 

 

 

 

Something isn't "stolen" if it's written in the enforced law that it's a justified property claim. It would be considered stolen only if you could convince everyone else and have your claim enforced/protected.

 

You equivocated on "stolen" here. You used the concept in two different senses. In the first sentence you said "something isn't stolen" and then in the the second sentence (in the same context) said "be considered stolen". But whether something is stolen because people consider it stolen whether stolen is objective regardless of what other people think is at least partly what's being debated. 

 

If I steal the use of your vagina then that's rape. It's rape whether or not everyone is convinced of something. Property is objective. 

 

 

 

Property ownership is a claim, something you're asserting. If you fail to assert it by being overpowered, then in what way are you an owner?

 

I don't know what failed to assert by being overpowered means. You keep browbeating everyone with your notion of property/ownership. I get it. You think property/ownership is a social construct. Got it. Make an argument or go away. 

[labmath2]

I just thought of the perfect example to resolve this problem. Look up China's factory towns. Are the children of the factory workers bound by the rules of the company?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Every baby that isn't actively leaving a country is consenting to theft according to you multiple times.

No, it's not consensual, but it's something they choose under duress, yes.

 

Are YOU saying that inaction is not a choice?

 

No. The real world tells us that things cannot be themselves and the opposite of themselves simultaneously.

And I agree. But that statement is only relevant if you mean to imply that making a decision IS action, even if that decision is to not act. And that contradicts your earlier statement.

 

the idea that the choice is voluntary, most choices aren't.

 

Then it's not a choice.

So if I put a gun to your head and say "your money or your life" you don't have a choice to make? Of course you do. Human slaves had the choice to end their slavery, but their options were limited. Ending their slavery often costed their lives, but that's still a choice is it not?

Not all choices are voluntary (most aren't). What is a choice to you if not these things?

 

Something (e.g. rent and taxation) is categorically involuntary when it systematically limits your available options, compelling you to make a decision you wouldn't make in the absence of these external influences.

 

Vague language to conceal the sophistry.

What's vague about it? I'll expound.

[dsayers]

Where coercion is present, choice cannot be.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Where coercion is present, choice cannot be.

How do you define choice? It's clearly not how the rest of the world does.

 

Choice n. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

 

And that's without even getting into the shaky definition of coercion.

[dsayers]

How do you define choice? It's clearly not how the rest of the world does.

Then you would be serving no purpose attempting to convince me otherwise

[shirgall]

Choice n. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

 

And that's without even getting into the shaky definition of coercion.

 

Coercion n. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

 

Choice is illusory in the face of coercion.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Choice is illusory in the face of coercion.

Why? Your options in life are limited all the time, sometimes much more than other times. Why is coercion the breaking point that makes the choice illusory? Is the fact that my biology limits my option to drink bleach for breakfast mean my choice for breakfast is illusory? If that biological threat doesn't invalidate my choice, why then does a human threat?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Why? Your options in life are limited all the time, sometimes much more than other times. Why is coercion the breaking point that makes the choice illusory? Is the fact that my biology limits my option to drink bleach for breakfast mean my choice for breakfast is illusory? If that biological threat doesn't invalidate my choice, why then does a human threat?

 

Can you name another situation in which choice is as constricted as in a situation of coercion? Remember, it is a situation of fight or flight so any choice like choosing what to eat for breakfast would not be comparable.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Can you name another situation in which choice is as constricted as in a situation of coercion? Remember, it is a situation of fight or flight so any choice like choosing what to eat for breakfast would not be comparable.

Sounds like you're referring to a specific form of coercion, like a mortal threat (as opposed to "make me a sandwich or I won't have sex with you!" which is still a threat). If someone says "don't eat that fish or I'll kill you", then I'm being coerced but I usually don't like eating fish anyways and there are tons of options still. Of course, if he says "eat the fish or I'll kill you" then I agree my options don't get much more limited than that.

 

However, if you're renting, you're under the threat of "pay your landlord or go to jail" just as much as you're under the threat of "pay your tax collector or go to jail". As I said a couple times already, the only difference I'm seeing is that there are more competing landlords than competing nations. So while you have more options in rents and employment, it's not voluntary for most people by any means. Landlordism is very much a microcosm of statism.

[labmath2]

Can you name another situation in which choice is as constricted as in a situation of coercion? Remember, it is a situation of fight or flight so any choice like choosing what to eat for breakfast would not be comparable.

You seem to be confusing two things, the capacity for choice as opposed to reduction in choice. Coercion can only reduce your choice, it cannot eliminate it (except for complete restraining of your body so that you cannot eben twitch a muscle).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Sounds like you're referring to a specific form of coercion, like a mortal threat (as opposed to "make me a sandwich or I won't have sex with you!" which is still a threat). 

 

Please, please stop.