the problem with tax as theft

[Phillip Brix]

you say taxation is theft. okay fine.

then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right?

and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right?

so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense.

so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist.

 

now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society.

i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle,  or i wager war on the government.

 

 

 

[Sir Exotic]

1 hour ago, Phillip Brix said:

you say taxation is theft. okay fine.

then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right?

and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right?

so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense.

so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist.

I'm surprised that you understand the argument, but you're not convinced of it. You're the scientist who believes the earth is flat.

Yes, you can respond to violations of the NAP with self-defense, but you are not required to do so. It is not immoral to not act in self-defense.
It is not your duty as an anarchist to respond to violations of your NAP with self-defense, just as much as it is not your duty as an atheist to come out as one to your whole fundamentalist muslim family.

 

1 hour ago, Phillip Brix said:

now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society.

i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle,  or i wager war on the government.

You say "I personally view". You view it as the price for living in a civilized society, which makes it consensual on your part. Just because you consent to something, doesn't make the action consensual for everyone else. Example: A man in a bar starts flirting with a woman and after a while insists to kiss her, she lets it happen and thereby consents to it (let's just assume they're both sober, or tipsy at best.) He gets bored with her very quickly and finds a new prey, but this time he skips the flirting and kisses an unexpected woman. She's outraged and screams at him.

Just because the first woman consented, it doesn't follow that the second woman will consent. And even if the first woman claims to consent for the other woman, the second woman is still not consenting, because you cannot consent for another person. If that was the case, we'd be living in a very different world right now..

My question to you:
Do you agree that one cannot consent for another, and that if you consent, it doesn't follow that the next person will?
If yes, do now you accept that taxation is theft?
If no, would I be morally justified in taking your savings if I think/say/view that you consent to that?

[Phillip Brix]

Do you agree that one cannot consent for another, and that if you consent, it doesn't follow that the next person will?

not necessarily, for example say you're traumatized beyond speech or unconscious, obviously you cant consent to medical procedures right? but the doctor can consent for you.

 

part of living in a civilized society is that we agree to follow a unified code of rules. those rules must be enforced, and that enforcement must be paid for.

if you can't agree to that, than clearly you've got some thinking to do.

 

you would be morally justified in taking my savings if you were an enforcer of the rules. not all of course, i need to live, but certainly some.

 

 

[Sir Exotic]

12 minutes ago, Phillip Brix said:

Do you agree that one cannot consent for another, and that if you consent, it doesn't follow that the next person will?

not necessarily, for example say you're traumatized beyond speech or unconscious, obviously you cant consent to medical procedures right? but the doctor can consent for you.

Sure, it doesn't necessarily follow. You immediately came up with a situation where the person is traumatized or unconscious, in that case you'd be helping the person in their favor and it is assumed that they would have given consent if they could. That is very different from someone who is not unconscious, but of course you had to go to that to keep your argument afloat.

If the person is not traumatized or mentally ill beyond speech, basic understanding or sanity, is not unconscious or in a coma, then can you still consent for another person?

 

12 minutes ago, Phillip Brix said:

part of living in a civilized society is that we agree to follow a unified code of rules. those rules must be enforced, and that enforcement must be paid for.

if you can't agree to that, than clearly you've got some thinking to do.

"we agree". You're assuming before the fact that everyone already agreed. Well then why are you making an argument? The point is not that everyone agrees, the point is what if someone does not? You can't say "yeah, well, but he does!" and think that it solves the problem. And again, you cannot consent for another person (see question above.)

 

12 minutes ago, Phillip Brix said:

you would be morally justified in taking my savings if you were an enforcer of the rules. not all of course, i need to live, but certainly some.

An enforcer of the rules that you agreed upon, sure. But that was not the question, I am not talking about a situation where you have already given consent, that's begging the question.
Can I consent in your place to take your belongings from you, or can I not? 

[Phillip Brix]

okay, you make a valid point, obviously not just anyone can consent on anyone else's behalf.

 

i guess what I'm asking is what part of the u.s. constitution do you not agree to? the whole thing? then i can violate your rights guaranteed under them?

if its the tax part, how else do you expect the government to defend your rights?

 

[RamynKing]

8 minutes ago, Phillip Brix said:

 how else do you expect the government to defend your rights?

 

http://www.fdrurl.com/PAPDF

[Sir Exotic]

It's not about whether I agree with the whole thing, a part of it, or none of it. It's about the fact that the Constitution was signed (read: agreed upon/consented by) 39 delegates (people). 39, 500 or 10 million people cannot consent for the other 100, 1000 or 300 million people. It's not about who signed it or how many signed it, for how many people, for who, etc. it's about the principle: One cannot consent for another.

Technically, and this is not just a clever joke, it's actually useful: I am not a US citizen, so I don't even have the rights under the US Constitution, so technically, yes, you can violate my rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

BUT! we are not talking about legal rights, we're talking about morality. Morality would not allow you to violate the NAP.

I don't expect the government to defend my rights, and even if I did, I would still have to consent to them defending the rights they give to me, and consent to the duties they place on me as well, and consent to them taking my money to defend the rights they gave me.

47 minutes ago, RamynKing said:

http://www.fdrurl.com/PAPDF

[shirgall]

3 hours ago, Phillip Brix said:

you say taxation is theft. okay fine.

then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right?

and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right?

so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense.

so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist.

now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society.

i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle,  or i wager war on the government.

All self-defense is taken with an eye to survival, not principle. There is no duty to kill. There is a duty to live, if not for yourself, then for all that depend on you. Also, the circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. Since I've seen people evade taxes and get imprisoned, I will stick to avoiding taxes and lay low. My family doesn't eat very well when I'm in prison. I'm under no illusions that I've consented to taxation, though. Compliance is not acceptance.

It may be the price we pay for living the way we do, but that doesn't make it right. If you think the ends justify the means, you are not dealing in morality. You are dealing in a particularly nihilist form of pragmatism. Some might call it Russian fatalism. Where do you think *they* got it?

[Tyler H]

3 hours ago, Phillip Brix said:

you say taxation is theft. okay fine.

then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right?

and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right?

so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense.

so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist.

 

now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society.

i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle,  or i wager war on the government.

So you are accosted by 3 men with guns in an alley.  They demand the contents of your wallet or they will kill you.  Unless you're Jason Bourne you will likely not survive an attempt at self defense.  Any sane person will pay the muggers off and be grateful to be alive in the moments afterward.  The point is that just because you decide that your chances for survival are greater if you pay them off does not mean that their actions are not immoral.  It does not imply consent.  It is quite clear that in the face of certain overwhelming force, what you are paying for is your life.  You are not paying for civilization, you are paying off muggers so you may continue to live.  If what they have to offer is worth any positive value to you than your life does not need to be added to tip the scales in their favor.

 

2 hours ago, Phillip Brix said:

okay, you make a valid point, obviously not just anyone can consent on anyone else's behalf.

 

i guess what I'm asking is what part of the u.s. constitution do you not agree to? the whole thing? then i can violate your rights guaranteed under them?

if its the tax part, how else do you expect the government to defend your rights?

 

How has the government been at defending our rights so far?  They are fewer every election cycle.  What could having rights possibly mean if you are not allowed to retain the product of your labor?

Which group would you prefer defend your rights? Group A, who receives your money voluntarily based on the quality of the service they provide, or Group B, who can take your money regardless of the quality of the service they provide and will undoubtedly use that money to ensure your next payment?

[Tyler H]

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner

[Gavitor]

13 hours ago, Phillip Brix said:

if its the tax part, how else do you expect the government to defend your rights?

Not violating them in the first place would be a good start.

[Davis Andersons]

Can we look at a state the same as a corporation which has privatized a piece of land and just imposes any rules they wish upon the people living there(including taxes)? And if they don't like it they can move and live somewhere else.

[shirgall]

26 minutes ago, Davis Andersons said:

Can we look at a state the same as a corporation which has privatized a piece of land and just imposes any rules they wish upon the people living there(including taxes)? And if they don't like it they can move and live somewhere else.

No, we can't, because it's a poor metaphor. A "corporation" is a creation of a state. If you prefer to organize a group of toughs to own a piece of land, protect its borders, and impose its will upon everyone in that piece of land then you have just created another state, so why bother using a different name to describe it?

[Jsbrads]

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

i have never read a better book on this subject.

he concludes minimal taxation for police

i infer land rents for the purpose of "Welfare" transfer payments would similarly be possible, but that the results may backfire as a wealthy person can live in a tall building, but in today's technology, food production is very land heavy, so it would result in a regressive tax on the poor.

[Phillip Brix]

after watching stef's video on the left, i felt i owed an apology for my op. i put an idea forward without really thinking through the consequences. i thought i had but apparently, or more precisely, obviously, i hadn't. i do want a moral society. i just think that's better achieved with a minarchist government  over anarchy. I've read steph's work, and i'm not convinced it could truly work.  i know i know, we tried that once and it didn't work, the government just kept getting bigger and bigger. but obviously a government capable of growing beyond the original intent is not truly a minarchist government. i don't know how we achieve that. as stef says paper doesn't stop bullets. but anarchy didn't last either. i think it should be researched why.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 9/26/2017 at 2:33 AM, Phillip Brix said:

you say taxation is theft. okay fine.

now i personally dont view tax as theft.

 

 

I saw your sleight-of-hand, there.

[Tyler H]

9 minutes ago, Phillip Brix said:

i think it should be researched wh

Because the absence of a state does not constitute a voluntary society. 

[Phillip Brix]

no i mean that stephan has brought up that they have had anarchist societies in places such as iceland.

but they were replaced with statist societies. why?

 

[Tyler H]

I don’t know, but I’m guessing they didn’t refuse to allow the existence of a central coercive monopoly on the use of force based on a philosophical understanding of universal moral principles. 

Anarchy is a broad category that encompasses many, many subcategories. A voluntary society where the initiation of force is rejected would fall under it, but that does not mean that any other subcategory that falls under the umbrella of anarchy can be equated to the type of society for which I would advocate. 

The reason these societies are mentioned at all is to support the notion that the mere absence of government does not necessarily result in the presence of utter chaos. 

[barn]

On 11/22/2017 at 1:18 AM, Tyler H said:

I don’t know, but I’m guessing they didn’t refuse to allow the existence of a central coercive monopoly on the use of force based on a philosophical understanding of universal moral principles. 

Anarchy is a broad category that encompasses many, many subcategories. A voluntary society where the initiation of force is rejected would fall under it, but that does not mean that any other subcategory that falls under the umbrella of anarchy can be equated to the type of society for which I would advocate. 

The reason these societies are mentioned at all is to support the notion that the mere absence of government does not necessarily result in the presence of utter chaos. 

Very true. Same problem with the word 'skeptic' and how mindless overuse has degraded it. There are many different ways anarchy can be applied, no use really ignoring the caveats (I remind myself often) and opting for one-size fits all views.

(The devil is in the details)

Speaking of nordic-ish countries. I recall it Finnland being the country where the story of free tea and biscuits left out on train stations with a jar for the collection of change came from. (A friend lived there with spouse, kids, the whole deal.) I was stunned that such things still exist to this day. My Russian friend then quickly added, probably for not long as the lesser souls, tourists commonly from Russia habitually took advantage of a free snack and hand warming tea, generally missing the opportunity to leave proper monetary reimbursement (obviously upsetting quite a few weary local onlookers with the scene). Sad really, but it is what the world is made of, often only seen when contrasting backgrounds.

Before, for a long time (European upbringing has anything to do with it?) anarchy to me was equal with 'Sealand' (don't watch it, not worth it) The strength, power and chaos motifs hand-in-hand.

When I imagine anarchy now, I see strong individuals who in the time of need will not hesitate to 'make you feel uncomfortable' or if you fit in, proceed lending you a hand while smiling broadly and sharing what culture they consider useful, all of that generously.

Barnsley