Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that the average person believes taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").
The way I see it, taxes are institutionalized theft. That is, theft that has been made "legitimate." But how does someone take something immoral and convert it into something moral?
I've pose two questions to help sort out the difference between theft performed by an individual and institutionalized theft (that is, theft by a group of individuals, also known as government).
- If taxation is not theft, what would government have to do in order to commit theft?
- If taxation is not theft, is over-taxation theft?
For some reason, the first question takes a lot of effort for people to answer. It's a little out of left field, right? The second question sort-of gives an inch to the idea. In fact, it allows the you to answer the first question and open the door to the idea that taxation is actually theft.
If I can get some agreement from above line of questioning, I can bring it home with a soliloquy I call "The Magic Threshold."
The Magic Threshold
| Premise: 1 | Premise: 2 | Premise: 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Assume taxation is not theft until the level taxation is deemed to be excessive. | Government is not capable of theft until taxation is excessive; before that it is just not theft. | This level might well be different for everyone. |
Questions:
- Is it possible for an individual to do the same?
- Is there a certain level at which taking something that's not yours is also not theft until a certain nominal level, then after that level is crossed, it becomes theft?
- If so, what was it called before the theft threshold is crossed for that individual?
You might simply reply, "I don't think it applies to the individual. It applies to the collective of society."
To which I reply, "But I assume you are not suggesting that collectives are bound by a different set of moral consideration, right?"
Will address this tomorrow. Going to bed rn @inertia
Your argument only works if taxation is taking something "that's not yours". That is, your argument only works if you first have some theory of property. If your theory of property is, for example, that something is your property if other people agree to let you have it as part of a system of mutual benefit, then taxation takes property that is not yours, and thus cannot be theft.
My point is that your argument rests on some theory of property in order to work. If someone rejects that theory of property, the argument doesn't work.
Absolutely. If I encounter someone who doesn't believe private property, I'm unlikely to even bring up that taxation is theft in the first place. There would be no point.
It's not just that they have to believe in private property, they have to believe that private property exists as something other than a social agreement to let you have stuff for mutual benefit.
private property is private property Period.
That is scary, is that how the communists see the world?
yes you make a good point... the argument of taxation is theft depends on a rational sane person who understand that property is private, and we cannot bother arguing with communists who are irrational mystics like @mughat would say :D Mughat has taught me so much. As has @inertia
Interesting viewpoint.
There is no Magic Threshold.
Taxation isn't theft, because governments were always endowed with some sort of rights over your property, perhaps bound by law as to the extent to which they can appropriate it.
To commit theft a government would have to appropriate property over which they have absolutely no rights, or beyond a law-determined threshold.
I'm no so sure if this is an appropriate argument, when property is determined by law.
While I try to avoid discussions of morality (save when debating moral systems directly) there are several cases where it stands to reason that collectives be endowed with more rights than individuals.
E.g. in a poor country where each villager commits $1 to a government to crowdfund national security - which they individually would not be able to afford.
Though an implication may be that this collective is also endowed with the right to kill, that individuals do not have.
read - Let's Abolish the IRS! Here is how! (Really - Perhaps here is why you cannot) here from frogceo. It's from the INFORMER and will explain just what Taxation is and why you are legally required to pay it. Don't make assumptions as if you read that article I believe you'll have a better understanding just what is taxed and why.
Hmm this is an interesting concept. Seems similar, but more concrete, to a typical appeal to "the golden rule", do-unto-others sort of individual ethics that are widely shared but fundamentally disregarded by government. Cheers! #TaxationIsTheft
I would LOVE to see this as a documentary or a Kurgestaat video! It would be GREAT to show that whole Banker 300 Animated carton about the money supply and federal reserve and show Crypto as the solution
we can really make a great cartoon out of this!
@inertia please make a new post like this so we can get it on the front page!