Whenever liberals are brought up the idea that taxation is theft, they usually giggle and say that it's not because taxation is necessary, tell me to go live in the woods and the usual bullshit excuses. But they never refute the case that if I refuse to pay my extortion fee, that armed thugs will put me in a cage, and if I resist hard enough I'll be shot. So answer me, how is it not the case that I pay my taxes or risk getting killed.
I know where this is headed. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpgDtoj73DQ]South Park - Rabble Rabble Rabble - YouTube[/ame]
Simple. No matter what anyone says, whoever holds the biggest stick has the say. This is true whether caveman or modern banker.
Taking one's property without consent, but with the threat of violence maybe extortion is a better word.
Why not just answer the question. Unless you're a subsistence farmer (on a deserted island), your labor is not yours alone. So what gives you the exclusive right to it? Thread should defend the definition of taxation as theft - therefore explain this exclusivity - before asking others to explain to attack the idea.
You worked for it, no? The whole basis of this argument is whether taxation should be compulsory or not. Lets go out on a limb here, voluntary taxation. Now bare with me, we are not in Somalia yet. If you could opt out of various taxes, would we not be in $15 trillion plus debt? Sure it may sound crazy, but people would only pay in for what they actually want out of the system. I know how some, if not most will respond though... "Trust the people to voluntarily pay taxes, cmon bro"
Are you saying that the fruits of my labor are produced completely by me, without any influence from anyone else anywhere? If you are free to choose a different place to live, is it fair to call taxation compulsory? If we closed the borders and kept you in here, that'd make sense. Presumably, if you see a place that would accept you and has a more desirable policy, you can go there. Well, no. Probably more. Taxation isn't the only factor. This always sounds nice, but I bet no one wants to pay for the bureaucracy to maintain it properly.
Taxation without representation is theft, I agree. But your broad use of "taxation" being theft, I must disagree.
The problem with this attitude, is it assumes that roads, bridges, what have you aren't already being paid for. Opening the door for new taxation, when our problem isn't a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. I'd call it compulsory. It doesn't matter where in the U.S. I live, I still have to pay income taxes. It's not about freedom of movement, it's about opting out of bullshit programs you don't want to fund. Of course what is considered bullshit will vary from person to person, thus more rabble rabble rabble. This sort of thinking doesn't hold up. If the tax revenue isn't enough, we borrow or print money. So not only would we be borrowing and printing much more then we already do, the high interest rates imposed on our incredibly massive amounts of borrowing, coupled with the inflation from printing money to pay our bills, would be much more serious and face a large backlash from the populace. The end goal is to work as a check against government expansion, if the people don't want to pay for it, it ain't happening. Who says it's necessary in the first place?
Aside from the obvious dodge - the real proof statists cannot answer the question - I'll explain this. You own yourself. You own your body, your mind, for me, this is proven by nature. On a whole as a species a humans mind naturally controls their body, and only their body, no one else's. To me this implies that nature desires you to own your body. If you own your body you're responsible for your body. The actions and decisions you make and the repercussions that come from them when free from coercion are entirely yours. The fruits of your labors are the repercussions of your actions and decisions. Those fruit aren't always sweet and often times are very bitter. In order to be responsible for any of your actions you need self-ownership first. In socialism, we see that self-ownership is very weak - those who bear bitter fruit cry out that it's not fair, or someone cheated and, therefore, they don't own or aren't responsible for that bitter fruit they bore. Instead, they say that they own all or a part the peoples' who benefited most from their decisions. Taxes - taking part of the fruits of someone else's labors, whether done yourself or through others in costume carrying badges, through gunpoint or threat of imprisonment is a system of laissez faire slavery. In capitalism you have self-ownership. The return on the effort you put in to the world is yours. If you invent the next cell phone you get to keep the reward for your accomplishments. If you murder someone you get to deal with those who had interests in who you murdered (Family, Friends, Neighbors, anyone with an interest in controlling murderers, the people and businesses who held loans with the person you murdered, the people the person you murdered worked for, anyone who's ever been a victim of violence, and anyone who enjoys violence as a hobby or trade and knows you can't go to the police because you're wanted, the list continues). * It's important to clarify that I'm talking about tangible goods and services.
They should update the dictionary definition of theft... "Taking from another without their consent...unless you are the government."
The argument that you can leave the country or not work to avoid taxation amounts to blaming the victim. Working for a living inside a certain geographical area doesn't disqualify you from being a victim of extortion. You don't have to walk through the Central Park at night, but if someone threatens you with violence if you don't give them your phone & wallet while walking through the park, it's still extortion. And yes, the fruits of your labor are owned by you (exclusively) unless otherwise specified by legitimate contract. Theft is the act of stealing property. Extortion is the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.
Taxes, to an extent is necessary for the function of government. I dont think anyone would really find fault with that. My problem is we have no clear definition on the scope of the government we are trying to fund here. Spending is the biggest problem. Could we increase revenue? Maybe. However, do so in such an economic state will only further erode an already shrinking tax base. Its a catch 22. Taxes without representation is theft, however taxes that are constitutional I am okay with (which is actually a minority of them I believe) and do not see as theft. I am not against taxes, I am against obvious unfair and insane taxes paying for major things I disagree with. Social security being one of my biggest peeves. I can pay for my retirement better than those crooks in DC. P.S : Beaucracy sucks and is a money hole.
If you're not willing to pay the cops that prevent you from being mugged, that's just another kind of theft. This assumes the fruits are the result of entirely your labor. If you are growing your own food, having some of it taken from you is theft. If you are moving the food to market on roads, you combine your labor with whatever labor maintains the road. If you maintain the road, then you're fine. If not, whoever does deserves to be paid. Refusing to do so is stealing the fruits of someone else's labor. Perhaps you'd rather pay a toll whenever you use the road. Others would probably rather not have to stop and wait in lines. I reject the idea that all taxation is theft. I accept that a lot of it does amount to theft.
You say you want to be able to opt out of taxes used for specific types of spending. Someone has to track what you contribute, what it is meant for, and ensure that your taxes are spent according to your direction. You are one of millions. That will require a significant number of jobs to work properly. Otherwise, you just short the government in revenue, and it still spends on whatever priorities it decides instead. I don't see it going any other way. We all aren't going to agree on the necessity of this and that. This opinion is as arbitrary as the alternative. I don't mean to suggest you don't own yourself, but rather that in most cases the labor you participate in is not entirely accomplished by one person alone. If you are on a deserted island, I agree. You expect protection for your invention, I presume. Something should prevent me from stealing your idea and profiting myself at your expense. Yet you suggest you shouldn't have to sacrifice anything in exchange for it.