I never entered a contract with 'the cops', so, no, you're absolutely wrong. The government acquires its funds primarily through theft & extortion. They don't deserve to be paid anything. The entire institution of government is illegitimate & criminal. Labor only deserves payment when someone voluntarily (ie in the absence of coercion) agrees to pay (usually by contract). Governments, especially the United States, are violent and fraudulent at nearly every level and therefore, "deserve" nothing.
1. Cops rarely prevent criminal activity, most of the time they come by after to secure locations, and begin investigation. 2. Im not sure how you can see some of it as theft, but not the rest. I'm guessing a better description of your feelings here would probably be, " it's all theft, but since i'm satisfied with some of the services i'm getting in return, we will refrain from calling that portion theft."
Id really like blowfish to answer "what gives you the right to your neighbors money" but I know it wont happen.
This is the best response I could find. Copypasta The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by some libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most people who question the creation of property would agree that after the creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the second argument) The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. The parents sign this when they have a child in a certain country. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract. Continued on here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#what
Yes, it is first-come-first-served. Read homesteading principle and self-ownership. The social contract is not a legitimate contract because you can't sign a contract on behalf of someone else before they can read/understand what the contract entails. Being born in a certain country shouldn't come with obligations. Humans should be born free. We shouldn't be born into servititude.
I think that it is stealing if they use someone else's roads without paying. So taxes is that fee. Where they spend it is another issue
Its 2011, with electronic devices (easy pass) this is not an issue. If anything the ones who don't want to wait should be the ones paying more, like the xpress lanes in cali that have usage fees, otherwise you should pay for what you use, so if your labor needs the roads, you would pay that, if it doesn't, you shouldn't. Overall I think this thread has been done to death before, it's just a messy topic with so many variables. I don't think it is theft, but it certainly isn't a fair, and probably not the best, way to run the system.
That "someone else" paid for the roads through extortion & theft. They didn't ask if people wanted to pay for roads that they may use. They just took people's money through coercive means (extortion) or printed money out of thin air thus devaluing the purchasing power (read: value) of everyone else's money. Block has an entire book on the privatization of roads & highways if anyone is interested: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
so why are you using the roads built in such immoral ways? why don't you start a road building business and build roads for communities? Why doesn't anyone? If they already do, why is it not catching on? I am absolutely for a more democratic way of allocating tax money. & for private groups doing some of the stuff our govt does.
by living in this country and receiving the services that this country's government provides, you have to pay a fee. if you don't want to pay you can either choose to not live here and not receive these services or you can be forced to pay if you already owe money. if you receive drugs and you dont pay, chances are your drug dealer is going to run up in your place and fuck you up or take your stuff. same with any other goods or services.
because many government services are necessary but not profitable. examples include postal service, FDIC insurance, public schools, research funding, defense, etc do you think a company can raise enough money from customers to build aircraft carriers and planes to blow somebody up? theres literally no profit in that.
its not planning, it's reactionary. the government doesnt allocate resources that are significant to the size of the economy. taxes are progressive because people like me need government services more than poorer people. ie someone who don't trade financial instruments wouldnt need the SEC's services therefore they dont pay. market forces inflate asset bubbles --> public sector provides liquidity and credit market forces create pollution --> public sector create regulation market forces create supply side constraints --> public sector picks up slack