There is no gray area. There are two ways of getting resources from other people: coercively or voluntarily. You can't threaten someone a little bit and call it voluntary. You either use violence and the threat of violence to extract resources or you don't.
Yes there is gray area. It is a defaco government operating under color of law and outside the scope of their authority. DEFACTO De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/[1]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto COLOR OF LAW In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the mere semblance of legal right, the pretense or appearance of right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1] Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law If you are coerced into giving up resources it is still voluntary. Nobody has to give into coercion if they choose not to. The two ways of obtaining resources from other people is by stealing from the other party or the other party gives it to you. The government does it all the time. Hell they threaten alot and call it voluntary. I believe that is one of the most common tactics of the IRS.They will send you one of these threats http://www.taxdebthelp.com/tax-problems/tax-levy/notice-of-levy until you voluntarily send one of these www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf With some exceptions violence is illegal and with some exceptions threats are not. Don't use them like they are synonymous because thet are not. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html
Wow, these two terms have absolutely nothing to do with an action being coercive or voluntary. What a waste of writing. You just contradicted yourself. It isn't voluntary if it's coercive, they mean the opposite! You literally just said that if something is coercive, it is voluntary. Wow, are you serious? By your logic, rape is voluntary. I already said that, are you trying to prove my point? DING DING DING! That's the point I'm making! The government does threaten and coerce a lot! Just because they call it voluntary doesn't make it voluntary. It's like you're trying to prove my argument is correct. This has absolutely nothing to do with legality. This is about an action being coercive or voluntary. Threats are coercive. It has nothing to do with whether they are legal or not. Murder can be legal and it would still be violent. You seem really confused about the discussion. This is about an action being coercive or voluntary, it has nothing to do with the legality of said actions. EDIT: I'd also like to say that putting words in really big letters doesn't make your point anymore valid, it's just really annoying.
the government defines and differentiates murder and justifiable homicide or legal kill, that is why it is legal to kill in war or for self defense even if some belief systems consider any form of killing as murder. same here just because ones belief system says taxation is theft, it is not so because the government defines and differentiates taxation and theft.
Originally Posted by nomoreneocons You all are acting like this is a black and white situation when it's not. Government operates in a gray area called "color or law". Originally Posted by nomoreneocons Yes there is gray area. It is a defaco government operating under color of law and outside the scope of their authority. DEFACTO De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/[1]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto COLOR OF LAW In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the mere semblance of legal right, the pretense or appearance of right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1] Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law Never said they did. Pay attention.
Well I do agree with you on a personal & moral level but our convoluted legal system unfortunately doesn't. I do believe most taxes by the federal government is theft. No doubt in my mind.
I get taxed all the time. Anytime I buy anything I get taxed. People who live here from other countries get charged at least 10 dollars every time they send money home by wells fargo and wall mart. How is that represented? What do they get back? I get law enforcement, roads, education for my community, and poverty control (and many other benefits) from my taxes. What do the workers from other countries get? Hatred, deportation and prejudice are the fruits of their sacrifice. They work hard so you can feel superior. Try paying a corporation for all you receive, see how cheap that is.
Can a "taxing authority" garnish your wages or auction your house because they say you owe "taxes" even though you really don't owe but can't prove it? Is that legal or theft?
Legally speaking, taxation is not theft. Practically speaking, taking something from someone else without their consent is theft, so this viewpoint would make taxation, in many cases, theft. My question is, so what if its practically theft? If you can take money from a billionaire to save the life a starving child, wouldn't you do it? In the same way, if you were walking around a small bed of water at a park and saw a toddler drowning in it, wouldn't you run in even if you knew you might destroy the shoes you were wearing? Seems entirely illogical and cruel to say no.
If you don't like the taxes where you are go somewhere else. Pay off a war lord or live in the wilds alone. No one will steal from you there. Good luck...
Pay off warlords? Live in the wilds? I already do. I pay taxes to the federal government and I do live in the wilds. They still steal from me. Those shylocks can smell my money all the way from D.C.
You believe some of those taxes are wrong. That they are coercive and unfair. I get that. You're searching for a word to describe that ... and theft (or more likely robbery) is something we associate with unfair seizure of property by force. So you characterize some taxation as theft. I totally understand the feeling. But we can't escape the actual definition of the word. Theft is an illegal act. So long as a tax is lawful, it's not theft. I'm not endorsing all taxes, just saying a better word is needed to express the feelings that some taxes are unfair in nature and imposed by force.
no better word is needed, they are two different concepts altogether. taxation can never be characterized as 'coercice and unfair' it is used to help society function even if some individuals have to contribute more. those individuals are intellectually dishonest if they characterize taxes as unfair since they are participants of that society and have an ethical obligation to contribute to it equitably. theft is something that an individual perpetrates on another individual, it has nothing to do with government authority.
Taxation on land is not necessarily theft, but income taxation and taxation on goods and services is very arguably theft. However, anarcho-capitalism sounds pretty risky, if that's what the OP and a few others on this thread are arguing in favor of. As in, dangerous.
The Bible instructs adherents to pay their taxes. For a nation that calls itself "Christian" this means there can be no objection to paying them.
"...and unto God the things that are God's." The Bible doesn't say we can't discuss amongst ourselves which things belong to Caesar, to God, and to none of the above. It doesn't say I can't object to your opinion of what belongs to Caesar.
What you say about my opinion is unimportant. The important thing is the Truth that you are obligated to pay your taxes under Messianic law.
So you are abandoning your claim that people cannot express disapproval or disagreement with taxes because you think America considers itself a Christian nation? The verse of the Bible you quoted was Jesus calling on folks to give the state what it's due. I think most folks, Christian or otherwise, would support that suggestion. However, folks can certainly question what taxes are reasonable, lawful, or just and I don't think Jesus would have any problem with folks speaking up to call for reform of unjust taxes or to practice civil disobedience to accomplish reform. In short, Jesus instructed folks to give Caesar the things that are Caesar's, not give Caesar anything he asked for.
