Is Taxation Theft?

Certainly not. If he can show he and his property are not protected by the nation's defense forces and law enforcement agencies, if he does not make use of the nation's infrastructure to travel or obtain goods, never participates in the exchange of currency, nor takes advantage of any of the other myriad benefits that the nation's taxpayers make possible, his presence would be quite innocuous and he would incur no such debt.

 

Still not buying into the idea that a law that simply transfers ownership of a person's property to someone else (the government) is ethically justified. People (and the government) are certainly free to provide whatever services they wish, but they have no right to force anyone to buy these services. It would be preposterous for Smith to approach Jones and say, "From now on, I'm going to protect your house from robbers, so you owe me $1000 this year." I can't support a law that would essentially do the same thing.

 

I broke my teeth on protection rackets in the eighties. I recognize it whan I see it. My first 'job' was collecting. I'm not like that any more.

 

Okay Mr. Smith, let's stop here for a second.

If you wish to have a rational conversation of the topic at hand, I am your man. However, if your intent is to trade barbs such as you do with the Georgists, then I am not your man. I do not engage with them (except for geosit) for that same reason. I am here for rational, civilized conversation of any particular topic, but I am not here to shout insults across a school playground like a group of third graders. it is a waste of my times, and I am sure you would agree a waste of yours as well.

Now I ask you, do you wish to continue the conversation, or not?

Thank you,
Ted

 

If a person wishes to partake of these services, it should be via an individual contact of citizenship and not legalized theft of taxes, just like any other group of services.

 

If that was the case, the current version of America (a.k.a. the current evolution of the Great Experiment derived from the Age of Enlightenment) would not exist either!

 

Not exist as it is or not exist at all? Of course, either way, I'm asking you to speculate. I do not mean to imply that you could possibly know.

 

The contract is the U.S. constitution and the laws authorized by it. You agreed to those terms when you (or your legal representative) signed form SS-5 asserting you wanted to be recognized as a U.S. citizen and have a social security number issued to you.




​

 

I agree. To the extent that each of these services are sold, each ought to be purchased voluntarily (or not purchased) by individuals. I would be in favor of a law in which no seller of services (including the government) could charge people without an explicit contract that specifies the service being provided and the terms of the agreement.

 

I see. So form SS-5 is the infamous social contract.

So what about those who choose not sign form SS-5?

 

I'll help you pack to leave the country.

 

The founding fathers had their own "unfair" taxes, and rather than repeal them they took troops out to enforce them.

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/whiskey.htm

 

You are parasitizing the commons if you are not paying taxes. That's just the way we have to work,, as a long tradition of experimentation has shown us. Pay the kitty or go find your own infrastructure in some other country.

 

Please note, that I am not talking about myself specifically.

Are you saying that a person must sign the contract or otherwise they will be forcibly expelled from their property? If that's the case, then I would certainly support changing the law such that no person (or government) has the right to forcibly expel a person from their property because they haven't signed a contract. I can see no ethical justification for forcing a person into signing a contract.

 

I just said that any seller of services has right set the price for the services he sells. Once a purchaser agrees to a sale, he is then obligated to pay what he owes. What I object to is laws that allow anyone (including the government) to provide a service and then retroactively claim money owed from people who never agreed to the sale in the first place. I cannot, in good conscience, do that to people, so I can't support such a law.

 

Filing form SS-5 is optional. There is no penalty for electing not to file it.



​

 

And those people would not be a party to the contract.

 

Those people will not be issued a tax ID (social security number) and will not receive the benefits which require it. They will not be recognized as U.S. citizens (unless they take other steps to acquire or assert citizenship).



​

 

Using eminent domain the government takes private and personal property...

 

Governments also claim ownership to (and then take) private and personal property via tax laws.

 

They do. It is an often misused process (imho). That being said, a government takes title by claiming ownership under the right of eminent domain and that ownership can be contested and either refuted or established in court.



​

 

I believe the government also takes ownership of personal and private property if caught growing illegal drugs or at least holds on to these things for a long time...

 

When government decides to place another freeway through a neighborhood, or expand the runway at an airport, or run a high-speed rail through your town, they will offer 'fair value' but fighting them is futile and would bankrupt the average person...

 

Under current law, the government can claim ownership of people's property for many reasons. I would favor changing the law so that this is not the case. I can't justify any person (including) the government simply claiming what belongs to others and then taking it by force.

 

They're required to by the fifth amendment. If the project is big enough, then that likely demonstrates the public need and you'd loose no matter how much cash you throw at it. You would loose because they can prove their case.

But eminent domain is also used by cities or towns for frivolous things (which I would argue is an abuse) and you can back them off just by challenging the claim in court, requiring they demonstrate that public need exists and can't be met without the property in question. If someone is threatening you with eminent domain take a close look at their argument.



​