Let's settle this for once, is taxation really theft?

Let's settle this for once, is taxation really theft?

Could we say that exsessive taxation may be considered as theft?

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/blog/libertarian-view-nationalism-secession-and-ethnic-enclaves
mises.org/library/fallacies-public-goods-theory-and-production-security-1
youtube.com/watch?v=b4g9zPWtk6c&t=1099s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

pay your taxes

Of course it's theft.
I didn't ask to be born into the civilized world.

Taxation is taxation. If you disagree with it, you can be a hermit in the mountains. They exist and they don't pay taxes. However, taxation should be just, fair, and warranted. You should not pay for anything you do not use, and in the event of exessive taxation it is we the people's duty to protest or resist and attempt to refigure the system. In the current system, we are being excessively taxed and we are due for an uprising.

We should not be paying for pic related.

It is legalized theft the same way war is legalized murder.

America lost it's freedom in the whisky rebellion because a government can not function unless it has the right to kill you for not paying tribute (tax) and has the sole authority to decide what counts as currency and issue that currency.

A government without the authority to tax and to issue currency is a government without any real power at all.

...

>taxes are the price we pay for civilization

how is this wrong?

if the state was actually good at what they are going taxes would be voluntary like during early feodalism

when someone get pay no matter what they would obviously be piss poor at their jobs

Taxes should be limited into the costitution to an ammount to run the army, the police and the court system.
A no tax area set at 10.000 per year then 10%-15% of taxes. Thats it.

so you say that taxtes must exist, but should be far more cheaper.

if they were the same thing you would call negros tax collectors

it is theft in corrupt shitholes like our country. It's not in first world countries such as New Zealand.

you're getting a service in exhange for money. efficient or not. if you don't like it you can always move.

inb4 bootlicker

...

you're keeping your life in exhange for money. efficient or not. if you don't like it you can always die.

It is theft but it's necessary to redistribute the wealth of the people in government projects and to maintain roads.

All taxes should be voluntary.
E.g. I shouldn't be forced at gun point to pay for Obozo's lavish vacations

the difference is you can appeal to society to stop a criminal, you can't for taxation because society considers it acceptable.

thanks public schooling :^)

When you sign your job contract or buy something or whatever, it's always a contract with the government too. You're consciously agreeing, so it can't be theft. It just makes you a cuck.

No,
And only edgy teenagers say otherwise

I'm all for you to go form an ancap state man. It will be hilarious when it gets conquered 2 weeks later

Thats what i did. Now i live in cayman

>its muh civic duty to pay fat NEETS to have a lavish life
Cuck

>dominican republic

Im on vacation. Fucking dominicans. Dip shit. All that money i save. I gotta spend it somehow

only the leftcap would get conquered

It is when a jew is taxing you, in which case it is just elaborate theft.

And the US government is run by jews.

so come to a conclusion, goyim

theoretically not as the taxes are used to help those who payed it and ensure a higher lifequality either by safer streets, social services or whatever.

practically it is used to enrich the rich and corrupt politicians which create unneeded projects and assigne them to their friends in the specific field so they can enrich themselves as well, which makes the outcome the same as theft (you lose money, the one who stole it gains it)

good luck fielding a competent military in your ultra individualist utopia.

TRADITION!!

Everyone has their own private army

>practically it is used to enrich the rich and corrupt politicians which create unneeded projects and assigne them to their friends in the specific field so they can enrich themselves as well

to be honest, that wouldn't be that bad If I was the one being enriched

>here dage dis moni in egzjange for service :DD
>dang yuo :DDD
>autistic screeching

Theft implies the existence of property rights which implies the existence of a state. No, taxation is not theft.

>Implying you need a standing army when you have a well-armed and culturally homogenous population.

Fag

This. I don't like paying taxes, but for certain things I understand aggregated payment can be utilized to make sure funding for public utilities is met. This doesn't mean "lol yeah, the contractor for this highway somehow increased their quote to build by 400% better increase sales tax." I can deal with extremely conservative taxation, at least where I have the choice in it through who I'm voting for. This excludes medical care for anything related to smoking or obesity, I don't want to pay for those goddamn heart bypasses and chemo for lung cancer, preconditions are okay because it wasn't a personal choice on their part.

Also, no corporate tax rate because it results in altering behavioral strategies for tax avoidance and thus minimizing operational improvement.

>implying no governement mean cultural individualism

mises.org/blog/libertarian-view-nationalism-secession-and-ethnic-enclaves

...

>implying im going to send my pmc to help those north ancapistan fucks when they didn't even help supply logistics for south ancapistans last war

>culturally homogenous
>open borders
>free religion
>ultra individualist

People allowed taxes because the state would use the money for the benefit of the country as a whole (that was the purpose, at least). Today most people just takes for granted that they need to pay them.

Taxation without representation is a theft.
But as a voting citizen you have a say in who determines how much you pay in tax and what it is used for.
It is the people's civic responsibility to keep the government and taxes in check

Excessive taxation is not only theft, but a declaration of war against the individual and his rights.


The purpose of a state is to be an organ that centrally solves some problems that affect the whole community more efficiently than individuals or corporations could. If the state solves those problems with tax payer money, then that's fine. If it asks for more taxes than it needs to solve those problems, then it has become evil; it wants to cement its power and keep itself alive at all costs, without a care for the people paying taxes. Squandering the wealth of other people is highly criminal. A state that does exactly that must be violently overthrown by an armed populace.

Taxation is theft -> all property is theft -> life is theft -> thug lyfe -> y0 gimme taxes biarch -> Taxation is theft -> all property is theft

...it's a bitter cycle; and there are better cycles to be in.

Any tax that doesn't serve the enforcement of negative rights is theft. If wealth transfer programs created a stronger society you could argue that it's a form of self defense to avoid subjugation. But they don't. They create an environment for dysgenics and weaken society.

As for changing the service of enforcement of those rights. Good luck. You can argue rights all you want. But you need strength to back up those words.

Yuro in the US here, can someone explain this "don't tread on me" business? I've seen it a lot in the southern states I've visited so far, and wiki doesn't explain why it's used now

Taxation is considered theft if the money that is intended for specific institutions doesn't reach the proper areas. For example, if your taxes are supposed to go to public high schools and public universities to fund the teachers, supplies, buildings, utilities, and equipment, but it's all instead being funneled to the athletics department, you could consider that theft because higher learning is intended to get the people of your community a better career, which means more personal income for them, which means more tax money to your community, which can be funneled back into the education system to create even better jobs in a perpetual cycle of edification.

If your state has heavy pollution regulations or has funding for waste, parks, nature, or even certain forms of alternative energy, but your tax money is being used to support big businesses that buy and sell pollution credits, or your parks and forests aren't being properly cared for and protected, or coal and oil is being used and promoted in your community where solar or even nuclear could be better used, you can consider that theft, because the money you intended for a greener planet is instead being used for more of the same.

If you have public healthcare, but you have to wait days to see a doctor or get a surgery, and have to pay exorbitant prices for co-pays and deductibles, that's theft. If you have universal basic income but half of your state refuses to work, that's theft. If there's a universal basic pension, but the old people in your community use their money to purchase primarily foreign goods, that's theft.

If you have a public bank that regularly defaults on itself while the overseers of the institution continue to draw a profit, that's theft.

If you have public agriculture but the state continues to under-fund the subsidized farmers, or forces the farmers to not produce certain plants so there's a higher demand, or to over-produce other grains and lets them spoil, then that's theft.

>not reading jean jacques rousseau
Your reading is not complete, lil mud

we did in the last thread.

it is theft.

however, collection via theft is an established method of operating government, and, there are different degrees of violence pursuant to collection.

so, it "works" because it is tolerated, but that cannot change what it actually is.

and it is tolerated because people generally don't know any better, but that's their own problem for being unimaginative.

isnt taxation a form of representation?

Nigger holds a gun on u and takes your shit he be reprezentin know wut Im sayin'?

Man comes to you on the street
>Give me money or I will lock you up

This is illegal

Government says
>Give me money or I will lock you up

This is legal

that's because legal is not fully equivalent to lawful, or moral.

It's a statement that government should not disreguard the people it governs because those people are not helpless.
Often used for gun rights as the 2nd amendment garantees the right to bear arms as a way to stop tyranny

It's actually extortion both times, just one is legal

if you dont pay your taxes but use public roads is that theft?

but, government has a whole mob, armed with guns and prison complexes that claim they represent the law (cops)

an individual faggot cannot guarantee to detain you. He will not benefit in any way of detaining you.


So it all comes down to how big your collective mob penis is.

that's an argument from "lawfulness." and i agree, but i was just saying as concepts, they are e.g. not totally overlapping if you draw them on a venn diagram.

Here in my country it's definitely theft, but in a decent country I would said it's more fair.

No, I do not

Taxation isn't theft, there are a lot of public goods that wouldn't be available at all if the contribution wasn't compulsory (think about the army for example) because of the free rider problem.

But yes, today we're paying way too much taxes because the government isn't limited to what it should be, because elected people are thinking "let's give free shit to poor people so they will vote for us".
Plus you add the fact that governments are waisting a shitton of money because they don't know how to manage their money.

Problem isn't really taxation, problem is that we need to rethink the government's role in our economy.

no, theft requires a victim. what you describe is part of the public goods fallacies.

mises.org/library/fallacies-public-goods-theory-and-production-security-1

das cuz you a cracker, biotch

Indeed.

Sounds more like fraud than theft though.

My father in law has a t shirt with this, something to talk with him about I guess

I never agreed to any terms and conditions, therefore tax is theft.

Statists are like the black uncle tom slaves in the 1800's who believed that slavery was a good thing and didn't want to slaves to be set free.

Fucking hell you bastards are stupid

Jesus christ

the victim is all people, you use something society paid for and degrade it physically. You've slightly increased the amount of road maintenance necessary and aren't paying for it.

yes of course
all transactions should be win win
youtube.com/watch?v=b4g9zPWtk6c&t=1099s

If the tax money goes back to you and the people, it's actually really beneficial. Cops instead of personal armies, healthcare for people you can't afford losing, but won't afford paying for if one had to pay for medical services (HELLO USA THIS ACTUALLY WORKS FINE AND I FEEL SAFE) and so on.

It's not theft because you'd use the money for dumb shit rather than stuff you and your fellow people actually need.

In Norway, after you pay taxes, car taxes, 25% tax on everything you buy, you are left with about 4% of what you earn. Now that is a bit drastic, but still not theft.

...

But without labor and goods you would die. So it is not a voluntary contract.

Any taxes that you pay voluntarily are not theft.
Any taxes that you only pay because you're forced to is a theft.

>public high schools and public universities
If some people don't want to pay for them then they should have the option to abstain from the tax. If the government comes after them then the government is working against their best interest and they have a duty to themselves to work against it.

You're aware of the terms and conditions and still continuing the deal. How is that not agreeing?

the "free rider problem" isn't a problem in an unregulated free market society because it is wealthier than a stateful society.

when there is a state, you have to forcefully maintain a standing army even in peace, because you have no incentives.

when there is not a state, security forces that already do their job 24/7 can simply be rallied overnight by a common interest group that is no more complicated than the NSSF or a labor union. there is in fact more war capital available to mobilize, because these groups are already ready for each other, first, despite their common instances. give them a reason to rally together and they will instead ally up and take advantage of a force multiplier so large you are clearly having trouble comprehending it is even possible.

>pay us or we'll threaten you with guns and stick you in a cage
>not theft

fuck off statist

> here are a lot of public goods that wouldn't be available at all if the contribution wasn't compulsory


not in mexico sir

im not arguing it's moral just that it isn't literally theft, because the difference is society sanctioning it.

...

This motherfucker doesn't drive on paved roads

but it obviously isn't, because not all people will ever use it, let alone see it, in any one place where it is degraded.

only the market is large enough and powerful enough to allocate everything needed to all those points and only incur the costs on those proximate enough to benefit from the upkeep thereof.

In Mexico, where you pay 32% of taxes on a Dominos Pizza it is indeed.

like about racism?

despite their common *differences i.e. the things they all hate about each other that keep them apart in the first place

Your reasoning is lame. I can do the same for literally everything that the government is allowed to do and not the people. Because the government isn't some random dude.

Man steals the car of someone.
>You lock him up in your cave for 2 years.

This is illegal.

Man steals the car of someone.
>Government locks him up in prison for 2 years.

This is legal.

See? This kind of reasoning works for literally every single thing that the government is allowed to do. Because the government wasn't made to be like some random dude in the first place.

Mexico is also a zionist occupied country

so yes this explains your absurd taxation dilema

Mexico would actually benefit vastly from libertarian politics, thus centralized fucking jews would shit their pants if we stopped giving them money to fill their pockets with.

Of course they are theft, we don't get a choice. It's not like taxes have to be renewed after X amount of decades by a vote of the people after all.

the govenement is just some random corrupt politicians

actually its because "the government" is a legal fiction.

what is moral exists without a book to tell you it exists. the bible is a gift and a very gracious one.

what is lawful exists and must be found out through social interaction and court hearings thereafter. this is one of our more cherished traditions in western civilization, but all civilizations exhibit it, and have done so since before written history began.

and what is legal is whatever was voted on last week, yet statists treat it as though it were holy canon.

>maintain a standing army even in peace, because you have no incentives
Your country needs to defend itself. And if other countries have standing armies yours should too.

if everyone but you bought a giant ice cream cone and you take a lick, that is theft

what does a communist buzzword have to do with anything?

It's at best a protection racket.

the society sanctioning it whatever its wrong or not

why bother having a standing army when banks are more powerful?

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld

Stupid Denmark started it

geld in flemish literally means money

Yes. Whether it's 'worth it', who should decide that, and other things like that are up for debate, but it is theft.

doesn't matter how good something is

forcing others to do it changes the morality

sex is good

Worked great for the natives, Aztecs etc didn't it :^)