Forum Post: Taxation is theft
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 3, 2011, 8:29 p.m. EST by ProAntiState
(43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"...above all, the crucial monopoly is the State's control of the use of violence: of the police and armed services, and of the courts – the locus of ultimate decision-making power in disputes over crimes and contracts. Control of the police and the army is particularly important in enforcing and assuring all of the State's other powers, including the all-important power to extract its revenue by coercion.
For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as "taxation," although in less regularized epochs it was often known as "tribute." Taxation is theft, purely and simply, even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects.
It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist.
It is true that State apologists maintain that taxation is "really" voluntary; one simple but instructive refutation of this claim is to ponder what would happen if the government were to abolish taxation, and to confine itself to simple requests for voluntary contributions. Does anyone really believe that anything comparable to the current vast revenues of the State would continue to pour into its coffers? It is likely that even those theorists who claim that punishment never deters action would balk at such a claim. The great economist Joseph Schumpeter was correct when he acidly wrote that "the theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."[2]
It has been recently maintained by economists that taxation is "really" voluntary because it is a method for everyone to make sure that everyone else pays for a unanimously desired project. Everyone in an area, for example, is assumed to desire the government to build a dam; but if A and B contribute voluntarily to the project, they cannot be sure that C and D will not "shirk" their similar responsibilities. Therefore, all of the individuals, A, B, C, D, etc., each of whom wish to contribute to building the dam, agree to coerce each other through taxation. Hence, the tax is not really coercion. There are, however, a great many flaws in this doctrine.
First is the inner contradiction between voluntarism and..."
"Taxation is theft" is an agenda of those who suffer the most from taxes, the 1%.
Tea Party = brain washed white trash, chants 1% talking points
CUI BONO? - That is the primary question you have to raise.
And you wonder why most people in American see you as an enemy that has to be defeated instead of compromised with?
Exactly. How giving money to these morons in DC for wars and bailouts has turned into something that people think should be taken lightly, is beyond me.
I was speaking about this persons ignorance and biased based insults toward people they do not know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
You say that as though profiteering isn't.
It's actually at least twice as bad, because we pay for all of it.
From the wikipedia article... "Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical.
Business owners may be accused of profiteering when they raise prices during an emergency (especially a war). The term is also applied to businesses that play on political corruption to obtain government contracts. Some businesses don't actually gouge the prices of their own goods; they might buy out an entire stock of something, only to resell it at an absurdly higher price.
Some types of profiteering are illegal, such as price fixing syndicates and other anti-competitive behaviour"
Regarding those who raise prices during an emergency: Yes, this is immoral. However, they own the goods and have the right to do this. It will hurt their reputation and provide an opportunity for those who can offer the goods at a lower price or those with a better reputation to take away their market share. Any business owner knows that this is a bad long-term strategy.
Regarding those who rely on the power of government: They are just as guilty as those who advocate the government's current policy of taxation. They are not doubly guilty, but equally guilty. Both rely on the same means.
Regarding those who buy an entire stock of something and resell at an absurd price: It is extremely difficult to do this unless one has the aid of the government. While trying to sell what was purchased at an extraordinarily high price, it is incredibly likely that more will be produced at the initial cost. When people discover that they can get the same goods from the original producer at a much lower cost, the party trying to sell at an exorbitantly high price will not be able to maintain his market. Again, this is a poor long-term strategy as it damages one's reputation.
I want to pay special attention to this one: " Some types of profiteering are illegal, such as price fixing syndicates and other anti-competitive behaviour." This is exactly what the government does by implementing a minimum wage. 'Nuff said.
So Forms of bribing a politician aren't unethical?
Less so because they use the bribes to make profiteering legal?
Instituting a minimum wage is?
That's just weird.
No, both are unethical. Equally unethical.
Would you work for $2.00 an hour?
It depends on the kind of work, the cost of the materials required by the nature of human life, whether or not someone is paying a higher wage for the same work elsewhere, whether or not I can do other work that pays more, whether or not I can provide for myself better by creating something and selling it to those who desire it, etc. The list of considerations goes on and on.
It can be simplified thusly: If I can better provide for myself by doing something else, then no.
I didn't think you would.
That's only for someone else.
Only tax those making over $100,000 and use the money for the benefit of the 99%
Except when you get to "the rich people" bracket. Then it will be wrong to take money from you right?
If the system is brought down and nobody makes over $100,000 then who pays the taxes?
The greatest thing about the freedom we have in the United States is that anyone that wants to, can form a community with like minded people and live the way they choose to. So if a group of people want to pool their money and purchase some property or a factory and share the wealth they are free to do so. One of the reasons you don't hear about many success stories of people doing this, is because it doesn't work unless you "Force" people to share equally.
Having read Mises' 'Omnipotent Government', I was pleasantly surprised to find that there is a Ludwig Von Mises Institute and that the book from which this is an excerpt is featured in its bookstore. Thanks for the link :)
I'm against taxes. Protest taxes.