[AngryData]

So if it is theft and we stop taxing people, wouldn't it require either your government to fall under its own weight giving rise to anarchy until someone strong arms or new government, or you go full socialist and the government owns nearly all business and can thus pay for itself out of business profits which is just taxes in another form?

[ALittleLight]

It's not really a counterargument to say that bad things might happen if we call taxation theft. Taxation either is or is not theft on it's own merits, potential consequences of that determination don't change it.

It's also not correct to say that our choices are either to call taxation not-theft or descend into anarchy or socialism. I think taxation is theft because it's people with guns forcing me to pay money or else they'll send me to prison. I wouldn't pay that money if they didn't threaten me, so, seems pretty theft-like to me.

That said, I also realize there is a necessity for the government to be funded somehow. That means we need to balance the immorality of taking money that people don't want to give with the necessity of funding the government.

Thinking about things this way inclines you to certain perspectives about what the government should and shouldn't be doing. Anything that the government does should be worth stealing money from citizens to fund doing.

[throwaway34241]

> That means we need to balance the immorality of taking money that people don't want to give with the necessity of funding the government.

> Thinking about things this way inclines you to certain perspectives about what the government should and shouldn't be doing.

One of the more depressing books I've read recently was by an economist who made the case (fairly convincingly) that a society with a broad middle class is not the natural state of things, and while societies have inertia industrial ones trend towards the sort of rich/poor gap seen in the industrial revolution, absent large-scale government intervention in the market.

The book didn't particularly explore this, but the political implications of that thesis if correct seemed bleak. Getting the government to do anything effectively is an unreliable process, but, aside from enjoying a lower standard of living, the pre-WWII countries weren't politically stable (and that was when peoples' expectations were much lower).

Taxation being theft seems to mostly be a question of how you define theft (does it include legality, process, etc) but there are obvious parallels in any case. Although I suppose private property (beyond what one can defend themselves) also exists by state force.

Didn't downvote you BTW.

[ALittleLight]

I agree that taxation being theft depends on how you define theft (and how you define taxation) but that's true of any statement that says X is a type of Y.

If the Mafia had a complex set of rules and procedures governing how they stole from you, I don't think you'd shy away from calling their activities theft. I feel the same way about the government. I don't like them. I didn't vote for them. I don't agree that they should take my money and I don't like what they spend it on. That they have laws I had no part in creating, am not aware of, and don't understand, on top of judges and lawyers I don't agree with doesn't alter the fundamental action taking place - people with guns forcing me to give them money by ultimately threats of violence.

Calling taxation theft is not really a legal statement. It's a moral statement intended to make people think about taxation. Observing that the thieves don't consider it theft according to their laws is accurate, and that would be meaningful in some contexts, but that's not the moral statement being made.

[africanboy]

> I don't agree that they should take my money

I'm not American so I can be mistaken, but isn't it written in the American Constitution that government has the power to tax citizens?

In that case it's the price to pay to be part of the community, like it or not.

Coming from Italy I can only say that mafia doesn't do what they do because some fundamental law that defines a Country and is accepted by every political party gives them the power to do it, but only because they have the means to force other people to follow their own rules, they are violent criminals, out of the law.

Also: being prosecuted in a due process and eventually arrested it's not the same thing as being killed because some mob boss feels like it.

[ALittleLight]

I'm not contesting that there are documents and laws, including the constitution, that say the government has the power to tax me (and others). I'm pointing out that I wasn't a part of creating those laws and I never agreed to them. In other words, if paying taxes was optional - I wouldn't pay.

At least, I wouldn't pay the amount I currently do. I might pay 1%-2% of what I currently pay. I think some of what the government does is valuable but most of it isn't valuable and lots of it is immoral.

[africanboy]

> In other words, if paying taxes was optional - I wouldn't pay.

well that's kinda true for everybody, I guess...

> At least, I wouldn't pay the amount I currently do.

I pay a global 43% on my salary which is not even in the 5 zeroes, but I am fine with it as long as everybody else do their part according to what they have.

The problem in my country is that many don't and the majority of them is in the high income spectrum

[alacombe]

Amen, bro.

I will also state that there isn't much difference between Mafia/Organised crime/Goverments, and Sects/Religions.

[com2kid]

There is a huge difference between organized crime and government.

Governments have predictable, well defined fee structures that can be budgeted for by businesses.

Services are delivered in a, mostly, timely fashion, or at least on some sort of predictable schedule. Many government agencies actually give out time tables for responses, people may not be happy with those time tables, but timelines are provided[1].

Organized crime makes no such guarantee. Pay once, and they can come around and ask again. Once a mark always a mark.

Governments provide stability. The next person in charge is probably not going to change things too much. Taxes aren't going to be raised too much, and changes to taxes aren't going to happen without input from constitutions.

Also the use of force is limited by laws set forth. If you own a bar next to the mayor's son's house and play music too loud, you may get a fine. And that fine may be delivered a bit faster than if your bar wasn't located next to the mayor's son's house.

But your bar won't be burnt down. You won't have your kneecaps smashed in. Your car tires won't be slashed.

This limitation of force is both a legal contract and a social contract. When the social contract is broken, mass protests take place, and steps are taken to reinforce that social contract. The BLM protests and the efforts to establish more community orientated outreach and justice programs are recent examples of this.\

[1] My local department of licensing guarantees how long it takes to mail out new license tabs, my city hall has a timeline for how long building blueprint requests take. Even many federal services have wait time estimates that they try to adhere to. People only complain when government doesn't work, but by and large it does work!