[troym]

> Taking advantage of the infrastructure, market, and support of one country only to flee to a tax haven abroad is neither moral nor respectable.

A thief comes into your home and takes half of your property. He's done the same with your neighbors, and down the street, he's handing out some of the goods to whomever stops by.

Is it moral or respectable for you to go down the street, get something back, and then move out of the neighborhood because you don't like being robbed?

[RokStdy]

That analogy is a fantastic failure. I was going to try to rebut it with some sort of home owner's association analogy, but why bother. The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

[troym]

> The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

Oh, really? Instead of argument by assertion, let's try an idea.

Your neighbor comes and takes your bicycle without your permission and won't give it back. Theft? Sure.

Your neighbor comes in with one of his friends, and they take your bike together, same circumstance. Theft? Sure.

Your neighbor comes in with 2 of his friends, 3, 4, etc. At what point is it no longer theft? 51%, you say? What magically happened at that point? I say nothing: theft is still theft, irrespective of the claims of the majority.

[xemoka]

Theft is not exchanged. You're completely ignoring the fact that the government is providing things in return.

This gentleman is a Canadian Expat, the government in Canada is not depriving its citizens for nothing in return. The redistribution of wealth is important for an effective society. It protects the 'wealthy' from the uprising of the peasants/proletariat/commoners, hoarding all the wealth does no good to the wealthy—they often lose their heads. So instead they lose a piece of, what they consider, their rightfully earned pie, in exchange for the betterment of all and the stability of a society—along with all its benefits. "Smart indentureship"

Sure, you can argue that what they are providing in return does not equate the amount you're giving them, but guess what: you agreed to live and earn in this society. Good riddance to those who do not see this, but don't be taking what is not yours as the door hits you on your way out—you earned it under the agreements and covenants of the 'System'.

Thanks for the Straw man.

[tzs]

It's no longer theft when they are taking the bicycle to collect on a debt you owe and where bicycles are the normal form in which debts of this kind a repaid.

Taxes, as Ben Franklin noted, are payment on the debt that you owe for making use of the benefits society provides for you.

[ignostic]

I understand your point. Like you, I disagree with xemoka's assertion that "you agreed to live and earn in the society." It's not quite right (and a little naive) to say all government is voluntary because you happen to live in the countries boundaries. Anarcho-capitalism addresses this with the concept of actual opt-in governments, rather than asserting "you agree to this" whether you do or not.

With all of that said, he's still used/using the infrastructure of other countries to make money. Whether he agreed to build the roads with tax or not, the fact is that they are built and maintained with tax. One cannot pretend that government offers the rich NO benefit whatsoever.

[chrisbennet]

And your parents were jailer because you couldn't do whatever you wanted right?

Like it or not, we are born into society and the social contract that goes along with it. The "utopia" of zero government already exists in the form of failed states.

The "theft" argument sounds a lot like the child who complains that "I didn't ask to be born!" when faced with family chores.

[lwhalen]

Can you show me a copy of this social contract I've supposedly signed? I hear so much about 'social contract' this, 'social contract' that, but I have yet to clap eyes upon it...