[tenderLoins]

Well, the taxes/theft thing isn't quite appropriate.

Seizure, impounding, eviction, even fines, ...these might ring truer, since they're generally harsher, require less sophistication and such effects are more immediate. These things are often unavoidable, and inflicted without option or recourse.

Meanwhile, taxes, tolls, tariffs... eh, not so much. They're slow, often legislated amidst varying degrees of democracy (in our modern times) and in some cases can be met with degrees of flexibility, where a real slippery individual might be capable of avoiding them.

[BetterLateThan]

> Well, the taxes/theft thing isn't quite appropriate.

True. Taxes are armed robbery with a threat of kidnapping and confinement. They have nothing to do with theft.

[tzs]

No, taxes are payment on debt you owe. Ben Franklin explained it quite well:

-----------------------

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

-----------------------

Source: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12....

[smokeyj]

Does owning slaves and printing currency make one an authority on 'natural rights'?

[rosser]

Ad hominem.

[smokeyj]

Questioning an appeal to authority is ad hominem? That explains plenty.

[mburns]

>Taxes are armed robbery

This is such a crock.

Taxes are the agreed upon payment for services rendered, the EULA for which you agreed to by being in the country.

[np422]

That is not an agreement, at best it is "being held at ransom".

Are you willing to give up your language, culture, job, home, friends and family and probably whole lot of other things to nullify that EULA?

Every law that is a promise to use force, incarceration and violence to uphold it.

And the tax system today is more and more like two wolves and a sheep having a vote on what to eat for supper.

[quinnchr]

Except that your culture, job, and home are there largely because of the services your tax dollars support.

So yes if you're not willing to give up those things you just accepted that newfangled thingy we call "The Social Contract."

[np422]

One could also argue that I have a job, culture and home despite the government - not thanks to them.

There are very large and practical advantages of organizing judicial system, infrastructure and other basic, hard to replace societal services through a tax system.

But history shows us that the more a government interferes the less efficient the result will be.

My analysis of the current situation would be that since all power corrupts the governments of today have become hard-handed, arbitrary in their exercise of powers and blind to the consequences. The amount self restraint that an ordinary citizen could expect from governments seems to be long gone, they pass another law, they raise the taxes and use the "social contract" as a pretext.

I am a very firm believer in non-violence and non-force and would like to minimize the use of violence and force as much as possible, advocates of statism and authoritarians in general don't seem to agree with that view.

Please see the article at the top of this thread for a good example of what I'm talking about.

[quinnchr]

Then go ahead and make the argument.

Also, unless you are an anarchist who rejects all forms of capitalism, then I would argue you do support the use of violence and force, you just support a different kind of authoritarianism.

[lwhalen]

Oooh, a social contract reference, my favorite! Please, show me this social contract I've signed. Where can I read the specific terms of this contract, and how do I challenge/nullify the clauses I disagree with?

[quinnchr]

You sign it every day by choosing to live here...

You challenge/nullify the parts you disagree with using this nifty tool we call, "The Democratic Process".

The specific terms of the contract are available here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.action;jses...

[sbank]

> the EULA for which you agreed

I never agreed to anything. Born into a social contract, you say? Well, only slaves are born into contracts, I will retort.

[mburns]

Using wordplay doesn't make your point more interesting.

Slaves can't enter contracts, by birth or otherwise.

Minors can't enter contracts, either, so your parents entered you on your behalf when you were born. You maintain it by staying here.

You had an 18 year head start to decide before most of the social contract even takes affect, while using services largely tax-free.

You're welcome to leave whenever you like.

[sbank]

> Minors can't enter contracts, either, so your parents entered you on your behalf when you were born. You maintain it by staying here.

Or it is null and void when I turn 18.

> You're welcome to leave whenever you like.

And so are you. So there. It is pointless to counter criticism of society with "move to Somalia if you don't like it" and similar absurd platitudes. It doesn't address the question at hand, and it also doesn't address the fact that people who disagree with the (faux) social contract does not have any less of a right to live in the same country as you do.

Imagine that you go to a party, and to your horror you discover that a mass rape is in progress. You try to intervene and say that this is just not right, but are quickly told that if you don't like it you can go down the street to that other party where there are no raping going on.

[smokeyj]

> Taxes are the agreed upon payment for services rendered, the EULA for which you agreed to by being in the country.

If taxes were called protection money you still wouldn't connect the dots.

[discardorama]

OK, replace "taxes" with "asset forfeiture". Read this and weep: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...