Taxation is theft

[xoggoth]

If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

Some things we know make us unhappy, like violence or theft, and it is logical for society to have laws against them. You could similarly argue that men are social, empathetic animals and it makes sense to redistribute some wealth via tax but can the argument reasonably be extended to all taxes that governments choose to levy, the welfare for those who do not try, the very many things that are arguably not necessary for the multiple levels of the state to be doing?

Here's one for d000000000000000000000000000gh! Where does it say in the ten commandments though shalt not avoid thy tax?

[tractor]

...

People would bear the tax burden far more easily if they were allowed to 'vote' for spending priority along with their employer's RTI submission.

Then, if there were no votes for foreign aid, and huge votes for education and health, things would both improve in those areas and people, generally would feel their money is better spent.

We could also vote weekly/monthly on issues of government and then we would only need a Speaker in the House and could relegate MPs to supporting their constituency. Big saving on expenses and free booze n grub in the Commons as a benefit too

Before you say the unemployed and pensioners would not have a vote, there could be a bunch of tick boxes on your signing sheet. I'll have to think about how I am going to deal with pensioners though...

[Gym beast]

If a soldier kills someone in combat or a country applies the death penalty, this is not murder because murder is by definition killing someone illegally.

The semantics of law have nothing to do with morality. But you cannot call tax "theft" anymore than you can use the term "bedroom tax" seriously.

Hypocritical of you to mention semantics, as you have a loose grasp of them. When a soldier kills in combat, he is legally guilty of Murder, in the judiciary of the dead citizen's nation, if there is no current declaration of war between them.


Even if there has been such a declaration, I consider him still morally guilty of state-sponsored murder IF his nation was the initiating aggressor.

[doodab]

In a state of total anarchy where might is right the taking of things would happen. You might call that theft, or you might call it the natural order of things. It's pointless to talk of rights in such a situation, the only right is the right to exert what power one has.

In a civil society, which most prefer, both theft and taxation are defined by law and are clearly not the same thing.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Pitt the Younger, 1798/9.

Xogg is right once again.

Thankfully they haven't thought of bringing back hearth tax, window tax or ship tax. Yet.

Is Pitt the younger the one Blackadder screwed over?

[SpontaneousOrder]

In a civil society, which most prefer, both theft and taxation are defined by law and are clearly not the same thing.

That's just begging the question.

If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

If the definition of theft, murder, rape, whatever is dependent on legislation, then where does that law come from? If my legislation says taxation is theft (which it does), and yours says that it is not, then who is correct?
And if neither of us is correct then you cannot tell me that taxation is not theft - the best you can do is to tell me that I cannot tell you that it is.

And if that is the case, then your attempt to show that I'm incorrect is a performative contradiction - your argument itself can only conclude that there is no such thing as correct/incorrect (at least in the context of this discussion).

The only logical conclusion to be made is that there is in fact an objectively valid true/false answer to the question "is taxation theft?"; And with that being the case your position is proven to be incorrect.

[doodab]

If the definition of theft, murder, rape, whatever is dependent on legislation, then where does that law come from?

From the agreement of the legislative bodies that make the law.

If my legislation says taxation is theft (which it does), and yours says that it is not, then who is correct?

Neither. What counts is the law of the land, not one's personal opinion, which isn't "legislation" at all.

The only logical conclusion to be made is that there is in fact an objectively valid true/false answer to the question "is taxation theft?";

Indeed. Although they may have some characteristics in common, and while you may object to taxation as strongly as you object to theft, they are qualitatively different things. Anyone can steal, for example, but only someone with the authority to do so can tax. So the objective answer is clearly no. It's simply naive sloganeering to equate the two.

[cojak]

But you've still got to pay it. I like having roads and the NHS.

[SpontaneousOrder]

From the agreement of the legislative bodies that make the law.

I'm a legislative body.

Neither. What counts is the law of the land, not one's personal opinion

So what is "the land" ? Again all we're doing is pushing the question back a level each time which will go on forever so long as you can think of more abstractions and euphemisms for things which don't really exist. It's no different from answering the question "how did we get here" with "God made us" and supposing that that has actually answered anything.

Anyone can steal, for example, but only someone with the authority to do so can tax.

We're just begging the question again.
If stealing and taxation aren't objectively definable actions (i.e. if they are dependent on legislation), then what sense does it make to state in an objective fashion that anyone can steal but only people with authority (where does this authority come from? I have the authority to not be taxed. How do we proceed from here?) may tax.

All you're doing is saying that you can fit a square peg in a round hole because you and your pals have written a law that states that a square peg will indeed fit into a round hole.

So me and my pals have written a law stating that it cannot fit. So what?

naive

Hahahah!

[NotAllThere]

...If the definition of theft, murder, rape, whatever is dependent on legislation, then where does that law come from? If my legislation says taxation is theft (which it does), and yours says that it is not, then who is correct? ....

The law of the land is the correct one because it can be imposed on you by force. Their police force is bigger than yours, and, ultimately, their army is bigger than yours.


Their law wins over your opinion (you don't have any legislation, that's just being silly), because it's backed by people with guns. If you are a US citizen, then "it's backed by people with far bigger and more guns".

If you feel that calling someone a **** is perfectly acceptable under your rules for this forum, and Cojak thinks it isn't, then Cojak's rules wins, because she has the ban-hammer, and you don't. You then hack the server to implement your rule, and admin calls PC Plod to take you away.

It's called "might is right". It might annoy bleeding heart wishy washy tree-hugging sandal wearing hippies, but ultimately all authority derives from who controls the people with guns.