Non-Aggression Principle? Then What

The non-aggression principle is that violence is only justified to stop others from initiating violence.

If you agree with the non-aggression principle, then does taxation as it works now need to end?

If you disagree with the non-aggression principle, when is violence justified?

a reply to: wayforward

Call me dense, but I fail to make the connection between non-aggression (aka ahimsa) and taxation?!

I am all for non-aggressive principles and strive to live by them; and I'm not a major fan of taxes either. No one likes taxes. As of right now, I am in need of these social taxes that are supposed to be redistributed, and yet, you have to jump through more hoops than Shamu to see any of those taxes re-purposed in appropriate ways. It makes me wonder how much of our taxes simply go down the drain, or get funneled into off-the-record projects. You pay money in, but good luck ever seeing any come back to you when you need it! Yeah, it's pretty much a scam..

Please elaborate on your OP, please, because I feel totally confused here!

a reply to: wayforward

If you earn you got to pay your tax.

I know, bummer.

You could try fighting the IRS but you won't be fighting them you'd be fighting the US Marshalls. I recommend airstrikes to soften them up first.

a reply to: wayforward

What?? In what universe is "violence" synonym of "taxes"??

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: wayforward

What?? In what universe is "violence" synonym of "taxes"??

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by this!

In fact, upon closer inspection of the OP, I'm even more confused!

originally posted by: wayforward
The non-aggression principle is that violence is only justified to stop others from initiating violence.

I'm not sure I remember that clause when studying Gandhi. I thought non-aggression meant that violence is never justified as there are other effective ways to combat injustice.

If you agree with the non-aggression principle, then does taxation as it works now need to end?

Non-sequitur. I'm not sure how taxes are a violent form of oppression--an annoyance, yes--but not something that I see inciting a violent revolution.

If you disagree with the non-aggression principle, when is violence justified?

Interesting question! Can't wait to see some of the answers members come up with!

a reply to: wayforward

While people are not inclined to revise their assumptions, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, at least a cursory reinspection is merited.

To paraphrase the general principal of non-aggression as Murray Rothbard would elucidate it:

Violence should not be employed except in the defense of one's person or property.

Unless lives or property are in jeopardy, violence should not be employed by anyone including the state.

Since income taxes are compulsory and, ultimately, enforceable by the use of violent coercion (seized assets, imprisonment, injury or death if resisted), they do not belong in a civil society. Moreover, their parallels with slavery are undeniable.

When it comes to the use of force or violence, a general guide has been:

Use force in defense of yourself or someone else. Only use lethal force in an immediate life threatening situation.

The taxation system like any other language or culture will continue to change over time. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but until the whole system is fixed up is much going to really change with it anyway? What is the effect that all this technology is having and is going to stop? Taxation does need to continue evolving.

The justification of violence is a matter of self determination. In our legal system there is some variation about just how much violence is justified. You can choose to live like Gandhi and take every beatings in your stride, or you can start up a war killing lots.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

How does the IRS get me to pay their tax bill without using unprovoked violence?

Lets go through the routine as it stands now:
IRS: Give me 20% of your money.
Me: No.
IRS: I will now use force against you to put in you an 8x8 cell for five years. And we'll bring you back if you don't then comply with our orders to pay us money.

Well, the Non-Agression Principel is not limited to dirrect violence, it includes threath of violence also.

For example. If you refuse to pay taxes eventually you will end up in the situation where they send the police to arrest you and then one of two things will happen. Either you will subdue or they will escalte the violence upon you till you do or till you die.
That why the Non-Agression Principel is not compatible with taxiation backed by the threath of force.