Taxation is nothing but theft.

I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?

Aggravated theft, at that.
The revenue collectors are more than happy to use lethal force if you try to defend your property.

Your assertion can only be validated once I understand your position on morality. More specifically, do you believe in moral absolutes within the human framework of understanding?

I'm not sure everyone argues with your assertion that taxation is a form of theft, I think most people just see taxation as a necessary form of theft if you support the idea that a nation must have a government to function. It is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible, to argue with your logic in that case.

If you make your assertion and claim that moral absolutes DO exist, then I disagree and am happy to show you why your logic would not be sound in such a context.

Do you want to go to a movie? You have to pay. Do you want a car? You have to pay. Do you want a hot dog? You have to pay. Do you want to drive on public roads? You have to pay. Do you want a police force, a fire department? You have to pay. Going to a movie without first buying a ticket is theft. Taking a car off the lot without first paying is theft. Reaching into a hot dog stand and taking a hot dog without paying is theft. Riding on public roads without paying taxes is theft. Calling police for help or calling for a fireman with out paying taxes is theft.

We need roads and bridges, we do need a military to keep another country from taking over this country, we do need police forces to keep the peace. We do need regulations to help to protect our rights. These things require money to operate.

originally posted by: rickymouse
We need roads and bridges, we do need a military to keep another country from taking over this country, we do need police forces to keep the peace. We do need regulations to help to protect our rights. These things require money to operate.

Who is 'we' and who lumped me in with everyone else? I think part of the problem is we don't have freedom to choose our associations. We are already allocated to a particular government at birth.

Personally I don't like my money being used to bomb, drone and kill people around the world. I don't want to be associated with a collective that does that sort of thing.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

You should brush up on the purpose of taxation. If taxes didn't exist, you would live a very uncomfortable life.

If, however, you live completely off the grid and are 100% self sufficient without help from anybody in any form (which means you don't even have a car, don't go the store for any reason, and make your own clothing), then you might have a claim that your property tax is theft. I doubt that's the case though.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: rickymouse
We need roads and bridges, we do need a military to keep another country from taking over this country, we do need police forces to keep the peace. We do need regulations to help to protect our rights. These things require money to operate.

Who is 'we' and who lumped me in with everyone else? I think part of the problem is we don't have freedom to choose our associations. We are already allocated to a particular government at birth.

Personally I don't like my money being used to bomb, drone and kill people around the world. I don't want to be associated with a collective that does that sort of thing.

That isn't your money that they are wasting, it is your kids money. They are the ones who will be paying off the national debt. Aren't we nice to our kids in this new society where everyone thinks they are doing so much good for people when in fact we are dooming our grandkids to poverty.

Well, look at it this way.

You live in a country. The state is the land. Consider taxation as rent. You are paying for the privilege of living in that state. Anyway, you do receive something for your rent: You get security, justice, societal institutions and the basics for civilised life. The tax taken does not just disappear, it is spent. You may not like how it is spent, but that's the way it works.

I suppose it all boils down to being a citizen of the country you live in. Here I talk about the developed West where every person has rights and responsibilities. You cannot abdicate your responsibilities when choosing to live in the society where there is common cause and common humanity. You have a right to change society, but also to accept the society’s norms.

If you don’t like it, then move somewhere else. That, or be the catalyst for political change, although there is a reason why people who think “tax is theft” don’t get into power.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

You are correct except it is not money. This is all based upon what is lawful money of value and HJR-192
(House Joint Resolution-192, June 5, 1933) , that none is in circulation for private use by the public. There are no lawful dollars out there only credits, units and debt ledger entrees, and no one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance. The IRS can’t tax credit, debt, or barter. The Congress licensed the use of FRNs to be used as money, as a medium or exchange for discharge of public and private debt into the US bankruptcy. At that point FRNs became contraband and that gives the BATF and the IRS jurisdiction over its use and transfer. Just like trafficking in alcohol, guns,drugs, or tobacoo , or other substances subject to excise taxes.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART VI > §
*§ 165. Losses*
Release date: 2003-05-15
(a) General rule
*There shall be allowed as a deduction any loss sustained during the
taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. *
(b) Amount of deduction
For purposes of subsection (a), the basis for determining the amount
of the deduction for any loss shall be the adjusted basis provided
in section 1011 for determining the *loss* from the sale or other
disposition of *property (think: your labor).*
(c) Limitation on losses of individuals
In the case of an individual, the deduction under subsection (a)
shall be limited to------—
(1) losses incurred in a trade or business;
(2) losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit,
though not connected with a trade or business; and
(3) except as provided in subsection (h), losses of property not
connected with a trade or business or a transaction entered into for
profit, if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other
casualty, or from theft.
(d) Wagering losses
Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the
extent of the gains from such transactions.
(e) Theft losses
For purposes of subsection (a), any loss arising from theft shall be
treated as sustained during the taxable year in which the taxpayer
discovers such loss.
(f) Capital losses
Losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed
only to the extent allowed in sections 1211 and 1212.

*(g) Worthless securities*
(1) General rule
*If any security which is a capital asset becomes worthless* during
the taxable year, the loss resulting therefrom shall, for purposes
of this subtitle, be treated as a loss from the sale or exchange, on
the last day of the taxable year, of a capital asset.

*(2) Security defined*
For purposes of this subsection, the term "security" means—
(A) a share of stock in a corporation;
(B) a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a
corporation; or
(C) a bond, debenture, *note*, or certificate, or other evidence of
indebtedness, *issued by a corporation or by a government or
political subdivision thereof,* with interest coupons or in
registered form.

/Ok so now you have been given "evidences of debt" for your work.
You have never made "income" but received evidences of debt. The US
Treasury admits to (g) above in its website /*(and you really must
visit this website!)*/:/
www.ustreas.gov...
/wherein the website states: /

“Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The
twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation
pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank
belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal
Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district
whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for
dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal
Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of
Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of
producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the
Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States
Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold
collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the
Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and
United States securities. This provides backing for the note
issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal
Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes
(liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411,
but the government would also take over the assets, which would
be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien
on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the
collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any
other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has
been the case since 1933. *_The notes have no value for
themselves,_* but for what they will buy. In another sense,
because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are
"backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.”

/Now they, not you, have established that their confidence game,
what you received in exchange for the company draft (check) was
absolutely nothing. They are valueless so you exchanged your labor
for valueless paper that has a lien on it already. They are
identified in two statutes (Code) and they are Title 18 Section 8
wherein it states:

Gold coinage discontinued, see section 5112 of Title 31, Money and
Finance.

Since there is no more real "money" to be redeemed then, as the
Treasury Web Site stated, they are worthless in conformity with 26
USC 165 (g). Ergo: you cannot go into a bank and demand gold or
silver coin for a federal reserve note.

So the question is, Have I received any income that is reportable
for filing a tax form? Have I objected openly that I do not accept
federal reserve notes as "payment" for my labor? See the Padleford
case 14 Ga. 438 wherein they stated: /

"Supposing this not to be taxed for inspection purposes, has
Congress consented to it being laid? It is certain that Congress has
not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is
nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the
practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice
of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives
consent, is the rule of business life_. _A tender of bills is as
good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to_. To stand by,
in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. *[Ok
people how many times has your property (labor included) been stolen
and turned over to the tax man in your silence? Did you file a
refusal for good cause shown?]* These are mere instances of the use
of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of nations, it is
equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds
a nation.(Vattel, ch. 16, sec.199, book 1

originally posted by: scojak
a reply to: Aristotelian1

You should brush up on the purpose of taxation. If taxes didn't exist, you would live a very uncomfortable life.

Or we could all just do what the thieving parasites of the Rothschilds banking cartel does and print our own money out of fresh air.

a reply to: southbeach

What does that have to do with taxes and their use in creating a habitable society?

a reply to: rickymouse



Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

"The United States of America."



Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,

and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,

which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated

to the United States, in Congress assembled.”



[end excerpt]





When they came together the first time to form

a Union of several (plural) States, they decided

to call themselves the "United States of America".



Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished

"United States of America" from "United States"

in Congress assembled. The States formally

delegated certain powers to the federal government,

which is clearly identified in those Articles as the

"United States".



Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to

the 50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"

refers to the federal government.



The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now

throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled

in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the

term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used

in correct contradistinction to "United States":

All Inquisition re-venue Services taxes/tribute/tithing are excise direct taxes which goes 100 percent to the Crown(inner Temple/BAR members) to continue to extort free labor off the serfs.
The taxes from gas go to roads, the taxes for property go to schools etc. then you have taxes on your food, fees from toll booths, licenses, to receive a copy of your birth certificate(you don't own or have the right to own the original the vital statistics has the copyRight) i could go on and on on fees but you all comprehend.

a reply to: paraphi

So are you saying you do not have unalienable rights the creator gave you and a fictional entity called Government(to govern the mind) is your God/father/savior.
You would rather give up a right(property(body) children, labor, hopes dreams aspirations) for your false sense of protection by a foreign government called the United States-district of Columbia a ten mile radius in which you are a citizen etymology of means slave or chattel then an American National. Eyes wide open we have been occupied/flagged/jacked since 1868 but the indoctrination runs deep and the truth is scary to unveil

a reply to: Aristotelian1

It's much more than theft, since it also comprises elements of extortion and slavery. It's late now however, I'll hit this in the morning.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: rickymouse

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

They Work for the United States District of Columbia that is why more codes/regulations keep multiplying to extort from Americans more credits, free labor from prisoners check CCA corporations in which the judges BAR attorneys/lawyers all have their pensions in. Conflict of Interest???

Also law is substance real such as gravity and legal is form kind of as presumed or assumed

a reply to: 9empress9

In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants

originally posted by: 9empress9
So are you saying you do not have unalienable rights the creator gave you and a fictional entity called Government(to govern the mind) is your God/father/savior. ...

I honestly have no clue as to the point you are trying to make. Government does exist. You may not like it, but it is true. I am not American, so have no clue as to the rest of your post. I was responding to the basic gist of the OP that taxation is theft.

To expand on what I said earlier...

Theft is taking things from people without their consent and giving nothing back. While you may not like tax, you do consent in exchange of the things the government does for you. People can choose the level of taxes through the ballot box. Libertarian parties (where they exist) who push the "taxation is theft" argument don't seem to get in power, mainly because people want government and the societal controls and benefits government brings.

Oh, and when I say "government" I mean all levels, not just at country-level. In the UK government goes down to parish level.

a reply to: 9empress9

www.freedom-school.com...

howard freeman the ucc connection explains fairly accurately,
we the people are compelled /forced to use FRN's to be able to do commerce outside our private life which is a necessity for survival to be full of life.

The very fact that people have wealth/income to tax comes from society. The laws to enforce property rights, the roads to move goods even the very money we use.

Taxation is necessary for society to function.