Taxation is nothing but theft.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

...it's actually extortion.
The majority of us (who don't know any better) still consent under threat of retribution; fines or imprisonment.

Poverty became the mechanism/leverage against the few who were willing to compromise/negotiate a truce/peace.
If there is a place on the Earth where people get caught helping the impoverished, they will become frowned upon in the nastiest way possible. Through taxation.

If it wasn't for poverty no man would have dominion/authority over another man.
Making economics in it's current form gives licence to those wishing to do harm against another legal.
Ethics is lost in interpretation/perceived fear of losing control.

Is there any place on Earth where economics is frowned upon whereas I can live in peace, unmolested?

People in today's age are motivated by their salaries, nothing more...
Unless they are the scourge of the Earth and desire authority/dominion over another human being being human.
It's a sad affair to be such a piece of sandpaper.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
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:

By "refute" do you mean ignoring or dismissing a point of view that you disagree with ?

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.

agree (careful read on...)

Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.

Totally disagree. You agree to taxation when you abide by the laws of the country/government you wish to be governed by. If you disagree with those laws then f...off to a.n.other country. I can guarantee that your ability to bugg.r off to a.n.other country is easier from a high taxation country than a low one.

Now that raises a point you have miserably failed to address.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

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

Incorrect. The conclusion is that you are too damned lazy to move. You are conveniently ignoring choices to suit your premise ie bias.

So get your gun (I presume you are a US citizen) and go live in an area of the world with no taxes. Easy enough to find since taxes pay for stuff like law and order. Find a lawless area and live there. you have a gun so you are safe.

Mwahahahahahaha dream on.

OP uses 'consent' lightly.

Most theft without consent doesn't involve your signature and filling out paperwork. This is indicating consent.

No one forces you to file taxes. It's done with consent. But if you don't you're the thief stealing from community with each public piece of infrastructure you touch and every product that touched it thereforth. They aren't coming to get your money, they are coming to get what you OWE them. You cannot even use electricity without pardoning the fact public dollars go toward this also.

Anyone that doesn't pay taxes is the thief, pretty simple counter argument. You use the same public infrastructure, but you don't pay? Thief.

Don't like paying taxes? Ok, pick a country that doesn't take them at all. There are a few.
They ain't cheap, though, so good luck not going broke living there (Monaco, for example)

The other alternative is low-taxation countries, which consist of a few decent but micro-manage-y culture shock countries (Singapore, Malaysia) and some Banana Republics like Guatemala & Nicaragua.

It's not that bad here when you compare around the globe, as far as amount taken goes. We, the People, really need to grow some steely ones and start taking more direct control of where our taxes go. We're great at bitching. Not so great at getting off our collective asses and running for offices we want run better.

originally posted by: CarlsBad
OP uses 'consent' lightly.
They aren't coming to get your money, they are coming to get what you OWE them.

Nah. I don't buy that. There are lots of things the government spends money on that I never touch in my entire lifetime.

For those things, I owe them nada, nothing, not a nit.

However, if I want to travel, other nations require me to have a passport, so I have to go to my government and plead with them to give me one. Still, I have to pay again to get that passport. So, I'm always paying for the particular things I use, and then I pay a mysterious tax for things I know nothing about.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Can you show where your money was taken without your consent?

If you consent to work and earn a paycheck, you consent to taxes.

If you purchase a product, you consent to paying sales taxes.

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always find a cash only and under the table job, and trade your services for goods.

Couldn't agree more. Anything that the government can do we can do more efficiently on our own accord. Except military.

We should abolish our current military and replace it with only the national guard and a Nuclear defense and Navy. Keep the Navy we need them.

originally posted by: toysforadults
Couldn't agree more. Anything that the government can do we can do more efficiently on our own accord. Except military.

We should abolish our current military and replace it with only the national guard and a Nuclear defense and Navy. Keep the Navy we need them.

We don't need a military. Just do like the Swiss, and give everybody a machine gun, and tell them each person is responsible for the defense of the nation, should the need arise. Done. Every citizen a soldier.

a reply to: AMPTAH

But I think we need real training and weaponry, hence the national guard. Make every of age male have to dedicate two weeks and bring a rifle home as you say with 2 magazines. No matter where you live you go to the local National Guard unit and train and play a roll.

You wouldn't HAVE any money to be taxed if it wasn't for the things taxes pay for...

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.

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.

So if you were to kidnap someone off the street and lock them in your basement and feed them and provide everything they could ever want (except they could never leave) that would be fair?

Let's just say for the sake of argument this person was homeless and you provide them with things they would have never had otherwise but they are still unhappy and would not choose to stay if they didn't have to. This is essentially the situation millions and millions of people are living in.

The argument isn't whether or not taxes do awesome things. The argument is about whether or not it's ethical and moral to do this to people and tell them to just deal with it because it works.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
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?

Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Without question.

Income taxes were ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company.

The bankers fully aware of this, forced thru both the Federal Reserve Act to take control of our money, plunge the nation into debt and to create a Stasi type collection of taxes via the IRS and the 16th Amendment, both of which were passed simultaneously in 1913.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
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?

Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

The absence of a meaningful (and/or satisfactory) choice is the complete opposite of consent.

You might as well tell a woman if she doesn't want to be raped she should stay away from men.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
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?

Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

The absence of a meaningful (and/or satisfactory) choice is the complete opposite of consent.

You might as well tell a woman if she doesn't want to be raped she should stay away from men.

Please. There are plenty of decent politicians running at the local/state level all across the country. Are you specifically complaining about federal taxes?

Either way, we get the government we deserve. Stop bitching and get involved if you're not happy with your representation.

As far as your hyperbole about women staying away from men if they don't want to be raped, at least it's safe to say you've mastered the art of ridiculous comparisons.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aristotelian1

This crap again?

I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it.

Ignoring the responses that refute it doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted.

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.

Not quite.

theft
noun
the action or crime of stealing.

I think you need to use the correct words.

Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.

You consent under laws of the country that you will pay tax from moneys earned by accepting the moneys.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

Only if someone doesn't know the meaning of theft and doesn't understand a countries laws can they come to this conclusion.

Your argument to my first premise is this?

1. I have provided an unsourced definition that alleges theft only to be nonlegal seizure of another's money.
2. This contradicts your first premise.
Conclusion: Therefore your first premise is wrong.

As to your challenge of premise two: that is incorrect. Laws are not "consented to," they are enforced by the authority by force. Laws, by definition, are not consented to- they are imposed. It is a contradiction of terms to say that a law only applies to you when you consent it to.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
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?

Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

I did not vote and did not consent. You have given me no rebuttal.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
You wouldn't HAVE any money to be taxed if it wasn't for the things taxes pay for...

Why not?

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Listen. I'll say it easier just for you. I know your religion makes it hard for you to understand basic things.

When you accept money for a paid legal job, you consent to pay taxes.

There's no if, buts or maybes.

Solution? Don't work, don't buy anything and live in a cave.

Was that easy for you to understand? Or are you just going to pretend like you're right, when you're clearly wrong?

Of course taxes are theft, socialism is theft, but there is nothing you can do about it, as the government is robbing you with a gun to your head, figuratively and in some cases literally. Unless you want to be imprisoned, you have to hand over your wallet, and then just hope the government doesn't take your shirt and pants as well. Of course the accomplices of the robbers (voters who vote big government) have no problem with it, they benefit from the crime, while the rest of us get screwed.