| The last question was answered in just | 3 | minutes Let our thousands of members help! |
Welcome to Answerbag, a community of people sharing what they know.
Sort answers by:
Rating |
Date
Top Answer out of 3 by MrJosh on Aug 1, 2009 at 11:49 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Yes, you are right: There is a difference.
But calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg, to paraphrase, I think, Lincoln. Theft is theft no matter how "lawful." Merriam Webster's definition of "theft" is taking of personal property in order to deprive the rightful owner of it. And that, by gosh, is just what taxation is. There was rampant theft of personal property by excessive property taxation in the conquered South starting in 1865; and there have been many other examples over the years of eminent domain used to give someone's home to a corporation, such as certain department store chains. Sure, it was perfectly "lawful," but it was by gosh theft. "Lawful" is not at all a synonym for "right" or "just."
Assuming you quoted that dictionary verbatim, it would seem that it is only theft if deprivation is the purpose of your taking. There does seem to be some ambiguity regarding the definition of the word "theft." Allow me to reanswer the question along the lines of what Henderson said.
- In theory, the government (speaking of the US here) is "We the people." "We the people" have gotten together and decided that we should all chip in to pay for things like roads, police, fire departments, etc. I am happy to pay my share for those things. I'm not happy about everything my tax dollars go toward, and I let my elected representatives know. Its not a perfect system, but I wouldn't call it theft.
You are trying to be reasonable, and I thank you.
However, I still call it theft. You say you are "happy to pay my share." And I'm happy for you to pay what you think is your share. However, you are always allowed to donate anything of your own to whatever cause, even government, but that doesn't mean you have any right to force others to hand over money, or anything else, such as their time or their energy or their lives, for whatever cause you want to support. You are also right about the Merriam Webster definition. A more intelligent definition would be "depriving the rightful owner," regardless of the reason for the depriving. Many countries, including the young United States, taxed people for the established church. It was the law, but it sure wasn't right. Many states taxed everybody for government schools, but doled out a pittance, if anything, for black schools, and that was wrong at several levels -- but it was the law. Where it was spent doesn't matter: How it was taken does. Answer 2 out of 3 by Ice man on May 28, 2009 at 5:57 am Permalink
Comments
Thank you! Excellent answer!
P.S. Beautiful bike! (Photo number 3)
You're welcome , and the bike says thanks. :)
Answer 3 out of 3 by Im Alec on May 28, 2009 at 6:43 am Permalink
Comments
Thank you! This is a very good answer.
I have, because of your reasoning, gone back to my question and changed the wording to "initiatory force." I will add this: I never "joined" whatever government it is that points a gun at me and says "hand over your taxes." So that analogy does not hold up. I can point to, as just one example, the Soviet Union that considered all peoples and persons within reach to be property, and when Jews asked to be able to leave, to go to Israel, for example, they were told they couldn't leave until they "paid back" the state for their education. Nobody ever asked "do you want this?" If something is forced on you, how can you reasonably be told you must pay for it?
Well, rats. It seems I can't change my question. Sorry.
Important: Answerbag cannot guarantee the accuracy of answers submitted by members, and we recommend that you use common sense when following any advice found here. Read full disclaimer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||

