If taxation is not theft, what is it? If theft is defined as taking from another by use of force, how can taxation not be theft?

Thank you! Excellent answer!

• Report

by morrisonhimself on May 28th, 2009

P.S. Beautiful bike! (Photo number 3)

• Report

by morrisonhimself on May 28th, 2009

You're welcome , and the bike says thanks. :)

• Report

by Ice man on May 28th, 2009

100% agreed, and if the taxation is a theft then using of government properties (roads, etc..) paying without is also a theft.

• Report

by Henderson on August 2nd, 2009

Good point.

• Report

by MrJosh on August 2nd, 2009

So back in the days when blacks were -- BY LAW -- forced to sit in the back of the bus, that was OK? I mean, government said it was so it must have been.
And when the Nazi government, which, after all, WAS the government, said Jews had to be exterminated, that was OK too?
And when the Red Chinese government said anyone with education was de facto an enemy of the state, and must be killed or at least re-educated, that was OK?
Do you see the error in reasoning?

• Report

by morrisonhimself on August 2nd, 2009

No, no error in my reasoning. Nowhere did I make a judgement call. Nowhere did I say anything was good or bad. I said lawful. There is a difference.

• Report

by MrJosh on August 2nd, 2009

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."

• Report

by morrisonhimself on August 3rd, 2009

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.

• Report

by MrJosh on August 3rd, 2009

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.

• Report

by morrisonhimself on August 3rd, 2009

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?

• Report

by morrisonhimself on May 28th, 2009

Well, rats. It seems I can't change my question. Sorry.

• Report

by morrisonhimself on May 28th, 2009