PDA

View Full Version : Is Taxation Theft?




mediahasyou
10-17-2008, 10:18 AM
Disregard whether you think taxes are necessary.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/taxation/letter_exchange.php

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 11:59 AM
It depends on the tax. For example, excise taxes, tariffs, taxes on unearned income - all fair. Taxation on wages is not only thievery, it's unconstitutional.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 12:07 PM
I thought we were all libertarians. Humm.. I guess not. :) BTW, I voted "yes".

nate895
10-17-2008, 12:09 PM
I thought we were all libertarians. Humm.. I guess not. :) BTW, I voted "yes".

Not all, some of us are paleoconservatives, constitutionalists, libertarian-leaning conservatives, and even some liberals.

Feenix566
10-17-2008, 12:23 PM
Any time you take money from someone at gunpoint, it's theft. If you don't think your taxes are collected at gunpoint, just try not paying them.

Having said that, it's inevitable that *someone* will take something from you at gunpoint, so I'd rather it be a law-abiding government than a gang of thugs.

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 12:25 PM
I thought we were all libertarians. Humm.. I guess not. :) BTW, I voted "yes".

So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

Kotin
10-17-2008, 12:28 PM
So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

I've done some research about this and what I have found is that a libertarian government would get revenue mostly through user fees.. I would add a sales tax to that and I think we would have enough revenue.


your thoughts?

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 12:41 PM
So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

Given that the state is inherently coercive, any tax it levies is, therefore, coervice. To be complete, there can be non-state governments. A private property development with residences, shoppes, and so on can have its own way of "taxing" or levying fees upon its lessees to maintain the development. Like a mall/shopping center that charges rent and/or takes a percentage of sales from its lessees to maintain the mall/shopping center.

Kludge
10-17-2008, 12:47 PM
Remove quotas, tax immigrants (5-10%). Immigration is voluntary, thus are the taxes.

Eliminate all programs unrelated to the only gov't duty of securing privileges agreed upon by society.

mediahasyou
10-17-2008, 12:55 PM
Remove quotas, tax immigrants (5-10%). Immigration is voluntary, thus are the taxes.

Eliminate all programs unrelated to the only gov't duty of securing privileges agreed upon by society.

Until immigration slows up. Interesting idea but seems ponzi schemish. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme)

Kludge
10-17-2008, 12:59 PM
Until immigration slows up. Interesting idea but seems ponzi schemish. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme)

It's very American and Patriotic. I expect it to bring conservative and libertarian support to my campaign. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155768)

graddium
10-17-2008, 02:17 PM
How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

You don't. If you believe taxes are theft (they are), then every state you could dream up is inherently immoral.

mediahasyou
10-17-2008, 02:22 PM
So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

A voluntary government funded by voluntary taxes. People pay for what they actually want.

mudhoney
10-17-2008, 02:25 PM
A voluntary government funded by voluntary taxes. People pay for what they actually want.

Can it still be called a government then?

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 02:27 PM
I voted no because the Constitution allows for taxation so long as it is apportioned. Taxes on income and property ARE theft, and give government ownership of one's person, and property.

However, taxes such as road tolls, sales tax, parking meters, fines, etc, are equal to all who pay and not based on income, net worth, or station in life.

graddium
10-17-2008, 02:30 PM
I voted no because the Constitution allows for taxation so long as it is apportioned.

How is a document written 200+ years ago binding on me today? I didn't sign anything, I didn't agree to grant powers to a group of elite individuals over me. If I don't consent, and taxes are still taken from me for whatever, how is that not theft?

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 02:31 PM
I thought we were all libertarians. Humm.. I guess not. :) BTW, I voted "yes".

I'm a conservative with a libertarian vein....but as time goes on, I lean more and more toward libertarianism...

That being said, I still beleive there to be a place for government - a government that uphold the constitution and seeks no other agenda. We've got to have roads, infrastructure, and I believe that there is a place for government in these areas, however it should be strictly controlled and at the will of the people concerned.

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 02:38 PM
How is a document written 200+ years ago binding on me today? I didn't sign anything, I didn't agree to grant powers to a group of elite individuals over me. If I don't consent, and taxes are still taken from me for whatever, how is that not theft?


My friend, please read the constitution...it does not give a group of elites any power over you...it protects you by guaranteeing you life, liberty and property...it restrictes the actions of government and protects the rights of the individual and the states. You are sadly misinformed about what the constitution is, how it is supposed to work, and how it has been USURPED by the very group of elites you're afraid of. That is not the fault of the constitution, or the men who signed it. That is the fault of WE THE PEOPLE who allowed it to happen. Its on us to get it fixed.

Here is a link to a .pdf of the constitution...PLEASE READ IT.

http://constitutioncenter.org/files/constitution.pdf

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 02:42 PM
How is a document written 200+ years ago binding on me today? I didn't sign anything, I didn't agree to grant powers to a group of elite individuals over me. If I don't consent, and taxes are still taken from me for whatever, how is that not theft?

That document help establish this country. It is the Supreme Law of the land. Have you ever read it?

EDIT: I responded to his post before I saw yours (good response, btw):


My friend, please read the constitution...it does not give a group of elites any power over you...it protects you by guaranteeing you life, liberty and property...it restrictes the actions of government and protects the rights of the individual and the states. You are sadly misinformed about what the constitution is, how it is supposed to work, and how it has been USURPED by the very group of elites you're afraid of. That is not the fault of the constitution, or the men who signed it. That is the fault of WE THE PEOPLE who allowed it to happen. Its on us to get it fixed.

Here is a link to a .pdf of the constitution...PLEASE READ IT.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 02:45 PM
That being said, I still beleive there to be a place for government - a government that uphold the constitution and seeks no other agenda. We've got to have roads, infrastructure, and I believe that there is a place for government in these areas, however it should be strictly controlled and at the will of the people concerned.

Ever wonder why it takes 6 months to fill potholes on the highway? The government so inefficient at managing the infrastructure that it can't meet the needs of it's customers, us the taxpayer and others. Go to Disneyland or any place that has private roads and those roads are always maintained. The roads, at least in the urban areas here in California, are always congested. Not only but 40,000 people die on public roads every year.

graddium
10-17-2008, 02:56 PM
My friend, please read the constitution...it does not give a group of elites any power over you...it protects you by guaranteeing you life, liberty and property...it restrictes the actions of government and protects the rights of the individual and the states. You are sadly misinformed about what the constitution is, how it is supposed to work, and how it has been USURPED by the very group of elites you're afraid of. That is not the fault of the constitution, or the men who signed it. That is the fault of WE THE PEOPLE who allowed it to happen. Its on us to get it fixed.

Here is a link to a .pdf of the constitution...PLEASE READ IT.

http://constitutioncenter.org/files/constitution.pdf

Maybe you should read it, cause it took about 5 seconds to get to "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

How is that not giving a group of elites (congress) power over me?

I can opt out of the taxation by congress without recourse? Not likely.

heavenlyboy34
10-17-2008, 02:57 PM
So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

Download "The Market For Liberty" to learn how it's done. I believe RP has written some things about it too. :)

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 03:03 PM
Maybe you should read it, cause it took about 5 seconds to get to "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

How is that not giving a group of elites (congress) power over me?

I can opt out of the taxation by congress without recourse? Not likely.

If you read futher, it lays limits on the type of taxes that congress may lay. Forget not that congress is SUPPOSED to represent the people from the states from where they serve, thus the taxes would reflect the will of the people thru thier representative in congress. We elect our representative and senators. Therefore, any misuse of power, or levy of taxation porposed by said rep. or senator SHOULD be at the will of the poeple. Now, that isn't happening anymore. Why? Because we elect people who don't have our interests in mind...but we continue to reelect them. So, who's fault is it?

You can't blame the troubles of today on the men who signed that document, nor can you blame the document. The usurpation of the constitution has been going on for decades, and it is OUR fault for allowing it. It is OUR job to fix it. Read the quote on my signature by a founding fauther, Thomas Jefferson. That should tell you all you need to know.

Oh, and I have read it. Many times. I've studied it. I believe it has been usurped, and that we must work to bring government back to it. Please use your anger for good and study this document, its history, and how it came to be. There are more than just words on the paper.

graddium
10-17-2008, 03:24 PM
If you read futher, it lays limits on the type of taxes that congress may lay. Forget not that congress is SUPPOSED to represent the people from the states from where they serve, thus the taxes would relect the will of the people thru thier representative in congress.

You can't blame the troubles of today on the men who signed that document, no can you blame the document. The usurpation of the constitution has been going on for decades, and it is OUR fault for allowing it. It is OUR job to fix it. Read the quote on my signature by a founding fauther, Thomas Jefferson. That should tell you all you need to know.

Oh, and I have read it. Many times. I've studied it. I believe it has been usurped, and that we must work to bring government back to it. Please use your anger for good and study this document, its history, and how it came to be. There are more than just words on the paper.

Oh I'm far from angry (just the opposite, infact). And don't think that I don't know the constitution either. I was actually going to paste that Jefferson quote to you when I saw it scrolling through posts, but then noticed it was actually yours! Why would we think that after creating one of the best statements for liberty ever (declaration of independence), then creating a document that intends to restrain government into the smallest possible entity, and then watching this tiny government turn into the biggest empire/state the world has ever seen, that there is ANY chance that government can ever work?

Jefferson also said, that which governs the best is that which governs the least. Why don't we have the courage to actually finish that by saying, and that which governs the least is nothing! ANY government ALWAYS turns into tyranny. The constitution lasted about 10 seconds before those in power threw it out the window (remember Washington raising an army to forcibly collect taxes?)

Government always fails, why don't we just recognize that and try something different (liberty)?

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 03:33 PM
Oh I'm far from angry. And don't think that I don't know the constitution either. I was actually going to paste that Jefferson quote to you when I saw it scrolling through posts, but then noticed it was actually yours! Why would we think that after creating one of the best statements for liberty ever (declaration of independence), then creating a document that intends to restrain government into the smallest possible entity, and then watching this tiny government turn into the biggest empire/state the world has ever seen, that there is ANY chance that government can ever work?

Jefferson also said, that which governs the best is that which governs the least. Why don't we have the courage to actually finish that by saying, and that which governs the least is nothing! ANY government ALWAYS turns into tyranny. The constitution lasted about 10 seconds before those in power threw it out the window (remember Washington raising an army to forcibly collect taxes?)

Government always fails, why don't we just recognize that and try something different (liberty)?

I'm with ya. I really am. And I agree that a dreastic change is needed. But sadly the sheeple aren't awake yet. Even with this "economic crisis" most people go about blindly.

I don't have all the answers, not do I think I ever will. But nothing is going to change unless the people wake up. And, any change that takes place in this government will NOT be peaceful....too far gone to for "talking."

Andrew-Austin
10-17-2008, 04:11 PM
I voted no because the Constitution allows for taxation so long as it is apportioned. Taxes on income and property ARE theft, and give government ownership of one's person, and property.


Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

Covered pretty well, here (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/EthicsofLiberty/3-22.mp3).

The_Orlonater
10-17-2008, 04:14 PM
It depends on the tax. For example, excise taxes, tariffs, taxes on unearned income - all fair. Taxation on wages is not only thievery, it's unconstitutional.

Tariffs, fair?

They're evil. If I want to trade with people overseas because they have a better product, it should be more expensive for me to trade with them because I need to keep my dollars at "home" with some jackass I don't want to trade with?

Fuck your tariffs.

I'm going anarcho...:D

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 04:16 PM
Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

I disagree. If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

In theory, mind you. In a perfect (adherance to the Constitution) world. :)

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 04:18 PM
Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

Covered pretty well, here (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/EthicsofLiberty/3-22.mp3).


Good point. But I guess taxes are a nessessary evil...no denying that they're outta control today.

heavenlyboy34
10-17-2008, 04:23 PM
Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

Covered pretty well, here (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/EthicsofLiberty/3-22.mp3).

According to the constitution, unapporitioned taxes (like the income tax) are a no-no, and therefore theft. (See article 1, section 9 of the constitution).

slothman
10-17-2008, 04:25 PM
Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

heavenlyboy34
10-17-2008, 04:26 PM
I disagree. If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

In theory, mind you. In a perfect (adherance to the Constitution) world. :)

Problem is, if you adhere to the Constitution, an amendment to nullify the income tax must be ratified by congress. :(

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 04:28 PM
Problem is, if you adhere to the Constitution, an amendment to nullify the income tax must be ratified by congress. :(

Yep, so don't hold your breath...violence is the only thing that is gonna change things in this nation...count on it. Sad to say, but it is coming.:(

Andrew-Austin
10-17-2008, 04:28 PM
Sorry I'm going to have to pull a truth warya here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft


I disagree.

For it not to be theft, all taxes would have to be given voluntarily. Meaning every single person wanting to give the amount of tax requested of them.

The poll question asked to disregard whether or not you think taxation is necessary.




If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

As perfect as the world could get, this still only means a hypothetical majority agree to being taxed - plenty of people would still disagree with the amount they were taxed or disagree completely with taxation.

I'll have to thank the OP for making this thread, love these kinda convos.


Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

That is a fallacious argument, your presuming that

a) the state (which is an abstraction) comes before individuals, has a right to exist before man. taking up this view naturally leads to things like property tax.
b) that all people who object to taxation on principle have means to move to a distant foreign country

nodope0695
10-17-2008, 04:31 PM
Sorry I'm going to have to pull a truth warya here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft



For it not to be theft, all taxes would have to be given voluntarily.

The poll question asked to disregard whether or not you think taxation is necessary.



As perfect as the world could get, this still only means a hypothetical majority agree to being taxed - plenty of people would still disagree with the amount they were taxed or disagree completely with taxation.

I'll have to thank the OP for making this thread, love these kinda convos.

I'd vote down property tax and income tax in a heartbeat. But I'm all for road tolls, parking meters, sales tax (especially a 1% national sales tax).

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 04:31 PM
Tariffs, fair?

They're evil. If I want to trade with people overseas because they have a better product, it should be more expensive for me to trade with them because I need to keep my dollars at "home" with some jackass I don't want to trade with?

Fuck your tariffs.

I'm going anarcho...:D


Whoa, take a chill pill. :D I get your point, and I'm no expert on this but it seems to me that this so-called free trade we have going on is nothing of the sort. Tariffs were what our founders used, I know tariffs are considered protectionistic. I'm not necessarily arguing for them as much as I am arguing against taxation on wages.

heavenlyboy34
10-17-2008, 04:33 PM
Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

I didn't agree to those taxes-I signed no such agreement. Why should I have to move? Why not just arrest the criminals who insist on stealing (taxing)? Sounds like you have a rather skewed perspective on this, mate. The only reasonable taxes are those passed at the state and local level that have legitimate apportionment.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards of their future security." (from the Declaration of Independence)

The_Orlonater
10-17-2008, 04:40 PM
Whoa, take a chill pill. :D I get your point, and I'm no expert on this but it seems to me that this so-called free trade we have going on is nothing of the sort. Tariffs were what our founders used, I know tariffs are considered protectionistic. I'm not necessarily arguing for them as much as I am arguing against taxation on wages.

Eh, sorry. Long day...

Alright, I see.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 04:51 PM
I disagree. If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

In theory, mind you. In a perfect (adherance to the Constitution) world. :)

No, no, no. So if your grandfather, before you were born, signed a contract where all his progeny were bound to the contract, should you, as a person who didn't (and could not have had) consent to the contract, when it was signed, be bound to it and obligated to honor it?

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 05:08 PM
No, no, no. So if your grandfather, before you were born, signed a contract where all his progeny were bound to the contract, should you, as a person who didn't (and could not have had) consent to the contract, when it was signed, be bound to it and obligated to honor it?

Of course not, hence the ability to amend. :)

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 05:11 PM
Of course not, hence the ability to amend. :)

It is impossible for you to amend a contract you did not sign.

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 05:18 PM
It is impossible for you to amend a contract you did not sign.


I thought we were talking about the constitution and the ability to amend it in the event 'we the people' didn't want taxation anymore. ????

Your argument was an analogy, I thought. No?

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 05:27 PM
I thought we were talking about the constitution and the ability to amend it in the event 'we the people' didn't want taxation anymore. ????

Your argument was an analogy, I thought. No?

The question was, "is taxation theft?". I didn't see any indication the question was restricted to the Constitution. Anything can be constitutional as long it complies with the Constitution, and includes the the amendments. But theft is theft whether or not it is constitutional.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 05:44 PM
Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

Here is a great rebuttal to this argument by Dr. Walter Block. You can start from the beginning but the relevant part starts at 25 min. 5 sec. On Libertarian Political Philosophy (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/1.mp3) (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/1.mp3)

heavenlyboy34
10-17-2008, 05:56 PM
Here is a great rebuttal to this argument by Dr. Walter Block. You can start from the beginning but the relevant part starts at 25 min. 5 sec. On Libertarian Political Philosophy (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/1.mp3) (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/1.mp3)

Thanks a bunch for the link, amigo! :D

Deborah K
10-17-2008, 06:09 PM
The question was, "is taxation theft?". I didn't see any indication the question was restricted to the Constitution. Anything can be constitutional as long it complies with the Constitution, and includes the the amendments. But theft is theft whether or not it is constitutional.

Yes, dearest, I know what the question was. But you responded to my statement regarding the Constitution on this matter....nuff said....

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 06:21 PM
Yes, dearest, I know what the question was. But you responded to my statement regarding the Constitution on this matter....nuff said....

:o I was giving you my reasoning for responding as I did. I wasnt trying to be an a-hole.

Andrew Ryan
10-17-2008, 07:00 PM
Yes.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 07:03 PM
Yes.

Exactly.

youngbuck
10-17-2008, 07:46 PM
It depends on the tax. For example, excise taxes, tariffs, taxes on unearned income - all fair. Taxation on wages is not only thievery, it's unconstitutional.


That's my view.

jack555
10-18-2008, 02:11 PM
Heres what I say.


By living in The United States Government you are agreeing to pay taxes equal to WHAT IT TAKES TO PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF TO KEEP GOING AT THE BARE MINIMUM LEVEL. However anything the government decides to take above of what they need to keep the government functioning is theft.

graddium
10-18-2008, 06:22 PM
Heres what I say.


By living in The United States Government you are agreeing to pay taxes equal to WHAT IT TAKES TO PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF TO KEEP GOING AT THE BARE MINIMUM LEVEL. However anything the government decides to take above of what they need to keep the government functioning is theft.

Why should I have to pay tribute to a bunch of thugs? Cause they have more guns than I do? Cause a bunch of people think their authority is legit? If I don't consent, it's immoral for them to take my money by force for any reason. If it was 299,999,999 to 1, they still don't have the right to mug me every paycheck.

And I was born here, this is my home, why should I have to leave because some terrorists insist on stealing from me? The argument for small govt is the same argument for big government. Your line of reasoning can be used to justify any level of government.

Let go of the notion that "but we HAVE to have SOME government." We don't.

heavenlyboy34
10-18-2008, 06:26 PM
let go of the notion that "but we have to have some government." we don't.


+ 1776

danberkeley
10-18-2008, 08:36 PM
Heres what I say.


By living in The United States Government you are agreeing to pay taxes equal to WHAT IT TAKES TO PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF TO KEEP GOING AT THE BARE MINIMUM LEVEL. However anything the government decides to take above of what they need to keep the government functioning is theft.

That's idiotic. But please the read my earlier posts.

mediahasyou
10-19-2008, 10:39 AM
Let go of the notion that "but we HAVE to have SOME government." We don't.

The Sovereign Manifesto: Own Your Life
http://www.pdfmenot.com/view/http://www.sovereignlife.com/files/sovereign_manifesto.pdf

Danke
10-19-2008, 11:01 AM
According to the constitution, unapporitioned taxes (like the income tax) are a no-no, and therefore theft. (See article 1, section 9 of the constitution).

Not true. Reread the Constitution.

Income tax is an indirect tax and doesn't need to follow the rules of apportionment.

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 03:46 PM
Not true. Reread the Constitution.

Income tax is an indirect tax and doesn't need to follow the rules of apportionment.

Income tax IS a direct tax on income.

Article 1, section 2-"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons."

Is that not clear enough for you? Now YOU reread the constitution! :mad:

P.S....
supplemental for you-
http://moneycentral.msn.com/taxes/glossary/glossary.asp?TermID=99
Direct Tax
A tax that you pay directly, as opposed to indirect taxes, such as tariffs and business taxes. Direct taxes include income and property taxes.

Danke
10-19-2008, 03:54 PM
Income tax IS a direct tax on income.

Article 1, section 2-"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons."

Is that not clear enough for you? Now YOU reread the constitution! :mad:

P.S....
supplemental for you-
http://moneycentral.msn.com/taxes/glossary/glossary.asp?TermID=99
Direct Tax
A tax that you pay directly, as opposed to indirect taxes, such as tariffs and business taxes. Direct taxes include income and property taxes.

Wrong.

krazy kaju
10-19-2008, 03:56 PM
Taxes are government threatening to imprison you unless you give them money.


It depends on the tax. For example, excise taxes, tariffs, taxes on unearned income - all fair. Taxation on wages is not only thievery, it's unconstitutional.

Those taxes are extortion.

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 04:23 PM
Wrong.

Sounds like somebody's in the denial stage. :rolleyes: Remember to post when you finally face the truth, please.

Danke
10-19-2008, 05:19 PM
Sounds like somebody's in the denial stage. :rolleyes: Remember to post when you finally face the truth, please.


How long have you been looking into the Income Tax? I realize there is a lot of misinformation and subterfuge about taxation. Especially form the IRS and Tax Professionals (they like it that way, keeps the money rolling in).

Well, I see you have been on the forum since July 2008. Do a search, this subject has been brought up before. Start by just searching my username.

What am I in denial of? That the income tax is really a direct tax?

No, the Supreme court along with congressional records has stated many times that the income tax is an indirect tax.


"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580


"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)



I know the Constitution. Apportionment for direct taxes, uniform of indirect taxes. Why do I need to reread it? You are the one who is having trouble seeing how the income tax is Constituional and has been ruled as such by the Supreme Court for Pete's sake.

If you want to learn a little more about the subject, click on my sig.

Danke
10-19-2008, 07:27 PM
P.S....
supplemental for you-
http://moneycentral.msn.com/taxes/glossary/glossary.asp?TermID=99
Direct Tax
A tax that you pay directly, as opposed to indirect taxes, such as tariffs and business taxes. Direct taxes include income and property taxes.

Since you are quoting MSN. Can you give us other quotes from the mainstream media? Like bailouts are for our own good, the surge is working, etc. I really enjoy the ones about Ron Paul too.

Have you learned nothing form being on this forum for the last 3+ months?!?!

My tolerance for ignorance is growing shorter everyday. You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 07:45 PM
Since you are quoting MSN. Can you give us other quotes from the mainstream media? Like bailouts are for our own good, the surge is working, etc. I really enjoy the ones about Ron Paul too.

Have you learned nothing form being on this forum for the last 3+ months?!?!

My tolerance for ignorance is growing shorter everyday. You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Welcome to the lashing out stage. :eek: Hope you recover soon. I wish you well.

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 08:09 PM
The Supreme Court has also in the past declared that blacks are only fractionally human. Can you justify that?

You are indeed in denial that the income tax is a direct tax (that is, if you actually believe that it IS is constitutional). RP, Lew Rockwell, Irwin Schiff, and many others have shown that the income tax is unconstitutional. Nothing you've said provides conclusive evidence that you are right, while I have cited evidence to prove my case.

Since you need more, here is some for you. If this is not enough, I'll dig up some more.

http://www.fairtax.net/3.htm
"History of Income Taxes in America:

Many people don’t realize that Americans didn’t have a federal tax on their income prior to 1913. Before we get into the details of the FairTax, let's look at how the income tax came to be.

Prior to 1913 the U.S. Government paid its bills without income taxes. Indirect taxes, such as import taxes and excise taxes (special taxes on things like tobacco, liquor and tea), funded the entire government. These are called indirect taxes because they tax a product and not a person.

Thomas Jefferson in a speech once said:

'…it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a tax gatherer of the United States?'

Jefferson's pride that citizens were not directly taxed is evident.

The Founding Fathers never meant for an individual to be taxed directly!

Income taxes (direct taxes) were considered unconstitutional and were VERY unpopular. What a surprise.

It took an amendment to legalize the income tax in 1913. A direct tax was not intended by the Founding Fathers, nor allowed by the Constitution. If intended, wouldn't you expect to find them mentioned? Only under exceptional circumstances (such as the War of 1812 and the Civil War) were the first versions of income tax used.

The first federal income tax was proposed in 1815, but was rejected by the people. In 1862, the federal government finally did force an income tax on the people to pay for the Civil War. That tax had rates of 1.5% - 5%, but applied only to upper income individuals. The tax was allowed to expire after the war.

Soon after, however, there was an attempt to implement a flat 2% income tax on individuals. In 1894, the Supreme Court struck down that attempt on constitutional grounds. The Court did not allow direct taxation on individual incomes. That decision prompted some politicians to put forward the 16th Amendment allowing direct taxation of individuals and corporations.

The 16th Amendment passed on February 25, 1913. The amendment did not create an income tax or the IRS; rather it allowed Congress to create them. Since income taxes were very unpopular, Congress then had to convince a wary public, explaining that the tax would be a low rate of only 1% on incomes above $3,000 and 2% to 7% on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000. Corporations were taxed at a rate of 1%. There was no massive resistance to the income tax because the average annual income in 1913 was only $800, so the average citizen really didn’t care if the tax was passed.

As years passed, Congress continued to raise the tax rates while inflation moved almost everyone into higher income tax brackets. Thus people who were not taxed, began paying. So the income tax went from “It will tax only the rich…” to “It taxes nearly all of us!”

Congress has continually increased the income tax rates we pay and used the funds to expand the government. As a result form this inflow of revenue, government grew; not because it needed to grow, but because it could!
Liberty Bound in Labor Tax chains

For the first 125 years of its existence, the U.S. federal government survived without an income tax and they could survive again without it."

http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=199
May 7, 2001
The Case Against the Income Tax

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.


How long have you been looking into the Income Tax? I realize there is a lot of misinformation and subterfuge about taxation. Especially form the IRS and Tax Professionals (they like it that way, keeps the money rolling in).

Well, I see you have been on the forum since July 2008. Do a search, this subject has been brought up before. Start by just searching my username.

What am I in denial of? That the income tax is really a direct tax?

No, the Supreme court along with congressional records has stated many times that the income tax is an indirect tax.


"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580


"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

I know the Constitution. Apportionment for direct taxes, uniform of indirect taxes. Why do I need to reread it? You are the one who is having trouble seeing how the income tax is Constituional and has been ruled as such by the Supreme Court for Pete's sake.

If you want to learn a little more about the subject, click on my sig.

Danke
10-19-2008, 08:41 PM
I will respond. You are so clueless. It is late. See you tomorrow, if I have the energy. But I will respond to your disinformation.

Danke
10-19-2008, 08:44 PM
BTW, do you think that the Income Tax did not exist before the 16th Amendment?

Danke
10-19-2008, 08:45 PM
The Supreme Court has also in the past declared that blacks are only fractionally human. Can you justify that? It used to be in the Constitution for Census purposes.

Do you have any idea as to the function of the Supreme Court?



http://www.fairtax.net/3.htm
"History of Income Taxes in America:

Many people don’t realize that Americans didn’t have a federal tax on their income prior to 1913. Before we get into the details of the FairTax, let's look at how the income tax came to be.

Prior to 1913 the U.S. Government paid its bills without income taxes.

Fail. Are all you sources filled with such disinformation?

We had the income tax since 1862. In the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, only a portion of that tax was declared unconstitutional. And that was income derived from the source; the property. The Supreme Court viewed that as a direct tax on the property itself, and not and indirect tax on the income.
That is why we got the 16th Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution was deleted (changed). We still have the same rules for direct and indirect taxes.




It took an amendment to legalize the income tax in 1913. A direct tax was not intended by the Founding Fathers, nor allowed by the Constitution. If intended, wouldn't you expect to find them mentioned?

Yeah, I would. Oh lookie here, it is right in the Constitution:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census..."

Those sneaking Founding Fathers!

Danke
10-19-2008, 09:06 PM
Welcome to the lashing out stage. :eek: Hope you recover soon. I wish you well.

Lashing out against what? Ignorance? You got that right. I am tired of the disinformation you dispose that is propagated and steers many patriots in the wrong direction.

I will continue to dispel such misinformation that only hurts the freedom movement.

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 09:22 PM
Lashing out against what? Ignorance? You got that right. I am tired of the disinformation you dispose that is propagated and steers many patriots in the wrong direction.

I will continue to dispel such misinformation that only hurts the freedom movement.

Ron Paul is a disinformationist? Lew Rockwell? G. Edward Griffn?!!!

You're sounding like neocon spammer, dude. You chose to ignore my request to back up your fallacious claims-but you failed. You are a sabateur to the freedom movement. May you get what you deserve. :mad:

Bunkerbuilder
10-19-2008, 09:41 PM
You have to ask yourself this question:

How was Government funded before there was an Income tax ?

As the Country didn't just spring up in 1913 right ? If memory serves correctly wasn't 1776 when it was started ?

Soooooooo How was Government run for the first 138 years without an income tax ?

Cue Jeopardy music.




So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?


Title is incorrect #1

The correct name of the Document is Constitution for the united States.


Here is a link to a .pdf of the constitution...PLEASE READ IT.

http://constitutioncenter.org/files/constitution.pdf

mport1
10-20-2008, 12:53 AM
Yes, all taxation is theft. I don't see how one could argue otherwise.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 11:04 AM
Yes, all taxation is theft. I don't see how one could argue otherwise.

+1776...our RPF colleague, danke, tried to justify the income tax and clearly failed. :)

MsDoodahs
10-20-2008, 11:17 AM
Have not read the thread, just saying...

Anytime someone takes something from you at gunpoint, then it's theft - and it is immoral.

jack555
10-20-2008, 12:12 PM
Why should I have to pay tribute to a bunch of thugs? Cause they have more guns than I do? Cause a bunch of people think their authority is legit? If I don't consent, it's immoral for them to take my money by force for any reason. If it was 299,999,999 to 1, they still don't have the right to mug me every paycheck.

And I was born here, this is my home, why should I have to leave because some terrorists insist on stealing from me? The argument for small govt is the same argument for big government. Your line of reasoning can be used to justify any level of government.

Let go of the notion that "but we HAVE to have SOME government." We don't.


NO,if you are an anarchist then it is rule by the strongest thug and the U.S. Government is the strongest thug over their territory so don't complain. If you want to be the ruler of territory you can try and beat them.

Now again if you are going to live on land where there is a government you should pay taxes to keep the government running but anything more is theft.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 12:15 PM
NO,if you are an anarchist then it is rule by the strongest thug and the U.S. Government is the strongest thug over their territory so don't complain. If you want to be the ruler of territory you can try and beat them.

Now again if you are going to live on land where there is a government you should pay taxes to keep the government running but anything more is theft.

If the government were run properly, there would be nothing to pay for! :):D

Kludge
10-20-2008, 01:04 PM
I don't see how one could argue otherwise.


Remove quotas, tax immigrants (5-10%). Immigration is voluntary, thus are the taxes.

Eliminate all programs unrelated to the only gov't duty of securing privileges agreed upon by society.

:)

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
Remove quotas, tax immigrants (5-10%). Immigration is voluntary, thus are the taxes.


Would you also make the legal immigration process more streamlined, efficient, and cheap? I would agree with you in that case.

Kludge
10-20-2008, 02:36 PM
Would you also make the legal immigration process more streamlined, efficient, and cheap? I would agree with you in that case.

Well, the quotas would be removed, so there wouldn't be any paperwork necessary regarding their education, skills, etc.

On the other hand, it may be cheaper for the government to also require an RFID implant in immigrants to be sure they pay their income tax... Especially if all the other deregulation I'd like were put in place.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 02:50 PM
Well, the quotas would be removed, so there wouldn't be any paperwork necessary regarding their education, skills, etc.

On the other hand, it may be cheaper for the government to also require an RFID implant in immigrants to be sure they pay their income tax... Especially if all the other deregulation I'd like were put in place.

RFID? ~shudder~ Why would you track an otherwise law-abiding (new) citizen? :confused:

Income tax? :eek: Don't get me started on that shit again! :mad::p

mport1
10-20-2008, 03:04 PM
+1776...our RPF colleague, danke, tried to justify the income tax and clearly failed. :)

And he was using the Constitution as his argument. Even if the Constitution explicitly authorized taxation, it doesn't matter. Taxation is still theft because it is the forcible seizure of justly acquired property without consent of the property owner.

Not to mention that the Constitution itself has absolutely no legitimate authority. Read No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner if you disagree. No Treason Text Version (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html). Audio Version (http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/images/stories/audio/spooner_no_treason_full.mp3).

Danke
10-20-2008, 03:22 PM
Ron Paul is a disinformationist? Lew Rockwell? G. Edward Griffn?!!!


No, I didn't call them that.

Do you have quotes form them that said the income tax is unconstitutional? If so, I'd have to say from my knowledge of their character, they are misinformed.



You're sounding like neocon spammer, dude. You chose to ignore my request to back up your fallacious claims-but you failed. You are a sabateur to the freedom movement. May you get what you deserve. :mad:

But from what I have seen of your character, I'd definitely say you are a poorly informed "disinformationist."

Danke
10-20-2008, 03:26 PM
+1776...our RPF colleague, danke, tried to justify the income tax and clearly failed. :)

Too bad you failed in reading comprehension.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 03:33 PM
Too bad you failed in reading comprehension.

actually, I aced reading comprehension. :D I was at PHS (post high school) level at 16 years. Your ad hominems do not redeem your disproven statements about the income tax.

Danke
10-20-2008, 03:34 PM
And he was using the Constitution as his argument. Even if the Constitution explicitly authorized taxation, it doesn't matter. Taxation is still theft because it is the forcible seizure of justly acquired property without consent of the property owner.

No, I was not defending the income tax. I was pointing out it is Constitutional. If I pointed out that the death penalty was lawful, that too would not mean I agree with it.

If more people would truly understand the income tax, they would realize it doesn't apply to them. If it did apply to them (their earnings as an example), then it more than likely would be unconstitutional.

Danke
10-20-2008, 03:36 PM
Your ad hominems do not redeem your disproven statements about the income tax.

Ditto. Too bad you didn't disprove anything I wrote. Just the opposite.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 03:37 PM
No, I didn't call them that.

Do you have quotes form them that said the income tax is unconstitutional? If so, I'd have to say from my knowledge of their character, they are misinformed.



But from what I have seen of your character, I'd definitely say you are a poorly informed "disinformationist."

RP and G Edward Griffin (to name just 2) have written voluminous works disproving the validity of the income tax.

I seem to be much more informed than you, seeing as you have not come up with evidence to prove your claim-while I have provide ample proof. Either show us your evidence, or go away. You are wasting space on this thread.

Danke
10-20-2008, 03:45 PM
RP and G Edward Griffin (to name just 2) have written voluminous works disproving the validity of the income tax.

I seem to be much more informed than you, seeing as you have not come up with evidence to prove your claim-while I have provide ample proof. Either show us your evidence, or go away. You are wasting space on this thread.

"disproving the validity of the income tax." OK, now we are discussing opinions?

I asked for their quotes, can't you read? Obviously not cause you can't even respond with anything of substance.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 03:50 PM
"disproving the validity of the income tax." OK, now we are discussing opinions?

I asked for their quotes, can't you read? Obviously not cause you can't even respond with anything of substance.

I can and do read. I just don't have the time to get out the texts and type them out in full. Can YOU read? Get the books in the Ron Paul Library http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-books.html

as well as Griffin's "The Creature From Jeckyll Island".

P.S. happy reading! Report back when you learn some things. :)

Danke
10-20-2008, 04:22 PM
I can and do read. I just don't have the time to get out the texts and type them out in full. Can YOU read? Get the books in the Ron Paul Library http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-books.html

as well as Griffin's "The Creature From Jeckyll Island".

P.S. happy reading! Report back when you learn some things. :)

I've read them. You really are lazy and misinformed.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 04:26 PM
I've read them. You really are lazy and misinformed.

Wrong on both counts. I'm neither lazy nor misinformed. You're on a roll! Keep it up! We'll all have a good laugh. :D

Danke
10-20-2008, 04:33 PM
Wrong on both counts. I'm neither lazy nor misinformed. You're on a roll! Keep it up! We'll all have a good laugh. :D

Wrong? You throw things out there and can't even back it up.

Since you have already repeatedly been shown how wrong you are about what the Constitution says about direct taxes.

Then, if you are not lazy, look these up:

Revenue Act of 1862

Revenue Act of 1864

Revenue Act of 1865

Revenue Act of 1867

Revenue Act of 1870

Revenue Act of 1872

Revenue Act of 1873 (Revised Statutes)

Revenue Act of 1878

Revenue Act of 1894

Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909

Federal Reserve Act

Revenue Act of 1913

Revenue Act of 1916

Revenue Act of 1917

Revenue Act of 1919

Revenue Act of 1921

Classification Act of 1923

Revenue Act of 1924

Revenue Act of 1926

Revenue Act of 1928

Index To The Federal Statutes 1874 - 1931

Revenue Act of 1932

Revenue Act of 1934

Revenue Act of 1935

Social Security Act of 1935

Revenue Act of 1936

Revenue Act of 1938

The IRC of 1939

Appendix to the IRC of 1939
The 'Preliminary Materials' chapter in the 1986 IRC contains a dual cross-reference table, first indexing 1939 code sections to the 1986 code, then indexing 1986 sections to the 1939 sections from which they are drawn. Once having identified the 1939 section in which you are interested, find the section listing in the 1939 appendix, where the actual statute section that it represents is listed.

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943

Elements of the Victory Tax Act and their repeal

The IRC of 1954

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 (Internal Revenue)

Congress passed the Act > Statutes written > then Regulations > then Codes.


I'm done with you child, unless you can actually provide reliable sources and quotes regarding anything having to do with the income tax. And proving it is not constitutional, as is your assertion.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 04:54 PM
Wrong? You throw things out there and can't even back it up.

Since you have already repeatedly been shown how wrong you are about what the Constitution says about direct taxes.

I'm done with you child, unless you can actually provide reliable sources and quotes regarding anything having to do with the income tax. And proving it is not constitutional, as is your assertion.

I'm aware of such things. However, philosophically, the Constitution trumps these laws. If you're familiar with Irwin Schiff, you'll know that he has also won cases against the income tax. Did you review the sources I provided (that is, the library at the Mises Institute)?

Calling me "child" further diminishes your credibility. This is debate 101. You have not shown me wrong at all. You have simply diminished yourself by using faulty arguments and ad hominem attacks.

Here's an easy to understand vid featuring RP and a former IRS agent that should help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 05:12 PM
Looks like I've either hurt danke's feelings, or he's admitted that he's wrong and has gone to cry in his beer about how a mere 27 year old kid trounced him. ;)

Hopefully new threads on this issue will spring up that are more productive.

Danke
10-20-2008, 05:59 PM
Here is a sample of why I assumed you were a child, constantly trying to yank my chain.


According to the constitution, unapporitioned taxes (like the income tax) are a no-no, and therefore theft. (See article 1, section 9 of the constitution).


Income tax IS a direct tax on income.
…Is that not clear enough for you? Now YOU reread the constitution! :mad:
P.S....
supplemental for you-…



Sounds like somebody's in the denial stage. :rolleyes: Remember to post when you finally face the truth, please.

Welcome to the lashing out stage. :eek: Hope you recover soon. I wish you well.




Since you need more, here is some for you. If this is not enough, I'll dig up some more.




You're sounding like neocon spammer, dude. You chose to ignore my request to back up your fallacious claims-but you failed. You are a sabateur to the freedom movement. May you get what you deserve. :mad:


+1776...our RPF colleague, danke, tried to justify the income tax and clearly failed. :)

I seem to be much more informed than you... Either show us your evidence, or go away. You are wasting space on this thread.



Report back when you learn some things. :)


Looks like I've either hurt danke's feelings, or he's admitted that he's wrong and has gone to cry in his beer about how a mere 27 year old kid trounced him. ;)

Hopefully new threads on this issue will spring up that are more productive.


But seeing that you are 27, I guess you are just a troll.

Yeah the 861 argument in the vid you linked to, you really are green to the Tax Honesty movement. Did you write Larken Rose while he was in jail?

jack555
10-20-2008, 06:11 PM
If the government were run properly, there would be nothing to pay for! :):D


Nothing but some fees to pay the workers, army (If we were to have one), and utitlities/building costs. We could try to keep the workers and other costs to a bare minimum.

jack555
10-20-2008, 06:14 PM
Yes, all taxation is theft. I don't see how one could argue otherwise.


By living here you (in my mind) are agreeing to pay the tax to keep the government going. If you don't want to pay the tax the U.S. wont force you, you just have to leave and possibly renounce citizenship.


However in my mind it becomes theft when they charge more than what they need (to function as described by the constitution).

jack555
10-20-2008, 06:22 PM
No, no, no. So if your grandfather, before you were born, signed a contract where all his progeny were bound to the contract, should you, as a person who didn't (and could not have had) consent to the contract, when it was signed, be bound to it and obligated to honor it?


No but your living here. If you want to be a part of the U.S. government you will have to pay for it. Leave if you do not want to be a part of it. They are not focing you to stay here and pay taxes.

There HAS to be a government unless you are an anarchist. If you are an anarchist the U.S. is the biggest thug so tough luck.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 06:37 PM
By living here you (in my mind) are agreeing to pay the tax to keep the government going. If you don't want to pay the tax the U.S. wont force you, you just have to leave and possibly renounce citizenship.


However in my mind it becomes theft when they charge more than what they need (to function as described by the constitution).

The problem with that argument is that the government doesn't HAVE to operate in order for society to function properly. I would argue that the government always does a worse job than the private sector, since the gov't is not subject to the profit/loss signals that businesses are. There have been government shutdowns in the past, and productivity did not suffer.

People will adapt and find new, better ways to get things done. Take a look in your city. You probably have people who produce food, pottery, paintings, etc. in outdoor markets and in their homes. They are doing just fine without the government, thank you.

If the roads break down (a common example), skilled workers will fix them for a fair price-and more quickly and effectively than the government could do it. Government is always an agent of coercion. It is NOT a substitute for capitalism.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 06:41 PM
No but your living here. If you want to be a part of the U.S. government you will have to pay for it. Leave if you do not want to be a part of it. They are not focing you to stay here and pay taxes.

There HAS to be a government unless you are an anarchist. If you are an anarchist the U.S. is the biggest thug so tough luck.

Markets will exist outside of the government as long as there are people who are willing to trade. When the government tries to control prices, enterprising people will find a way to do the same thing better.

As a simple example, say your friend has a CD you want. She will give it to you for a tape you have. Voila! A free market exchange has occurred, with NO government regulation! :D

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 06:43 PM
But seeing that you are 27, I guess you are just a troll.

Yes, a very logical conclusion. All 27 year olds are trolls. :rolleyes:




















But seeing that you are 27, I guess you are just a troll.

Yeah the 861 argument in the vid you linked to, you really are green to the Tax Honesty movement. Did you write Larken Rose while he was in jail?[/QUOTE]

jack555
10-20-2008, 06:43 PM
The problem with that argument is that the government doesn't HAVE to operate in order for society to function properly. I would argue that the government always does a worse job than the private sector, since the gov't is not subject to the profit/loss signals that businesses are. There have been government shutdowns in the past, and productivity did not suffer.

People will adapt and find new, better ways to get things done. Take a look in your city. You probably have people who produce food, pottery, paintings, etc. in outdoor markets and in their homes. They are doing just fine without the government, thank you.

If the roads break down (a common example), skilled workers will fix them for a fair price-and more quickly and effectively than the government could do it. Government is always an agent of coercion. It is NOT a substitute for capitalism.

Now you are arguing that we don't need government. However that is not what we are debating.

Whether we need the U.S. government or not if you ARE going to have the U.S. government it is not theft for them to take enough money to function as described by the constitution. By living there under the government and its constitution in my mind you are agreeing to pay for it.


edit- I also disagree with you. I believe we need (or at least this is the government I want to live in) government to protect our liberties. I know for one I don't want to fight with thugs and/or other countries to fend them off. I'm happy to pay the U.S. Gov to protect my freedom of speech and freedoms (however I am not happy to pay for the us to invade ohter countries!)

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 06:46 PM
Here is a sample of why I assumed you were a child, constantly trying to yank my chain.

People say such things on RPF all the time, regardless of age.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 06:55 PM
Now you are arguing that we don't need government. However that is not what we are debating.

Whether we need the U.S. government or not if you ARE going to have the U.S. government it is not theft for them to take enough money to function as described by the constitution. By living there under the government and its constitution in my mind you are agreeing to pay for it.


edit- I also disagree with you. I believe we need (or at least this is the government I want to live in) government to protect our liberties. I know for one I don't want to fight with thugs and/or other countries to fend them off. I'm happy to pay the U.S. Gov to protect my freedom of speech and freedoms (however I am not happy to pay for the us to invade ohter countries!)

May I ask, why is the government the best agent to defend us? Could we not take that money and build our own defenses at the local and individual levels, spending said monies more efficiently?

Many of the founders strongly argued against standing armies, seeing as they pose a potential threat to individual liberties and emboldens leaders who are naturally warlike. If there were a declared war, it would be reasonable to raise an army of willing soldiers (assuming war is declared, of course). This would prevent wasteful spending and unneeded wars that come naturally with standing armies.

In times of domestic peace, local police are sufficient to uphold individual's rights. (says I)

mport1
10-20-2008, 07:37 PM
By living here you (in my mind) are agreeing to pay the tax to keep the government going. If you don't want to pay the tax the U.S. wont force you, you just have to leave and possibly renounce citizenship.


However in my mind it becomes theft when they charge more than what they need (to function as described by the constitution).

Please explain to me how the government in its current form is legitimate (which would be the first thing necessary to justify their taxation) and how they have gained the authority to rule over all persons and property in this geographical region known as America. How have they gained a claim over my justly acquired property?

If myself and 4 others come into your 6 person neighborhood, take a vote and establish a government with us 5 in charge is this legitimate? Do we have a right to your property if we scribble down something on a piece of paper and claim that by not moving out of the neighborhood you are implicitly agreeing to abide by our rules?

jack555
10-20-2008, 08:04 PM
May I ask, why is the government the best agent to defend us? Could we not take that money and build our own defenses at the local and individual levels, spending said monies more efficiently?

Many of the founders strongly argued against standing armies, seeing as they pose a potential threat to individual liberties and emboldens leaders who are naturally warlike. If there were a declared war, it would be reasonable to raise an army of willing soldiers (assuming war is declared, of course). This would prevent wasteful spending and unneeded wars that come naturally with standing armies.

In times of domestic peace, local police are sufficient to uphold individual's rights. (says I)


In my example though I did not say it I also meant I wanted the police to uphold our duties (from for examples gangsters and thugs).

I have not examined the standing army too closesly but I agree you are probably right that a militita of citizens called when needed or building our own defenses would probably be better than a standing army.

However I still would want a small federal government with much more power to individual communities (and more power than the fed gov to the states).

jack555
10-20-2008, 08:30 PM
Please explain to me how the government in its current form is legitimate (which would be the first thing necessary to justify their taxation) and how they have gained the authority to rule over all persons and property in this geographical region known as America. How have they gained a claim over my justly acquired property?

If myself and 4 others come into your 6 person neighborhood, take a vote and establish a government with us 5 in charge is this legitimate? Do we have a right to your property if we scribble down something on a piece of paper and claim that by not moving out of the neighborhood you are implicitly agreeing to abide by our rules?

Ok, I personally feel the government is taxing us WAY too much and it is theft. However, I again feel they have the right to tax you for what it costs to keep it going. Why?

I never said the government in its current form is legitamite. I think they are taking what they need and about 20 times (very rough estimate) that.

Now why do you owe the U.S. government money to keep it going which lets say is a dollar amount of 1/20 of what you pay now? For starters its a fair system (or was before it was raped and the constituion was violated) but hypothetically it is a fair system when not abused. It is the fairest system ever used (IMHO). If you want a government then you have to pay for it. If you want a government and have some other way of paying for it chime in and let me know but people paying a very small portion of their wealth to keep government going sounds very reasonable to me and by being a part of that government you are agreeing to pay that tax. If you don't want a government then you want anarchy which is rule by the strongest thug or group, the U.S. is the strongest thug so theres your anarchy and your biggest enemy to fight, and if you defeated them you would have China and Russia to take on, good luck!

danberkeley
10-20-2008, 09:00 PM
By living here you (in my mind) are agreeing to pay the tax to keep the government going. If you don't want to pay the tax the U.S. wont force you, you just have to leave and possibly renounce citizenship.

However in my mind it becomes theft when they charge more than what they need (to function as described by the constitution).


No but your living here. If you want to be a part of the U.S. government you will have to pay for it. Leave if you do not want to be a part of it. They are not focing you to stay here and pay taxes.

There HAS to be a government unless you are an anarchist. If you are an anarchist the U.S. is the biggest thug so tough luck.

So just because the US government is the biggest thug, then that I HAVE TO pay up? That doesnt follow. But read my earlier posts.


Whether we need the U.S. government or not if you ARE going to have the U.S. government it is not theft for them to take enough money to function as described by the constitution. By living there under the government and its constitution in my mind you are agreeing to pay for it.


You misunderstand contract law.


Now why do you owe the U.S. government money to keep it going which lets say is a dollar amount of 1/20 of what you pay now? For starters its a fair system (or was before it was raped and the constituion was violated) but hypothetically it is a fair system when not abused. It is the fairest system ever used (IMHO). [/B]

That doesnt follow either. If you are getting your ass kicked by a thug and I come and rescue you although, does that mean that you HAVE TO or are OBLIGATED to pay me for rescuing you?


If you don't want a government then you want anarchy which is rule by the strongest thug or group, the U.S. is the strongest thug so theres your anarchy and your biggest enemy to fight, and if you defeated them you would have China and Russia to take on, good luck!

Hahaha. It seams the Chinese and the Russians have greater freedoms than we do. Anyway, there would be private security to protect private property. And you are confusing "state" and "government".

jack555
10-20-2008, 09:57 PM
So just because the US government is the biggest thug, then that I HAVE TO pay up? That doesnt follow. But read my earlier posts.



You misunderstand contract law.



That doesnt follow either. If you are getting your ass kicked by a thug and I come and rescue you although, does that mean that you HAVE TO or are OBLIGATED to pay me for rescuing you?



Hahaha. It seams the Chinese and the Russians have greater freedoms than we do. Anyway, there would be private security to protect private property. And you are confusing "state" and "government".



I don't think you really dissproved anything I said...



"That doesnt follow either. If you are getting your ass kicked by a thug and I come and rescue you although, does that mean that you HAVE TO or are OBLIGATED to pay me for rescuing you?"

Reread what I said. If you want anarchy and the guy in your eample saves you and demands payment, if he is bigger and stronger then yes. You either pay up or face the consequences. Thats what happens in anarchy. However if you don't want anarchy again re-read what I said. Note that I DO NOT WANT ANARCHY. I just feel those wishing for anarchy hypothetically already have it. Its just most governments are too big for most to want to take on.

mport1
10-20-2008, 10:06 PM
Ok, I personally feel the government is taxing us WAY too much and it is theft. However, I again feel they have the right to tax you for what it costs to keep it going. Why?

I never said the government in its current form is legitamite. I think they are taking what they need and about 20 times (very rough estimate) that.

Now why do you owe the U.S. government money to keep it going which lets say is a dollar amount of 1/20 of what you pay now? For starters its a fair system (or was before it was raped and the constituion was violated) but hypothetically it is a fair system when not abused. It is the fairest system ever used (IMHO). If you want a government then you have to pay for it. If you want a government and have some other way of paying for it chime in and let me know but people paying a very small portion of their wealth to keep government going sounds very reasonable to me and by being a part of that government you are agreeing to pay that tax. If you don't want a government then you want anarchy which is rule by the strongest thug or group, the U.S. is the strongest thug so theres your anarchy and your biggest enemy to fight, and if you defeated them you would have China and Russia to take on, good luck!

danberkeley basically hit what I wanted to say. I would add that because you believe something is "fair" does not mean that it is correct and is not an argument as to why taxation is not theft. Also, I should have asked whether government was formed legitimately and not implied I was talking about right now.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 10:34 PM
I don't personally agree with your view of "anarchy".

When I picture political anarchy, I picture a state in which there is no centralized authority. This state of freedom (lack of authority) allows individuals to engineer their society to work at maximum efficiency.

The classic real life example is a skating rink. Dozens of people trying to skate however they want, all at the same time. When left to themselves, people will find a way that works best-some skate quickly, some slowly. As long as no one commits an act of aggression, the system just works by itself.

In this natural state, "bullies" may arise. However, since the vast majority have an interest in peace, the bullies will be dealt with accordingly.

Hope that makes sense.

Free hugs!
:D Matvei



Ok, I personally feel the government is taxing us WAY too much and it is theft. However, I again feel they have the right to tax you for what it costs to keep it going. Why?

I never said the government in its current form is legitamite. I think they are taking what they need and about 20 times (very rough estimate) that.

Now why do you owe the U.S. government money to keep it going which lets say is a dollar amount of 1/20 of what you pay now? For starters its a fair system (or was before it was raped and the constituion was violated) but hypothetically it is a fair system when not abused. It is the fairest system ever used (IMHO). If you want a government then you have to pay for it. If you want a government and have some other way of paying for it chime in and let me know but people paying a very small portion of their wealth to keep government going sounds very reasonable to me and by being a part of that government you are agreeing to pay that tax. If you don't want a government then you want anarchy which is rule by the strongest thug or group, the U.S. is the strongest thug so theres your anarchy and your biggest enemy to fight, and if you defeated them you would have China and Russia to take on, good luck!

nickcoons
10-20-2008, 11:03 PM
It seems that every answer "No" answer to the question of "Is taxation theft?" has been justified by alleging some sort of necessity for taxes. However, the definition of something is self-contained such that the perceived necessity for something does not change what it is. To clarify, the OP even specifically asked us to disregard any perceived necessity, but some how this has been avoided by those answering "No" to the question.

Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, tariffs.. they're all theft. Some have tried to indicate that a sales tax or tariff is not theft because it's an excise tax and can be avoided by avoiding the activity. But this really ignores the process by which taxes are imposed.

If I make $100 and the government taxes me at 10%, they are claiming that they have a right to $10 of what I have earned. This is essentially an income tax.

If I have a house and the government wants to charge me 1% per year in order to continue to own the property, this is a property tax.

If I want to give someone $10 in exchange for a good, the government is going to demand that the seller pay them a fee for that transaction. This is a sales tax.

If I want to give someone $10, who lives in a foreign country, in exchange for a good, the government is going to demand that they are paid a fee for that transaction. This is an import tariff.

In all of the above cases, the government is interfering with free market transactions and is exercising a non-claim on either my property or the property of the other party. If the other party and I refuse to cooperate with the government (i.e. refuse to pay the tax), the government will take the tax by force. In other words, they will initiate force against us in order to extract our property from us without our consent. It matters not if those people are natural-born citizens or naturalized immigrants (ahem, Kludge). The action itself is what is in question, and that action is clearly theft.

Now, for those wanting to claim that taxation is not theft, I would love to hear those arguments (because I've never heard a good one). Arguments claiming a perceived necessity are arguments for the justification of theft, they are not arguments that taxation is not theft. If you want to argue that theft by government is justified, then feel free, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

"Taxation is not theft because..." ???

jack555
10-20-2008, 11:04 PM
danberkeley basically hit what I wanted to say. I would add that because you believe something is "fair" does not mean that it is correct and is not an argument as to why taxation is not theft. Also, I should have asked whether government was formed legitimately and not implied I was talking about right now.

I agree my view of fair can not be used exclusively to prove a point, however I may still state that I think it is fair and many others may as well.

Again my biggest point is that by living where a government exists and where you are being protected by its laws you should expect to pay for it and it is not theft. If you don't want to pay for the government don't live in its territory. If you disagree with this thats fine but that doesn't make me wrong (and I'm open to hearing all opinions...)

jack555
10-20-2008, 11:07 PM
I don't personally agree with your view of "anarchy".

When I picture political anarchy, I picture a state in which there is no centralized authority. This state of freedom (lack of authority) allows individuals to engineer their society to work at maximum efficiency.

The classic real life example is a skating rink. Dozens of people trying to skate however they want, all at the same time. When left to themselves, people will find a way that works best-some skate quickly, some slowly. As long as no one commits an act of aggression, the system just works by itself.

In this natural state, "bullies" may arise. However, since the vast majority have an interest in peace, the bullies will be dealt with accordingly.

Hope that makes sense.

Free hugs!
:D Matvei



Fair enough I am by no means an expert on anarchy, far from the fact. It just seems to me like technically the result of anarchy is what we have today. Groups get bigger and bigger until states/provinces/countries are formed. Though I can understand the want of the anarchy your talking about it just seems like it wouldn't work (to me) because groups would get to strong...like what we have today.

jack555
10-20-2008, 11:09 PM
It seems that every answer "No" answer to the question of "Is taxation theft?" has been justified by alleging some sort of necessity for taxes. However, the definition of something is self-contained such that the perceived necessity for something does not change what it is. To clarify, the OP even specifically asked us to disregard any perceived necessity, but some how this has been avoided by those answering "No" to the question.

Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, tariffs.. they're all theft. Some have tried to indicate that a sales tax or tariff is not theft because it's an excise tax and can be avoided by avoiding the activity. But this really ignores the process by which taxes are imposed.

If I make $100 and the government taxes me at 10%, they are claiming that they have a right to $10 of what I have earned. This is essentially an income tax.

If I have a house and the government wants to charge me 1% per year in order to continue to own the property, this is a property tax.

If I want to give someone $10 in exchange for a good, the government is going to demand that the seller pay them a fee for that transaction. This is a sales tax.

If I want to give someone $10, who lives in a foreign country, in exchange for a good, the government is going to demand that they are paid a fee for that transaction. This is an import tariff.

In all of the above cases, the government is interfering with free market transactions and is exercising a non-claim on either my property or the property of the other party. If the other party and I refuse to cooperate with the government (i.e. refuse to pay the tax), the government will take the tax by force. In other words, they will initiate force against us in order to extract our property from us without our consent. It matters not if those people are natural-born citizens or naturalized immigrants (ahem, Kludge). The action itself is what is in question, and that action is clearly theft.

Now, for those wanting to claim that taxation is not theft, I would love to hear those arguments (because I've never heard a good one). Arguments claiming a perceived necessity are arguments for the justification of theft, they are not arguments that taxation is not theft. If you want to argue that theft by government is justified, then feel free, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

"Taxation is not theft because..." ???

I have provided a reason some taxes are not theft.

"Again my biggest point is that by living where a government exists and where you are being protected by its laws you should expect to pay for it and it is not theft. If you don't want to pay for the government don't live in its territory. If you disagree with this thats fine but that doesn't make me wrong (and I'm open to hearing all opinions...)"

I understand you may disagree but I think it is a logical viewpoint.


edit- You may want to read some of my earlier posts where I explain. I believe if they tax you more than what is described in the constituiton it is theft. By living here you agree to the rules of the constitution and thus it is not theft because you are not forced to live here and pay taxes. You may leave and denounce your citizenship if you like and not live here (and not pay taxes).

I do believe that any excess taxes are theft.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 11:14 PM
I do believe that any excess taxes are theft.

Define "excess".

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 11:18 PM
Fair enough I am by no means an expert on anarchy, far from the fact. It just seems to me like technically the result of anarchy is what we have today. Groups get bigger and bigger until states/provinces/countries are formed. Though I can understand the want of the anarchy your talking about it just seems like it wouldn't work (to me) because groups would get to strong...like what we have today.

What we have today is a result of government management. Waaaay back in the day when the government was itty-bitty, the corporate\government complex did not exist. In fact, many of the founding generation forewarned us about the woes that would come about if what we now know as corporate fascism came to be.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 11:20 PM
Thanks for building on my point, nick. :D


It seems that every answer "No" answer to the question of "Is taxation theft?" has been justified by alleging some sort of necessity for taxes. However, the definition of something is self-contained such that the perceived necessity for something does not change what it is. To clarify, the OP even specifically asked us to disregard any perceived necessity, but some how this has been avoided by those answering "No" to the question.

Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, tariffs.. they're all theft. Some have tried to indicate that a sales tax or tariff is not theft because it's an excise tax and can be avoided by avoiding the activity. But this really ignores the process by which taxes are imposed.

If I make $100 and the government taxes me at 10%, they are claiming that they have a right to $10 of what I have earned. This is essentially an income tax.

If I have a house and the government wants to charge me 1% per year in order to continue to own the property, this is a property tax.

If I want to give someone $10 in exchange for a good, the government is going to demand that the seller pay them a fee for that transaction. This is a sales tax.

If I want to give someone $10, who lives in a foreign country, in exchange for a good, the government is going to demand that they are paid a fee for that transaction. This is an import tariff.

In all of the above cases, the government is interfering with free market transactions and is exercising a non-claim on either my property or the property of the other party. If the other party and I refuse to cooperate with the government (i.e. refuse to pay the tax), the government will take the tax by force. In other words, they will initiate force against us in order to extract our property from us without our consent. It matters not if those people are natural-born citizens or naturalized immigrants (ahem, Kludge). The action itself is what is in question, and that action is clearly theft.

Now, for those wanting to claim that taxation is not theft, I would love to hear those arguments (because I've never heard a good one). Arguments claiming a perceived necessity are arguments for the justification of theft, they are not arguments that taxation is not theft. If you want to argue that theft by government is justified, then feel free, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

"Taxation is not theft because..." ???

ronpaulhawaii
10-20-2008, 11:24 PM
Ron Paul is a disinformationist? Lew Rockwell? G. Edward Griffn?!!!

You're sounding like neocon spammer, dude. You chose to ignore my request to back up your fallacious claims-but you failed. You are a sabateur to the freedom movement. May you get what you deserve. :mad:

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You guys can talk your philosophical BS all day, and endlessly debate the definition of theft, but calling Danke a neo-con spammer saboteur is a major fail.

heavenlyboy34
10-20-2008, 11:38 PM
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You guys can talk your philosophical BS all day, and endlessly debate the definition of theft, but calling Danke a neo-con spammer saboteur is a major fail.

I didn't say for CERTAIN that he was (I don't know him personally), but that his comments made him sound as such.

Also, in my experience philosophy is far from BS-it animates our actions. If you give it a chance, you might like it. (I was iffy myself till I got into it)

ronpaulhawaii
10-20-2008, 11:49 PM
I didn't say for CERTAIN that he was (I don't know him personally), but that his comments made him sound as such. Besides, in my experience philosophy is far from BS-it animates our actions. If you give it a chance, you might like it. (I was iffy myself till I got into it)

I don't want to hijack this thread and debaating philosphy is great. (I just happen to think much of it is time wasting BS, but that is just me). What I take exception to is this from you.


You are a sabateur to the freedom movement.

And that is why I say that you don't know what you are talking about. I do know him personally. He is far from a neocon spammer and I, also, know that he is very well versed on constitutional issues surrounding the tax honesty movement. He responded to your claim and you have yet to see his point. Instead you are making yourself look like a fool and I thought I should stop in and let you know.

Now, back to your debate...

heavenlyboy34
10-21-2008, 12:02 AM
I don't want to hijack this thread and debaating philosphy is great. (I just happen to think much of it is time wasting BS, but that is just me). What I take exception to is this from you.

And that is why I say that you don't know what you are talking about. I do know him personally. He is far from a neocon spammer and I, also, know that he is very well versed on constitutional issues surrounding the tax honesty movement. He responded to your claim and you have yet to see his point. Instead you are making yourself look like a fool and I thought I should stop in and let you know.

Now, back to your debate...

If he is in fact a friend of the r3volution, I welcome him. However, he did not give that impression from what he wrote. I don't see anything foolish in what I wrote. I saw his "point", and disagreed with it (providing ample sound reason, too).

I hope we have productive discussions in the future. :) /end hijack

danberkeley
10-21-2008, 12:18 AM
It seems that every answer "No" answer to the question of "Is taxation theft?" has been justified by alleging some sort of necessity for taxes. However, the definition of something is self-contained such that the perceived necessity for something does not change what it is. To clarify, the OP even specifically asked us to disregard any perceived necessity, but some how this has been avoided by those answering "No" to the question.

...

Now, for those wanting to claim that taxation is not theft, I would love to hear those arguments (because I've never heard a good one). Arguments claiming a perceived necessity are arguments for the justification of theft, they are not arguments that taxation is not theft. If you want to argue that theft by government is justified, then feel free, but that's probably a topic for another thread.


Thank for getting us back on track! :)



Reread what I said. If you want anarchy and the guy in your eample saves you and demands payment, if he is bigger and stronger then yes. You either pay up or face the consequences. Thats what happens in anarchy. However if you don't want anarchy again re-read what I said. Note that I DO NOT WANT ANARCHY. I just feel those wishing for anarchy hypothetically already have it. Its just most governments are too big for most to want to take on.

Sure. But my question was, to rephrase: Are you required to pay up BECAUSE I rescued you? Not "are you required to pay up BECUASE I might kick your ass?"


Again my biggest point is that by living where a government exists and where you are being protected by its laws you should expect to pay for it and it is not theft. If you don't want to pay for the government don't live in its territory. If you disagree with this thats fine but that doesn't make me wrong (and I'm open to hearing all opinions...)

To paraphrase Dr. Walter Block: if I move to Detriot, where crime is very high, is it theft if someone breaks into my house and takes something or it is not theft BECUASE I KNEW that by moving to Detriot that someone might break into my house and take something. According to you (Jack555), this would not be theft, BECAUSE I KNEW that someone might break into my house and take something by moving to Detriot, where crime is very high.

mport1
10-21-2008, 12:21 AM
I agree my view of fair can not be used exclusively to prove a point, however I may still state that I think it is fair and many others may as well.

Again my biggest point is that by living where a government exists and where you are being protected by its laws you should expect to pay for it and it is not theft. If you don't want to pay for the government don't live in its territory. If you disagree with this thats fine but that doesn't make me wrong (and I'm open to hearing all opinions...)

The point you raise goes back to the question I posed about me and a group of others moving into your neighborhood. The aim of this hypothetical is to prove that "government" does not legitimately reign over the territory it claims jurisdiction. Thus it cannot be said that by living in a certain geographical region that I am under the jurisdiction of these men who claim authority over my life and property. Not to mention the fact that I have never provided my consent to the people calling themselves the government. Thus, their actions amount to nothing more than a group of men robbing me at gunpoint if necessary of my justly acquired property.

The argument that it is not theft because I may receive certain services from the "government" is also a not valid. I never requested or consented to these services and they have no legitimate authority to charge me for them. Although I think danberkeley quote from Walter Block is a better example, I will provide another analogy: If I come over to your yard and mow your lawn, plant nice flowers, and do some helpful other yard work, can I then legitimately come to you and charge you for these services that you never requested or consented to? If you do not pay my fee for the work I have done I will either throw you in a cage or kill you if you resist my kidnapping. (This is even a generous analogy since I cannot think of a single thing that government offers of benefit).

Thanks for the respectable debate. I just think the concept of taxation as theft is of vital importance to the understanding of our political system and I would like to convince everybody of this fact.

ronpaulhawaii
10-21-2008, 01:07 AM
A sig sucked me in ...

Ten anarchists move to an island. A few spend their time fishing, a few farming, a few gathering, etc. Everyone trades and is happy.

Due to a storm the reefs change and the only navigable inlet, from the lagoon to the fishing grounds, now gets regularly filled with sand by the tide. Everyone likes to eat fish.

The ten meet and decide to do something collectively. One of the farmers offers to keep the inlet clear for a share of the produce from each, to make up for his lost productivity. All agree and are happy again.

Is that a tax? and is that theft?

danberkeley
10-21-2008, 01:15 AM
A sig sucked me in ...

Ten anarchists move to an island. A few spend their time fishing, a few farming, a few gathering, etc. Everyone trades and is happy.

Due to a storm the reefs change and the only navigable inlet, from the lagoon to the fishing grounds, now gets regularly filled with sand by the tide. Everyone likes to eat fish.

The ten meet and decide to do something collectively. One of the farmers offers to keep the inlet clear for a share of the produce from each, to make up for his lost productivity. All agree and are happy again.

Is that a tax? and is that theft?

In the situation you gave, all agreements were voluntarily agreed to by ALL ten anarchists. There is no theft. Tax? Definately not a state-imposed tax (per the libertarian dictum).

Truth Warrior
10-21-2008, 01:23 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armed%20robbery (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armed%20robbery)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny)




"I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).

ronpaulhawaii
10-21-2008, 01:37 AM
In the situation you gave, all agreements were voluntarily agreed to by ALL ten anarchists. There is no theft. Tax? Definately not a state-imposed tax (per the libertarian dictum).

Thanks. I suppose one would then have to argue the definition of "state", but regardless, I think I can safely vote "no" on the poll. It seems an oversimplification. (I do, however, believe that the current system we live under is rife with theft.) I need to read the thread better and for now will simply say good night, and enjoy...

:)

Truth Warrior
10-21-2008, 01:56 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state)

DamianTV
10-21-2008, 03:28 AM
I havent read the rest of everyones posts...

Poll is a little inspecific. I think Income Tax is Unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the law. Local Taxes like property taxes, since we do get services rendered for payments, IE Fire department, etc, those are lawful. Direct apportioned. Income Tax is a Direct Unapportioned Tax, thus it is unlawful. And dont expect the court rulings to do anything for us, they say what they want to say and tell us the law is what comes out of their mouths, not the written law.

Problem we have is NOT with the LAW itself being UNLAWFUL, but we HAVE NO REPRESENTATION! AGAIN! We are back to square one where we were with England trying to put a tax on our MONEY just for having and using it. Same as the Federal Reserve and the other Hidden Tax of Inflation. We would NOT have this problem if our elected representatives did their god damn jobs and represented US, not themselves! We have absolutely no representation so we have absolutely no recourse to fix these problems.

majinkoola
10-21-2008, 06:19 AM
Suppose there were a society with no mandatory taxation. However, in order to vote you had to pay $100 per year. I would pay that fee and vote in order to keep mandatory taxation from creeping back in.

nickcoons
10-21-2008, 08:15 AM
I have provided a reason some taxes are not theft.

"Again my biggest point is that by living where a government exists and where you are being protected by its laws you should expect to pay for it and it is not theft. If you don't want to pay for the government don't live in its territory. If you disagree with this thats fine but that doesn't make me wrong (and I'm open to hearing all opinions...)"

I understand you may disagree but I think it is a logical viewpoint.

Your reasoning presupposes that government has jurisdiction over the territory where I reside.

If I'm incredibly rich and buy hundreds of square miles of land, then I can charge people whatever fees and make whatever rules I want in exchange for them living there. I can make it so that any property that I sell them comes with conditions that they follow my rules and pay my fees, and that they must agree to future changes that I make over time. The reason I can do this is because I own the land in the first place, and people can decline these terms by not purchasing or using my land.

Now, to allege that the government has this same authority means that they must have had some claim on the land (in the case of the federal government, the entire country) which gives them the authority to make the same rules that I could make had I owned the land mentioned in the previous paragraph. I contend that government has no such claim. And to determine that, we need to look at where ownership and property rights come from.

To start with, I own myself, and all other rights (including property rights) are an extension of that self-ownership. Because I own my life, I own the productive output that I create. I can only create productive output with some sort of input, and all input ultimately comes from land. I can claim an area of land as my property if I can put it to productive use. Once I have made such a legitimate claim to land, I can then transfer ownership of the land as I can with any other property. It's necessary to put unclaimed land to some productive use before being able to legitimately claim ownership of it. Floating your boat to the shore of a continent and planting your flag simply won't do.

Because government has no legitimate claim or jurisdiction over the territory, they have no authority to present the two choices "pay our taxes and follow our laws, or leave."

mediahasyou
10-21-2008, 01:51 PM
"Again my biggest point is that by living where a government exists and where you are being protected by its laws you should expect to pay for it and it is not theft. If you don't want to pay for the government don't live in its territory. If you disagree with this thats fine but that doesn't make me wrong (and I'm open to hearing all opinions...)"

But what makes a government legitimate in owning land? Can I make my own government in New York and demand people to pay taxes for upkeep? That's foolish. No states are legitimate.

The solution is a society with a system of voluntary contracts. That is anarcho-capitalism. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

jack555
10-21-2008, 04:42 PM
Define "excess".

I have already defined it may times, but again is the bare minimum amount needed to keep the government functioning as described in the constitution.

jack555
10-21-2008, 04:45 PM
Thank for getting us back on track! :)



Sure. But my question was, to rephrase: Are you required to pay up BECAUSE I rescued you? Not "are you required to pay up BECUASE I might kick your ass?"



To paraphrase Dr. Walter Block: if I move to Detriot, where crime is very high, is it theft if someone breaks into my house and takes something or it is not theft BECUASE I KNEW that by moving to Detriot that someone might break into my house and take something. According to you (Jack555), this would not be theft, BECAUSE I KNEW that someone might break into my house and take something by moving to Detriot, where crime is very high.

1) no, your not required to pay because he/she rescued you.

2)I disagree. Your putting words in my mouth with your example and the example doesn't fit. As far as I am concerned you are making a DEAL with the government to take some of your pay. Its almost like you are paying them. See the difference? I understand what your saying but I don't think you understood me.

jack555
10-21-2008, 04:50 PM
The point you raise goes back to the question I posed about me and a group of others moving into your neighborhood. The aim of this hypothetical is to prove that "government" does not legitimately reign over the territory it claims jurisdiction. Thus it cannot be said that by living in a certain geographical region that I am under the jurisdiction of these men who claim authority over my life and property. Not to mention the fact that I have never provided my consent to the people calling themselves the government. Thus, their actions amount to nothing more than a group of men robbing me at gunpoint if necessary of my justly acquired property.

The argument that it is not theft because I may receive certain services from the "government" is also a not valid. I never requested or consented to these services and they have no legitimate authority to charge me for them. Although I think danberkeley quote from Walter Block is a better example, I will provide another analogy: If I come over to your yard and mow your lawn, plant nice flowers, and do some helpful other yard work, can I then legitimately come to you and charge you for these services that you never requested or consented to? If you do not pay my fee for the work I have done I will either throw you in a cage or kill you if you resist my kidnapping. (This is even a generous analogy since I cannot think of a single thing that government offers of benefit).

Thanks for the respectable debate. I just think the concept of taxation as theft is of vital importance to the understanding of our political system and I would like to convince everybody of this fact.

My argument is that by living on U.S. land you essentially are in a contract with them to pay for their services (services being what is described in the law of the land, the constitution). Your being here means you agree to pay taxes to keep the government going. This is why your example does not work.

jack555
10-21-2008, 04:58 PM
Your reasoning presupposes that government has jurisdiction over the territory where I reside.

If I'm incredibly rich and buy hundreds of square miles of land, then I can charge people whatever fees and make whatever rules I want in exchange for them living there. I can make it so that any property that I sell them comes with conditions that they follow my rules and pay my fees, and that they must agree to future changes that I make over time. The reason I can do this is because I own the land in the first place, and people can decline these terms by not purchasing or using my land.

Now, to allege that the government has this same authority means that they must have had some claim on the land (in the case of the federal government, the entire country) which gives them the authority to make the same rules that I could make had I owned the land mentioned in the previous paragraph. I contend that government has no such claim. And to determine that, we need to look at where ownership and property rights come from.

To start with, I own myself, and all other rights (including property rights) are an extension of that self-ownership. Because I own my life, I own the productive output that I create. I can only create productive output with some sort of input, and all input ultimately comes from land. I can claim an area of land as my property if I can put it to productive use. Once I have made such a legitimate claim to land, I can then transfer ownership of the land as I can with any other property. It's necessary to put unclaimed land to some productive use before being able to legitimately claim ownership of it. Floating your boat to the shore of a continent and planting your flag simply won't do.

Because government has no legitimate claim or jurisdiction over the territory, they have no authority to present the two choices "pay our taxes and follow our laws, or leave."

I see where you are coming from but I disagree. I feel the government does not have the right to not own the land of the country (except perhaps places for government buildings and such) but I do feel that they have the right to govern over the entire country and by living in the region they govern over you are agreeing to pay for it. If you don't like it you can try to replace the U.S. government but by living under its jurisdiction I feel you owe them the cost it takes to keep that government going. If you feel you are being wronged then morally speaking I think you have the right to try and overthrow the U.S. gov. However, if you are going to continue to live here under their jurisdiction I think you are basically agreeing to pay them (again only what the constitution says you have to pay them, anything more is theft and illegal).

heavenlyboy34
10-21-2008, 05:49 PM
I see where you are coming from but I disagree. I feel the government does not have the right to not own the land of the country (except perhaps places for government buildings and such) but I do feel that they have the right to govern over the entire country and by living in the region they govern over you are agreeing to pay for it. If you don't like it you can try to replace the U.S. government but by living under its jurisdiction I feel you owe them the cost it takes to keep that government going. If you feel you are being wronged then morally speaking I think you have the right to try and overthrow the U.S. gov. However, if you are going to continue to live here under their jurisdiction I think you are basically agreeing to pay them (again only what the constitution says you have to pay them, anything more is theft and illegal).

Interesting point. I would argue that since they stole money from me (via taxation and inflation) to get the protective equipment, any "contract" I made with them is void (since they violated my rights-and therefore their end of the contract-by stealing from me). I would be better off keeping my money and finding a way to defend myself that works better (my own personal police, milita, etc).

nickcoons
10-21-2008, 06:46 PM
I see where you are coming from but I disagree. I feel the government does not have the right to not own the land of the country (except perhaps places for government buildings and such) but I do feel that they have the right to govern over the entire country and by living in the region they govern over you are agreeing to pay for it. If you don't like it you can try to replace the U.S. government but by living under its jurisdiction I feel you owe them the cost it takes to keep that government going. If you feel you are being wronged then morally speaking I think you have the right to try and overthrow the U.S. gov. However, if you are going to continue to live here under their jurisdiction I think you are basically agreeing to pay them (again only what the constitution says you have to pay them, anything more is theft and illegal).

But again, you're presupposing that the government has jurisdiction.

What is the government? It is a small group of people (or several small groups of people) who have gotten together and decided how the country will be run.

Let's go back in time. In 1787, the US Constitution was created and eventually ratified by the state governments. The Constitution was written by a small group of people as a contract between the newly-created federal government and the states. How many people "agreed" to be bound by this contract? Well, the people that signed it, and the state legislators that voted for it. So how is it that all of those people that didn't sign it are now bound by it? What is it that makes government "special" that it has jurisdiction over that which it does not own? Additionally, where did the authority come from to impose such taxes on the non-consenting?

Rights belong only to individuals, and they are not cumulative. Two people in a group don't have any more rights than a single person does. How do you suppose that a group of people called "government" has rights (such as taking property without consent) that any given individual does not?

mport1
10-21-2008, 07:10 PM
But again, you're presupposing that the government has jurisdiction.

What is the government? It is a small group of people (or several small groups of people) who have gotten together and decided how the country will be run.

Let's go back in time. In 1787, the US Constitution was created and eventually ratified by the state governments. The Constitution was written by a small group of people as a contract between the newly-created federal government and the states. How many people "agreed" to be bound by this contract? Well, the people that signed it, and the state legislators that voted for it. So how is it that all of those people that didn't sign it are now bound by it? What is it that makes government "special" that it has jurisdiction over that which it does not own? Additionally, where did the authority come from to impose such taxes on the non-consenting?

Rights belong only to individuals, and they are not cumulative. Two people in a group don't have any more rights than a single person does. How do you suppose that a group of people called "government" has rights (such as taking property without consent) that any given individual does not?

+1

jack555
10-21-2008, 10:11 PM
But again, you're presupposing that the government has jurisdiction.

What is the government? It is a small group of people (or several small groups of people) who have gotten together and decided how the country will be run.

Let's go back in time. In 1787, the US Constitution was created and eventually ratified by the state governments. The Constitution was written by a small group of people as a contract between the newly-created federal government and the states. How many people "agreed" to be bound by this contract? Well, the people that signed it, and the state legislators that voted for it. So how is it that all of those people that didn't sign it are now bound by it? What is it that makes government "special" that it has jurisdiction over that which it does not own? Additionally, where did the authority come from to impose such taxes on the non-consenting?

Rights belong only to individuals, and they are not cumulative. Two people in a group don't have any more rights than a single person does. How do you suppose that a group of people called "government" has rights (such as taking property without consent) that any given individual does not?


O man your a tough one.

Ok, with your argument in mind, for me it comes down to this. Do you respect their jurisdiction or not.

I want a government. Most people want a government (I also realize most people are sheep ). I accept the jurisdiction of the United States as do most people. For those of us who want a government, we are agreeing to pay for it by living under its jurisdiction (and should expect to pay for it). It is not theft when they tax me as described by the constitution. I am paying for their service.

If you are living here and feel that you own land and you have jurisdiction over the land and don't want a government I suppose it does come down to who has the bigger guns and it is theft.



To some it up it is not theft if it is legal (as decribed by the constitution) and I respect the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government (and therefore the law of the land, the constitution).

nickcoons
10-21-2008, 10:27 PM
Ok, with your argument in mind, for me it comes down to this. Do you respect their jurisdiction or not.

I want a government. Most people want a government (I also realize most people are sheep ). I accept the jurisdiction of the United States as do most people. For those of us who want a government, we are agreeing to pay for it by living under its jurisdiction (and should expect to pay for it). It is not theft when they tax me as described by the constitution. I am paying for their service.

If you are living here and feel that you own land and you have jurisdiction over the land and don't want a government I suppose it does come down to who has the bigger guns and it is theft.

To some it up it is not theft if it is legal (as decribed by the constitution) and I respect the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government (and therefore the law of the land, the constitution).

What you're describing is basically voluntarism. Basically, that anyone wanting to take advantage of government services (i.e. live under their jurisdiction) should pay for those services, and libertarians (including myself) don't have an issue with that. The problem with our government (even if they did abide by the Constitution) is that you cannot voluntarily remove yourself from their authority without abandoning your property and effectively life as you know it (i.e. by moving out of the country). That being the case, and in answer to your question.. no, I do not respect their jurisdiction. I do not acknowledge that they have any claim on me or my property. But just as I would probably give an armed mugger my wallet on demand, I also pay my taxes for the same reason -- Self-survival.

Here is an excellent article...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts

...which describes taxation as theft and refutes every argument I've ever heard claiming that it is not theft, including:

- The "majority rules" argument
- The "debt for services rendered and benefits received" argument
- The "social contract" argument (your favorite :))
- The "moral debt to those in need" argument

I don't mind having a government. Government's sole purpose is to protect our rights, but it cannot infringe upon our rights in the process.

DFF
10-21-2008, 10:47 PM
Yes, yes, and YES! :mad:

jack555
10-21-2008, 11:08 PM
What you're describing is basically voluntarism. Basically, that anyone wanting to take advantage of government services (i.e. live under their jurisdiction) should pay for those services, and libertarians (including myself) don't have an issue with that. The problem with our government (even if they did abide by the Constitution) is that you cannot voluntarily remove yourself from their authority without abandoning your property and effectively life as you know it (i.e. by moving out of the country). That being the case, and in answer to your question.. no, I do not respect their jurisdiction. I do not acknowledge that they have any claim on me or my property. But just as I would probably give an armed mugger my wallet on demand, I also pay my taxes for the same reason -- Self-survival.

Here is an excellent article...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts

...which describes taxation as theft and refutes every argument I've ever heard claiming that it is not theft, including:

- The "majority rules" argument
- The "debt for services rendered and benefits received" argument
- The "social contract" argument (your favorite :))
- The "moral debt to those in need" argument

I don't mind having a government. Government's sole purpose is to protect our rights, but it cannot infringe upon our rights in the process.


I agree with most of what you said.


However the question at hand is, "Is taxation theft."

to say yes would mean that it is always theft.

After reading your arguments I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.


edit- I will say I was originally wrong and your article says exactly why I am wrong (as others have).

nickcoons
10-22-2008, 08:04 AM
After reading your arguments I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.

Most people pay their taxes voluntarily, but that's only because they know what will happen if they don't. Most slaves would do as their masters told them without the masters ever having to break out the whip, but you could hardly argue that people were slaves voluntarily. As you can see, this is sort of a skewed definition of "voluntarily".

Perhaps there are people out there that would pay their taxes even if there were no consequences of not paying taxes. Then again, perhaps there are people out there that would give their wallet to a mugger even if they knew they could decline and nothing bad would happen to them. I don't happen to know anyone like that :).

jack555
10-22-2008, 12:35 PM
Most people pay their taxes voluntarily, but that's only because they know what will happen if they don't. Most slaves would do as their masters told them without the masters ever having to break out the whip, but you could hardly argue that people were slaves voluntarily. As you can see, this is sort of a skewed definition of "voluntarily".

Perhaps there are people out there that would pay their taxes even if there were no consequences of not paying taxes. Then again, perhaps there are people out there that would give their wallet to a mugger even if they knew they could decline and nothing bad would happen to them. I don't happen to know anyone like that :).

Well now you have met one and there are many more like me. I would gladly pay taxes as described by the constitution.


So again

I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.


Anyone care to challenge my claim?

heavenlyboy34
10-22-2008, 12:54 PM
Well now you have met one and there are many more like me. I would gladly pay taxes as described by the constitution.


So again

I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.


Anyone care to challenge my claim?

If you volunteer, it is no longer taxation-but charity. You can do this all you want. Using government force to collect money from others on behalf of another person or group is coercion, and therefore wrong.

nickcoons
10-22-2008, 03:55 PM
Well now you have met one and there are many more like me. I would gladly pay taxes as described by the constitution.

So again

I agree that tax can be theft but If I volunteer to pay tax it is not theft. Therefore not all taxation is theft.

Anyone care to challenge my claim?

Taxes come with the threat of force implied. If the threat of force is removed (i.e. we make all taxes voluntary), then I will say that those are the only taxes that are not theft.

heavenlyboy34
10-22-2008, 06:20 PM
Looks like your claim has been sufficiently challenged, jack555. You may respond whenever you are ready. :)

smeg
10-22-2008, 06:43 PM
i know this may be a sidetrack from original discussion, but it's of relation to the title:

although i now live in NH, i was born and raised in portland, OR. while in oregon, over the course of about 15 months, i was the victim of several crimes. these included home invasions, robberies, a car break in, assaults, and even a mugging/stabbing. every time one of these happened, i would file police reports; however, i was charged $10 for a copy of this report (which was the extent of police involvement in these crimes... they don't "investigate" anything that doesn't get them revenue now).

my question is, would this $10 charge for a copy of a police report be considered a "victim tax" to anyone? cause thats what i felt it to be. i didn't choose to be the victim of crime, and now i don't have the choice of paying $10 to the police bureau as a result.

heavenlyboy34
10-22-2008, 06:46 PM
i know this may be a sidetrack from original discussion, but it's of relation to the title:

although i now live in NH, i was born and raised in portland, OR. while in oregon, over the course of about 15 months, i was the victim of several crimes. these included home invasions, robberies, a car break in, assaults, and even a mugging/stabbing. every time one of these happened, i would file police reports; however, i was charged $10 for a copy of this report (which was the extent of police involvement in these crimes... they don't "investigate" anything that doesn't get them revenue now).

my question is, would this $10 charge for a copy of a police report be considered a "victim tax" to anyone? cause thats what i felt it to be. i didn't choose to be the victim of crime, and now i don't have the choice of paying $10 to the police bureau as a result.

I would consider it a "victim tax". If the city was responsible, they should have allocated funds to take care of that stuff. (another reason why private police would be more effective than government police)

nickcoons
10-22-2008, 10:43 PM
my question is, would this $10 charge for a copy of a police report be considered a "victim tax" to anyone? cause thats what i felt it to be. i didn't choose to be the victim of crime, and now i don't have the choice of paying $10 to the police bureau as a result.

This is one of those tricky areas. Police are funded by stolen money (taxes), so questioning how a taxpayer-subsidized entity should function is secondary to asking the more important question; should they exist in the first place?

I agree with the concept of private police forces. Additionally, I would like to see multiple police forces working a common geographical area to provide competition much the same way any other business does. As with any monopoly, your local police force has no competition, and no concerns as to your satisfactory with their performance.

Dr. Ruwart puts forth an excellent scenario of a private police force, where the criminal pays not only for the cost of their crimes to the victims, but also the cost of their capture, trial, and imprisonment. When you combine all of these costs, it far exceeds what the criminal gained by engaging in the crime, so it makes crime very unprofitable. And because police are paid by convicted criminals, they are far more likely to be interested in actually investigating and capturing criminals, lest they not be paid.

smeg
10-23-2008, 02:45 AM
This is one of those tricky areas. Police are funded by stolen money (taxes), so questioning how a taxpayer-subsidized entity should function is secondary to asking the more important question; should they exist in the first place?

I agree with the concept of private police forces. Additionally, I would like to see multiple police forces working a common geographical area to provide competition much the same way any other business does. As with any monopoly, your local police force has no competition, and no concerns as to your satisfactory with their performance.

Dr. Ruwart puts forth an excellent scenario of a private police force, where the criminal pays not only for the cost of their crimes to the victims, but also the cost of their capture, trial, and imprisonment. When you combine all of these costs, it far exceeds what the criminal gained by engaging in the crime, so it makes crime very unprofitable. And because police are paid by convicted criminals, they are far more likely to be interested in actually investigating and capturing criminals, lest they not be paid.

i am currently writing to my reps from oregon about this very issue. last year, two of my tires went flat after being punctured by nails spilled on the street by a construction site. of course, having to leave my car parked on the street till i could repair it, i gained a lot of parking tickets. when i returned to downtown portland a month later to speak with a judge about these fines(my first time parking downtown since getting the tickets), my car was towed and impounded for "excessive delinquent fines". all my tickets had more than doubled in cost, totaling almost $1000; the towing fee was $548 (for towing my car, literally, 2 blocks); impound fees were $150 plus $50 each day it remained impounded... and all these fees had to be paid in full before i could regain possession of my car; however, if i did not pay these within 30 days, my car would become property of the state, and i would be charged an additional $2000 "relinquish of title fee".

so, my complaint was basically, law enforcement not only fails to protect or defend the people who pay their salaries from crimes; they target these people in order to enforce laws that are only successful in creating revenue, as apposed to safety. this creates a community that tolerates and therefor perpetuates crime, while also creating a shared animosity towards the police for being greedy and abusive... and that can snowball into an "us v. them" issue that has it's obvious effects.

bottom line: law enforcement are for keeping people safe, not generating revenue.

QueenB4Liberty
10-23-2008, 10:03 AM
Income taxation is theft.

mediahasyou
10-23-2008, 02:11 PM
Can people voluntarily contribute money to an organization?

Political campaigns, clubs, and charities all survive this way. But once the word "organization" is switched to "government", people come up with the notion that the idea is inconceivable.

denison
08-27-2009, 02:59 PM
You don't. If you believe taxes are theft (they are), then every state you could dream up is inherently immoral.

earlier related thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202101

I was thinking of ways a taxless society would work. More importantly how roads, parks, and defense would be funded in a small limited government scenario where the government doesn't collect any taxes.I think it could work if the government ran 10% of the country's businesses and used the profit to fund the essentials of the country. The government would have an incentive to provide good service, because it would raise there profit, therefore expand their budget.