Taxes are Theft: How Many Men?

To explain how taxes are theft I like to point out that the line that separates taxation and thievery is vague and completely arbitrary. To illustrate this I use an analogy that begins with simple and obvious theft and then, by adding variables and small changes to the story, make the theft resemble taxation in order to find the line between the two. This is often called the "How many men?" argument and my version of it is as follows.

After each change I make, answer this question; "Does that make it right?".

A criminal physically attacks you and takes your wallet with $500 inside.


1.Let's say that he doesn't attack you but demands the money or will use physical violence if you resist him.

2.Let's say that there are 3 other people supporting the criminal and they voted for him to mug you.

3.Let's say that there are 10 or 100 people supporting the criminal but now they give you a vote but you can't quite convince enough people to vote against mugging you.

4.Let's say that the criminal won't keep all your money but donate some to his supporters and to a local soup kitchen.

5.Let's say that they give $5 of your money back along a free bowl of soup.

Do any of these adjustments make the criminal right in stealing your money? He is now no longer using physical violence (as long as you pay). Some of it is going to a good cause. You get some benefit from the money stolen. Does that make it right?

6.What if instead of one criminal it is a group of criminals and instead of 10 or 100 supporters it was 100 thousand or 10 million?

7.What if the criminals did not demand money face to face but sent you a bill for the amount they want to steal and then use violence only if you refuse to pay?

8.What if the criminals don't directly do the violence but hire mercenaries to go and use violence to collect the money from you?

9.What if, when you refuse to pay, the mercenaries kidnap you and put you in a cage in lieu of physical violence (that is unless you resist being kidnapped in which case they will hurt or kill you)?

10.What if the criminals had fancy titles like judge, or congressman, or senator, or president and the mercenaries were called something like police, or FBI, or IRS?

Do these changes make the theft right and at what point does this cease to be theft and become taxation? How many men need to be involved in this larcenous conspiracy for it to no longer be considered a crime? How many fancy titles and euphemisms need to be used to make this such theft legitimate?



.

Taxes are Theft: by Definition

How is taxation theft? Through defining the concepts and practices that are used in both taxation and theft we can show that both are nearly indistinguishable from one another. Let's first break down the definitions of some words that describe negative and criminal acts.

Theft: the act of taking property or money belonging to another, by force, stealth, or coercion without that persons freely given consent.

Coercion: the use of threats, intimidation, or trickery to force or repress a peaceful persons actions.

Violence: any intentional use of force (physical or verbal) against another.

Threat: a credible declaration of ones intention to cause physical, financial, or emotional harm.

So by these definitions a robber or a mugger commits theft by forcing people to give them money by coercing them through threats of punishment (violence) for not paying.

Now for a definition of a tax

Tax: a financial charge imposed upon a person or group, by the government, to fund the government and its programs, which is enforced by threat of punishment under the law.

So based on the prior definitions, government taxation could also be accurately defined as:

the government action of taking money by force through coercing people with threats of punishment (violence) for not paying.

Since the government uses coercion, in the form of threats of criminal penalties, and violence in the form of police enforcement if you refuse to pay, then there cannot be freely given consent. Taking money or forcing someone to give up their money, without freely given consent is... THEFT!



.

Voluntary Morality: Self Ownership and Non-Aggression

The principles of self ownership (as a right) and non-aggression (as a responsibility) are the most simple, just, moral and consistent basis for all human interaction. The principles can be be stated as follows;

The right of self ownership.

Everyone has the inherent right to self ownership. This is the right to life, liberty, and justly acquired property.

Only you can own your life, that is the right to defend and make decisions about things that effect your body and existence. To deny this is to accept rape and murder as moral and justifiable.

Only you can own your property, that is the sole right to the tangible product of your labor. To deny this is to accept that robbery and fraud as moral and justifiable.

Only you can own your liberty, that is the freedom to choose what to do with your life and property. To deny this is to accept slavery and oppression as moral and justifiable.


The responsibility of non-aggression

All people have the responsibility to, whenever possible, keep their interactions with other completely and mutually voluntary, that is to say , free from aggression. Aggression is the initiation of force. Force is any act of physical violence or a substitute for physical violence, such as fraud, theft, coercion or any action that directly infringes the right to self ownership.

This also not only means that one should refrain from using aggressive force against others, but to restrain others from using aggressive force against them. All people should, whenever feasible, resist ,with defensive force, anyone who initiates aggression against them by using the least force appropriate to effectively defend against, and/or restore a loss as a result of, aggression



This is the prime directive for all people who truly believe in freedom. Any social philosophy or action that opposes or even fails to satisfy these axioms is in direct opposition to freedom.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

You are NOT a Citizen

The state and its government can be accurately defined as a group of individuals who occupy a certain geographical area who regulates the behavior of its citizens, usually in the form of laws.

A citizen is a member of a nation who owes allegiance to the state/government in exchange for the entitlement to its protection. This definition of citizen has been acknowledged in supreme court case Minor v. Happersett 1874.

In 2005 the supreme court ruled in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales that the government and agents of the state (namely the police) have no constitutional obligation to protect its citizens and therefor the citizens are not entitled to that protection.

If citizens are not entitled to governmental protection then no citizen OWES their allegiance to the government. We are thus not compelled by duty to obey the dictates required of citizens. If the government can re-neg on its end of the social contract, namely the duty to protect, then why should we not likewise be able to abandon our end of this "contract", that is to obey?



Minor v. Happersett
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

Castle Rock v. Gonzales
http://supreme.justia.com/us/545/04-278/