Taxation Is Theft?

[This_person]

Then, you are incorrect in your claim that you own the land that I freely traded for (This is assuming the land wasn't somehow stolen from you and then illegitimately sold to me.). The burden of proof is certainly upon you, not upon me. You would need to provide me with evidence that you are the true owner of the land. And if I refuse to accept your evidence and claims to my land, then the question is what do you do? I guess if you were to attempt to use violence against me for being on my own property, then I would use force as needed to stop the violence in the name of self-defense (or have someone provide this self-defense on my behalf). There are numerous ways in which this situation could be played out as you are aware. Most the possible solutions do not involve violence and likely is not the way this kind of interaction would play out.

I concur that it is an unlikely scenario. However, it is not unrealistic. There have been a very large number, throughout the years, of lawsuits brought because people disagreed where boundaries between properties exist, etc. The reason title searches are done is to ensure that no one is being denied their right to particular properties, or money based on borrowing against the property's value.

While I concur on the unlikeliness of the scenario, the point is that if you and I disagree on who owns the property, then we must go to an authority to determine who actually does own it. The way that you know you own it is that you've registered title to the property, including all boundaries, with the government. Their job is to protect the truth of who owns it.

Your solution is that if we disagree and cannot come to an agreement, people would devolve to the chaos of violence against one another, and the person with the bigger arsenal would likely be the winner of the argument. That's not really a reasonable solution.

"We, the people, through our ancestors".... From this statement, it appears that your version of consent is not individually based. Meaning someone can grant consent for someone else. Can you grant consent for someone else? If so, how?

Ok so we somehow gave them "authority" through a document written hundreds of years ago, but none of us individually consented. This appears to be an illegitimate contract.

You seemed to miss a lot of what I said here. We, the people, reassert this authority over the government every other year as well as through our state governments (which also have people-established constitutions) having control over the Constitution.

So, the argument regarding someone else granting consent for me is not my argument, and invalid. The idea that it is an illegitimate contract is invalid in that it is unreasonable to expect each and every person to agree daily - nay, moment by moment as people are born - with a governmental contractual agreement. The fact exists the government was established, and we consent by living here, through our voting, through our representation, and (if required) through redress of the laws.

There is not a single law with which 100% of the people will all agree. That is an unreasonable expectation. it is unreasonable to expect anarchy. This is what we have, and it is routinely re-authorized.

Practically speaking, yes, this is true, but it is not my focus to find land where no one claims authority. I want to see the proof that those currently claiming to have authority over myself and my property is legitimate.

Is it possible for you to delegate a right that you do not have yourself?

Have you read the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution? If you have, the answers are there for you. If you dispute them, you simply must move to the land you can control yourself. Government is a reasonable and civilized way for people to coexist, a democrat-republic is likely the best way to have that government (well, worst except for all others). Societies actually do exist, and societal consent through lack of support for individual anarchy is proof of that.

The fact that virtually no one is arguing your point, but multiple people are arguing in different ways the same point counter to yours proves that a societal mindset and societal rule actually does exist.

There is no law to like it. But, the authority comes from your fellow citizens for the people who perform legal acts in the name of the government to do those things.

 

[This_person]

And yes of course if damages are incurred, then the dispute needs to be resolved. The resolution of disputes does not require "authority". Also, I want to make it clear that I am defining authority as the "right to rule".

What does it require, in your view. We're obviously talking hypothetically here, because that authority is already established and agreed to, but hypothetically what would be required for a dispute between two parties that simply cannot agree?

 

[bilbur]

If it is wrong to steal (ie. take something without permission), then why is it considered acceptable when individuals calling themselves government take money from people via taxation?

It is not theft it is a payment for services rendered. If people don't pay their fair share of taxes then they are the thieves. You use the roads every day, you depend on cops and jails to keep you safe, you send your kids to public schools, you go to libraries, you benefit from a military that protects us from foreign threats, and thousands of more things that taxes are used for. There is plenty that is wasted from taxes and there is plenty that I don't agree with but everyone should be required to pay their fare share or the system will collapse. Truly who would pay if they made it voluntary? I guarantee not enough to support even the most minimal services.

 

[thefuture093]

I concur that it is an unlikely scenario. However, it is not unrealistic. There have been a very large number, throughout the years, of lawsuits brought because people disagreed where boundaries between properties exist, etc. The reason title searches are done is to ensure that no one is being denied their right to particular properties, or money based on borrowing against the property's value.

While I concur on the unlikeliness of the scenario, the point is that if you and I disagree on who owns the property, then we must go to an authority to determine who actually does own it. The way that you know you own it is that you've registered title to the property, including all boundaries, with the government. Their job is to protect the truth of who owns it.

Your solution is that if we disagree and cannot come to an agreement, people would devolve to the chaos of violence against one another, and the person with the bigger arsenal would likely be the winner of the argument. That's not really a reasonable solution.

I recognized that property disputes happen and that any wise person would document property transfers in a commonly recognized manor. I also agree that the most logical way to solve property disputes is by having an independent 3rd party to examine the evidence. I would not call this person or business an authority as they are providing a completely legitimate service to those individuals who are stuck in the dispute.

The fact that you registered the land with the government is not the defining thing that makes the land yours. This registration is merely documentation that can be used as evidence in property disputes and potential future transactions. Like I said before, the property is yours when you transact with the previous owner. The service of property documentation and property disputes is a completely legitimate service. The fact that the government currently performs this service is not a justification or proof that government is legitimate. This service could be provided by anyone or any company via the marketplace in a more efficient manor. Legitimate government services can always be provided more efficiently through the market, but this is not the focus of my argument.
Also, I think I had a typo and/or you misinterpreted what I said about violent solutions to property disputes. It is not my solution to have property disputes solved via violence. I meant to state that although violence is possible it is not likely to be the method in which people wish to solve these types of disputes.

The idea that it is an illegitimate contract is invalid in that it is unreasonable to expect each and every person to agree daily - nay, moment by moment as people are born - with a governmental contractual agreement.

You have not proved that the contract is legitimate by stating that is unreasonable. In this statement you have provided that it is impossible for government to gather consent from everyone and I completely agree. This is not a justification for the legitimacy of government. It is actually an argument that government can never be consensual or voluntary. If government is not voluntary, then it is compulsory, meaning people are unwilling forced into accepting governmental decrees.
Is it legitimate to force someone into an agreement, such as taxation?

The fact exists the government was established, and we consent by living here, through our voting, through our representation, and (if required) through redress of the laws.

Again with the consent by living here, I've already addressed this point. Attempting to change those that rule over us and/or "represent" us is not a form of consent, especially if you choose not to participate. Attempting to get those who rule over you to leave you alone is not by any means consent. Neither you or I have the ability to "redress" laws.

There is not a single law with which 100% of the people will all agree. That is an unreasonable expectation. it is unreasonable to expect anarchy. This is what we have, and it is routinely re-authorized.

Completely agree that there is no law with which 100% of the people will all agree. So by this system it's legitimate for some percentage of people to force their ideas upon others who do not agree via governmental law?
A state of Anarchy, meaning a world where it is not considered legitimate to rule over other human beings, is not unreasonable. It is unreasonable to think that it is legitimate for some people to violently control others by way of government and it's perceived authority.

Have you read the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution? If you have, the answers are there for you. If you dispute them, you simply must move to the land you can control yourself. Government is a reasonable and civilized way for people to coexist, a democrat-republic is likely the best way to have that government (well, worst except for all others). Societies actually do exist, and societal consent through lack of support for individual anarchy is proof of that.

Yes, I've read both. The answers are not there for where they obtained the right to force people to submit to their demands. I personally think that the Republican form of government that was set up by the founders was a good step in the right direction, but as we are seeing today it is not a long term solution. The long term strides of humanity have been away from forceful domination via authority and towards individual liberty. All of this progress was made by people pointing out the illegitimacy in people's perceived authority whether it be kings, slave owners, or any other illegitimate form of violent control.

There is no such thing a societal consent, as I explained before. You cannot consent for me, I cannot consent for you. Society can not possibly give consent because it is not a conscious being. Individuals exist in reality, societies are just a concept within the mind.
There is no societal mindset. It is just individuals who think similar things. Societal rule is just a group of individuals attempting to rule over another group of individuals.

Again you state that authority comes from my fellow citizens. They cannot grant authority on my behalf. I am being violently forced into a situation to which I do no consent. And if you don't agree with every law, then you are being violently coerced as well. Law is just an opinion backed by the threat of force from government agents.

 

[This_person]

The fact that you registered the land with the government is not the defining thing that makes the land yours. This registration is merely documentation that can be used as evidence in property disputes and potential future transactions.

Ok, so we are saying the same thing.

Like I said before, the property is yours when you transact with the previous owner. The service of property documentation and property disputes is a completely legitimate service. The fact that the government currently performs this service is not a justification or proof that government is legitimate. This service could be provided by anyone or any company via the marketplace in a more efficient manor. Legitimate government services can always be provided more efficiently through the market, but this is not the focus of my argument.

I don't doubt it could be more efficient, though you provide no proof of that. The reason you provide no proof of that is that it is not done that way in the United States. Government maintains those definitive, authoritative records. It may be better and more efficient to use flying cars instead of 4-wheeled ones, but we don't do that.

Also, I think I had a typo and/or you misinterpreted what I said about violent solutions to property disputes. It is not my solution to have property disputes solved via violence. I meant to state that although violence is possible it is not likely to be the method in which people wish to solve these types of disputes.

Without an authority to definitively settle the disputes, how else would that be done?

You have not proved that the contract is legitimate by stating that is unreasonable. In this statement you have provided that it is impossible for government to gather consent from everyone and I completely agree. This is not a justification for the legitimacy of government. It is actually an argument that government can never be consensual or voluntary. If government is not voluntary, then it is compulsory, meaning people are unwilling forced into accepting governmental decrees.

First, that's not the only argument I made. I made the argument that the whole of society voted upon it originally, and continue to vote on it every couple of years, and continue to maintain cognizance over it through local we-the-people-initiated governments charged with oversight of the federal government.

Second, you are absolutely wrong that people are compulsory participants in government authority. Everyone in the United States has full right to leave the United States and set up their own way of life elsewhere. By voluntarily staying, they are voluntarily submitting to the government that exists, as provided by their fellow citizens.

Is it legitimate to force someone into an agreement, such as taxation?

Nope. Do not pay taxes, and leave the US, and you will no longer be required to pay your taxes. But, so long as you live in an area that is under the cognizance of the United States, you are bound (through voluntarily staying here) to meet the societal rules (government) of the United States.

Again with the consent by living here, I've already addressed this point. Attempting to change those that rule over us and/or "represent" us is not a form of consent, especially if you choose not to participate. Attempting to get those who rule over you to leave you alone is not by any means consent. Neither you or I have the ability to "redress" laws.

I'm not sure where you get that. It is one of the first reminders on the limits of the federal government that we have the ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We choose our elected officials, and if they pass laws with which we disagree we can fire them and replace them. If that provides unsatisfactory results, we can go through the court system. We are free to encourage our fellow citizens to do the same. We have multiple, effective means of doing these things.

But, you said something very appropriate here. You discussed the "choice" not to participate. It may be a line from a song, but it is very true: "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

You may feel you've addressed it, but you haven't countered it at all.

Completely agree that there is no law with which 100% of the people will all agree. So by this system it's legitimate for some percentage of people to force their ideas upon others who do not agree via governmental law?

No, they can leave the United States if they do not like the laws. Many celebrities have said they would do this due to the election of Pres-Elect Trump. But, they have since recanted their promise to leave, because they made the conscious choice to be governed by Pres Trump than leave. This is the choice every citizen makes.

A state of Anarchy, meaning a world where it is not considered legitimate to rule over other human beings, is not unreasonable. It is unreasonable to think that it is legitimate for some people to violently control others by way of government and it's perceived authority.

So long as no two people are ever near one another, it is perfectly reasonable to live in anarchy. Unfortunately, this is not a likely thing to happen for most people. Due to that, people must form agreements with others on how they will interact. That, in effect, is establishing government.

Yes, I've read both. The answers are not there for where they obtained the right to force people to submit to their demands.

Try the Preamble to the Constitution. Everything you need to know about the authority is there. Additionally, the signatures at the end show the representatives of those people. Further, the fact that the vote exists to abolish the government, any and all laws, etc., every two years and every minute by the states provides the continued authority today.

I personally think that the Republican form of government that was set up by the founders was a good step in the right direction, but as we are seeing today it is not a long term solution. The long term strides of humanity have been away from forceful domination via authority and towards individual liberty. All of this progress was made by people pointing out the illegitimacy in people's perceived authority whether it be kings, slave owners, or any other illegitimate form of violent control.

Well, you seem to be changing time here. I would say we are losing the individual liberties authorized by society in the Constitution, but that is not really the point here either. I'm glad you concur that the government is valid.

There is no such thing a societal consent, as I explained before. You cannot consent for me, I cannot consent for you. Society can not possibly give consent because it is not a conscious being. Individuals exist in reality, societies are just a concept within the mind.

Ah, but it is a REAL concept, a SHARED dillusion. Just because you can't touch it does not mean it does not exist.

It is true we cannot consent for the other. However, we can set up laws based on the democratic process. By negation, if you do not challenge/attempt to change laws and/or leave the area where the laws are enforced, you are consenting to being governed in such a fashion.

There is no societal mindset. It is just individuals who think similar things. Societal rule is just a group of individuals attempting to rule over another group of individuals.

Another word for that is "democracy". When done by people you authorize to make such rules, it is a democratic-republic. That's what we have.

Again you state that authority comes from my fellow citizens. They cannot grant authority on my behalf. I am being violently forced into a situation to which I do no consent. And if you don't agree with every law, then you are being violently coerced as well. Law is just an opinion backed by the threat of force from government agents.

Absolutely not. You are free to leave and establish residence where the laws to not prevail. By staying where the laws are enforced, YOU are making the choice to be governed under those laws.



I absolutely hate government, but understand the reasons it must exist in some small form. You have made me defend government, something I normally try to argue AGAINST. This is quite a good mental exercise. Thank you!