Taxation is Theft

What is the moral justification for taxation? What gives the government the right to collect taxes by force, whether force of law or force of arms--which in the end amount to the same thing?

The coerced collection of taxes is allegedly justified by four arguments--all of which are demonstrably false:

1. The "majority rules" argument: The majority in a society has the right to impose its will on the minority, either absolutely, or within the limits prescribed by a Constitution.

The refutation: It's been said that a democracy is where two wolves and a sheep vote on what (or who) is for dinner. The moral to be understood from this is that a vote by the wolfish majority to have the sheepish minority for dinner does not justify violating the rights of the sheep to life, liberty and property. By the same reasoning, just because a majority votes to put those who don't "voluntarily" pay taxes in jail does not make it morally right.

The "majority rules" argument is based on the false premise that what just one of your neighbors would not have the right to do--appropriate your property using unjustified coercive force--society as a whole (who are just the aggregation of all your neighbors) somehow magically is morally justified in doing. Were this so, what principle would limit it just to taxes, or to just those things allowed by a Constitution? Where did society get the authority to use a Constitution to give its agent, the government, powers that none of the individuals in the society possess by themselves as single individuals?

If your neighbor does not have the right to force you to be his slave, could it be that two of your neighbors have this right? If not two, then what about 1000 of your neighbors? 10,000 neighbors? 100,000 neighbors? 250,000,000 neighbors? Everyone living on the same continent? What gives a group (or a society, or its agent, a government) any right to act that any individual member of the group would not have? Rights are not additive: two people who form a group have no more rights than either one has separately. The rights of any group, even society as whole, are simply the union of the rights of all the individuals in the group. It therefore necessarily follows that a group cannot have any rights that any individual member of the group does not also have. So if your neighbor has no just right to simply take from you whatever he or she wants, then neither do any group of neighbors--not even the entire society.

The conclusion is inescapable: you don't owe taxes merely because one or more of your neighbors say you do. I don't have the right to take your property without your consent. Therefore, no group of people has the right to take your property without your consent--no matter how many people are in the group, nor how many of them vote in favor.

2. The "debt for services rendered and benefits received" argument: Government provides benefits and services. The recipients of said benefits and services owe the government something of value in exchange. Furthermore, society is entitled to a "payback from," or "return on its investment in," each member of the society, and a "return on its investment" in the infrastructure of the society, payable as "dividends" from the earnings of the individuals who live in and benefit from the society and its infrastructure.

The refutation: The argument is flawed in several ways. Firstly, it falsely assumes that a valid debt is created whenever someone receives either direct (or collateral) benefit(s) as a result of actions voluntarily performed by someone else--even when the person receiving the benefit(s) did not consent to the creation of a debt, and even when the person performing the action(s) was largely motivated to perform those actions in his own self interest and for his own benefit. Secondly, it falsely assumes that every taxpayer was a willing participant in a commercial transaction, where he agreed to pay a freely-negotiated price for some service or benefit. Thirdly, it falsely assumes that the amount of tax a taxpayer is assessed is reasonably proportionate to the market value of the services or benefits he received. Finally, the argument falsely assumes that a debt can convey an equity interest in the life, property, or profits of the debtor, without the debtor having consented to the granting of any such equity interest.

It is admittedly possible to accrue a debt without having first consented thereto: such a debt automatically accrues when the debtor causes harm to the life, liberty or property of someone else without valid cause (the only valid cause that comes to mind would be acting in justified self defense). But other than this one exception (infringing on someone else's rights without his or her consent), debts cannot be justly created without the consent of the debtor.

Therefore, you don't owe anyone anything for those things that someone else voluntarily chooses to do without your consent to pay for them. Conversely, you have no right to coerce payment from others who have not consented to pay you for the value of the work you voluntarily choose to do that happens to benefit them.

Even more ludicrous is the idea that you owe anyone anything in exchange for the collateral benefits you may receive as a consequence of actions performed by others. If I choose to build a dam for the twin purposes of generating electricity and controlling floods, solely because the dam benefits me (I make money selling the electricity, and my home is made safer against the threat of flooding), then why should the fact that your home also is made safer against the threat of flooding entitle me to send you an invoice for any part of the cost of building the dam? I would have built the dam whether or not you benefited from it, and whether or not you agreed to pay anything for the privilege of benefiting from the dam.

If you benefit from what someone else has voluntarily done, and have not agreed to provide compensation, then you have no more obligation to pay than does the receiver of any other gift. As long as we do not violate the rights of others, each of us may do—or not do—as we please. If we do not like the fact that what we voluntarily choose to do happens to also benefit others, our only morally-correct remedy is to refrain from doing such things. If you think otherwise, go sweep the street clean and then send an invoice to the city—or to your neighbors—for the hours worked. Good luck.

Typically, the amount of tax assessed is not reasonably equivalent to the fair market value of the services provided. One important reason that this is true is because the amount of tax that is assessed is not negotiated between "buyer" and "seller" in a free market. Both overcharging and underpaying for goods or services makes one party a thief and the other party the victim of a crime.

The debt you owe to a lienholder does not entitle the lienholder to an equity interest in your life, in your property, and/or in the fruits of your labor. If you think otherwise, try billing (or even suing) your employer for a percentage of profits in lieu of salary, without his prior agreement. Good luck.

3. The "social contract" argument: A society has the right to dictate to all members of (or residents in) the society what each individual must contribute (or "give back") in exchange for being allowed to live in, and/or be a member of, and/or receive benefits and services from, the society. By agreeing to live in a society, an individual is deemed to have "consented" to this "social contract."

The refutation: This argument is based on the false premise that "society" as a whole has a right to coerce consent to debts as a condition for being "allowed" to be a member of the overall society.

A society is just a group of people who interact. It has no more rights or powers than does any one of its members. Therefore, unless some individual member of a society has the right to coerce other members of the society to agree to conditions in exchange for membership in the society, then it cannot be that the society as a whole has any such right.

It's true that an individual has the right to refuse to interact with any other individual. However, each adult only has the right to make such decisions for himself, not for other adults. Therefore, even though 67% of the citizens of a particular community do not wish to interact with a particular person, the remaining 33% would still have the right to do so, if that is their wish.

No person, or group of persons, has the right to prevent any two adults from interacting, as long as both adults freely choose to do so. It therefore follows that the only way that an individual can morally be denied permission to be a member of society as a whole, is for all the other members of the society to unanimously (and permanently) refuse to interact with him or her. Therefore, society as a whole has no right to demand that individuals agree to conditions in exchange for being allowed to participate in the society--because society has no right to prevent free association (or interaction) among consenting adults. You have the right to interact socially, economically and politically with anyone who is also willing to interact with you, regardless of how many third parties may object.

In fact, the only way that someone could be expelled from society would be to violate the rights of the one expelled. Society would have to kill the person, and/or steal his property, and/or forbid him the right to live on his property, and/or interdict his right to contract with others for a place to live and/or to produce income, and/or violate his right to travel. No one has the right to deny anyone the right to live, to own property, to travel, to engage in commercial transactions with others who are willing, or to do anything whatsoever so long as no else’s rights are being violated. Therefore, society has no right to do any of these things, and so it therefore has no right to threaten to do them unless individuals agree to be taxed. Such a proposition would be extortion—a fancy word for theft.

You have inalienable rights because you are a person, not because you agree to pay taxes. To make the free exercise of your rights contingent on the payment of taxes converts inalienable human rights into privileges that must be purchased. That way lies slavery.

Society is an epiphenomenon that emerges from the actions and interactions of the individuals of which it is composed. Society is thus a creation and manifestation of its members, who are therefore its rightful masters. To posit instead that society rightfully owns and controls the individuals who are its members wrongfully makes each individual a slave to the group. Others do not own you just because you interact with them. Neither do you own others because they interact with you. Therefore, society does not own you because you live in it.

It must also be noted that the so-called "social contract" is not properly a "contract" at all. At no time are individuals ever told what are the conditions of the "social contract" to which they must agree. At no time are individuals ever asked to formally agree to the terms of this alleged contract. I have never agreed to any such contract, and I strongly doubt that anyone who ever reads this essay has ever done so, either. The alleged "social contract" is therefore nothing more than a fictitious "blank check," drawn on the life, liberty and property of the enslaved population, that those in power can cash in any amount that suits them, at any time—again and again.

4. The "moral debt to those in need" argument: Those who have more than they need are morally obligated to provide for those who have less--and it is a necessary and proper function of government to make sure that the "haves" contribute their "fair share" to the "have nots." Therefore, the needs of society for the services and benefits of government outweigh the property rights of individuals.

The refutation: This argument is based on the false premise that the needs of one person constitute a moral debt or lien on the life, property or liberty of someone else. This is a wide-spread, but very dangerous, fallacy. No such principle can be morally justified, because it inevitably leads to logical contradictions that destroy individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is maliciously inimical to the very foundations of freedom.

Obviously, if I give (almost) everything I have to charity (or to taxes), then I become the "needy" person, and can then "rightfully" (sic) demand "help" from others. Just by having less, and doing less productive work, I can "create a moral obligation" (sic) for others to provide for my needs. As a result, those of you willing to work become the slaves of those of us willing to leach off the efforts of others. But the resulting "negative feedback loop" must eventually lead to social, moral and economic decay.

To make each individual responsible for meeting the needs of others would have the following consequences:

<![if !supportLists]>a) <![endif]>The individual would become a slave to all those with greater need,

<![if !supportLists]>b) <![endif]>The principle of "moral risk" would result in many people failing to act responsibly with respect to their own welfare and best interests, and

<![if !supportLists]>c) <![endif]>The "haves" would use the fact that they are coerced into supporting the "have nots" to impose laws and regulations restricting everyone's freedom—on the grounds that social welfare paid for by coercive tax collection gives the taxpayers a legitimate stake in preventing citizens from making poor life choices.

Fundamentally, neither my needs, nor someone else's needs, justify coerced taking from others. Just because I need a heart transplant does not justify my taking your heart without permission. Just because my neighbor needs food to eat does not justify either of us taking from you the food you need to feed your family. Just because I and my family need a place a live does not justify my evicting you and your family from your apartment. Need is not a valid or workable basis by which to assign ownership of property. You are not a slave to my needs, nor am I a slave to yours.

The principle that your life, liberty and property belong only to you, and that you have no obligation to give them to others, and cannot rightfully be coerced into doing so, is the foundation of freedom. Any society that violates this principle makes slaves out of its members.

You should not be responsible for the consequences of my actions and decisions, and I should not be responsible for the consequences of yours. Each person must be fully and solely responsible for the consequences of the way he/she lives his/her life.

If you wish to feel guilty because you are able and willing to earn a living, that's your affair. If you wish to donate some or all of what you have to others, that's your affair. Nothing prevents you from giving as much as you like to the charities of your choice. But you have no right to select the charities that others must contribute to, nor to specify the amount or percentage of their charitable giving. If you did, then they would have the same right with respect to you, and you might not like their choices!

No one has the right to be "generous" (sic) with other people's money without their permission. That's not generosity--it's theft.

Working to support yourself and your family is not immoral. Expecting to receive the full benefit of the work you do is not immoral. Expecting others not to steal from you is not immoral. Your hard work helps both yourself, your family, your community, your country and the world at large. You owe no one any debt merely for having worked to accumulate property, nor for having done productive work.

The fact that your neighbors have voted in a law that says you owe taxes does not mean that you do, because others have no right to take your property without your consent.

The fact that you benefit from the operation of government does not mean you owe taxes, because no moral debt can be created without either your consent or your misbehavior.

The fact that you are allowed to operate as a member of society does not mean that you can be construed to have agreed to pay taxes in exchange, because a) you have not in fact agreed to any such contract, b) you have the right to interact (and do business with) anyone else who is willing, and c) no one has the right to violate your rights, or make the enjoyment of your rights contingent on the payment of a fee.

The fact that there are those whose needs are greater or more dire than yours does not mean you owe any taxes, because you are no one’s slave, no matter how needy they may be.

So, if I create a trust out of my own property, that gives me the right to tax you?

Only if I accept being a beneficiary of the trust.

I disagree.

Based on what? You have a right to offer the trust. What supermajority has ratified it? If I don't like the terms I renounce the benifice and go my merry way.

But if you think otherwise, the tax bill for this year that you owe to the trust I've set up is $50,000, payable immediately.

What does it offer me in protection and service that I don't already have under the Constitution of the United States and what provision are in it? How am I better off?

Show us the trust document, and go through the ratification process for adoption and we'll see. Otherwise, I simply renounce your "gift" and stay with what I have, the Constitution of the United States.

I think the Founders would be shocked to discover, that their Constitution, whose purpose was to form a government for the purpose of protecting and defending the rights of the people (including the rights to Life, Libery and Property,) was in fact nothing more than a stealth taking of all property from all private individuals, with the effect that the government would be the de facto owner.

They were well aware of the extensive powers of the taxing clauses. Looking over the debates, they were quite aware of the broad extent of the Constitution's powers to tax the individual and Madison among others argued specifically to assure those powers had no boundries in amount. Interesting that they proposed and ratified it to tax as much as necessary to assure the continued survival of the nation, isn't it.

Also, I don't see any documentation from 1789 (or any time, for that matter) that actually sets up a trust such as you describe

Constitution for the United States of America:

It certainly is not a contract.

It's true that a club can set whatever conditions for membership that it wants, so long as there is nothing about those conditions that would be intrinsically wrong morally. This follows from the right to Liberty, which is the right to do whatever is not morally wrong.

Sorry the Constitution is not a Club. A measure of morality? Which measure do you intend to adopt. Christian?, Moslem?, Hindu? Jewish?, Buddist?, Zorastrian? Humanist? Agnostic?, Atheist? Communist? Third Reich? ...

Better leave it to a least a supermajority ratification of charter members to kick it off the launch pad.

sending armed men to your home and evicting you from your community, on the grounds that only members of the chess club can live in the community?

The community was established under the charter of the Trust (i.e. Constitution). Sorry your analogy simply does not fly. You are provided an all expense paid vacation at club Fed by operation of law under due process instead if you decide to stick around but don't pay the dues.

If you don't like that you may renounce membership and depart the jurisdiction.

By what right does the club do either of these things?

The Constitution is not your club. Your hypotheticals fail to meet the conditions of a ratifiable trust charter thus do not fall within the parameters of a reasonable conjecture. Quit throwing up meaningless strawmen arguments.

My problem with the US tax situation is precisely analagous to the problem you would have with the chess club in the example.

No parallel exists, your chess club is an unratifiable imaginary hypothetical strawman with no existence in reality. Anyone can construct there own tightly constrained hypotheticals all day and shoot them down. That establishes nothing more than your imaginative abilities.

Therefore, the US has no moral right to remove me from my own land

Sorry but a tax debt is as valid as any other kind of debt, if you are unable to pay such debts then a sale of property can be morally ordered under due process and there is certainly a moral right to remove from you any possessions sufficient to service a debt owed.

So my apparent continued "acceptance" of the club's rules is invalid, because it is coerced by the threat of having my inalienable right to Liberty, Free Association and Property violated (in other words, by extortion).

Again you have tried to use a strawman argument to bluff your way through.

The only threat that arose was out of your decision to not renounce citizenship and still expect to not pay the tax. Due process under the provisions of the trust charter set the ultimate and predictable result. Be current in your debts, then renounce your membership and depart, no problem other than those you have created for yourself by make illconsidered decisions in your attempt to extract more than is due you under the Trust provisions.

They certainly had the Liberty right to create a trust. They didn't, though.

The Constitution certainly is not a contract. By your own arguments and admission.

Trust or Will is all that remains. Which is it? The qualities of the Constitution are those of a charter, establishing the provisions of a Trust. Your mere assertion otherwise, is neither useful to the debate nor consistent with your own arguments.

But even if they had, they still would have no right to do what is morally wrong--

True, but the only practical measure of moral is the supermajority ratification of chartermembers.

such as violating the rights to Liberty, Free Association and Property

Such rights pertain to the charter provisions governing the protection of rights through trial and due process.

of those who don't care to be beneficiaries of such a trust

Those who don't care to be beneficiaries simple recind any protection by the trust. Sorry but that is life.

(or members of the club, which is a more accurate analogy of what actually pertains).

The strawman doesn't fly.

The only right they didn't have, was to violate the rights of others.

Shall we look then at whose rights you intrude on in attempting to demand protections as one who has renounced protections of the Trust?

What right do have as an alien to the trust to call upon the trust member's consideration or concern in jury. That certainly is an imposition on those citizens for one who has renounced participation in the provisions of the Trust. Due process is a function of the established trust. The courts and rules therefore are provided in the trust. The members operate in accord with provisions of that trust and fund those operations through the trust provisions of taxation.

When you stand outside the trust jurisdiction, you have your rights, but it is incumbant upon you to protect them.

Liberty? As long as a warlord with a bigger guns and a gang doesn't want something from you.
Property? As long as you can protect it from the wolves circling round.
Life? You might get to keep it if your strong enough, or run fast enough giving up the other two to the wolves. Then it only becomes a matter of how long you survive, knowing you cannot impose on the rights of the members of the trust.

The society you renounced owes you nothing. The wolves are always there, circling, and they care not for your "Rights" only their own personal gain.

I see the Constitution as the deed of title whereby those who voted in favor in 1789 granted certain authority to a designated agent for certain specified purposes.

And how does this concept of "deed of title" of yours differ from the charter of a trust? Descriptively I see a trust charter being described, with a name substitution which apparently pleases your fancy. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

On what resource has that agent been specifically authorised to draw on to facilitate the exercise of that authority and pay the debts and incurred costs advancing those certain specified purposes appropriately.

I will offer you a moral reason for taxation of each and every citizen;

To appraise the electorate of the true burdens of their demands for largess or more from government, that the historical imperative of Tytler may be impeded:

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Without that substantive and necessary feedback of the cost of general government operating in common, and introduced into, the life of each citizen, the electorate cannot and will not excerise due diligence or that Eternal Vigilance that is their duty and obligation to preserve Liberty, or any other rights.

Above you said: Constitution for the United States of America and made a link.
However, have you ever seen the original Constitution?

Yes.

What is the title of the original Constitution?

There is no Title line on the original Constitution.

Is it not "The Constitution of the United States of America"?

No that is a label applied by news outlets of the day, and in speaking of it.

What is the distinction between of and for?

The "of" reference does not exist in the Constitution, "for" does.

I take the reference from the Preamble as the only identification of the document in the actual Constitution.

Incidentally, I looked for a picture of the original Constitution which also included the title, but I couldn't find one. Perhaps you or someone else out there knows where one is and can provide a url for such???

You will never find one for there is no "Title" line on the document.

Go here for a picture of the the Constituion as it really is.

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conmain.html

Sorry No TITLE line containing "of".

Perhaps James Madisons discription of the Operation of the Government under the Constitution may cause you to think abit more about what the individual citizen's relationship is intended to be by the founders with respect to the National govenment ordained & established under the Constitution.

I do believe you may have been taking the descriptions of the government established under the Articles of Conferederation as being applicable to the Constitution and the government established there under.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and instituted a profound change in the intended operation of goverment.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

The Constitution was ratified with the above clearly stated intent foremost in knowledge and debates of the ratification assemblies and voters at large.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.