Taxation is Theft

sourcery | 15 April 2002 | sourcery

[Tymesup]

Thanks for the post.

[sourcery]

Somebody isn't thinking.

Agreed.

Check back if you have a logical argument. Check back if you have a logical counter-argument, or can demonstrate why my theses is illogical or irrational. As I told someone else: put up or shut up.

[weegee]

Anarchists claim "Property is theft".

Anyone have other things that have been equated with "theft"?

[sourcery]

Anarchists do not claim that property is theft. It's communists who do that. Anarchists claim that goverment is inherently evil, and will always steal property from the politcally villified and give it to the politically favored.

[jrherreid]

Check back if you have a logical counter-argument, or can demonstrate why my theses is illogical or irrational.

I did.

As I told someone else: put up or shut up.

You want I should repeat myself? Just scroll up a few posts.

[weegee]

I did a quick search of that phrase on the internet (Google) before I posted and the anarchists took it to heart. They claimed that even under state socialism, there were some divisions of property. Anarchist socialism is different (I do not defend it but know that it is the underlying ideology of a number on the extreme left including Ted Rall and left end dial Pacifica radio types).

[ancient_geezer]

You left out an additional argument,

The nation instituted under the Constitution was designed to achieve certain strategic goals, by specific and enumerated powers and tactical means.

The intent and strategic goals:

We the People of the United States, in Order to

• form a more perfect Union,
• establish Justice,
• insure domestic Tranquility,
• provide for the common defense,
• promote the general Welfare, and
• secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That document, the "Constitution for the United States of America", is a statement of a will, an intent and law, a trust ratified by the People who ordained and established that nation compounded out of those People's own sovereign rights, properties and wealth as a bequest, that the intended protections and goals be propogated in trust to themselves and their Posterity as beneficiaries.

The means to finance and perpetuate that trust, to achieve the stated goals, was selected to be through levies of taxes in regard to its beneficiaries, the citizens of that nation. The specific means of those levies at the discretion of representative members of those beneficiaries in accord with the provisions of that trust.

REFER: Constitution, Article I. Section 8, clause 1

So long as an individual may partake in the benefits and protections of that trust, one is lawfully bound to its provisions and to its support.

The individual may choose to rescind that birthright and duty laid by that trust through renouncing citizenship and leaving its shores and protection. In that lay the choice of the individual, "the consent of the governed" that renders the requirement of financial support by its beneficiaries through levy of taxes something other than mere "Theft".

[sourcery]

Are you referring to this article? If so, you should read it more carefully. The only requirement for anarchy is the absence of government, as you can see by checking the definition in the dictionary. The fact that some anarchists may also believe that property is evil has nothing intrinsically to do with ancharchism.

[sourcery]

Hi there, ancient one! Glad to hear from you again.

Yes, I am well aware that the Constitution imposes a legal obligation to pay almost whatever taxes Congress votes to impose, subject only to either the uniformity or the apportionment constraint (depending on the nature of the tax). I have no argument with that, and have supported you efforts at educating those who believe otherwise.

However, the thesis I am making here is that the Constituion--and those who wrote it, approved it and voted it into effect had and have no moral right to impose taxes on me as a condition for living on my own property. You can't logically refute my claim by quoting edicts from the Constitution (or Federal statutes) that say otherwise. You have to argue from first principles. Care to try?

[sourcery]

Well, we obviously disagree. You haven't said anything that I find worthy of any further response. Perhaps you feel the same about what I have written here. But the issue isn't what you believe. The issue is the consensus of opinion among all. To that end I will continue to work, as best I can.

[sourcery]

So long as an individual may partake in the benefits and protections of that trust, one is lawfully bound to its provisions and to its support.

The individual may choose to rescind that birthright and duty laid by that trust through renouncing citizenship and leaving its shores and protection. In that lay the choice of the individual, "the consent of the governed" that renders the requirement of financial support by its beneficiaries through levy of taxes something other than mere "Theft".

I believe I demolished the entire basis of your argument in sections 1, 2 and 3 of my thesis. Nothing you say here demonstrates any reason to doubt the validity of the arguments I have already stated, showing that 1) the vote of a majority does not turn what would otherwise be theft into non-theft; 2) you don't owe anything in return for services you didn't agree to buy, and 3) you can't morally be coerced (extorted) into agreeing to conditions for being allowed to live (especially not on your own property).

[Poohbah]

Basically, you just said that any form of government is immoral.

Go live in a place where there is no government. (They do exist.) Let us know how your experience goes.

[weegee]

Actually I was referring to Anarchist Socialists as a political movement.

This was the primary link that I was referencing:

"PROPERTY IS THEFT"

Anarchists oppose private property (meaning land and means of production, in particular) and class distinctions based on wealth as innately and ultimately oppressive. Once you have established property rights, you will begin to have some people growing more powerful at the expense of their neighbors, as they acquire (by whatever means) more land. These people become the owning or ruling class.

States exist to ensure that property remains in private, and not public hands--note that even socialist states do this; in the place of private owners, you have party members.

Here is another link, to the writing "Property Is Theft" by Proudhon Proudhon's Writing - What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

...with a handy dandy link to the "Anarchy Archives" at the bottom. More leftist anarchist lit can be found at AK Press (thousands of books of extremist philosophy).

[sourcery]

Basically, you just said that any form of government is immoral.

No. There are those who agree with you, and who therefore advocate anarchy. Myself, I advocate minarchy: a government that has no power or right to do anything that a private individual would not also have the right to do (assuming he has the requisite means and skill). Such a government would have to charge for its services the same as any other business (no payment, no service, just like a volunteer fire department). You would buy insurance to help cover any unexpected government expenses (e.g., a major court case or criminal investigation, for example).

Go live in a place where there is no government. (They do exist.) Let us know how your experience goes.K/i>

I am always amazed at the willingness of people to become extortionists in order to get their hands on others poeple's money--as long as they themselves don't have to point guns at people and throw them in jail.

But yes, there are places with no government. The Somalis haven't had a government for over ten years, and appear to be doing far better than they did when they had one. Consider: Is Government a Mistake? Exploring the Anarchist Option.

[Poohbah]

If government operates solely on the ability of the individual to pay, then you have essentially voided the concept of "equality before the law" and replaced it with "if you're poor, you're screwed."

[Poohbah]

Actually, the Somalis DO have a government. It's called "Al Qaeda."

[sourcery]

Check out Anarcho-capitalism for an example of non-socialist anarchism.

[sourcery]

Somalia re-invents itself

[sourcery]

If government operates solely on the ability of the individual to pay, then you have essentially voided the concept of "equality before the law" and replaced it with "if you're poor, you're screwed."

Firstly, the fact that you can't pay for something is not a violation of your rights, no matter the cost, and no matter the urgency of your need. Your needs are not a lien on the property of others. Period.

And I don't see how the current system ("if your not politically favored, you're screwed") is any improvement over a pay-for-what-you-get system. At least such a system is morally correct. I'll take that over politically correct every time.

[Poohbah]

Eventually, the poor will simply shoot the officers of your perfect government, and impose a Jacobin terror that will take decades to get over. The only way to avoid this outcome is to exterminate the poor first.

Revolt or genocide. Your choice.