Do you view taxation as theft?

[Eukaryote]

This is a commonly argued point. I can't count the number of times I've heard libertarians call taxation theft. Some people elaborate by calling it "necessary theft." Do you think of taxation in this manner?

As a utilitarian, I am skeptical of the notion of natural rights. I also think the concept of ownership is a human invention rather than some sort of moral truth. I think the only reason ownership exists is because nobody has ever discovered or invented a social norm that would make ownership obsolete. Whether this will ever happen, I don't know.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Taxation is no more theft than the concept of property itself. Property rights don't exist without an institution to enforce them.

 

[luiz]

Of course it is theft. If theft has any meaning at all, taxation fits that meaning.

Which doesn't mean it is necessarily bad.

 

[Eukaryote]

Property rights don't exist without an institution to enforce them.

Love this.

 

[galdre]

Taxes are payment for services rendered by the govt

 

[illram]

You don't have to pay taxes (you can move). If you do, you receive something in return. Calling that theft is... incorrect, to put it mildly.

 

[Souron]

I agree with GoodSarmatian that property is not a natural right. It's necessary for capitalism, but capitalism isn't a right either.

 

[Souron]

You don't have to pay taxes (you can move). If you do, you receive something in return. Calling that theft is... incorrect, to put it mildly.

I disagree with this line of reasoning. It's not realistic for someone who objects to some tax to be able to move out of the country. I'd argue that this non-exclusivity of the government implies that there are moral limits on what a government can do, that do not apply to opt-in institutions.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[illram]

I disagree with this line of reasoning. It's not realistic for someone who objects to some tax to be able to move out of the country. I'd argue that this non-exclusivity of the government implies that there are moral limits on what a government can do, that do not apply to opt-in institutions.

Why not? If it's that bad, move. If you live in a dictatorship then maybe you have a point... but then a lot more than your money is being taken from you. Although you can quibble with the ease of moving you cannot quibble with the fact that you get something for paying taxes.

The better analogy is shopping at a store that you hate. If you don't like what you get for your money then go to a different store.

 

[Cutlass]

Of course it is theft. If theft has any meaning at all, taxation fits that meaning.

Which doesn't mean it is necessarily bad.

Paying your bills is theft, but being a stealing freeloader is not?

 

[Truronian]

If I had to chose one crime to compare tax to, it would have to be a protection racket. Of course, I'd rather not liken it to a crime in the first place: there is little to be gained from such comparisons.

 

[Tahuti]

Of course it is theft. If theft has any meaning at all, taxation fits that meaning.

Which doesn't mean it is necessarily bad.

Which is basically exactly my viewpoint as well.

Taxation is no more theft than the concept of property itself. Property rights don't exist without an institution to enforce them.

But that assumes the state is the only institution that is able to enforce property, which is simple not true. When a wealthy landowner chases away squatters, he is enforcing his property rights, not the government. Government is an inevitable result of property rights, and will follow wherever property rights come.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I got this as a definition of theft: the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

I'll let 'crimes' and 'fraudulently' slip for now, although it's clear that taxes are neither crimes nor fraudulent. I'm also iffy about 'permission' or 'consent', since one chooses to live in a society and work for a wager knowing beforehand what part of it will be taxed. But the kicker for me is 'convert it to the taker's use'. The money is funnelled back into society minus the costs of doing so.

The denomination of taxes as theft is based on such loose grounds, it's hardly defensible save for a botched up definition of theft.

 

[luiz]

You don't have to pay taxes (you can move). If you do, you receive something in return. Calling that theft is... incorrect, to put it mildly.

OK, so I come to you house without you asking me, provide some service that you didn't ask for and demand that you pay under threat of force. But hey, if you don't like it feel free to move.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

OK, so I come to you house without you asking me, provide some service that you didn't ask for and demand that you pay under threat of force. But hey, if you don't like it feel free to move.

So it's someone's country as much as it is someone's house? I think you'll find a couple of million people who don't agree with that.

The better analogy is living in a house with a group of people who have set houserules. edit: added to that, once every set period you get to have a say in whether those rules will be changed.

 

[Ailedhoo]

A person once said "taxes are the price we pay to life in a civilized society."

 

[Truronian]

OK, so I come to you house without you asking me, provide some service that you didn't ask for and demand that you pay under threat of force. But hey, if you don't like it feel free to move.

Sound more like extortion than theft.

 

[dutchfire]

You don't have to pay taxes (you can move). If you do, you receive something in return. Calling that theft is... incorrect, to put it mildly.

Honestly, why would I have to move? Move your country instead!

Also, you say that I can move. Basing your argument on the fact that one can move elsewhere seems rather odd, since there is no guarantee there will be any place on earth free of taxing governments.

edit: I think a more convincing argument could be made based on democracy: You can vote for a government which imposes the tax you like, or no tax at all. In this way tax is not entirely inconsensual.

 

[luiz]

So it's someone's country as much as it is someone's house? I think you'll find a couple of million people who don't agree with that.

The better analogy is living in a house with a group of people who have set houserules. edit: added to that, once every set period you get to have a say in whether those rules will be changed.

I think people are entitled to live in their country as much as they are entitled to live in their houses, yes.

The problem with saying that taxes are just like paying ordinary bills is that we did not accept to those expenses. Saying that we consent "by not moving" is a rather miserable critique that can be used to justify all sorts of criminal and despotic behaviors (Eg, in this country people of the ethnicity X don't get to vote. If you don't consent move out).

Whether "theft" or "extorsion" is the more appropriate word is indeed open for debate.