Do you view taxation as theft?

[Traitorfish]

No, because it's still being taken by a proxy for the people.

That sounds like an ideological fiction rather than a description of political practice.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, the vagaries of American political jargon aren't really the point here. Rather, that would be the fact that there is such a thing as a liberal philosophical tradition, and you don't really seem to have all that much in common with it. Perhaps you support a certain range of policies which would, in the US, have you identified as a "liberal", but in terms of philosophy and theory, you don't really have anything more to do with classical liberalism than I do.

That does not make it appear that you understand either classical or modern liberalism. The evolution from one to the other is clear. Modern liberalism is classical liberalism with the recognition that these things don't happen on their own. They have to be worked for, and government is the tool for building liberty.

So now it's gone from "I support changing the government" to "I support might makes right?" Suppose I've taken my lessons to heart and arm myself, and plan to blow a whole in the head of any government official who steps into my sovereign realm, you supporting me yet?

Or, even simpler, since this is a matter of might making right, why don't I just simply avoid paying taxes and assume the federal and state government won't notice. If I get away with it, it's not stealing, I'm simply enforcing my view.

Then you're a thief. You are deliberately acting to harm others for no other reason than your personal selfishness. So no better than the worst of the lolbertarians.

You see, you can call it principle all you want. But it's indistinguishable from greed and selfishness.

And I gave the federal government no authority.

You didn't leave.

So your theory of theft is that if you use something from someone without paying for it, it is theft, but only if it's from an elected official. You're very fond of using roads and physical protection as examples of something we simply can't avoid using and therefor to not pay for is theft.
But around here, the people who make roads are unelected, and the people who actually enforce the will of the government are also unelected. Doesn't this mean that at least a significant portion of our taxation is theft?

some portion of it is. But who appoints those unelected officials? Elected ones.

 

[Souron]

That sounds like an ideological fiction rather than a description of political practice.

I voted for in the election to elect the representative. The representative voted for the law. The law empowered the IRS. The IRS takes my money. There's a direct chain there.

In a way, taxes are just a person talking money from himself.

 

[Traitorfish]

That does not make it appear that you understand either classical or modern liberalism. The evolution from one to the other is clear. Modern liberalism is classical liberalism with the recognition that these things don't happen on their own. They have to be worked for, and government is the tool for building liberty.

I get that, yeah, I'm not totally ignorant. The New Liberals, social liberals, liberal social democrats, etc. were still fundamentally coming from the concern for individual liberty that underlay classical liberalism, just introducing a positive conception alongside the classical negative conception. But that isn't you: you begin at the opposite pole, with the state, with its rights over us and our obligations to it. You may harness populism or democratic language to support your position, and may even have some genuine concern that the state acts in accordance with some "general will", but ultimate your concerns are statist in the very literal sense of the word.

As I said, it's a deeply Hobbesian outlook, a politics that begins with the Leviathan, the sole force for social order, and its opposition to the chaotic, self-destructive Multitude who become a People only through the rule of the Leviathan. It may be a democratic Hobbesianism, but Hobbes himself came to accept Parliament after it snicker-snacked Cherlie, so we're not lacking in precedent even there.

I voted for in the election to elect the representative. The representative voted for the law. The law empowered the IRS. The IRS takes my money. There's a direct chain there.

According to Wikipedia, the IRS was founded in 1863. That's older than any living human being, let alone any prior to the career of any currently-serving US legislator. So the "direct chain" narrative might have a few holes in it.

In a way, taxes are just a person talking money from himself.

What if a person goes to jail for tax resistance- is it like they're locking themselves up?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Then you're a thief. You are deliberately acting to harm others for no other reason than your personal selfishness. So no better than the worst of the lolbertarians.

No, it's me enforcing my political will. The only argument you could level as to why my government is any less legitimate then that of yours is that I could not enforce my political will. Now I offer you a way to enforce my government's will: by violence or deception. I have the support of the local popular will and a way to enforce it, so what's the problem?

You didn't leave.

You're right. I kicked them out. You yourself said that if people do not like the government, they should change it. I have done just that. And as I predicted, when actually faced with the possibility of people rejecting your government, you don't like it.

 

[Cutlass]

I get that, yeah, I'm not totally ignorant. The New Liberals, social liberals, liberal social democrats, etc. were still fundamentally coming from the concern for individual liberty that underlay classical liberalism, just introducing a positive conception alongside the classical negative conception. But that isn't you: you begin at the opposite pole, with the state, with its rights over us and our obligations to it. You may harness populism or democratic language to support your position, and may even have some genuine concern that the state acts in accordance with some "general will", but ultimate your concerns are statist in the very literal sense of the word.

As I said, it's a deeply Hobbesian outlook, a politics that begins with the Leviathan, the sole force for social order, and its opposition to the chaotic, self-destructive Multitude who become a People only through the rule of the Leviathan. It may be a democratic Hobbesianism, but Hobbes himself came to accept Parliament after it snicker-snacked Cherlie, so we're not lacking in precedent even there.


According to Wikipedia, the IRS was founded in 1863. That's older than any living human being, let alone any prior to the career of any currently-serving US legislator. So the "direct chain" narrative might have a few holes in it.


What if a person goes to jail for tax resistance- is it like they're locking themselves up?

I don't think you've been reading the same posts I've been writing. I could give a flying frak about the state as a state. The state is a tool to serve the individual, not the other way around.

The purpose is the individual. That's what it all comes down to as far as I am concerned. The state is a mean to the end. Now I am somewhat nationalist and some what patriotic, and so I see the good of my country as also important. But I see the good of my country as a tool for the good of the people of my country. And I do not look at that as zero-sum-game. I want the good of other countries as well, because that is good for the individuals of those countries, which is in turn good for the people of mine.

But in all cases the state remains a tool, not an end. The nation remains a tool, not an end.

Now I'm not the most articulate guy in town, and so maybe that doesn't always come clear. But a quick look at the definition Hobbesian:

English philosopher and political theorist best known for his book Leviathan (1651), in which he argues that the only way to secure civil society is through universal submission to the absolute authority of a sovereign.

That's not me. I don't want people to submit to any absolute authority of the state. The state gets limited authority delegated from the governed. All authority derives from the governed, not the state. And I'm the last guy who's ever going to argue that people should unquestionably submit. Question the frak out of it. That's what I do. Stand up and protest. Make your voice heard.

But how, you next ask, does this square with my conversation with Park? And the answer to that questioning, individuality, standing up and being heard, changing it if you can, does not give you the right to unilaterally impose costs and harms on other individual people.

 

[Souron]

According to Wikipedia, the IRS was founded in 1863. That's older than any living human being, let alone any prior to the career of any currently-serving US legislator. So the "direct chain" narrative might have a few holes in it.

But at any point since then the government could have elected to change the taxes the IRS collects, or even in principle not collect taxes if it could get enough revenue from other sources like the sale of natural resources. We, the people, chose to continue imposing taxes on ourselves.

What if a person goes to jail for tax resistance- is it like they're locking themselves up?

Yeah, though it might add legitimacy if we let convicts vote in prison. The principle that the authority of the government is granted to it by the people is sound. The government has exactly as much authority as we give it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But at any point since then the government could have elected to change the taxes the IRS collects, or even in principle not collect taxes if it could get enough revenue from other sources like the sale of natural resources. We, the people, chose to continue imposing taxes on ourselves.

How is membership in "the people" determined?

Yeah, though it might add legitimacy if we let convicts vote in prison. The principle that the authority of the government is granted to it by the people is sound. The government has exactly as much authority as we give it.

So nations that give their governments more authority are equally sound?

And the answer to that questioning, individuality, standing up and being heard, changing it if you can, does not give you the right to unilaterally impose costs and harms on other individual people.

Standing up and being heard, and changing it if you can, by definition unilaterally imposes costs and harms on other individual people. If your only appeal is to some crude utilitarianism that the average person benefits from this collective violence, ergo it is just, where does a right to stand up and be heard come from? Isn't that dependent on whether the costs and harms on other individuals is acceptable, and isn't that determined by "the people?"

 

[ParkCungHee]

In a way, taxes are just a person talking money from himself.

So in the same way, tax evasion is a person not taking money from himself?
And stealing government property is also just a person taking money from himself?

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think you've been reading the same posts I've been writing. I could give a flying frak about the state as a state. The state is a tool to serve the individual, not the other way around.

The purpose is the individual. That's what it all comes down to as far as I am concerned. The state is a mean to the end. Now I am somewhat nationalist and some what patriotic, and so I see the good of my country as also important. But I see the good of my country as a tool for the good of the people of my country. And I do not look at that as zero-sum-game. I want the good of other countries as well, because that is good for the individuals of those countries, which is in turn good for the people of mine.

But in all cases the state remains a tool, not an end. The nation remains a tool, not an end.

That might certainly be the ethical justification offered, but in terms of actual politics it seems to me largely nominal. Your concern is with the state, with the claims it can make of us, with the obligations we have to it; just look at the deeply illiberal notion of popular sovereignty you offer in the discussion with Park, in which "you haven't left yet" is taken as consent to rule, and consent to rule taken as consent to violence. (A logic, frankly, not very distant from the traditional defence of marital rape.) Simply because this is at times constructed in reference to some "People" doesn't change it in any real way, because "the People" is a fiction that only comes into being as the reflection of an already-existing (or at least already-hypothesised) state. (Hobbes, at least, was willing to make that explicit.) Actual people, concrete individuals as something apart from your heterogeneous People, are a nusiance, at best a sort of livestock to be fed and watered, and more usually a threat to themselves and to others. The extent of your liberalism is that you don't actually advocate building a wall to keep them in.

Now I'm not the most articulate guy in town, and so maybe that doesn't always come clear. But a quick look at the definition Hobbesian:

That's not me. I don't want people to submit to any absolute authority of the state. The state gets limited authority delegated from the governed. All authority derives from the governed, not the state. And I'm the last guy who's ever going to argue that people should unquestionably submit. Question the frak out of it. That's what I do. Stand up and protest. Make your voice heard.

The reference was more about your pessimistic view of the human capacity for self-organisation and the demand for a sweepingly-empowered state, rather than Hobbes specific endorsement of absolute monarchy. (That's not even one he was himself utterly rigid about, being willing to accept a parliamentary system (albeit oligarchical) if it offered the best route to social cohesion.) Man is a wolf to man, you are very quick to tell us, and the Leviathan is the only escape we have, general illustrated with some reference to Somalia. It's a classically Hobbesian outlook.

But how, you next ask, does this square with my conversation with Park? And the answer to that questioning, individuality, standing up and being heard, changing it if you can, does not give you the right to unilaterally impose costs and harms on other individual people.

Then why is it acceptable to do so through the medium of the state?

But at any point since then the government could have elected to change the taxes the IRS collects, or even in principle not collect taxes if it could get enough revenue from other sources like the sale of natural resources. We, the people, chose to continue imposing taxes on ourselves.

Who's "we"? I never asked to be part of any "we". Do you not get a choice before joining this club?

Yeah, though it might add legitimacy if we let convicts vote in prison. The principle that the authority of the government is granted to it by the people is sound. The government has exactly as much authority as we give it.

So if I decide that I no longer which to attribute any authority to the government, it can't touch me? Or are we back to this "we the people" business again?



Here's an historical example for the tax-refusal-is-theft camp. During the Irish War of Independence, 1919-1921, there were two claimants to government in Ireland: the British government of the Westminster Parliament, and the Irish Republican government of the First Dáil. Both claimed the support of The People, and, in a sense, both were correct: the Westminster government sat on a majority of MPs elected throughout the British Isles, while the Republican government possessed a majority of MPs elected in Ireland. The law is on the side of the Westminster government, there being no provision in the UK for unilaterally declared Republics, but the Republican government enjoys the clear support of the majority of its claimed citizens. To which of these entities does the Irish taxpayer owe his money?

 

[Souron]

How is membership in "the people" determined?

There are several ways to become a citizen, including being born in land controlled (effectively owned) by the country, being born to parents who are citizens, living on the land long enough, and being granted citizenship by the government as a special act.

So nations that give their governments more authority are equally sound?

They are equally legitimate. So one nation's people might prefer more taxes and a better safety net, while another nation's people might prefer more autonomy. Now it's still an open question how much power any government should have.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There are several ways to become a citizen, including being born in land controlled (effectively owned) by the country, being born to parents who are citizens, living on the land long enough, and being granted citizenship by the government as a special act.

And how does the government acquire this land?

They are equally legitimate. So one nation's people might prefer more taxes and a better safety net, while another nation's people might prefer more autonomy. Now it's still an open question how much power any government should have.

And is it a problem if some nations might prefer to have one religion, or one political belief?

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't see how taxation could possibly be viewed as theft.

 

[Souron]

And is it a problem if some nations might prefer to have one religion, or one political belief?

That would be morally wrong, but legitimate sovereignty. Anyone part of that country would be obliged to work within the system to fix it. Other nations and non-visiting foreigners would not be bound by that "contract," but would still be bound by morality.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't see how taxation could possibly be viewed as theft.

Maybe you should read some of the preceding one hundred and thirty-two posts, then.

 

[caketastydelish]

Maybe you should read some of the preceding one hundred and thirty-two posts, then.

I must say, I am suprised that a marxist of all people would disagree with me that taxation is not theft.

 

[Souron]

And how does the government acquire this land?

In the beginning there were people with land. They formed a nation, with the government given jurisdiction over the land. (That's a simplification, in the interest of universal applicability; the details are different for each country) Since then the government has acquired land by conquest and by buying it. Conquest is morally bad of course, but that does nothing to illegitimize the government.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That would be morally wrong, but legitimate sovereignty.

Why would it be wrong? Wouldn't it be wrong to challenge their social stability? Isn't that placing costs and burdens on people without their consent? This isn't a reducto ad absurdum hypothetical. The arguments in this thread are very much in line with the arguments made by, for example, supporters of the PRC as to why have freedom of religion and free elections are unacceptable to China and horrendously selfish.
Since we've entered into majoritarian ethics, how can you say this morally wrong?

In the beginning there were people with land. They formed a nation, with the government given jurisdiction over the land.

And if this Anthropological theory did not hold out, would that deligitimize the Government's claim to land?

 

[Traitorfish]

Conquest is morally bad of course, but that does nothing to illegitimize the government.

I thought you claimed that legitimate government was something that people impose upon themselves?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It seems first of all we need to differentiate between two ways force may relate to possession. Those ways are the establishment of a frame which provides rules of engagement and how those rules look like. A quick illustration why that is important:

Taxation is no more theft than the concept of property itself.

Hardly, existence of taxes and their acquisition comes down to a matter of brute force. It is true that

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

, but what makes property very different to taxes - a difference crucial to the discussion of theft - is that in contrast to taxes the acquisition of property depends on the consent of other parties involved.
Now one may of course argue that the mere existence of enforced rules of engagement constitute theft. And I am not saying this has no merit - it has. But weather you accept or share this opinion or not: When we talk about taxes, we already move within the frame provided by those rules of engagement. So please lets not forget what we are even talking about and lets focus on this interior life of those rules. If one wants to complain about the existence of such rules to begin with, go make a thread about property (or revive the one by Traitforish we had a while back). Otherwise, if we actually want to debate if taxes are theft, let's go with the assumption that property was a neutral concept.

So what then are taxes? As already stated: pretty much the opposite of consensual transfer of possession. Taxes mean that your consent is irrelevant - I mean irrelevant. You are not asked directly, and the way you are asked very and I would like to say obscenely indirectly - by vote - for all means and purposes means nothing to the individual. So beyond idealogical theories - you got nothing. Your property is taken and that is it.
The only way to smuggle your way out of this being theft is by referring to legitimacy. Meaning, theft then is only the illegitimate taking of property by force. But guys, do we really need to confuse the matter of theft with the matter of what is the right thing to do? I for one think that common terms should not be used to convey normative concepts, but that arguments should do so, casual relations. To make such common casual terms a tool of what one deems right is IMO ideological bullcrap, because it carries a tone of dogmatic normative believe (which is why law loves to do exactly that - and why legal definitions are not be taken as absolutes outside of strictly legal matters). For the same reason we should not define democracy as "good governance", I think we should not define theft as "illegitimate taking of property".
Rather, by saying that taxes are theft, we should face the truth that what the mugger down the street does and we call "bad" can be done in essentially the same way by another party (the state) which we then deem "good" (or not).