# The morality of theft



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Is it immoral for one man to use force to deprive another of his property? Let's say it's a car.

What if it is five men? What if the force is only implied? What if it is ten men? What if they take a vote first? What if it is twenty men and they give the victim a vote as well? What if it is fifty men and they give the car to a needy person later? What if it is a hundred men and they give the victim back a bike in return? What if it is a thousand men and they insist that the victim wouldn't have his car in the first place without their presence preventing someone from stealing it from him?

At what point does it become morally defensible to take from one man by force or threat of force that which is rightfully his? How many men are required to turn violent theft into justifiable taxation?

If our government derives its powers and authority from the people, then how can we grant that government powers or authorities we don't first possess? If I can not morally walk into your home and take a portion of your assets through force, then how can "we" collectively appoint someone else and confer upon them the authority to do so?

It isn't a question of whether or not you think taxation is necessary for the continued sustainability of the state. It is a question of the underlying morality of taxation itself.

It is a question of good versus evil.

Do not be confused by the causes they promote, instead look objectively at their actions.



> The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
> 
> On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
> 
> The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: *That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.*


 
excerpt from _No Treason by Lysander Spooner_


-Rob


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2009)

Don't forget: the actions of the other men and women allow our hypothetical car owner to possess his car in the first place.  That fact must enter into the moral calculus.  We don't want our car owner freeloading off of others' efforts.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 15, 2009)

This is why taxation is only just, and can ONLY be morally defensible IF the taxation is for the 'common good'.  Thus, a just government has no business in ANY social welfare programs, health care, retirement, wealth redistribution, or ANY of the other extra-constitutional activities first promulgated under the 'New Deal'.

The legitimate functions of government are few and far between: national defense, infrastructure, quarantines, foreign relations, and enforcement of such laws as required for social order.  Anything beyond that amounts to tyranny.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 15, 2009)

Some degree of taxation will always be necessary. If you expect to benefit from public works or programs you should be contributing.

And IMO "morality" and "law" are not necessarily a hand in hand proposition.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 15, 2009)

Personally, I take more of a pragmatic approach to the issue.  If this argument is against the basic idea of taxation, then I would consider the alternative.  Taxation is the vehicle through which a stable government is provided.  Playing the scenario to its logical end, without taxation, a state of either communism or anarchy would very possibly come about.  

I see a big difference between "Taxes suck, I don't want to pay them" and "Taxes are wrong, I won't pay them."


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Don't forget: the actions of the other men and women allow our hypothetical car owner to possess his car in the first place. That fact must enter into the moral calculus. We don't want our car owner freeloading off of others' efforts.


 
There will *always* be free riders. This is an immutable fact. It must be accepted in any philosophy.

There are people in our country right now, on both ends of the economic spectrum who fit the definition of free riders. There are rich people who produce nothing but spending and contribute no new ideas or insight. There are poor people who collect benefits and subsidies and contribute to nothing but beer and cigarette sales. 

Is that the majority of either end? No. Most rich people are contributing a huge amount of tax money and employment to many people. Most poor people are contributing the labor those rich people need in order to provide products to the consumer base.

But there are, and _always will be_, free riders. The mere existence of them within any societal philosophy can not be considered a valid criticism of that philosophy.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> This is why taxation is only just, and can ONLY be morally defensible IF the taxation is for the 'common good'. Thus, a just government has no business in ANY social welfare programs, health care, retirement, wealth redistribution, or ANY of the other extra-constitutional activities first promulgated under the 'New Deal'.
> 
> The legitimate functions of government are few and far between: national defense, infrastructure, quarantines, foreign relations, and enforcement of such laws as required for social order. Anything beyond that amounts to tyranny.


 
So to you the answer to _how many men_ is "whenever the theft can be described as benevolent."

So all that is required to make good evil and evil good is a clever marketing campaign. To be fair, this is the opinion of most of the american people. Every day they are giving up their rights for such lofty ideals as "the common good."

I would argue that taxation is antithetical to the common good, and that it in fact supresses advancement in a number of areas including economics, science, research, technology, health, medicine, and many luxury industries.

National defense can not be supplied in any meaningful way by a standing army. There sole uses are aggressing against _other_ nations. They can not prevent acts of terrorism on our soil, they can not prevent biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons being used against our people. At present, they can't even prevent any meaningful invasion of the homeland _because they aren't here to do so_.

Infrastructure can be, and for the most part is, supplied by the private sector. What government provides is bureaucracy. The licenses, and regulations, and inspections they require are not infrastructure, they are impediments.

Foreign relations are uneccessary absent government. Companies are capable of making financial agreements internationally without their aid, and do. The only foreign relations our government participates in are threats of violence, or discussions about how to redistribute the wealth taken by violence from the citizens of our country or anothers.

Social order can be maintained absent government enforcement. Look up Dispute Resolution Organizations. That is only one possible theory as to how it could be done. The tribes in Somalia practice a form of common law called the Xeer. Essentially, this law allows for social censure of "convicted" offenders and is enforced primarily through tribal tradition and peer pressure.

Government has *no* legitimate functions as long as they enforce their policies with violence. If they want to operate on donations and make suggestions, I wouldn't have any problem with it. As long as they have a gun pointed at me and my family, they have surrendered the moral authority.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Some degree of taxation will always be necessary. If you expect to benefit from public works or programs you should be contributing.
> 
> And IMO "morality" and "law" are not necessarily a hand in hand proposition.


 
I don't believe any of us "benefit" from public works or programs. What you percieve as a benefit because of their existence, is actually less than you would recieve in a free economy with real currency. Their very existence is a burden, not a blessing.

And you're right, the laws are by and large immoral. Is your thesis than that we should except immoral rule from those we, at least theoretically, empower with the authority to lead us?



> The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern.


 
-_John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton_


_-_Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Personally, I take more of a pragmatic approach to the issue. If this argument is against the basic idea of taxation, then I would consider the alternative. Taxation is the vehicle through which a stable government is provided. Playing the scenario to its logical end, without taxation, a state of either communism or anarchy would very possibly come about.


 
Anarchy is exactly what I advocate. A very specific kind of anarchy called anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy doesn't mean crazy naked people running through the street shooting into the air and men in white coats chasing them with butterfly nets. That is chaos. Anarchy simply means a state of society without government. That doesn't mean without some form of social order, which I believe can be, and in reality already is, supplied through social censure and learned behaviors taught in the home and in our societal interactions.

Most people aren't not raping and murdering because they fear the law man, it's because they believe rape and murder to be wrong. Would you, absent a state authority, commit theft and assault and fraud?



> I see a big difference between "Taxes suck, I don't want to pay them" and "Taxes are wrong, I won't pay them."


 
Me too. One is based on a lazy aversion to discomfort, and the other is based on a reasoned, objective consideration of the issue. 

But most of us with this philosophy fall into the "Taxes are wrong, I wouldn't pay them, but I do under duress because of the threat of violence to my family," school of thought.


-Rob


----------



## Marginal (Mar 15, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> This is why taxation is only just, and can ONLY be morally defensible IF the taxation is for the 'common good'.  Thus, a just government has no business in ANY social welfare programs, health care, retirement, wealth redistribution, or ANY of the other extra-constitutional activities first promulgated under the 'New Deal'.


That assumes that such social programs don't help mitigate future costs.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So to you the answer to _how many men_ is "whenever the theft can be described as benevolent."


 Absolutely NOT. This is exactly 180 degrees polar opposite of what I just said - the whole point of what I said is that so-called 'benevolence' is entirely outside the legitimate function of government. WHATEVER the 'worthy cause', if YOU want to contribute to it, YOU may, but taking from the public coffers is theft. Period.

'Common Good' must in ths context mean that it benefits every citizen. This is why roads, rails, international trade, police forces, armed forces are considered for the 'common good', but targeted taxation to change social behavior (so-called 'sin taxes' on alcohol and tobacco or tax incentives on recycling, for instance) and social welfare programs that are paid for by some and benefit others are inherently immoral.

As for everything else you said..... let's just say we strongly disagree. National defense can only be as good as your standing army. Likewise, foreign relations are essential, unless you want to be at the mercy of everyone else's standing army. Social order via government coercion is essential for those incapable or unwilling to maintain their own good order - in fact the degree of tyrrany our society experiences will be inversly proportional to our degree of societal self-control. (I argue with my children all the time that they WILL be held to a standard of behavior: either by themselves through self-control, or via coercion through outside control). And to maintain our rights and the rule of law, the state must have the power of the sword for enforcement. Even the sanctions imposed by the tribe you mention are enforced through the tribal government.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 15, 2009)

[JAVERT]
Now bring me prisoner 24601
Your time is up
And your parole's begun
You know what that means.

[VALJEAN]
Yes, it means I'm free.

[JAVERT]
No!
It means you get
Your yellow ticket-of-leave
You are a thief

[VALJEAN]
I stole a loaf of bread.

[JAVERT]
You robbed a house.

[VALJEAN]
I broke a window pane.
My sister's child was close to death
And we were starving.

[JAVERT]
You will starve again
Unless you learn the meaning of the law.

[VALJEAN]
I know the meaning of those 19 years
A slave of the law

[JAVERT]
Five years for what you did
The rest because you tried to run
Yes, 24601.

[VALJEAN]
My name is Jean Valjean

[JAVERT]
And I am Javert
Do not forget my name!
Do not forget me,
24601.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 15, 2009)

Marginal said:


> That assumes that such social programs don't help mitigate future costs.


Again - future costs to whom?


----------



## Marginal (Mar 15, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Again - future costs to whom?


Uh, society?

You can disingenuously claim that social programs benefit no one, or moochers etc, but really charity cannot cover everything and people are as likely to break into your store when they can't get money as they are to magically bootstrap themselves into grand fortunes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 15, 2009)

During the 1860s, 70s, and there abouts, the US Government subsidized several railroads. They had long, winding routes, and in the end, all lost huge amounts of money and went under.

There were other railroads who were privately funded, went as short a route as possible, and as straight as possible.  Those made money and some survive even today.

Today, the airlines are heavily subsidized by tax payer money.  Tell me how that has helped them, or benefited me.

I resist the idea that I must be compelled to give up part of what I earn/grow/make/create to others who don't have it.  As I have stated previously, I don't agree to give the government part of my income. I give it up under duress as I face imprisonment if I don't.

If I threaten you should you not give me food, and force you to comply, is that not theft? 
If I threaten you should you not have sex with me, and force you to comply, is that not rape?

What then is it when someone else threatens you with punishment and forces you to comply with turning over a portion of your earnings?

How different is the Government from the lowly gangster who does the same?


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Marginal said:


> That assumes that such social programs don't help mitigate future costs.


 
I'll go a step further and say that such social programs _create_ future costs, and that that was the intention of the programs in the first place. Many of the issues in the current housing market can be traced directly to the New Deal. Look up the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

There was a percieved shortage of liquidity in the mortgage market, so the government created Fannie Mae to inject liquidity into the market and make loans available to high risk borrowers who couldn't otherwise get financing. Sound familiar? Those high risk borrowers bankrupted the system, so in the late sixties, the government partially privatized the system to get it off the public books, but continued to back the mortgages. Thirty years later, the continued to encourage high risk lending practices, which led directly to our current housing and financial crisis. And their response is to _inject liquidity into the mortgage industry to free up credit to make it easier for people to get loans_.

This always leads to economic collapse. Which, I proffer, was their intention all along. Look how each financial crisis is used to further the growth and power of government. They aren't stupid. They know what will happen if they back loans to people who can't possibly repay them. I've known people in the lending industry who were specifically told to make loans to people they knew couldn't repay them, because their bosses were being pressured and incentivized to do so by the state. 

This is a predictable outcome of their policies. We are left with two options, they really are that dumb, or they really are that evil.

Take your pick.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How different is the Government from the lowly gangster who does the same?


 
When you describe in simple terms how the government operates and how it enforces it's policies, you describe nothing so much as organized crime.

A group of people make decisions about how you can run your life, business, family, etc, charge you money on the basis that it will be used to protect you from harm, but in reality argue that they have no actual responsibility to do so, or claim that it is necessary to fund their ongoing activities which provide the atmosphere in which you exist, and use violence to ensure compliance with their mandates.

Again, in my ideal society, you could still participate in this kind of exchange, but it would be voluntary, and a person's decision to do so would not obligate his neighbor to do so as well.


-Rob


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> But there are, and _always will be_, free riders. The mere existence of them within any societal philosophy can not be considered a valid criticism of that philosophy.



But we are not discussing a societal philosophy; we are discussing the morality of theft and applying our conclusions to society at large.  In our hypothetical scenario, the other men and women provide some sort of benefit that allows our car owner to own his car in the first place.  Thus, collecting some sort of recompense from the car owner is not theft (up to the value of the benefit), it is collecting what is owed.  Thus, the car owner gaining a benefit without paying out anything in return is in itself theft, we just call it free-riding here.  

That is just in regards to the hypothetical you have created.  In a larger system, yes there will always be free-riders, and you can minimize but not eliminate them.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz...you know you quoted _A Liberal_ don't you?


Quote:
The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern. 
-_John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton_


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Thesemindz...you know you quoted _A Liberal_ don't you?
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


 
I may be an anarchist, but I am not an ideologue. If someone has a good idea, I'm willing to listen objectively, regardless of the particulars of their philosophy.


-Rob


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I may be an anarchist, but I am not an ideologue. If someone has a good idea, I'm willing to listen objectively, regardless of the particulars of their philosophy.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Good for you! I am rather tired of the word Liberal being used here as if it were a dirty word. John Dalberg-Acton was a Liberal  in the English manner which is what I and others are in the UK, not as it's known in America.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Good for you! I am rather tired of the word Liberal being used here as if it were a dirty word. John Dalberg-Acton was a Liberal in the English manner which is what I and others are in the UK, not as it's known in America.


 
In America the words for one's opponents have all become epitaphs. Liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, black, white, christian, atheist, traditionalist, secularist.

It's not an accident. This happened by design. That way we stay mad at each other, instead of mad at those who are really screwing us. While they shuffle around and pretend things change when their titles do.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Uh, society?
> 
> You can disingenuously claim that social programs benefit no one, or moochers etc, but really charity cannot cover everything and people are as likely to break into your store when they can't get money as they are to magically bootstrap themselves into grand fortunes.


 
What makes you so sure charity couldn't provide for those in need?

I believe that most of those in need wouldn't be in such dire straights absent the influence of government. First of all, in a real economy with commodity based currency, people would have about fifty times as much spending power as they do now. 

Secondly, there is evidence that government subsidies to private charities actually decrease individual donations. This occurs for two reasons, one, private individuals are willing to allow their seized tax monies to replace their charitable giving, but also, charities reduce their fund raising efforts after receiving government grants. So when the government gives money to charities, it decreases the amount given by individuals.

In 1991, private citizens gave roughly 300 billion dollars worth of charitable donations, both in time and money. That included approximately 42% physical resources and 58% donated time. If we use that same math to extrapolate out to 2006, we get a total of nearly 700 billion dollars worth of resources donated. By comparison the American government spent approximately 1.3 trillion dollars on welfare in 1995, both through direct benefits and tax credits, roughly 20 percent of GDP. In 2006, the percent of GDP was roughly similar, but the growth in GDP in the United States resulted in that twenty percent increasing to roughly 2.6 trillion dollars in welfare expenditures. 

So while the government stole and redistributed approximately 2.6 trillion dollars of private assets, individuals donated nearly a fourth as much on their own, free from government coercion, even after as much as 70% of their nearly worthless money has already been stolen from them.

In addition, when comparing people with similar incomes, those who work give more than three times as much as those who receive government assistance, even though they have roughly the same expendable income. For another, those who believe that the government does not have a responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves are 27% more likely to make charitable donations than those that do. The reality is not that people who don't support social welfare are selfish, or cruel, or uncaring. It's provably the opposite. They believe that charity is important, and should be the responsibility of individuals, not governments. Accomplished not through theft and violence, but consciously and freely given.

In a society free from government "charity," real charitable giving would increase, because many people really do care about the welfare of others, and are interested in seeing them taken care of.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> But we are not discussing a societal philosophy; we are discussing the morality of theft and applying our conclusions to society at large. In our hypothetical scenario, the other men and women provide some sort of benefit that allows our car owner to own his car in the first place. Thus, collecting some sort of recompense from the car owner is not theft (up to the value of the benefit), it is collecting what is owed. Thus, the car owner gaining a benefit without paying out anything in return is in itself theft, we just call it free-riding here.
> 
> That is just in regards to the hypothetical you have created. In a larger system, yes there will always be free-riders, and you can minimize but not eliminate them.


 
Ultimately, I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye, because we can not even begin a discussion on common ground.

You feel that I owe a general debt to my fellow men and women for allowing me to exist, and that not paying my taxes is theft.

I feel that I generally owe my fellow men and women nothing, and they owe me nothing, and we should find mutually beneficial ways to participate in voluntary exchange free from fraud or force, and that taxation is theft.

I don't think you and I will ever accomplish much discussing the issue with each other. Our positions are irreconcilable.

How 'bout them bears?


-Rob


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You feel that I owe a general debt to my fellow men and women for allowing me to exist, and that not paying my taxes is theft.



No, that's not what I said.  The public provides you with tangible benefits that assist you in earning what you do.  Roads, for instance.  The benefits you receive have costs.  You should provide your share.  That is different from your existence, for which I suppose you should thank your parents.



Thesemindz said:


> How 'bout them bears?



Silva or Leites?  I'll go with Silva.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> No, that's not what I said. The public provides you with tangible benefits that assist you in earning what you do. Roads, for instance. The benefits you receive have costs. You should provide your share. That is different from your existence, for which I suppose you should thank your parents.


 
I don't entirely disagree with this position. So let's have a system of voluntary exchange where I am only charged for those services which I take advantage of, and I have an option not to take advantage of any services I choose not to.

That I'm fine with. I'm not looking for a free lunch. I'm looking to pay only for the lunch I order, without charging you for my lunch or paying for yours, while not being obligated to buy the same lunch as 51% of the people in the diner.



> Silva or Leites? I'll go with Silva.


 
I was thinking Kodiak. They're some bad mothershutyourmouths.


-Rob


----------



## Marginal (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> What makes you so sure charity couldn't provide for those in need?


The fact that they currently can't, and historically that they never have.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Marginal said:


> The fact that they currently can't, and historically that they never have.


 
Ok. You win.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Social order can be maintained absent government enforcement. Look up Dispute Resolution Organizations. That is only one possible theory as to how it could be done. The tribes in Somalia practice a form of common law called the Xeer. Essentially, this law allows for social censure of "convicted" offenders and is enforced primarily through tribal tradition and peer pressure.



Bwahaha! If you are holding Somalia up as some sort of exemplar I dont see any use in hanging around THIS conversation.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 15, 2009)

The tax protesters and 14th/16th Amendment crazies as a "type" are not the sort of people I personally want to be associated with. I have met and dealt with a few of them....uhhh can anybody say "wackjob"?

Tax Protester Myths

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Bwahaha! If you are holding Somalia up as some sort of exemplar I dont see any use in hanging around THIS conversation.


 
I'm not, in fact I've repeatedly responded in other threads to Somalia by pointing out that it's a mixed bag with both good and bad. In fact, I wasn't holding up Somalia as anything at all, I was referring instead to a practice that exists _inside_ Somalia.

My point was _only_ to give an example of a system of judgement that exists outside of the traditional government beaurocracy.

I guess we'll see you around.


-Rob


----------



## Wishbone (Mar 15, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> But we are not discussing a societal philosophy; we are discussing the morality of theft and applying our conclusions to society at large. In our hypothetical scenario, the other men and women provide some sort of benefit that allows our car owner to own his car in the first place. Thus, collecting some sort of recompense from the car owner is not theft (up to the value of the benefit), it is collecting what is owed. Thus, the car owner gaining a benefit without paying out anything in return is in itself theft, we just call it free-riding here.
> 
> That is just in regards to the hypothetical you have created. In a larger system, yes there will always be free-riders, and you can minimize but not eliminate them.


 
Does the car owner not _pay_ for the car in the first place?  How is taxing them further collecting what is owed?  How does one decide what the value of the benefit is?  I paid sales tax on a car that has broken down multiple times, the same car that is fully functional would have more value, but I don't see a tax reduction for that.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The tax protesters and 14th/16th Amendment crazies as a "type" are not the sort of people I personally want to be associated with. I have met and dealt with a few of them....uhhh can anybody say "wackjob"?
> 
> Tax Protester Myths
> 
> http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm


 
You're right. There are crazies. Just like there are crazy people belonging to any ideology. There are crazy christians, and crazy americans, and crazy white people, and crazy kempo guys. Should we disassociate from every group because some people within that group are crazy? Is it possible that some crazy people are also associated with groups that have good ideas?

Besides, I never mentioned the 14th amendment or the 16th. I never mentioned tax protesting, or anything else. I asked a question, which was, at what point, and under what circumstances does the immoral act of theft by violence become the moral act of government taxation?

Can you provide me with an answer to that question? Specifically? Is it one thousand people? One million? Is it when the violence is implied instead of overt? Is it when the taxes are indirectly collected? If I can't use violence to take what is yours, at what point is it okay for "us" to do so?


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Bwahaha! If you are holding Somalia up as some sort of exemplar I dont see any use in hanging around THIS conversation.


 
As another point, if you don't like the examples I already offered, perhaps you would be interested in reading about the Lex Mercatoria.



> *Lex mercatoria* is the Latin expression for a body of trading principles used by merchants throughout Europe in the medieval. Meaning literally "law merchant", it evolved as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as the international law of commerce.[1] It emphasised contractual freedom, alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases _ex aequo et bono_.
> 
> A distinct feature was the reliance by merchants on a legal system developed and administered by them. States or local authorities seldom interfered, and surrendered some of the control over trade within their territory to the merchants. In return, trade flourished under the _lex mercatoria_, increasing tax revenues.


 
Just another example of voluntary participation in a system of law that exists outside of government.


-Rob


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2009)

Wishbone said:


> Does the car owner not _pay_ for the car in the first place?  How is taxing them further collecting what is owed?  How does one decide what the value of the benefit is?  I paid sales tax on a car that has broken down multiple times, the same car that is fully functional would have more value, but I don't see a tax reduction for that.



I think this becomes the point where we have extended the metaphor too far.  I'm not even sure what sales tax would represent in this hypothetical compared to the real world.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 15, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I think this becomes the point where we have extended the metaphor too far. I'm not even sure what sales tax would represent in this hypothetical compared to the real world.


 
That's because you don't view taxation as theft, and it always is. Sales tax, excise tax, income tax, property tax, vice tax. It's all theft. It's all seizing your property by force.



Empty Hands said:


> No, that's not what I said. The public provides you with tangible benefits that assist you in earning what you do. Roads, for instance. The benefits you receive have costs. You should provide your share.


 
And what about those people who take advantage of these services, but don't pay any taxes? What about those people who pay _far_ more in taxation then they will ever receive in benefits from these services? Are we paying "our share" or are we paying as many shares as the government feels it can extort from the populace?

I've got an idea. How about we make taxation voluntary. Then, you can judge everyone who doesn't pay their taxes as immoral freeloaders, and those who choose not to pay can go about their business free from oppression. Then you can just choose to only associate with those people whose morals you concur with.


-Rob


----------



## Marginal (Mar 16, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> That's because you don't view taxation as theft, and it always is. Sales tax, excise tax, income tax, property tax, vice tax. It's all theft. It's all seizing your property by force.


 They're actually providing services for your money. Theft is taking away property with no compensation. 


> And what about those people who take advantage of these services, but don't pay any taxes?


Who manages this? A homeless illegal immigrant that shops exclusively in the duty free shop at the airport?


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 16, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Who manages this? A homeless illegal immigrant that shops exclusively in the duty free shop at the airport?


I saw that movie!!  Tom Hanks, right?


----------



## Wishbone (Mar 16, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I think this becomes the point where we have extended the metaphor too far. I'm not even sure what sales tax would represent in this hypothetical compared to the real world.


 
Well it doesn't have to be sales tax.  It should be just as simple as income tax which is apparently what you are basing your comments relating to giving back to the people who made the car.  What I'm saying is that when a person buys the car, the people who made the car have already been reimbursed.  They agreed to work for a company.  The company said they would pay them X, the employee said I will work for X.  The employee gets paid X before the consumer buys the car.  Then the consumer buys a car for another agreed upon price.  Therefore, the people who made the car aren't 'owed' anything more as you are implying in your example.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 16, 2009)

I don't see sales tax as theft.  Added cost? Sure. But then again, so is paying 10c for a paper bag at Aldi.  Don't like it, don't buy that. No one shows up and arrests you. You have a choice.   Income tax, you have no choice. 

The decider for me, is choice.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I don't see sales tax as theft. Added cost? Sure. But then again, so is paying 10c for a paper bag at Aldi. Don't like it, don't buy that. No one shows up and arrests you. You have a choice. Income tax, you have no choice.
> 
> The decider for me, is choice.


 
Except that there is no choice, because the government requires the seller to collect sales tax as a percentage of every item sold and remit it to them. So that seller can either pass that cost on to his customer, or he can eat that cost out of his own profits.

It's true that the buyer can choose not to buy, and the seller can choose not to sell, but in a capitalist system, that is what we do. Unless we all choose to become individually self sufficient and produce all the products we need to survive, we will have to participate in some form of exchange. That is the result of the division of labor. Under our current societal structure, we can't all be cops, or goat farmers, or architects, so we trade for the products we need through a form of intermediate exchange.

And every time we sell products, we are forced to pay taxes on those sales to the government. It is natural and understandable that the cost of those sales taxes would be passed on to the customer. Some politicians are proposing service taxes now as well. Read here, here, and here.

So yes, sales taxes are theoretically voluntary, but in practice, they are unavoidable. There really is no choice at all. After all, the seller could just choose not to remit those taxes, and eventually the guys with the guns would show up to explain to him the error of his ways.


-Rob


----------



## Marginal (Mar 17, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> I saw that movie!!  Tom Hanks, right?


Or some Japanese dude. Either'd work.


----------

