Is taxation theft?

[Respecthelect]

Just because 47% take the free money liberals decided to give away, doesn't mean they agree with it. What Ayn Rand objectivist would criticize someone for making the most of his environment? From mining, drilling for oil, farming or - picking up free cash tossed around by liberals? Yes, they object to the initial taking, but it's hard to criticize those who would bend over to pick up free cash?

I'm much less cynical than our big-government nominee about the 47%. I think there are few who understand how wrong and destructive government policies are than those on the dole. Are most of the 47% Democrats? Of course. Are many interested in what Republicans can do for them? You bet.

We Republicans have to remember, it's prosperity we offer. We offer a vastly better life than the dole. Even for the poorest among us, Republicans offer a better way. A richer and more lucrative way. Working in boom times is better than on-the-dole in recession. Romney couldn't offer boom times, but a true conservative can. Look what Reagan accomplished and he had lots of room to move right.

America is at 0.1% growth now under liberal rule. Reagan hit 9%. Everybody gets rich in boom times and boom times are easy to accomplish. But, we can't simply elect any old Republican. They must be true conservatives, interested in building things. Not another Bush. Not McConnell. Give us more Ted Cruz's or Mike Lee's. Then we can return prosperity for all, especially the 47%.

 

[Federalist]

I wasn't talking about property taxes and home insurance, I was talking about rent. It's really not that difficult to understand. You are using things which don't belong to you - roads, utilities infrastructure, national services and so on - and claiming that you have no obligation to pay for them. That is theft.

We, as the government, ought to be able to bill people for the specific services we provide and that consumers choose to purchase via contract. However, I don't agree that we ought to simply force people to pay us money because we want it. That's wrong.

 

[imagep]

We, as the government, ought to be able to bill people for the specific services we provide and that consumers choose to purchase via contract. However, I don't agree that we ought to simply force people to pay us money because we want it. That's wrong.

so how much military protection do you chose to purchase this year?

Seriously, would you just voluntarily mail a check to the treasury to pay for some military protection? How much?

Tell you what, I will pay for a pair of combat boots, you pay for the aircraft carrier. sounds fair to me.

 

[Papa bull]

Just because 47% take the free money liberals decided to give away, doesn't mean they agree with it. What Ayn Rand objectivist would criticize someone for making the most of his environment? From mining, drilling for oil, farming or - picking up free cash tossed around by liberals? Yes, they object to the initial taking, but it's hard to criticize those who would bend over to pick up free cash?

I'm much less cynical than our big-government nominee about the 47%. I think there are few who understand how wrong and destructive government policies are than those on the dole. Are most of the 47% Democrats? Of course. Are many interested in what Republicans can do for them? You bet.

We Republicans have to remember, it's prosperity we offer. We offer a vastly better life than the dole. Even for the poorest among us, Republicans offer a better way. A richer and more lucrative way. Working in boom times is better than on-the-dole in recession. Romney couldn't offer boom times, but a true conservative can. Look what Reagan accomplished and he had lots of room to move right.

America is at 0.1% growth now under liberal rule. Reagan hit 9%. Everybody gets rich in boom times and boom times are easy to accomplish. But, we can't simply elect any old Republican. They must be true conservatives, interested in building things. Not another Bush. Not McConnell. Give us more Ted Cruz's or Mike Lee's. Then we can return prosperity for all, especially the 47%.

My problem is only with those in the 47% that are happy to raise OTHER people's taxes and then argue that its in patriotic for those OTHER people to call it theft. Like Mitt said, the republican goal of lower taxes doesn't resonate with them. In fact they want exactly the opposite.

 

[Respecthelect]

We shouldn't be selling "lower taxes." Lower taxes are the means, prosperity is the goal. Prosperity and riches for the poor, along with everyone else.

 

[Federalist]

so how much military protection do you chose to purchase this year?

Seriously, would you just voluntarily mail a check to the treasury to pay for some military protection? How much?

Tell you what, I will pay for a pair of combat boots, you pay for the aircraft carrier. sounds fair to me.

People should be able to buy what they choose, or not buy what they choose. We, as the government, ought not take people's money by force. It's wrong.

 

[imagep]

People should be able to buy what they choose, or not buy what they choose. We, as the government, ought not take people's money by force. It's wrong.

We shouldn't be ticketing people for driving too fast either. Or fining companies for contaminating water supplies. Or locking people up who commit murder. The use of force by government is wrong.:roll:

 

[Federalist]

We shouldn't be ticketing people for driving too fast either. Or fining companies for contaminating water supplies. Or locking people up who commit murder. The use of force by government is wrong.:roll:

That has nothing to do with taxation. I'm not cool with us, as the government, taking other people's money by force.

 

[Mithrae]

We, as the government, ought to be able to bill people for the specific services we provide and that consumers choose to purchase via contract. However, I don't agree that we ought to simply force people to pay us money because we want it. That's wrong.

Most people are not forced to stay in the United States (an obvious exception being those in prison, of course). Aside from folk too poor to move elsewhere (who, according to Papa Bull at least, do not pay taxes anyway), people living in America have chosen to live there. Taxes are a condition of living there. People are forced to pay taxes only in the same way that they are forced to pay their debts or discharge contractual obligations.

Maybe your idea would be a better way of doing it. Maybe not. Maybe enough people will become persuaded that you'll get a chance to see how it works in practice. But until then, the system which most people favour - or at least past generations favoured and most folk currently don't strenuously object to - is not 'wrong.' You pay for the privilege of living in America or Australia or the UK or wherever, in most cases proportionally (up to a six-figure income or so, at least) to how much benefit you're getting out of it. It's just a different approach to yours, a less targetted business model, as it were.

No doubt there's problems in many countries with how that income is spent, but as long as it's done by the will of the people, its collection is entirely sensible and justifiable.

 

[Federalist]

Most people are not forced to stay in the United States (an obvious exception being those in prison, of course). Aside from folk too poor to move elsewhere (who, according to Papa Bull at least, do not pay taxes anyway), people living in America have chosen to live there. Taxes are a condition of living there.

I can't condone taking what belongs to others. I don't think that we, as the government, should take what belongs to others. It's wrong.

 

[imagep]

That has nothing to do with taxation. I'm not cool with us, as the government, taking other people's money by force.

Most people voluntarily pay their tax bills. When I mailed off my check on April 15th, no one was holding a gun to my head.

for that matter, if I objected to the income tax that much, I could have simply decided not to have so much income, and I wouldn't have owed a penny in income taxes.

you sound just like some welfare reciepient, expecting to get something (government) for nothing. Disgusting.

it's wrong not to pay your bills - that makes you a deadbeat and a thief.

 

[Federalist]

you sound just like some welfare reciepient, expecting to get something (government) for nothing. Disgusting.

It's not about what I want to get. It's about how I want us, as the government, to act. Taking what belongs to others is wrong, and I cannot support us doing so.

 

[Mithrae]

I can't condone taking what belongs to others. I don't think that we, as the government, should take what belongs to others. It's wrong.

Who decides why and how something 'belongs' to someone? Who gets to say that everyone else has to stay away from what a person 'owns'? That's a restriction on their freedom. Who makes those rules?

You? God?

Or we, the government?

 

[Federalist]

Who decides why and how something 'belongs' to someone? Who gets to say that everyone else has to stay away from what a person 'owns'? That's a restriction on their freedom. Who makes those rules?

You? God?

Or we, the government?

We, the government, do.

And I can't condone us, the government, taking what belongs to others, or claiming that we own everything. That would be wrong, in my opinion.

 

[Mithrae]

We, the government, do.

And I can't condone us, the government, taking what belongs to others, or claiming that we own everything. That would be wrong, in my opinion.

An opinion to which you're entitled. I too am glad that we, the government, have chosen principles of ownership which are more capitalist than communist.

But we have not decided that someone can own something absolutely and unconditionally. We, the government, still claim sovereignty over everything in our jurisdiction: As a few folk commented earlier in the thread, like it or not we, the government retain a right of eminent domain over privately 'owned' land; similarly ownership of currency is not absolute, since its destruction is generally illegal.

Wealth which passes into your hands does not absolutely and unconditionally belong to you. That's not what we, the government, have decided. Taxation is a condition of ownership which we have sensibly and justly implemented; in a sense, it never truly 'belonged' to the taxpayer until those administrative formalities were finalised.

 

[Respecthelect]

But we have not decided that someone can own something absolutely and unconditionally. We, the government, still claim sovereignty over everything in our jurisdiction:

Wealth which passes into your hands does not absolutely and unconditionally belong to you. That's not what we, the government, have decided. Taxation is a condition of ownership which we have sensibly and justly implemented; in a sense, it never truly 'belonged' to the taxpayer until those administrative formalities were finalised.

This view is un-American. The founding documents acknowledge certain things as uniquely and unconditionally belonging to humans, not because the government "allows it." Rather, because human beings by virtue of birth inherently and unconditionally "own" those rights.

Originally, Jefferson wrote the rights included, life, liberty and "property," but the term "property" was deemed too narrow and was changed to the broader, "pursuit of happiness." While the rights do unconditionally belong to humans, the extent of the rights are naturally limited by the equal rights of our fellow man (as T.J.'s signature below notes). Collections of men require protection from force and fraud and these are the legitimate functions of government. The primary goal being to maximize each individual's liberty, under the Jeffersonian principle (see T.J.'s signature below). This is what America stands for.

In order to protect each individual citizen's liberty, an army is required, police, market referee's, etc.. These are legitimate. Redistributing wealth is the opposite of freedom and goes against everything America was founded upon. Has the left demonstrated they can thwart founder intent? They have. Have the majority unjustly taken from those it purports to protect? They have. But, read carefully the Declaration. At some point, tyranny (of the majority or otherwise) will not be tolerated in America. At some point, a revolution of voters is likely to rise up and return founding principles. It won't be good to be a liberal on that election day.

 

[Mithrae]

This view is un-American. The founding documents acknowledge certain things as uniquely and unconditionally belonging to humans, not because the government "allows it." Rather, because human beings by virtue of birth inherently and unconditionally "own" those rights.

Originally, Jefferson wrote the rights included, life, liberty and "property," but the term "property" was deemed too narrow and was changed to the broader, "pursuit of happiness."

As it turns out, I am not American However you appear to be incorrect; even the original draft referred to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/images/draft1.jpg
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You may be thinking of John Locke's phrasing, as referenced later in that Wikipedia article. It is perhaps telling that the US founders chose to change it.

While the rights do unconditionally belong to humans, the extent of the rights are naturally limited by the equal rights of our fellow man (as T.J.'s signature below notes). Collections of men require protection from force and fraud and these are the legitimate functions of government. The primary goal being to maximize each individual's liberty, under the Jeffersonian principle (see T.J.'s signature below). This is what America stands for.

And yet the claim to 'own' something is a theoretical restriction on others' liberty; you are telling them that they cannot go there, cannot touch that. Democracy (or republic) is simply a consequence of acknowledging equality of rights amongst all people. Life and liberty are fundamental - they can never be given, only limited. By contrast no-one is born with property; it must be acquired, to the theoretical (and often practical) detriment of others' liberty.

Often that is still a good and generally beneficial thing, just as other regulations restricting liberty (laws) are often a good thing. Most people are happy with others having the opportunity to acquire some property which they aren't allowed to touch, since they too can acquire property which others can't touch.

But however beneficial that system might turn out to be, trying to put houses, land, shares and bank accounts up there with life and liberty - trying to pretend that 'ownership' of these is anything more than a social construct which we as a society choose to endorse - borders on the asinine.

In order to protect each individual citizen's liberty, an army is required, police, market referee's, etc.. These are legitimate. Redistributing wealth is the opposite of freedom and goes against everything America was founded upon. Has the left demonstrated they can thwart founder intent? They have. Have the majority unjustly taken from those it purports to protect? They have. But, read carefully the Declaration. At some point, tyranny (of the majority or otherwise) will not be tolerated in America. At some point, a revolution of voters is likely to rise up and return founding principles. It won't be good to be a liberal on that election day.

As someone posted earlier in the thread, Benjamin Franklin for one may well have disagreed with your viewpoint. But even assuming that you were able to correctly interpret the American founding fathers' intent, what makes you believe that a tiny, tiny minority of people now long-dead somehow acquired a right to dictate the nature of society for centuries to come?

That in itself seems contrary to the wishes of at least some of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading, and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...

[It] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constituion]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people."
Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

 

[Gaudius]

Is taxation theft?

Yes, compulsory taxation has clear similarities with theft. We need a system that can generate some State income without initiating force against the individuals. The system has to at least pay for judicial system, Police and military defense, and preferentially also a limited amount of “social liberalist” activities. Such a system is described in Rational Gaudism , se especially section 7.6-7.6.10.

 

[Respecthelect]

As we freedom-loving conservatives look around the world, for a backup plan, there is none. Australia should naturally be the second home to liberty, but isn't. As leftist locusts tear down American liberty, piece by piece and bit by bit, one might think there would be at least one other place on the earth which could sustain liberty, but there isn't. Australia has failed to be free enough to stand without the U.S.. I don't say it boastfully, the U.S. shouldn't need a backup for liberty. Rather I say it woefully, because as liberal progressives rip this great nation to shreds, there is no other home for liberty on the planet. If America succumbs to the freeloaders, miscreants and malcontents on the left, what will take its place? Chinese communism? Russian bullying? Muslim extremism? Has Australia built the kind of continent that can stand up to China? With Jeffersonian liberty, could they have? I argue, not only could they have, they should have. Armed with true liberty, not watered down by hand-outs, big-government authoritarianism and mixed welfare messages, Australia could be every bit as strong (economically, politically, intellectually, militarily, etc.) as the U.S. ever was, but the left drags Australia down too.

 

[Federalist]

An opinion to which you're entitled. I too am glad that we, the government, have chosen principles of ownership which are more capitalist than communist.

But we have not decided that someone can own something absolutely and unconditionally. We, the government, still claim sovereignty over everything in our jurisdiction: As a few folk commented earlier in the thread, like it or not we, the government retain a right of eminent domain over privately 'owned' land; similarly ownership of currency is not absolute, since its destruction is generally illegal.

Wealth which passes into your hands does not absolutely and unconditionally belong to you. That's not what we, the government, have decided. Taxation is a condition of ownership which we have sensibly and justly implemented; in a sense, it never truly 'belonged' to the taxpayer until those administrative formalities were finalised.

I can't condone us, the government, claiming ownership of people's property. It's not ours; it's theirs. For us to claim ownership is tantamount to theft.

 

[Moot]

I can't condone taking what belongs to others. I don't think that we, as the government, should take what belongs to others. It's wrong.

If you were truly a government that feels that way then perhaps you should give the land back to the Indians and the Mexican territories back to Mexico....and Hawaii back to the Hawaiian natives.

 

[Federalist]

If you were truly a government that feels that way then perhaps you should give the land back to the Indians and the Mexican territories back to Mexico....and Hawaii back to the Hawaiian natives.

Good point. Is that something you think that we, the government, should do?

 

[Moot]

Good point. Is that something you think that we, the government, should do?

I dunno, you tell me. I'd simply like to know how ridged you are in your belief that it's wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. Giving the land back would probably be the moral thing to do. Are you a moral and just government?

 

[Federalist]

I dunno, you tell me. I'd simply like to know how ridged you are in your belief that it's wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. Giving the land back would probably be the moral thing to do. Are you a moral and just government?

But the land doesn't belong to us, the government. It belongs to individual people. We can't just summarily take it from them. That would be wrong.

 

[Henrin]

We shouldn't be ticketing people for driving too fast either.

No, we shouldn't. Driving a certain speed is not harming anyone.