"Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Political slogans such as "Taxation is theft" fall in this category."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
I disagree
Einstein was a great scientist but thats about it... he failed in economic theory and had a typical pro-statist view on the world...
Plus, saying that something is over simplistic is totally subjective. What would be the difference between a simplistic statement and an over simplistic one?
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
2+2=4 is pretty simple, but 1+1+1+1=4 is "over-simplifying" perhaps?
@Phaedros
I dont think so, at least in the sense of what Einstein meant by oversimplification because his quote seems like he is saying that over simplistic statements are wrong... but 1+1+1+1=4 is not a wrong answer at all (atleast that is what I understand from the quote. I am merely implying this though.) Nevertheless, I still would argue: what makes 1+1+1+1=4 over simplistic, and not just simplistic
ok...
Taxation = Threat of theft absent donation
"Taxation" is a euphemism and "taxation is theft" is also a euphemism. Taxation is much worse than theft, it's at least as bad as robbery since resistance involves the threat of armed enforcement. As lax as the government may be in enforcing some of its more arcane statutes, it is ever-vigilant in the enforcement of its tax dictates.
Modern governments generally limit themselves to taxing cash flows instead of directly seizing cash stocks or other kinds of property (though the old-fashioned direct seizure taxes are on the rise). This lends some weight to the fallacious impression that most people carry around that tax revenues on transactions are used to offset the costs imposed "on society" by those very transactions. For example, an axle tax on goods transported via 18-wheelers is imagined to go to the maintenance of the roads that the 18-wheelers are wearing out in the process of completing the taxed transactions. The 'externality' imposed on the rest of us who also want to use the road is being 'offset' by the tax.
This is all obfuscation. The reality is that governments general restrict themselves to taxing transactions (cash flows) rather than directly seizing capital stocks as a matter of prudence, that is, in order to bring in a larger haul of tax revenues. When governments directly seized capital stocks, it had the effect of driving capital underground (often literally!) which made it harder to find (you can't tax money you can't find) and costlier to collect. In addition, it suppressed capital investment - you can't have an economy of expanding capital investment if you are constantly seizing the capital stocks of your merchants. The merchants respond to arbitrary taxation by picking up their red rubber ball and going elsewhere to play. Capital flees seizure.
But taxing cash flows avoids this problem to an extent because capital is given enough freedom to flow to incentivize private investment. The merchants are lured in by the prospect that they will get to keep their principal even if they have to pay a kickback to the Prince on the interest earned. Prior to taxing cash flows, the government was constantly faced with two bad prospects - it might overestimate the amount of taxes it can collect from a region, on the one hand, and end up destroying the populace as it is genuinely unable to meet the onerous tax burden or it might underestimate the amount of taxes it can collect from a region and leave money on the table which encourages further flouting of the taxing authority. By taxing cash flows, the government lures the capital out into the open where it can be seen and then taxes it as it moves from hand to hand. Since every transaction has two parties, enforcement is made much easier. A chest full of gold coins buried in the remote wilderness will never be found by the revenuers because only one man knows where it is... the man who buried it. But if you tax transactions, then you have the famous prisoner's dilemma on your side - simply grab both parties to the transaction and reward the first man to rat out the other with forgiveness for his own tax violations. The revenuer will not have to wait a nanosecond for both parties to rat each other out.
Hence, taxing cash flows is a massive advancement in the state of the art of taxation which has made modern governments vastly more effective at taxing their subjects but it represents no change in the essence of what taxation is: unjustified property seizure. Personally, I see it as no exaggeration to say that taxation is slavery. A taxed populace is an enslaved populace.
Clayton -
Fine.
Taxation is the involuntary transfer of funds for the wishes of a centralized institution with a monopoly on law which has the threat of force put into place if not complied with. Normally taxes are paid out of tradition and the vast majority do not attempt to retain their wealth although if they do they tend to relinquish it if/when they are directly held accountable, although if one did still choose to resist the wishes of the institution then they would have physical force implemented against them. Taxes originated in primitive societies which were almost always theocratic in nature where people had to pay tribute to the central theocratic state because they were directly linked to divine deities. If one refused to pay then brute force would be swiftly brought down upon them. Today the reasons for taxation have changed and taxes are usually spent on more "social" causes today even thought these causes still have their own negative effects and taxes are still systematically enforced by threat of violence.
Taxes tend to be put on a vast number of different goods and services, today they are usually progressive, that is to say they tax the wealthiest members of society the most although the poor today still tend to give significant portions of their income up directly to taxation, although increased prices brought about by taxation are rarely brought into account.
The above is not oversimplification but it comes to the same conclusion as the slogan, the slogan is a shortening of the logical reasoning just as the principle of communism might be put down to "to each according to his need from each according to his ability" which does of course have more advanced reasoning beyond it.
If I may make a somewhat ad hominem statement - many of the examples on that website clearly rest on leftist assumptions, and so I would take them with a grain of salt.
I think it simply means that tax= theft is so simplistic it fails to help an arguement. Not that the act itself is being debated. I am not debating the act itself, I just saw a link to this website in the newbie section and was reading it over.
I came in in the middle. This site is a little different so, excuse my ignorance :P
In some form, at some level.... Legal or illegal aren't taxes necessary? When it comes to discussing politics/economics I am not too smart yet.
Keeping that above sentence in mind: In any modern form of government where the expectations of the citizens were for it's elected officials to:
Represent them fairly, Uphold 'Law' of the land, laws of the republic or democracy, fix roads, put out fires, assist with invasions/wars.......
Isn't taxation 100% necessary? Since they are necessary isn't it only logical that the authority which was selected to represent the people is able to use force, when necessary or if necessary, to collect them? I am not aware of any nation or group which has had a successful long term existence within a multinational/global world(economy) that did not enforce some type of taxation. This seems to prove to me that nations without taxation are not successful in practice. I mean I get it.... I too can picture a utopian world in my mind. It has strong emotional appeal, I am attracted to it. However, such a vision although it might be successful is so far off from ever being a reality while we can work towards or strive for it.... It seems delusional to purpose it, demand it or desire to destroy what we have, to set up a new system without taxation as an immediate(or near future) solution. (That make sense?) :)
If it is or is not can anyone reccomend some good links or articles which will explain this sort of thing to me? Are there any examples of successful governments which still exist where taxes were paid only by individuals who desired to do so or not at all? No one wants to pay taxes and they surly do not desire to do so.... I think that is a reasonable psychological & emotional response. But, we do not want to do a lot of shit we need to do(Can I cuss on these forums?)
Taxation, as far as I can tell, has a well documented and understood throughout the history of mankind since almost day one. Isolationism(or any variety) really does not seem to be a logical option.
Allowing individuals to pay or not pay on their own free will.... Stastically & Historically speaking does not and will not work. Without taxation how do we 'fund' a government/or group of individuals to represent us?
I might be wrong but it onle seems possible under a utopian Anarchy, utopian ancient setting or brief periods of history.
If I am wrong cool - tell me why and give me links, PLEASE? If I am right ditto. Right now it is just what I believe based on limited info.
@Pushback, you ready for a red pill?
I know that was a long winded message. But, throwing it back in my face is not helpful.
I do not need any more pills. Nor do I need you to hold my hand when I pee. However, I would appreciate some general information
Pushback,
you say taxes are necessary, you even said they are 100% necessary... my question to you is : Necessary for who? They are certainly not necessary for people that dont work for the government....
second, why do you consider anarchy to be a utopia? In order to even claim that anarchism is a utopia, you must show us where we say that anarchistic society is a perfect society... As an anarchist, I can say that I do not consider anarchism to be perfect, but it is far better than a government society.
Third, you back up taxation by saying that governments cant run without a tax system... but most of us here are not anti-tax pro-government.... we are anti-tax anti-government... So why try to justify taxation using this claim?
EDIT:
and fourth, you say that by a person "representing" us, they have a right to use force to get taxes because one votes for their representative. But if I vote for someone who lost the election, how is the person that got elected representing me? Or an even stronger argument, what if I did not vote at all, how is an elected official representing me?
Pushback: I came in in the middle. This site is a little different so, excuse my ignorance :P In some form, at some level.... Legal or illegal aren't taxes necessary?
In some form, at some level.... Legal or illegal aren't taxes necessary?
Taxes are necessary if government is necessary. Many people who frequent this forum (myself included) are anti-government through and through. This is not the supposedly "anti-government" Republicanism which is opposed to this or that spending initiative, but a thorough-going, holistic opposition to the existence of any government in any amount for any reason.
Liberty student's reference to a "red pill" was not intended to be sarcastic or trite, he was making an obscure movie reference because of the difficulty most people have wrapping their mind around the idea of complete absence of any government whatsoever.
When it comes to discussing politics/economics I am not too smart yet. Keeping that above sentence in mind:In any modern form of government where the expectations of the citizens were for it's elected officials to: Represent them fairly, Uphold 'Law' of the land, laws of the republic or democracy, fix roads, put out fires, assist with invasions/wars.......
Keeping that above sentence in mind:In any modern form of government where the expectations of the citizens were for it's elected officials to:
Why is the government responsible to fix roads and put out fires but not to provide groceries? This is not an idle question.
Isn't taxation 100% necessary? Since they are necessary
If government is not necessary, then taxes are not necessary. I maintain that not only is government not necessary, it is a scourge upon society.
isn't it only logical that the authority which was selected to represent the people is able to use force, when necessary or if necessary, to collect them? I am not aware of any nation or group which has had a successful long term existence within a multinational/global world(economy) that did not enforce some type of taxation.
That might even be true but why are well-defined "groups" a necessary aspect of society? Why must there be well-defined groups? Why can't individuals simply seek their own ends without necessarily having any affiliation with a well-defined group that can have a "long-term existence" of some sort?
This seems to prove to me that nations without taxation are not successful in practice. I mean I get it.... I too can picture a utopian world in my mind. It has strong emotional appeal, I am attracted to it. However, such a vision although it might be successful is so far off from ever being a reality while we can work towards or strive for it.... It seems delusional to purpose it, demand it or desire to destroy what we have, to set up a new system without taxation as an immediate(or near future) solution. (That make sense?) :)
Well, you are correct that it is delusional - in fact, contradictory - to "purpose it, demand it or desire to destroy what we have, to set up a new system without taxation as an immediate(or near future) solution". Fortunately, there's no need to do any of this, all that is needed is to end certain legal prileges which the government commands, without any conceivable moral justification. The government operates a territorial monopoly on the production of security and arbitration services (and the monopoly of money production plays a crucial role, too)... we simply need to end the monopoly grant. to the State's courts and the State's security services. This is not the same as ending the State's courts or security services, they can remain in operation but they must give up their monopoly privilege (right to exclude all competitors from the marketplace). This is all that is needed for the modern State as we know it to be brought to its knees.
If it is or is not can anyone reccomend some good links or articles which will explain this sort of thing to me? Are there any examples of successful governments which still exist where taxes were paid only by individuals who desired to do so or not at all?
Here are some links to get you started in the discussion:
http://seasteading.org/blogs/main/2009/11/23/david-d-friedman-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDQ2FXVlArA&feature=BF&list=PLD6B30EB178953BC6&index=1
http://www.fee.org/media/video/stateless-in-somalia/
Basically, all tribal societies are examples of functioning, stateless societies. The real question you are trying to ask is whether it is possible to have a complex economy with deep division of labor without a taxing government to work out all the "kinks" but this question should really be reversed - what about a complex economy with deep division of labor implies that a taxing government is needed in the first place? If you think about this, seriously, you will find that the reasons given for why we "need" a government are, without exception, shallow and baseless. More importantly, we can readily identify why such shallow, baseless reasons why governemnt is "necessary" are so widely repeated - namely, the Prince has an interest in ensuring his subjects believe that his existence is crucial to theirs and he encourages the myths surrounding his supposedly crucial role in society.
No one wants to pay taxes and they surly do not desire to do so.... I think that is a reasonable psychological & emotional response. But, we do not want to do a lot of shit we need to do(Can I cuss on these forums?)
I get away with a little cussing... I think the mods just don't want you cussing at anyone.
Lew Rockwell says here,
"Now, one might say, oh sure, the free market gives us the dessert but the government gives us the vegetables to keep us healthy. That view does not account for the horrific reality that more than 100 million people were slaughtered by the state in the 20th century alone, not including its wars."
Taxation, as far as I can tell, has a well documented and understood throughout the history of mankind since almost day one.
The same can be said of murder or organized crime. In other words, it's not saying much.
Isolationism(or any variety) really does not seem to be a logical option.
Economic isolationism is impossible, true. But political isolationism has been the norm except under the umbrella of empire. Why do we need empire??
Well, if you just want someone to represent you, then pay them for their services. Merchants have always patronized Princes as consultants who understand the subtle inner-workings of international politics. But they didn't have to submit to the Prince's unilateral expropriation of their property in order to get the services they needed.
I might be wrong but it onle seems possible under a utopian Anarchy, utopian ancient setting or brief periods of history. If I am wrong cool - tell me why and give me links, PLEASE? If I am right ditto. Right now it is just what I believe based on limited info.
If you're searching for the truth, you will find it. Good luck in your search.
I know I typed it. But, let's drop my Anarchy comment - if you will allow.
Would comparing a government to a machine be a bad analogy? Analogies are always weak arguments - I get it.... I think any group of productive people who worked together to meet a common objective which was believed to be benifical for the overwhelming majority of individuals involved could be compared to a machine. Machines need fuel, right? In this case the fuel would be money.
Anytime you organize large groups of people there will always exist some form of disagreement. To assume every part of the machine would always work in harmony would be silly.
As I clearly said, I am not informed when it comes to politics/economy. I am like most Americans in this respect. However, I am working to change that - like "you" have done(unlike most Americans). My formal education stopped after an associates degree. I will do my best to refrain from "all inclusive" words/phrases or over exagerations in the future.....
Now, I do not know 'where to ask'(start). Uhhhh?
If not through modern or ancient forms of government that we learned about in k-12 & none graduate college level classes... What methods must we use to provide: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as fairly as possible for all? What method could provide necessary infastructure for productive people to become more productive? What method do we use to provide this network(machine of people) from outside invasion and while providing them with safty?
That sort of thing gets expensive, right? That sort of "machine"(government) must be more complex than the people themselves. Other than taxation I see no way to fund it.
The medicine I took last week removed my pain. However, there were risks and dangers associated with taking the medication. Hopefully people strive to make safer/better medicine. Governments are corrupt. I do not feel my elected officials represent me. But, at it's core the services it provides seem necessary. Just like at the core the "services" of taking some modern meds are necessary(If you desire not to die from the diease eating at your body).
The fuel to provide these necessary services ismoney(Taxation).
I think this position of the necessity of taxation and government is one of a typical American. However, I am trying to understand outside that box. It motivated me to post here. For what it is worth I believe both democrats and republicans truly do not represent me. They have their best interests in mind. But, I am unaware of other options..... i am unaware of any other method to fund them other than taxation.
Pushback: I know I typed it. But, let's drop my Anarchy comment - if you will allow. Would comparing a government to a machine be a bad analogy? Analogies are always weak arguments - I get it.... I think any group of productive people who worked together to meet a common objective which was believed to be benifical for the overwhelming majority of individuals involved could be compared to a machine. Machines need fuel, right? In this case the fuel would be money.
I think the analogy confuses more than it clarifies. A government is an organization. No analogy is needed to discuss it in these terms.
Of course, no one assumes that.
As I clearly said, I am not informed when it comes to politics/economy. I am like most Americans in this respect. However, I am working to change that - like "you" have done(unlike most Americans). My formal education stopped after an associates degree. I will do my best to refrain from "all inclusive" words/phrases or over exagerations in the future..... Now, I do not know 'where to ask'(start). Uhhhh?
Maybe you should start from what you do know... how did you end up on this site and what, if anything, do you see wrong with the world that you are seeking the answer to?
I recommend you try rephrasing your questions without ever using the words "we" "us" "them" "they" "ours" "theirs" and so on. This is good practice to break the bad habit of anthropomorphizing groups of people. I've been practicing for a couple years now and I still have a hard time... well-drilled habits die hard.
That sort of thing gets expensive, right? That sort of "machine"(government) must be more complex than the people themselves. Other than taxation I see no way to fund it. The medicine I took last week removed my pain. However, there were risks and dangers associated with taking the medication. Hopefully people strive to make safer/better medicine. Governments are corrupt. I do not feel my elected officials represent me. But, at it's core the services it provides seem necessary. Just like at the core the "services" of taking some modern meds are necessary(If you desire not to die from the diease eating at your body).
Can you try to identify one most important, all-encompassing reason that government is necessary?
The fuel to provide these necessary services ismoney(Taxation). I think this position of the necessity of taxation and government is one of a typical American. However, I am trying to understand outside that box. It motivated me to post here. For what it is worth I believe both democrats and republicans truly do not represent me. They have their best interests in mind. But, I am unaware of other options..... i am unaware of any other method to fund them other than taxation.
Why do they need to be funded? Why can't Republican and Democrat politicians be expected to go out into the market and work for a living like everybody else? Why do they deserve a handout?
If you have no power to prosecute someone on the grounds of theft, it isn't theft.
Before I begin, if you are truely serious about learning our side, I suggest reading some books/articles listed here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx
Market anarchism favors the market dealing with all of issues you have mentioned... your analogy of the machine is useless to us because we reject the machine (government)...
"The fuel to provide these necessary services ismoney(Taxation)"
Your premise is wrong here because money is not tax...
"My formal education stopped after an associates degree. I will do my best to refrain from "all inclusive" words/phrases or over exagerations in the future....."
Most of us do not discriminate on how far one has gone in their education... Nor do we brag about degrees we have earned to justify our claims...it would be very rare to here one say: " I have a masters in political science, so I know what i am talking about!" :)
Excellent list.
Also might I suggest that you look up any questions you might have in this book.
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf
Oh, boy, here come the legal positivists. We can only conclude from your position that no government has ever committed murder.
Pushback:I know that was a long winded message. But, throwing it back in my face is not helpful.
I didn't throw anything back in your face.
Oh, boy, here come the legal positivists. We can only conclude from your position that no government has ever committed murder
There is no reason to obfuscate the mechanincs and pictures of reality by trying to turn aesthetical and / or subjective statements into anything more than what they are. The whole thing we are discussing is the kalediascopic (and not mechanistic) world of intersubjective values. Furthermore, jurisprudence is not a science, and it is diverse from place to place from time to time. The words outside of the context of a specific court that is actually tied to material reality will serve little more universal function than as to how I defined it. It is just the nature of the word in relation to the actual practices of such a thing (and the practice is what actually matters, not the word). Ex: For our pourposes, it doesn't matter if I say "half full" or "half empty" all I want is the picture in your head of a glass with water filled up to the correct point. Focusing on the rest is in the field of personal psychology, therapy, aesthetics, or a very specific context to something that is out of my realm.
Thinking otherwise will have a higher chance to send people off in the wrong direction if they are trying to get an acurate picture as to what is going on. I can not see how this is a desirable thing among any academic or practicle thought when looking at broad intersubjective things as a whole.
Besides all that, I think in the end, if you looked at it from my point, the government statement you made would seem more like "random dudes killing people because they have the power to do so" rather than something like "government with justification to do so via its inherently good structure within the fabric of reality"
Also known as the 11th Commandment... Thou shalt not get caught.
one customs theft is another's homestead. The one with the most market oriented outlook will have te richest society though
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
Only problem is that one could make the argument that taxation is not theft because taxation isn´t against the law. That, at least, would be the positivist argument.
The other issue arises is you believe that it is correct for the government to habitually take money from others.
Morning....
Thank you reviewing the link now.
"Liberty student's reference to a "red pill" was not intended to be sarcastic or trite, he was making an obscure movie reference because of the difficulty most people have wrapping their mind around the idea of complete absence of any government whatsoever."
Sorry, I am slow....
Thank you for the pill.
Welcome to the Mises Forums, Pushback. My responses to you will probably be a lot like Clayton's, but hopefully there will be enough of a different angle to help you out.
Pushback:In some form, at some level.... Legal or illegal aren't taxes necessary? When it comes to discussing politics/economics I am not too smart yet.
It depends on what you think they're "necessary" for. Also, do you distinguish between "illegal" and "immoral"?
Pushback:Keeping that above sentence in mind: In any modern form of government where the expectations of the citizens were for it's elected officials to: Represent them fairly, Uphold 'Law' of the land, laws of the republic or democracy, fix roads, put out fires, assist with invasions/wars....... Isn't taxation 100% necessary?
In any modern form of government where the expectations of the citizens were for it's elected officials to:
Isn't taxation 100% necessary?
Why must there be "elected officials"? Why must there be "representation"? Why should things like settling disputes, protecting property, building/maintaining roads, and/or putting out fires be entrusted to a monopoly group of such people?
Pushback:Since they are necessary isn't it only logical that the authority which was selected to represent the people is able to use force, when necessary or if necessary, to collect them? I am not aware of any nation or group which has had a successful long term existence within a multinational/global world(economy) that did not enforce some type of taxation. This seems to prove to me that nations without taxation are not successful in practice. I mean I get it.... I too can picture a utopian world in my mind. It has strong emotional appeal, I am attracted to it. However, such a vision although it might be successful is so far off from ever being a reality while we can work towards or strive for it.... It seems delusional to purpose it, demand it or desire to destroy what we have, to set up a new system without taxation as an immediate(or near future) solution. (That make sense?) :)
I see, so your question about whether taxation is "100% necessary" was only rhetorical?
Regardless, if you're going to presume the legitimacy of governments, then it follows that taxation (stealing by governments) is legitimate. You can even go one step further and conclude that anything governments do is legitimate by definition. This is the premise behind legal positivism.
Finally, can you tell me just what a "successful nation" is in your mind?
Pushback:Allowing individuals to pay or not pay on their own free will.... Stastically & Historically speaking does not and will not work. Without taxation how do we 'fund' a government/or group of individuals to represent us?
Of course that again raises the question - why must we have a government or a group of individuals to "represent" us?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
William:If you have no power to prosecute someone on the grounds of theft, it isn't theft.
What do you mean by "power"?
What do you mean by "prosecute"?
What do you mean by "theft"?
Why should anyone care what a physicist said about economics?
Hold on, let me go ask an award-winning Java developer I work with what she thinks about the hypostatic union.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
There are 20 definitions for "power", 4 for "prosecute", and 3 for "theft" on that site. Can you please be more specific?
Pushback:Sorry, I am slow.... Thank you for the pill.
No harm, no foul. Welcome to the Mises Community.
the premise of "government owns all the land in its territory" is axiomatically true. If it were otherwise, they wouldnt be the monopoly of violence in the first place, as ownership and violence are sides of the same thing(just as action and preference). hence, the claim of government being a robber/thief is absurd, as one cannot steal what he owns.
The government does not, in fact, hold a monopoly over violence. Crimes against people and property occur all too often in spite of the existence of government.
Regardless, if the government does indeed own all the land in its territory, then why does it go through such trouble to make it seem otherwise to its subjects? Also, even if some people assume that government owns all the land in its territory, why must anyone else agree?
The government does not, in fact, hold a monopoly over violence. Crimes against people and property occur all too often in spite of the existence of government. Regardless, if the government does indeed own all the land in its territory, then why does it go through such trouble to make it seem otherwise to its subjects? Also, even if some people assume that government owns all the land in its territory, why must anyone else agree?
I don't view Einstein to hold any particularly striking ethos in the field of informal logic. However, in addressing the example that is his claim.....
"Over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Political slogans such as 'Taxation is theft' fall in this category." Breaking this down, the Reductive Fallacy is paradoxically guilty of its own definition. I say paradoxically because it is, in itself, invalid, most probably through its own definition.
For instance, is 1+1=2 guilty of the reductive fallacy? It seems to mean that generalizations can be inaccurate, but the fallacy implies that anything too simple is wrong, which, in itself it wrong since it is not necessarily true.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
I won't even look, and I'm going to tell you to use the 1st one. Are you being coy, or are you honestly a word skeptic? Instead of asking me, perhaps arbitrarily, what every other word means take a guess and assume they mean what you think they mean.
Perhaps rephrase a question like this "by power do you mean (insert definition here)" if you are honestly confused.
I think you misunderstood my question, because your answer invites one to ask why the state gets more revenue only when it goes through such trouble to make its subjects think that it doesn't own all land in its territory. After all, if the state is indeed the owner of all land in its territory, it should then be able to take whatever it wants, right?
Agreement is mental. One can comply without agreeing. Otherwise, you're arguing that robbery victims who complied with their robbers' demands must have been just fine with those demands. Then again, one always has the choice to not comply, even if doing so leads to his death.
I take it you agree with the rest of what I wrote?
It might not be as simple as taxation = theft as if you start to explain it can get more complicated. But that would be like saying, "I fixed the PC". But in reality you did a lot more, you changed the motherboard and replace the ram and you reinstalled the operating system. But an over simplication, although still correct, "I fixed the PC". So taxation = theft is still correct although there is more to it than that.