Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Taxation is not theft.

Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 33 Replies | 6 Followers

Not Ranked
31 Posts
Points 2,095
kylio27 posted on Tue, Sep 4 2012 1:27 PM

 

Let me break this down for you: you do not OWN this country. You use the common resources that belong to all and are available to all. Taxation is the price you pay for using them.

If you don't want to pay them, fine. Leave. Move to Dubai or Monaco where there are no income taxes. What's stopping you?

  • | Post Points: 125

All Replies

Not Ranked
48 Posts
Points 760

Interesting. All this time I thought "we" just believed we owned ourselves.

 

The art of trolling is perfected when one can anger or upset the legitimate posters. You just make me laugh. You are an utter failure at your abysmal life.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
814 Posts
Points 14,875
Moderator

Maynard,

The last comment was unecessary; the OP is just restating, in a rather belligerent way, a standard argument. That said I hope this provides grounds for fruitful discussion.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Um...who ever said we owned the country? The whole point of something like anarcho-capitalism is that we don't believe in the country. The people behind the government are people, so what right do they have to make us give up our money for using these resources? Since when should other people collect money from me for using resources?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
48 Posts
Points 760

Physiocrat:

Maynard,

The last comment was unecessary; the OP is just restating, in a rather belligerent way, a standard argument. That said I hope this provides grounds for fruitful discussion.

 

I apologize, but all of this person's posts have been "belligerent restatements" of fallacious "arguments". I won't attack their character anymore, but my first statement stands: I don't claim to own this country. I own myself. Their "argument" is therefore refuted (and has been 1000 other times on these exact forums). This is hardly "fruitul discussion". It's dead horse beating. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
31 Posts
Points 2,095

You can't just be a freeloader. You use the resources that are paid for by everyone, therefore you must pay into it. 

  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
48 Posts
Points 760

kylio27:

You can't just be a freeloader. You use the resources that are paid for by everyone, therefore you must pay into it. 

 

 

How can I "freeload" uncoercively? What resources? Who's "everyone"? Why am I a part of them? You must explain yourself...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
806 Posts
Points 12,855

You use the resources that are paid for by everyone, therefore you must pay into it.

First, you will have to justify why "the resources are paid for by everyone" and explain why/if this must be the case. You will also have to explain what you mean by "resources," "paid," and "everyone."

 

If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

You sound like Obama when he says that you didn't build your business, your government did.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
13 Posts
Points 380

If a government owns its land then it can justly demand rent regardless of what services are actually provided. This situation would indeed be "love it or leave it". However all the governments that I am aware of only own a small part of the land by homesteading. Regardless, in a free society that land would likely be confiscated as payment for state crimes.

For example, the Canadian gov't claims ownership over the northern most part of the Americas because it was "purchased" from the Hudsons Bay Company. HBC was given that land by royal charter by King Charles II. Even if you are not a libertarian it is completely ridiculous to think that some guy across the ocean can somehow take ownership of gigantic portions of the world just because he says so.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845
Suggested by gotlucky

@kylio: I don't think anyone on this forum wants things for free. It is understood that if things like roads and powerlines are not paid for by taxes, they would have to be paid for by other means (direct fees or more sophisticated systems).

If it is the case that taxes are a contractual obligation (just a price for services rendered), how come tax liability cannot be discharged once and for all by any court? Let's say Bob contractually owes Adam $1000/mo. for the rest of his life. Any ordinary contract can be severed by offering a settlement amount. If Bob repudiates the $1000/mo. payment structure, there is no way that Adam can insist that he must continue to pay in annuity instead of settling the matter with a lump-sum.

Taxes are certainly the most peculiar sort of monetary obligation that exists. Not only can this obligation not be discharged by any means by which an ordinary contract can be discharged, the terms of the obligation are unclear. When it comes right down to it, you owe whatever the government says you owe. The government can change your past obligations retroactively and your current standing with respect to the tax law (whether you are in good standing with the law) is entirely up to the government and its courts. So, there really is no such thing as "what you owe" in taxes, there is just whatever the government decides to take, in effect.

This is to say nothing of the fact that it's extortionate to render a service and then claim, post facto, rightful payment for services rendered. Imagine a landscaping company that went around mowing people's lawns and then issuing notices stating "You owe $250 for the mowing of your law, please pay this amount. If you refuse to pay, you will be taken to court for breach of contract."

In light of this, it's nothing short of silly to suggest that taxes are merely a price that is owed for services rendered. Sure, roads and powerlines have to be built and maintained and somebody needs to patrol borders, secure properties, hear disputes and so on. But if it is the case that taxes are the "price paid" for these "services rendered", please explain why they are so different from any other price paid for any other service.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Answered (Not Verified) Marko replied on Tue, Sep 4 2012 3:13 PM
Suggested by Aristophanes

Baa, baa.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745
Suggested by gotlucky

Guys, guys, guys. (S)he is right. We do not in fact own anything, given the large governmental powers of taxation, regulation, and eminent domain. We are merely living by the mercy of our slavers leaders.

But here is the problem in his(her) theory - because we don't actually own anything, we must by necessity demand everything for free - for we have nothing to trade for something - because we don't own anything.

So the premise is correct, but the conclusion is logically unfeasible. Unless we ought to all die.

As to the Dubai or Monaco (variants of the Somalia fallacy), see here:

 

Argumentum ad Somalium explained with a parable:

If you don't like being raped, move away from your rapy neighborhood.

The implications are clear:

  • If you don't move and you are raped, you have consented to that rape and it's your own damn fault.
  • Thus, you have no right to complain about rape or demand the cessation of rape.
  • Thus, you are a hypocrite if you stay but complain about rape.

Argumentum ad Somalium is a very powerful manipulative fallacy, because it combines a smear with a blame-the-victim, a false dichotomy, a beg-the-question, and a number of false assumptions.

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part10


Argumentum ad Somalium is a fallacy, because its core implication "love it or leave it" is a false dichotomy, quite manipulative and corrupt in nature. When a person rightfully complains about something he perceives as immoral. "Loving it" and "leaving it" are not the only options -- other valid options are decrying "it" or seeking to end "it" without going anywhere too.

Of course, children are taught this fallacy in state schools as a defense of statism, so it is not surprising that it is so pervasive.

From http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qvrhz/obama_team_hits_romney_for_get_rid_of_planned/c4155b6

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
806 Posts
Points 12,855

Argumentum ad Somalium

I love it!

If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

I have it bookmarked. The user throwaway-o is a great poster on there.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 3 (34 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS