In most of the western world, the vast majority of taxes are payed by the employer, by sellers and by importers, not directly by the private person. So what is the exact nature of the crime here? It is probably not robbery per se because the people whom you trade with are robbed not you directly. So what is it?
Well it is still robbery because they'd rather not pay it if they didn't have to. You are still impacted in the form of lower wages or higher cost products.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Yes, but what are YOU subjected to in case you are not importer, employer or seller?
You are prevented from becoming an importer, employer or seller yourself, by the threat of extortion if you do. "Do not become more useful for yourself and the society, or esle we will take part of your property".
Sellers and employers aren't people? Lololololol
These are all crimes as in each case there is a victim who is having wealth take from them without their permission. Infact in each of the cases there is more than one victim. In the case of an import duty there are an uncalculable number of victims as we have no idea what their buying decisions would be absent the tariff.
It's the double crime of taxation as theft, and unpaid slavery in forcing the companies to collect taxes for the gov.
Nah they're our reptilian Illuminati oppressor overlords.
Suppose that such scheme would be done by citizens in a state, what would the state call it? I don't think "indirect extortion" is a valid offense in the law books.
They're threatening someone with a gun. The person they're threatening is extorted.
what would the state call it?
I would not be surprised if they called it "terrorism".
It does not mean we should use such a term. Basically, the state is using threat of force towards existing taxpayers in order to coerce them (this can be called extortion for short), and a threat of doing the same (a threat of using threat blah blah) towards would-be taxpayers.
Unlike other posters, I do not think there is a crime other than threat of taxation towards people who currently do not pay taxes - despite the fact that they are indirectly harmed (e.g., by reduced wages). Imagine, if the tax laws said that only redheads have to pay taxes - would you still believe there is a crime going on against anyone except redheads?
business register with the government, therefor consenting to be taxed. people do business with business registered with the government, therefor consenting to be taxed.
if people really want to stand up to not being taxed, use the black market.
Ah that usual load of bullshit. For the government to actually tax it needs to demonstrate it has a prior claim to the territories it holds. It can't. Therefore any agreement with it on that basis is null and void.
if people own a territory, then form a government to govern that territory, then the government would have claim on the territory that people that owned the land agreed apon forming a government in. some governments are shareholder towns run by those with property.
so it's null and void for a business to contribute to a government for hiring police, and that business is being violated should police come and stop a crime in that business property, thus serving what the business paid and for? the business paying money for a democratic vote on hiring police is also something null and void and the business is only a victom and not in complience to the crime of police stopping a crime?
is a private business set up to support raising taxes ( or taxing at all or government at all) not also part of the crime, or is that business only a victim?
If taxes on gasoline are for a highway fund and you do not get an exemption for filling up your lawn mower I also consider it fraud.
There's an argument to be made that indirect taxes are less bad than direct taxes for pragmatic reasons. But, ethically, all taxation is theft. Whether every individual is taxed for having an income, or some individuals are taxed for moving goods across international borders or for buying/selling certain products, etc doesn't change the fact that in all cases the State is extorting money from someone.
cab21:if people own a territory, then form a government to govern that territory, then the government would have claim on the territory that people that owned the land agreed apon forming a government in.
Okay, sure, but the territory would consist purely of their collective territory, and could not be binding on for instance their children. And any 'laws' would be only voluntarily followed, and any punishments voluntarily submitted to, and secession would be an option at any point, at which time they could remove their property from the 'governed' territory.
cab21:is a private business set up to support raising taxes ( or taxing at all or government at all) not also part of the crime, or is that business only a victim ?
I'd say it's victim only in that case.
its not like government exists without people forming and supporting government.
how to people form something, then be called the victom of what they formed with no responsibility for what they formed?
the state is not separate from the people that form and support the state.
support for taxes as a "private citizen" is different from support for taxes as a "government worker", where a person is guilty under one role and innocent under another role? i figure people have to support taxation as private citizens before they can support taxation as government workers.
if people own a territory,
Sure, by homesteading it.
then form a government to govern that territory,
It is only binding upon them and only for so long as they wish to tolerate it. It certainly has no independent claim to the property unless it is bequeathed it, and has absolutely no claim over anything else in the world. It has no effect on any third party, e.g. the children of those who consented to forming it.
then the government would have claim on the territory that people that owned the land agreed apon forming a government in. some governments are shareholder towns run by those with property.
Right, can you demonstrate any instances of property titles being transferred to the government in this manner on behalf of everyone within a given border area? Can you demonstrate that this applies to all the untouched territories governments claim? Can you demonstrate why those who "consent" to be governed cannot terminate their contract with the government?
so it's null and void for a business to contribute to a government for hiring police, and that business is being violated should police come and stop a crime in that business property, thus serving what the business paid and for?
Don't obfuscate. That isn't what is essential to government services. If all they did is provide with a paid-for service which you could terminate at will, they'd be no different to any other business.
the business paying money for a democratic vote on hiring police is also something null and void and the business is only a victom and not in complience to the crime of police stopping a crime?
If it entails voting to expropriate the property of others or in any way interfere with their liberty, yeah, it's null and void. Deal with it.
If the only way to do business is to play ball with the government, it is the victim.
Similarly with the mob.
If that "something" won't let them terminate its service and unilaterally acquires the ability to change the terms thereof, they are certainly its victims. They may have "responsibility" for it but it doesn't change its illegal character.
Perhaps. Yet that does nothing to obviate the fact that it has no independent claim over anything it pretends to own.
if the people that formed a government that taxed decided to no longer support that government that taxed, then a taxing government would no longer exist i am sure.
for people that once supported it but no longer support it, they would still be charged for their crime of supporting it. a bank robber can't rob 10 banks, decide to no longer rob banks, then keep the stolen money and absolve any responsibility for the robbery.
how does someone give restitution for any services they received from a sales tax that person once supported but now no longer supports, or what kind of outcome ought to come from this?
A govenment won't simply evaporate due to lack/withdrawal of consent. They require acquiescence, at the very least. How culpable voters actually are for the system is debatable. To the extent that they advocate certain policies and this wish is actually acted upon, yes, I would say they are culpable for the actions that government takes, at the very least in a democracy. The main reason governments are supported is that they offer some useful services at a borderline acceptable level. This and the myth that they are required to perform these services, reinforced via public schools, is why many people put up with them.
To go from this to the claim that those who support governments on those grounds thereby support everything else they do, is to make a huge argumentative leap; even moreso if they do so at the barrel of a gun. There's a misguided view that governments can actually be reformed by electoral processes. They can, to a minimal extent, and only after public belief has already changed. Now, if you want to discover to what degree someone is culpable for perpetrating crimes upon others, except in the most obvious of cases, you are going to have a very difficult time.
The system is so opaque that it is very difficult to trace who benefits as whose expense as a result of government policy. It's nigh impossible for other indirect forms of taxation like inflation. In principle you could argue that the person who must accept lower wages or more expensive goods is the victim, but you could also argue that the employer who must reduce employment to account for more expensive employees or the seller who must reduce sales due to pricier goods are also the losers. I don't think if the government is ever to collapse that it will be logistically feasible to track every dime to return it to its rightful owner, especially with debt and inflation thrown into the mix. Bear in mind that only a fraction of income withdrawn from the private sector actually ends up being spent after admin etc. costs are accounted for, i.e. there's good reason to think that the "multiplier" of government spending, to the extent that the concept is valid, is negative. So the "services" it offers are necessarily disproportionately smaller than the wealth that they pilfer.
say tax is crime becuase of lack of ownership, rent is legitmate because of ownership
how many people support government without supporting taxation , regulation, or the ability for government to own land?
now there are corporate towns where a person or groups buys land, develups it, then rents it out, they still have government in those corporate towns, and the government would have homesteaded the land and then rented out to people. is calling something a tax instead of rent or a fee change the nature of the charge?
cab21: say tax is crime becuase of lack of ownership, rent is legitmate because of ownership
Sure, but the problem you're going to run into is that all interacts on the free market are inherently explicitly contractual and voluntary, and governments rely on implied/assumed contract and non-voluntary exchange.
A "government" that is actually a corporation that charges rent is simply nto a government. It's only when an organization decides it has the right to coerce others that it becomes a government.
cab21:how many people support government without supporting taxation , regulation, or the ability for government to own land?
There would be no point in such a governemnt lacking those things. You'd have de facto libertarianism.
cab21:now there are corporate towns where a person or groups buys land, develups it, then rents it out, they still have government in those corporate towns
They have governance, but it is voluntary and contractual.
cab21:and the government would have homesteaded the land
Organizations can really only own land given to them, and then there still is no entity called an 'organziation,' it's just a group of people.
cab21:and then rented out to people. is calling something a tax instead of rent or a fee change the nature of the charge?
Rent is pay for use of an area. A tax is not so limited. The US gov claims the right to tax people living overseas even.
if inflation is called a tax, and there is free market for currency, would it be called indirect tax should any currency happen to deflate or inflate based on demand, or are only certain types and causes of inflation indirect taxes?
@anenome
"Sure, but the problem you're going to run into is that all interacts on the free market are inherently explicitly contractual and voluntary, and governments rely on implied/assumed contract and non-voluntary exchange."
Incorrect. Government relies on the postal service and articles of mail to acquire tacit procuration. Basically if you open their mail it is presumed you have accepted their contract. Return it to sender.
Or if it is a police encounter it relies on a presumption of identity that you are the "person" identified on a state [e.g. company] identification card and not a Man who is merely an authorised representative of that "person" which may or may not be getting compensated at that moment.
The market is no different. Are you going to tell me there is no implied contract entering a Wal Mart or anyone's property for that matter? If it is implied you consent to the rules of a property owner what is different about voluntarily entering a postal jurisdiction? All of those abbreviations for the express purpose of effecient mail routing are intellectual property. . .
Or volunteering to be a "person" and not a Man?
Furthermore these so called presumptions are only evil in my opinion because there is no full and honest disclosure. However, they are based on nature whereas in nature a snake rattles before it bites. It is based on a general observation that in nature "silence is acquiscence." If you don't object, it is presumed you consent.
Mere presence does not mean you have consented to arbitrary rules. Certain actions can be signals of consent, but a simple "I do not consent" demonstrates that those actions should not be interpreted as signals of consent, because, after all, you have just stated that you do not consent.
@gotlucky
are you arguing property owners do not get to set their own arbitrary rules?
Yes. I cannot make a rule that, "If you enter my property, I reserve the right to execute you if I see fit." Property owners have the right of exclusion. They may exclude others from their property, but they may not make up any rule that you "consent" to by mere presence.
I am a smoker and I would appreciate a benevolent dictator such as yourself telling these property owners that my mere presence does not mean I consent to their arbitrary non-smoking sign. When do you plan on running for president so I can volunteer for your campaign?
I have no idea what you are going on about. Clearly these people may exclude you from their property if you choose to smoke on their property. What they may not do is execute you for it. Your mere presence does not entail consent to just any rule they think of.
Anyway, if you would prefer, I may use your argument against you:
Your presence in the USA entails your consent that the Federal Government ban smoking from "public" places such as restaurants. While we're at it, you also consent to the state banning Big Gulps too.
That's fine, you can exclude all you want so long as no one initiates aggression against me. Would you like me to spell my name for you so that you can record it on your exclusion list while I stand here and finish smoking this entire pack?
I say, if you received a full and honest disclosure mere presence can constitute consent no matter how arbitrary the rules disclosed. You argue that "presence does not entail consent to just any rule they think of." I am arguing based off what are deemed to be valid elements of a contract which includes a full and honest disclosure and/or no misrepresentation.
If I am extending protection and a duty of care on my property I have in fact provided consideration to everyone who is merely present on my property.
That's fine, they can exclude all they want so long as no one initiates aggression against me. Would you like me to spell my name for you so that you can record it on your exclusion list while I stand here and finish smoking this entire pack?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have no idea why you think certain actions constitute consent when the individual in question states otherwise. If I say, "I do not consent," then I do not consent.
The only thing Man has to evidence his consent is action of which language is a subset. Why do you presume only certain subsets of action can constitute consent? Are you suggesting there is such a thing as accidental human action because presence is not derived from intentional and purposeful human action?
one can't go into a place a with a no smoking sign, light up a smoke, and then cry initiation of agression if asked, or forced to leave. the person who violated the no smoking sign initiated agression.
now does every private property owner have a person sign a contract with the owner before that person enters that private property?
if someone walks on private property, without consenting to arbitrary rules of that private property ( or knowing that they on private property) does that make that person a agresser? what does it matter what agresser's consent to? what can a person do if a person refuses to leave on his own
@cab21
I am not the one arguing mere presence doesn't constitute consent. I only argue presence constitutes consent when there is a full and honest disclosure without misrepresentation. Lucky appears to be in disagreement thus far arguing mere presence universally does not constitute consent.
Please quote where I said that one can only give consent through language.
Next I would like you to explain to me why you think property owners do not have a right to exclude others from their property.
Next I would like you to defend the following scenario:
Property Owner A says to B, if you don't leave my property in 3 seconds I will kill you. B attempts to leave, but alas, seeing as his 3 seconds were up, A kills B. A says to the rest of society, "B was present on my property. He consented to the rule. I'm innocent of any aggression."
presence can be from all sorts of reasons, the people that want the life amendment see a fetus as a life, but the fetus does not have much of a choice of where it is, as it is inside the mother.
seems that means that a noncitizen who conceives in the usa would have a usa citizen growing inside her, subject to indirect taxation.
now the baby born in a private property would not really be consenting to any rules or charge of rent or admission for being on that private property.
in so much as you use the word "taxation" whatever transaction you are talking about is legitiment by definition.
If you are simply trying to make an analogous reference to the action of losing money to that of a crime, simply state which legal custom you wish to make the comparison to (if it is the NAP, or whatever, so be it) - look it up, and let us know.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle