Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

Basically, intent matters to me. And I think it does for everyone. There's a reason most people see murder as worse than manslaughter.

Take two scenarios:

Scenario A is a person who murdered someone intentionally. It was a specific target and for whatever reason you know there is a ~100% chance he will never be a threat to society. Play along with my hypothetical.

Scenario B is manslaughter when someone made a mistake driving (or whatever).

Logistically, it seems these things are exactly the same. He killed someone in some freak occurrence and it will never happen again. Personally, I still think much more lowly of person A, and would agree with harsher punishment for him. Because the intent matters to me.

About person B, I might think "Jeez dude, be careful when you drive, that's horrible." But it's still entirely possible he is a decent person who just made a mistake or has poor judgment when he drives. With scenario A, I can be much more sure that this is a bad person. Someone who is capable of intentionally killing is someone I think more lowly of, even if person B poses slightly more of a threat to society.

Most people who support taxes don't, I don't think, see taxation as theft, even if you can argue why they intellectually should see it that way. So until they do see it that way, I think of them as more misguided than evil. So when you throw around the "theft" word, it's like charging them with murder when really it was just manslaughter. It's not a fair moral judgment.

Why does this matter to me? Because it's polarizing, unfair, and counter-intuitive to helping them see the light.

I say this not because I want to argue against libertarianism or because I disagree that objectively taxation is theft, but because I think we can make more progress if we work on our approach. Socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

I see your point, however the comparison isn't great. In both manslaughter and murder, the perpetrator knows what he's done, and the difference is that in the former, he didn't intend to do it.

By your description of taxes, the the average tax supporter doesn't believe he's supporting theft. What he does support however (taking money forcefully from others) is something he fully intends to do, regardless of whether he believes it's wrong.

One is a difference of intention while the other is only a difference of definition.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

At best this argument could run that it's not theft from the people who don't think it's theft but it's definitely theft from me. I do not want to pay taxes! There was a great poll on this forum a while ago "why do you pay taxes fear or duty" I think fear would probably win even if you took the poll out to a national level.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
At best this argument could run that it's not theft from the people who don't think it's theft but it's definitely theft from me. I do not want to pay taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]
But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective.

How is this wrong? It seems perfectly valid from a private property perspective. Just because some explicit contract isn't drawn up, doesn't mean there isn't an implicit one.

And you CAN buy a property out in the woods somewhere, and produce or trade what you like, without paying taxes. So the argument seems reasonable to me. You use the collective's resources? Then the owners of those resources require you to pay a lump sum for their use. If you don't use them, or don't benefit sufficiently from them, then you don't have to pay.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At best this argument could run that it's not theft from the people who don't think it's theft but it's definitely theft from me. I do not want to pay taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]
But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective.

How is this wrong? It seems perfectly valid from a private property perspective. Just because some explicit contract isn't drawn up, doesn't mean there isn't an implicit one.

And you CAN buy a property out in the woods somewhere, and produce or trade what you like, without paying taxes. So the argument seems reasonable to me. You use the collective's resources? Then the owners of those resources require you to pay a lump sum for their use. If you don't use them, or don't benefit sufficiently from them, then you don't have to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me the individual who owns the public roads and I'll negotiate with him. The idea of implicit contracts is obviously completely bogus. You and I have an implicit contract which says I can take all your money as payment for my time spent talking with you. I should be paid for my time right? You're not a slaver are you? Anyway it doesn't matter because you've already used lots of my time already and you know that people get paid for their time so don't try and feign ignorance. I'll take money on stars if it'll make things easier for you cos I'm a nice guy like that.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

Taxation is theft. But is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor justified? Thats your choice to make. Either way one has to acknowledge its theft.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Show me the individual who owns the public roads and I'll negotiate with him.

[/ QUOTE ]
So only individual ownership is valid? That doesn't sound like it fits with many of the structures in AC land.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of implicit contracts is obviously completely bogus

[/ QUOTE ]
Implicit is not the same as making contracts up.

And the point that's often missed is in AC, there are almost exactly the same implicit restrictions. Any baby born into the world is forced to accept the property claims of those who came before him, whether he knows and agrees with them or not, and whether or not they were valid when first made. He has no "opt out" clause. He has no choice. He must follow them, at the point of a gun, held by AC booted thugs (or their children).

At least in a world with public goods, public areas (including private property like supermarkets) are protected by government mandated laws, so he can live a life and travel around without having to pay the whims and costs and profits of whoever "owns" the land.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

I think this might be a good example of an area where language muddys the debate a bit.


A somewhat analogous situation occurs with the term murder. When people say "capital punishment is murder" or "abortion is murder," they, intentionally or unintentionally, used a loaded term.

For the most part, "murder is bad" isnt really a debated statement. So, if one says that capital punishment is murder, and everyone agrees that murder is bad, they have defined the terms such that it leads to the conclusion "capital punishment is bad."

The situations continue to be analogous, in that, technically speaking, capital punishement is not murder for the same reason taxation is not theft: murder and theft are illegal. However, on philosophical grounds, both share the properties of the acts that are generally considered requirements for the label.

The finaly similarity between the two, comes when we realize that what exactly we should call them is far less interesting than whether or not the act should be permitted.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]

And the point that's often missed is in AC, there are almost exactly the same implicit restrictions. Any baby born into the world is forced to accept the property claims of those who came before him, whether he knows and agrees with them or not, and whether or not they were valid when first made. He has no "opt out" clause. He has no choice. He must follow them, at the point of a gun, held by AC booted thugs (or their children).


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently. No child is ever born owning any property other than their own body. Yet miraculously most people (in places where governments aren't too overbearing) seem to do ok for themselves. As I said on this topic before all humans are born owning the most important and valuable piece of real estate they'll ever own the space between their ears.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, intent matters to me. And I think it does for everyone. There's a reason most people see murder as worse than manslaughter.

Take two scenarios:

Scenario A is a person who murdered someone intentionally. It was a specific target and for whatever reason you know there is a ~100% chance he will never be a threat to society. Play along with my hypothetical.

Scenario B is manslaughter when someone made a mistake driving (or whatever).

Logistically, it seems these things are exactly the same. He killed someone in some freak occurrence and it will never happen again. Personally, I still think much more lowly of person A, and would agree with harsher punishment for him. Because the intent matters to me.

About person B, I might think "Jeez dude, be careful when you drive, that's horrible." But it's still entirely possible he is a decent person who just made a mistake or has poor judgment when he drives. With scenario A, I can be much more sure that this is a bad person. Someone who is capable of intentionally killing is someone I think more lowly of, even if person B poses slightly more of a threat to society.

Most people who support taxes don't, I don't think, see taxation as theft, even if you can argue why they intellectually should see it that way. So until they do see it that way, I think of them as more misguided than evil. So when you throw around the "theft" word, it's like charging them with murder when really it was just manslaughter. It's not a fair moral judgment.

Why does this matter to me? Because it's polarizing, unfair, and counter-intuitive to helping them see the light.

I say this not because I want to argue against libertarianism or because I disagree that objectively taxation is theft, but because I think we can make more progress if we work on our approach. Socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different.

[/ QUOTE ]


What happens when I 'tax' somebody? How would you feel.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently. No child is ever born owning any property other than their own body. Yet miraculously most people (in places where governments aren't too overbearing) seem to do ok for themselves. As I said on this topic before all humans are born owning the most important and valuable piece of real estate they'll ever own the space between their ears.

[/ QUOTE ]


Evidence that people are doing OK doesnt refute that the claim that they are/would be forced to live by contractual obligations they dont agree to

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The observation that, where only property rights exist and only a subset of the population owns real estate, that there are two classes of people is not a "fallacy". Concern that this is a fatal flaw of anarchocapitalist theory may be a fallacy, as described by your observations.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The observation that, where only property rights exist and only a subset of the population owns real estate, that there are two classes of people is not a "fallacy". Concern that this is a fatal flaw of anarchocapitalist theory may be a fallacy, as described by your observations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any baby born into the world is forced to accept the property claims of those who came before him, whether he knows and agrees with them or not, and whether or not they were valid when first made. He has no "opt out" clause. He has no choice. He must follow them, at the point of a gun, held by AC booted thugs (or their children).

[/ QUOTE ]

Being denied others' property != being stripped of your own property. You cannot opt out of others' rights.

[ QUOTE ]
At least in a world with public goods, public areas (including private property like supermarkets) are protected by government mandated laws, so he can live a life and travel around without having to pay the whims and costs and profits of whoever "owns" the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is to stop the government forcing him to pay its whims and costs and profits?

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Being denied others' property != being stripped of your own property. You cannot opt out of others' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

The objection is not that those without land (specifically land - this issue strikes directly to the heart of the objection to territorial monopoly) are having something taken away from them. Rather, they form a second class of humans: those that require the permission of others to exist. Without the permission of others, they have no right to be on anyone's property, ergo they have no right to be without the permission of others. Enforcing strict property rights doesn't directly take any property from them, but simultaneously invalidates their right to self ownership.

Whether this is a practical issue or not is a separate (and I think less interesting issue).

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, intent matters to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. That's why I feel perfectly happy taking whatever I want -- my intent is always a righteous wealth redistribution program (I redistribute from "you" to "me").

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rather, they form a second class of humans: those that require the permission of others to exist. Without the permission of others, they have no right to be on anyone's property, ergo they have no right to be without the permission of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different if government owns the property?

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]

But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective.



[/ QUOTE ]

How did "the majority" come to own these things? Better not say taxes!

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

OP: I agree the manslaughter analogy is not a good one. Supporting taxes without thinking about the people's rights whom you're taxing is no accident. I do agree that intent matters and someone who believes his taxing you is in your own best interest may be less morally culpable. However I think it was Thoreau who said the people who oppress you "for your own good" are the worst kind of all because they do it with a clear conscience. The road to Hell and all.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather, they form a second class of humans: those that require the permission of others to exist. Without the permission of others, they have no right to be on anyone's property, ergo they have no right to be without the permission of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different if government owns the property?

[/ QUOTE ]

vnh.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
The objection is not that those without land (specifically land - this issue strikes directly to the heart of the objection to territorial monopoly) are having something taken away from them. Rather, they form a second class of humans: those that require the permission of others to exist. Without the permission of others, they have no right to be on anyone's property, ergo they have no right to be without the permission of others. Enforcing strict property rights doesn't directly take any property from them, but simultaneously invalidates their right to self ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ALIO (all land is owned) problem. I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline.

To the OP, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your intentions might be a mitigating factor, but they don't excuse your actions.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective.



[/ QUOTE ]

How did "the majority" come to own these things? Better not say taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]
In the US: they were there first, and used the land first in the AC definition. The people that were there first agreed amongst themselves to establish a company with a system of shared land, with control of that land vested in directors, who are voted for every few years by shareholders of the company.

So the government ownership of most land is very valid under your AC rules, as valid as the claims of any private individual.

BTW, the company with shareholders, directors and voting is what we call the US government. Private enterprise FTW.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting building up? Because I'm fairly sure it suffers the same problem (given that I would still need the current owner's permission)

or, am I missing the point?

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective.



[/ QUOTE ]

How did "the majority" come to own these things? Better not say taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]
In the US: they were there first, and used the land first in the AC definition. The people that were there first agreed amongst themselves to establish a company with a system of shared land, with control of that land vested in directors, who are voted for every few years by shareholders of the company.

So the government ownership of most land is very valid under your AC rules, as valid as the claims of any private individual.

BTW, the company with shareholders, directors and voting is what we call the US government. Private enterprise FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

BS. Where did the newly formed US government (with support and consent of possibly (not likely though) more than 50% of the population but certainly less than 100) get the right to levy taxes on everyone?

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Low level "useful idiot" socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
BS. Where did the newly formed US government (with support and consent of possibly (not likely though) more than 50% of the population but certainly less than 100) get the right to levy taxes on everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

well not all taxes are theft I don't think. like the gas tax, if all that money is used for roads, cannot be considered theft since the gas buyer auto driver reaps the benefits of the tax, eg, there's somewhat of a cause effect relationship.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, intent matters to me. And I think it does for everyone. There's a reason most people see murder as worse than manslaughter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

But anyway, when I rob a bank, and send the money to starving kids in africa, it's OK?

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Low level "useful idiot" socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong. Very Strong.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]

But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective

[/ QUOTE ]

It is still clearly bogus sine the rules for how the whole system is set up were laid down by a decisive NON majority by guys who died up to two hundred years ago.

The availability and use of (for political purposes) things like gerrymandering demonstrates how the majority are not in a position to exercise their "ownership".

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The observation that, where only property rights exist and only a subset of the population owns real estate, that there are two classes of people is not a "fallacy". Concern that this is a fatal flaw of anarchocapitalist theory may be a fallacy, as described by your observations.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the majority own public spaces then any minority suddenly become that same lower class who lives at the whim of the majority.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if someone thinks one is OK and the other isn't, it's mostly because they haven't thought everything through intellectually and just take certain things for granted. It shouldn't necessarily imply that they agree taking things that belong to someone else is generally OK. So personally I don't think it's really fair or useful to call them "thieves." It's just sensational. You can feel free to carry on though if you must.

[ QUOTE ]
But anyway, when I rob a bank, and send the money to starving kids in africa, it's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that led you to jump to this conclusion?

If you robbed a bank and sent the money to Africa, I'd think you're awfully eccentric. But that's different than a systematic corruption because the system becomes the norm, and is a partly a function of lack of intent rather than actual planned intent (which is why I compared it to murder/manslaugher... your bank robbing/send to Africa example doesn't seem to have much to do with what I'm saying).

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if someone thinks one is OK and the other isn't, it's mostly because they haven't thought everything through intellectually and just take certain things for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They're both bad. So you recant your OP?

[ QUOTE ]
It shouldn't necessarily imply that they agree taking things that belong to someone else is generally OK. So personally I don't think it's really fair or useful to call them "thieves." It's just sensational. You can feel free to carry on though if you must.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree it's bad, it's stealing, you just don't want to call it that?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But anyway, when I rob a bank, and send the money to starving kids in africa, it's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that led you to jump to this conclusion?

If you robbed a bank and sent the money to Africa, I'd think you're awfully eccentric. But that's different than a systematic corruption because the system becomes the norm, and is a partly a function of lack of intent rather than actual planned intent (which is why I compared it to murder/manslaugher... your bank robbing/send to Africa example doesn't seem to have much to do with what I'm saying).

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the fact that's it's *systematic*, not the intent that convinces you that taxation is OK? I'm getting more and more confused. You're all over the map.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting building up? Because I'm fairly sure it suffers the same problem (given that I would still need the current owner's permission)

[/ QUOTE ]
Not after you've bought it from the owner.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if someone thinks one is OK and the other isn't, it's mostly because they haven't thought everything through intellectually and just take certain things for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They're both bad. So you recant your OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? My OP even specifically said "I say this not because I disagree that objectively taxation is theft." I guess that can be read two ways, but what I mean is I do agree that taxation is objectively the same as theft. I also said I consider people who support taxes to be "misguided." But that isn't my point. My point is it doesn't matter if you or I agree it is the same; if the other people see some moral difference, then referring to them as something they don't agree they are is rude.

I guess the big difference here is that if I think something is red, and I'm 100% sure it's read, but others say it is blue, then to me it's blue (or I guess some shade of purple, depending how many others we're dealing with). To you, it's still red. Not that there's anything wrong with your idea, but this is a basic difference that will force us to disagree here.

I just don't see much good coming from such a loaded word. Unless I guess your point is just to win semantical arguments on the internet.

I didn't realize I even said anything that controversial. All I'm really saying is that I don't think of people who support taxes in the same vein as, say, someone who robs a bank. And, to me, the way people interpret a word matters more than the way I might wish they interpreted it. So I don't feel right calling them that.


[ QUOTE ]
So it's the fact that's it's *systematic*, not the intent that convinces you that taxation is OK? I'm getting more and more confused. You're all over the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being ridiculous. You dream up some analogy that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about, then when I try to clarify you turn this into some semantical debate about my word choice? The "*systematic*" thing was not that big of a deal. All I'm really saying, again, is that people who support taxes are probably otherwise good people who support taxes because some sort of government seems entirely necessary. So supporting taxes isn't a conscious decision to take someone else's stuff (and thus not a great implication of their overall character) as much as it is a belief that "government has to function". So calling them "thieves," which in a casual context implies more than just someone who holds different axioms for the mandate of government, does not seem fair to me.

You can say that people *should* broaden their interpretation of the word "thief" to include the crimes such as supporting taxes, but that's basically saying people *should* realize that government is an unjustified institution, or in other words that you're right. Glossing every argument with a word that basically implies "I'm right" does not seem cool to me. Until people *do* interpret the word to mean what you (we) want it to mean, my personal belief is that it doesn't seem right to call them that.

You can continue to throw your semantical darts all day to try to convolute the issue. But my point is pretty basic. You don't have to accept it, but the disagreement here lies in basic assumptions, and does not hinge on my word choice in some reply to a faulty analogy.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting building up? Because I'm fairly sure it suffers the same problem (given that I would still need the current owner's permission)

[/ QUOTE ]
Not after you've bought it from the owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure you understand the nature of the objection.

The issue at hand isnt so much that we need to make new land (if it were, it would be easy to point out that the state cant claim to solve the problem any better than an AC world).


The issue is that, once all property is owned, there is no way the next person can live without permission of others. The fact this person can, perhaps, build new land WITH THE PERMISSION OF OTHERS, doesnt solve the problem.


Its not so much a practical problem as it is a philosophical problem; though, Id say its very weak, since the state solves the issue only slightly slightly better, if at all.


EDIT: just to note, I dont agree with the claim, and I might even be wrong about the interpretation. This was just what I thought the point was.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

I understand the the objection, but the "once all land is owned" assumption neglects that more "land" can be created vertically in areas where land is "scarce" and that the incentives to create this "land" increase the more crowded the world gets.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the the objection, but the "once all land is owned" assumption neglects that more "land" can be created vertically in areas where land is "scarce" and that the incentives to create this "land" increase the more crowded the world gets.

[/ QUOTE ]


dude, the objection is based on the idea that at some point, a person will be unable to exist without the permission of others. You cant provide a solution that REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF OTHERS, even if there is reason to believe there would be incentives for them to act in a certain way.


I mean, just say "state doesnt solve either" and this is put to rest. But the idea of building up doesnt attack the actual problem.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the the objection, but the "once all land is owned" assumption neglects that more "land" can be created vertically in areas where land is "scarce" and that the incentives to create this "land" increase the more crowded the world gets.

[/ QUOTE ]


dude, the objection is based on the idea that at some point, a person will be unable to exist without the permission of others. You cant provide a solution that REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF OTHERS, even if there is reason to believe there would be incentives for them to act in a certain way.


I mean, just say "state doesnt solve either" and this is put to rest. But the idea of building up doesnt attack the actual problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing can solve this problem, its the same with everything. All resources are scarce.

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

No reason to read this thread. Taxation isn't theft because there is value received for the taxes paid. Are country club dues theft, even though you only use the pool and not the golf course?

Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
 

[ QUOTE ]
No reason to read this thread. Taxation isn't theft because there is value received for the taxes paid. Are country club dues theft, even though you only use the pool and not the golf course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cue $100 hotdog analogy.