I find the idea of people dressing up simple theft as something other than it is, and in the ill-fitting trappings of a global social good, despite the fact that the institutions being financed by this form of theft were the largest non natural cause of death in the preceding century truly objectionable, too.
Letalone moving onto a particularly egregious sort of theft involved in modern taxation rackets where the burden approaches three quarters of the total earnings of any given individual. If you're cool with this how about I extort you for 75% of your income and then use it to finance a private mercenary company that runs around the globe destroying lives and property for ill-defined "geopolitical objectives"?
But I guess "I find x truly objectionable" is somewhat of a content free statement, unless we're just trying to farm moral outrage from our respective in-groups.
Taxation is obviously not theft, any more than charging for goods is. "75% of your income" is a very different thing than "75% of your income beyond a certain figure"; I have no problem with basic levels of income being absolutely tax-free. I don't agree with many actions undertaken by my government, including launching illegal wars which I have protested on the street against. That doesn't mean I don't think everyone is entitled to a certain level of wellbeing, paid for by the general economy.
After taxation, what is your actual income? Is it not enough?
>Taxation is obviously not theft, any more than charging for goods is.
Pretty sure when you force or coerce someone to buy something they do not want, it is illegal and immoral. And if the value of the item is significantly less than the price paid, it is theft in all but the most pedantic ways.
> Taxation is obviously not theft, any more than charging for goods is.
The difference between charging for goods and services vs taxation is that you are unable to choose not to patronise the state. A mugger charging you 75% of your income for the privilege of leaving his dark alley with your throat unslit is providing the same choice to you as the state is with regards to taxation. You are not free to refuse to be a customer of the state, any more than you are free to refuse to be a customer of said mugger.
The only factual mathematically definable difference between theft and taxation is that taxation is legal, and hey presto, it's the agency that writes the laws which defines this difference. Nice trick if you can find idiots naive enough to fall for it, and they are fortunately not in short supply.
If taxation is not theft, then the holocaust, or any killing by any state in all of history, is by definition not murder, because the difference between the murder and state sanctioned killing is the same as the difference between theft and taxation, one is technically illegal, and that is all.
> 75% of your income" is a very different thing than "75% of your income beyond a certain figure"
It is indeed, and you appear to not have grasped what OP actually says, so let's put it here so you can reconsider your position;
>> I am paying 65% (that is right) of my income to the sate (sic) right now
Not "I touch the 65% tax bracket at the top of the progressive income tax schedule which the state I am resident in has declared", but "I am paying 65% (that is right) of my income" period.
So yes, it is nearly three quarters of this person's income, being taken against their will, to support an institution which is not just incompetent, but actually hugely, enormously viciously destructive and damaging to the world at large, to the extent that it is the largest non natural cause of death in the preceding century.
> I don't agree with many actions undertaken by my government, including launching illegal wars which I have protested on the street against.
And worse yet, you actually know just how terrible the actions of the state are, to the extent that you have taken to the street protesting it, and yet you still feel the need to speak up in a public forum about how the idea that these parasites forcibly rob people of nearly three quarters of their earnings makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside?
Think long and hard about this.
> That doesn't mean I don't think everyone is entitled to a certain level of wellbeing, paid for by the general economy.
Even if you granted that "everyone is entitled to a certain level of wellbeing" (and frankly, that's an enormous can of worms right there that I'm not even going to dip a toe into at this point in time) that is an end, not a means. Conflating the end of social welfare with the means of theft does not necessarily follow at all.
> After taxation, what is your actual income? Is it not enough?
After theft, without theft avoidance, my income is about 25% of the original also. Could I do more and live a better life with the other 75% that is instead being stolen from me to finance demonstrably ineffective local social programs coupled with heinously disgusting foreign policy objectives? Is that what you mean by "Is it not enough?" Because if so, no, it's not enough.
Frankly, I'd give up almost all of the rest of it to avoid having given any of it to those parasites to begin with, and this is a constant drain on my motivation for economic activity in general, knowing how much of my earnings will go to finance activities that make me violently ill if I think too hard about them.
I will comment on the Holocaust analogy say that yes, it was technically legal in the German state since it was sanctioned by the State. That does not mean it was right. The German state was misusing its authority, being hijacked by a dictator and his deranged coterie of supporters.
There has to be some arbitrator of Justice, to settle disputes and create laws and we decided to create institutions to do just that. These institutions are not perfect, and sometimes they may be hijacked. Like Hitler and the German state, or Stalin and the Soviet Union. These institutions are by no means perfect or efficient but there is a need for their existence.
> will comment on the Holocaust analogy say that yes, it was technically legal in the German state since it was sanctioned by the State. That does not mean it was right.
Quite, that was not my implication, you seem to have assumed that my equating the refusal to label taxation as theft with the refusal to label state sanctioned killing as murder means that I am in favour somehow of state sanctioned killing.
The opposite is in fact true, my equating the two is to show that I strongly disapprove of both, and view objecting to the characterisation of either as theft and murder respectively based purely upon legal sophistry as fundamentally useless hair splitting which does not change the nature of the subject under discussion one iota.
> There has to be some arbitrator of Justice, to settle disputes and create laws and we decided to create institutions to do just that.
Dispute resolution and law are certainly things for which there is a demand, I do not grant that the only means by which these things may be provided is via the modern westphalian nation state.
> These institutions are by no means perfect or efficient but there is a need for their existence.
Well, we certainly agree that they are enormously imperfect and inefficient, however on the second one we part ways, so I'll let you make your case; why is there a need for their existence? What is one good or service which the provision of has proven utterly intractable outside the infrastructure of a forcibly imposed land monopolising human farming modern westphalian nation state wielding political authority as defined in Michael Huemer's book on the subject, The problem of political authority?
> The difference between charging for goods and services vs taxation is that you are unable to choose not to patronise the state.
I agree with you on this for persons, that membership in the state should be voluntary and accessible. Currently people are forced into state membership and discriminated against when they seek alternative state memberships based on birthplace, parents, and other factors which would typically be considered bigotry.
However, this argument breaks down entirely when applied to corporations. Corporations do have voluntary membership in states; nobody is obligating a corporation to make use of the services of any state. Beyond a certain size, corporations basically have complete freedom to operate within whatever states they choose, making use of the services of that state. And when you consider that the vast majority of income for the rich comes from such corporations, and furthermore that one of the easiest ways to change which state(s) you are a member of is to operate through a corporation, the separation between corporations and rich individuals becomes unimportant. Maybe you are unable to choose not to patronize the state, but the very rich are not so limited. If anything this is a very strong argument for progressive taxation: the rich are patronizing the state more by choice than the poor and therefore it's fairer to charge them more taxes.
> So yes, it is nearly three quarters of this person's income, being taken against their will, to support an institution which is not just incompetent, but actually hugely, enormously viciously destructive and damaging to the world at large, to the extent that it is the largest non natural cause of death in the preceding century.
This would be a more persuasive argument if the governments to which this money was going were not run by the same people who are evading the taxes. Most, if not all, of the wars in the last 50 years have been caused by corporate interests. The difference between government and corporations is that at least in representative democracies, the governments must make enough pretense of doing good to keep getting elected (with plenty of help from corporate funding and other forms of corruption). Tax avoidance means that less money must go through this pretense; it's easier to justify spending less money on schools when the government has less money.
> Frankly, I'd give up almost all of the rest of it to avoid having given any of it to those parasites to begin with, and this is a constant drain on my motivation for economic activity in general, knowing how much of my earnings will go to finance activities that make me violently ill if I think too hard about them.
Okay, so why don't you act on your beliefs instead of stating them ineffectually? I doubt many people are enforcing the citizenship or taxation laws of Somalia right now. You can probably opt out of patronizing a state by moving there. If you really think that being forced to patronize a state whose actions you don't agree with is unfair to you, there are ways to stop patronizing states.
Not paying taxes is leaching. Tax dollars pay for the infrastructure that holds society together. If it wasn't for tax dollars, the society in which you derive your income wouldn't exist.
You are provided access under the condition that you put your fair share in when you profit from what is provided. We have a democratic process to determine who can and at what rate they should contribute back.
What right do you have to steal but not give back?
If you feel so strongly in regard to your opinions about tax, why haven't you left society to rely on your bootstraps alone?
Not paying at all and expecting society to still support me, yes that is leaching. But thinking I shouldn't be forced to pay to blow up innocent children or to subsidize the break down of traditional families... how is that leaching.
> But thinking I shouldn't be forced to pay to blow up innocent children or to subsidize the break down of traditional families...
We live in a republic, show your disapproval of these policies to your representatives. There are people with similar opinions, I am one of them, and hopefully the change will gain momentum.
> how is that leaching.
The same arguments are piggy-backed upon by people who are morally opposed to all taxes. Hijacking issues that many people are opposed to, such as funding unpopular wars, is a convenient way of promoting an ideology.
> Not paying taxes is leaching. Tax dollars pay for the infrastructure that holds society together. If it wasn't for tax dollars, the society in which you derive your income wouldn't exist.
This chain of reason justifies North Korean concentration camps. You are simply throwing out a bunch of justifications for terrible things because you state that the things which those terrible things encase are the infrastructure that holds society together, and grant no possible conceivable alternative for how that infrastructure may be provided, when in fact you simply neglect to acknowledge there is no infrastructure that exists at all that has not been provided with organisational structures outside the modern nation state, period.
> What right do you have to take from us but not give back?
What right do you have to take from us, the people who do not wish to be subject to your theft, and not give back? I want nothing from the state except its utter annihilation. By choice, I take nothing from the state, and never will.
That line of hyperbole also justifies ignoring any value or good the state can and has provided.
If that infrastructure can be provided without the state, why hasn't it?
You are positing a hypothetical system that exists without taxes against a real, concrete system that exists and you take part in everyday. That system right now is dependant on taxes and you're throwing it out for a nebulous ideal world that is stateless and exists only in your head.
> I want nothing from the state except its utter annihilation. By choice, I take nothing from the state, and never will.
Do you drive on public roads? Enjoy protection from crime by the police? Enter buildings and eat at establishments that are inspected for your safety? Ever have to use the state to uphold a private contract? Have you used a telephone, cellular or landline?
Do you use the internet?
How can you realistically say you take nothing from the state and never will?
If you are as serious as your rhetoric, there are virtually stateless places in the world where you can actually live out your dream of taking nothing from the state. Areas of Somalia are among them.
You can reasonably argue that the government is involved in issues that are not free rider problems, but I've never heard a reasonable alternative solution to the necessary problems that government does address. Do you have one to contribute?
Letalone moving onto a particularly egregious sort of theft involved in modern taxation rackets where the burden approaches three quarters of the total earnings of any given individual. If you're cool with this how about I extort you for 75% of your income and then use it to finance a private mercenary company that runs around the globe destroying lives and property for ill-defined "geopolitical objectives"?
But I guess "I find x truly objectionable" is somewhat of a content free statement, unless we're just trying to farm moral outrage from our respective in-groups.