4 ms·

> If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have own

> If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership. I think this gives an interesting insight into the point of contention. It appears that one side views the money about to be taxed as their property whereas the other side views that money as something else. Is that a fair assessment? If someone views the money as their property and the act of taxation as the government seizing that property (especially if the government spends it unwisely), I can see a logical route to "taxation is theft." However, if someone views society as a group bound by a social contract with a shared responsibility to ensure nobody falls too far down the ladder lest they lose their ability to contribute to society, I can also see a logical path to "taxes are a shared responsibility for the maintenance of society." I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects.

nemothekid 4y ago
>Is that a fair assessment? Think about what you are saying when you say "my property". Owning something is not a natural law of the universe. If I go into your house and take your laptop how are you going to take it back? If I'm stronger than you, then tough shit. Or we have a war and if I win the war I take your stuff. Most people would call the police (the government) to sort it out, and the government will look at the law and decide who has rightful ownership. Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. >I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects. This is entirely different from the "taxation is theft" angle, but somehow "taxation is theft" only ever seems to apply when it's used for welfare and not for highway subsidies. It's strange that you are not "robbing peter to pay paul" when taxes are used to bomb russians. The government collects revenue and must decide on the most efficient way to spend that revenue. Many economists have hypothesized that giving money directly to people is better than social programs such as food stamps.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  > Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. That's an interesting perspective. But I can't help noticing that it runs contrary to the founding principles of many societies - namely that theft is inherently wrong and one of government's roles is to enforce property rights. The very concept of theft itself presupposes the existence of property. Ie: your rights exist outside of any government. A government's role can only serve to enforce or restrict those rights - they are not granted by government. But I can also see how a difference of opinion on this could lead people to draw very different opinions with regard to a wide variety of other matters. Putting aside the definition of what is property, if one considers money as a medium of exchange representing one's individual productivity, some might view taking someone's money without their consent as merely one-step removed from taking their time and labour without their consent.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    When you say the "one of government's roles is to enforce property rights", you do realize that you are talking about other people right? Leaving money out of it, you expect the government (another human being) to expend labour on your behalf? Would you then consider that theft of the enforcement of property rights? The idea that "taxation is theft", but simultaneously the government should defend your property rights (for free I guess?), is strange. It makes more sense to say that not paying your taxes is theft. What those taxes are can be argued in a democratic society (as opposed to a monarchy where you might not have any say), but to call it theft is just to be wholly ignorant of the social contract we have here. Furthermore, these arguments tend to be used exclusively when it comes to welfare.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  > The government collects revenue and must decide on the most efficient way to spend that revenue. That's a reasonable textbook definition. How closely one thinks this represents the reality of how government actually functions will lead to highly variable opinions about how much of the public's money the government should have access to. > Many economists have hypothesized that giving money directly to people is better than social programs such as food stamps. I agree, if we as a society believe that some level of social welfare is worthwhile, then giving money directly to the people who need it is better than the current strings-attached programs that tend towards locking people into the poverty cycle. But very seldom are these programs proposed as a replacement, they are usually offered as an additional program. This means, more taxes, more bureaucracy and more waste, not less.

nemothekid 4y ago

>Is that a fair assessment? Think about what you are saying when you say "my property". Owning something is not a natural law of the universe. If I go into your house and take your laptop how are you going to take it back? If I'm stronger than you, then tough shit. Or we have a war and if I win the war I take your stuff. Most people would call the police (the government) to sort it out, and the government will look at the law and decide who has rightful ownership. Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. >I still tend to think that government could fund all the welfare it needs if it simply stopped wasting so much money on cronyism and frivolous projects. This is entirely different from the "taxation is theft" angle, but somehow "taxation is theft" only ever seems to apply when it's used for welfare and not for highway subsidies. It's strange that you are not "robbing peter to pay paul" when taxes are used to bomb russians. The government collects revenue and must decide on the most efficient way to spend that revenue. Many economists have hypothesized that giving money directly to people is better than social programs such as food stamps.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
> Your right to property is given to you by the state and you pay your taxes for that right. Without the state, you don't have property; you are a warlord with a gun up until a stronger warlord decides to run you over. That's an interesting perspective. But I can't help noticing that it runs contrary to the founding principles of many societies - namely that theft is inherently wrong and one of government's roles is to enforce property rights. The very concept of theft itself presupposes the existence of property. Ie: your rights exist outside of any government. A government's role can only serve to enforce or restrict those rights - they are not granted by government. But I can also see how a difference of opinion on this could lead people to draw very different opinions with regard to a wide variety of other matters. Putting aside the definition of what is property, if one considers money as a medium of exchange representing one's individual productivity, some might view taking someone's money without their consent as merely one-step removed from taking their time and labour without their consent.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  When you say the "one of government's roles is to enforce property rights", you do realize that you are talking about other people right? Leaving money out of it, you expect the government (another human being) to expend labour on your behalf? Would you then consider that theft of the enforcement of property rights? The idea that "taxation is theft", but simultaneously the government should defend your property rights (for free I guess?), is strange. It makes more sense to say that not paying your taxes is theft. What those taxes are can be argued in a democratic society (as opposed to a monarchy where you might not have any say), but to call it theft is just to be wholly ignorant of the social contract we have here. Furthermore, these arguments tend to be used exclusively when it comes to welfare.
0xbadc0de5 4y ago
> The government collects revenue and must decide on the most efficient way to spend that revenue. That's a reasonable textbook definition. How closely one thinks this represents the reality of how government actually functions will lead to highly variable opinions about how much of the public's money the government should have access to. > Many economists have hypothesized that giving money directly to people is better than social programs such as food stamps. I agree, if we as a society believe that some level of social welfare is worthwhile, then giving money directly to the people who need it is better than the current strings-attached programs that tend towards locking people into the poverty cycle. But very seldom are these programs proposed as a replacement, they are usually offered as an additional program. This means, more taxes, more bureaucracy and more waste, not less.