4 ms·
Theft does not imply the use of force. It is illegally depriving you of your property (regardless of whether force is used). However, tax you owe is not your
by MattPalmer1086 2y ago
Theft does not imply the use of force. It is illegally depriving you of your property (regardless of whether force is used).
However, tax you owe is not your property in the first place. It's the price of living in the society you benefit from. You can complain the price is too high, or go live somewhere else. But it's not theft.
- nonethewiser 2y agoForce in want sense? It's non-consensual. Just like garnishing wages, etc. >It is illegally depriving you of your property The legality of it is the main distinction but its just coincidental. Theft could be made legal or taxation could be made illegal. If that's the primary distinction then I think it just makes my point. I dont think what I'm really saying is even that controversial. The basic definition of theft is taking something from someone without their consent. I think the intuition is that I am arguing for no taxes, and that's what sounds so disagreeable, but thats not what I'm saying. The government has a monopoly on violence, theft, etc. Its just how it works. And we're better off with government than without it.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago> The basic definition of theft is taking something from someone without their consent. I can go with that. > The government has a monopoly on violence Yes, but not unconstrained or arbitrary violence (mostly, in democracies at any rate). Property rights depend on them being enforced. So while the absence of a government might mean you didn't get taxed, good luck holding on to any of your property without laws, courts and police. > And we're better off with government than without it. I think we basically agree :)