This is also true of robbery. For theft, there is a clandestine element in the act: the thief may be fully visible, but his action is hidden from the victim. Even if taxes were paid without consent, they are not theft, because people are fully aware of paying taxes.1:All cases of taking someone's money without their consent is theft. — Jacob
Unless you live in an absolute dictatorship, you have implicitly assumed the responsibilities of citizenship, one of which is supporting the government. You have probably never voted for candidates who promised to eliminate taxes altogether, or to make taxes a purely voluntary act.
You, and everyone else in whatever nation you live in, have similarly consented to be governed by the laws of the nation.
Because you voluntarily live in a society where governments collect taxes, then no one is stealing anything from you when you pay taxes. — Bitter Crank
But some people argue that they have never consented to any act of any government and that everything, from contributing to national defense to sending one's children to school, is coerced. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
And it makes no sense to say "By living here you are consenting to the responsibilities of citizenship here". People don't choose where they are born. Governments regulate migration, so nobody is free to travel and/or reside wherever he/she wants to.
It's not realistic to categorically say that anybody tacitly or directly consents to anything by being in a particular location. Even when people have the freedom to relocate, such as within the U.S., it doesn't necessarily mean that they consent to anything by being in a location. A person located in San Francisco, CA isn't necessarily consenting to any legal responsibility under San Francisco city/county law or California law. It could be that he/she does not have the resources to move to any other location. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I doubt that many would accept this premise.Premise 1:All cases of taking someone's money without their consent is theft — Jacob
true, it is not necessarily voluntary, and in a lot of cases it is coerced. But it does not mean it is not agreed to. A person can agree, due to coercion.The question is, is agreement under coercion a nice thing of the gov to do to its citizens? Or rather, the citizens, since they are the People, do they have the right to coerce originally unwilling people to participate in building society?In reality, the "voluntary" tax honor system we have is not all that voluntary. — Bitter Crank
I agree with szardosszemagad we pay our taxes voluntarily. Income tax is based in what is called an honour system, you voluntarily declare your income and pay the tax which is due. Of course if you lie, then that's fraud and you will be punished. — Metaphysician Undercover
Said Proudhon wrongly. Without property, there can be no theft, because what's there to steal? So quite the contrary, property itself cannot be theft, but rather it is the opposite of theft.Property is theft. — unenlightened
Yes, and rightfully so. It's MINE!To claim possession of some part of the world is to seek to deprive others of it. — unenlightened
Ah, so property isn't theft when owned by the government, I see :PTherefore taxation is partial restitution. — unenlightened
More than just lack of consent is needed to make the premise plausible. But I suspect that 'more' will unravel the whole argument. — andrewk
Yes, and rightfully so. It's MINE! — Agustino
"All social primary goods-liberty and opportunity, income and
wealth, and the bases of self-respect-are to be distributed equally
unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the
advantage of the least favored."
This argument (against the implicit social contract) has also been made here and in the PF.
Those who find truthfulness in "Taxation is theft" almost certainly will not not see the truth in "Property is theft."
Personal question: Do you see yourself as a citizen of the country in which you reside and therefore are obligated to accept the social contract that applies AS IF you had formally signed it?
I see myself as a citizen by birth of the U.S., and an unofficial signee of the social contract which seems to bind citizens of a given nation together. I may even be a literal signer of an oath in which I said I would support the government of the United States and would abide by its lows. I can't remember for sure, but if I did sign the oath, signing hasn't prevented me from obeying most laws but flouting a few others, or engaging in political speech that was extremely critical of the United States Government.
Whether I like the government or not, I believe that there is an inchoate, implicit social contract which we learn about and sign on to as we are gradually socialized from childhood into responsible adulthood. It sort of works the same way that baptism does: the baptized become a part of the mystical body of Christ whether they jolly well like it or not. By staying in one jurisdiction long enough to become a resident, one becomes a signatory to the social contract--like it or not.
If this country, state, county, city, or township is the place where you live, then you are part of the social contract. (It protects you to some degree; it isn't all coercive demands.)
Are you now, or have you ever been, a libertarian? — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.