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.

Jacob, your argument breaks down on a false premise. Everyone pays their taxes with consent. People even sit down and work out with sweat and toil how much taxes they ought to pay.

Your conclusion is false because your premise is false.

-------------------

There are more criteria to theft than what you wrote.

1:All cases of taking someone's money without their consent is theft. — Jacob

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.

Yes, transferance of wealth from the people to preserve the wealth of the super-rich as been the objective of all types of governments since ancient times.

Normally it is tolerated as a matter of life but at times, such as today's world, it has reached such extremes that it is creating a huge amount of social unrest as wealth inequity had reached extreme conditions last seen during the period before the Great Depression. The consequences if this "theft" is unclear, but it had never ended well in the past.

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.

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.

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.

To pay taxes, or to do anything, with consent, does not mean that you do it without grudge, resentment or loathing. A hooker may have sex with many men in one day, and she does give consent, but she is not happily doing this; she wishes all men to hell, and all she wants is her customary drug fix.

There is a wide range of things we consent to. Are we studying in school because we consented to it?

Or how many of you Americans on this site voted FOR the constitution of the United States?

I agree with the argument of WISDOPOMOFO that there is no prior consent to pay taxes. But there is consent, due to coercion.

So if the OP hadn't likened taxes to theft, but to highway robbery in a sophisticated delivery, then I would have agreed with the proposition.

But before we are quick to jump on that bandwagon, we have to decide: is consent under coercion still consent? In law sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Signing a contract under undue pressure renders the contract invalid. But murdering someone with the knowledge that one gets punished for it also deters the person. A consent to obey the law is legal. And the law is upheld with a huge amount of coercion.

Is paying taxes a part of law that is bullying (like signing a contract in fear of punishment) or is it a social and societal pacifier (like paying taxes just like not committing murder to avoid punishment)?

Some equate the laws that coincide with human morality, such as "thou shalt not kill" and "murder is punishable with up to 20 years in prison with no parole" just laws, and laws that are not part of natural human morality "unjust laws", such as having to drink a little amount of piss of the queen of England on audiences with her, otherwise the audience is not granted. (This law is not in existence. Yet.)

Both need coercion. Both are practiced by almost all members of society. Both have not been consented to as in an actively executed bilateral original agreement.

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

Yes, this argument has been made a number of times here and on the other PF. In reality, the "voluntary" tax honor system we have is not all that voluntary. For one thing, most citizens need not confess that they earned this or that amount of money. The government already knows how much they earned on the job. They won't show up at your door on April 16, demanding a return. They might not show up for a year, or several years. Eventually, however, they will show up and the settlement won't be voluntary. You will be coerced to pay.

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

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?

Premise 1:All cases of taking someone's money without their consent is theft — Jacob

I doubt that many would accept this premise.

What about fines for breaking the law such as dangerous driving?

What about using the money of somebody in a coma to pay for an experimental treatment to try to heal them, or even just to provide for their children?

What about court awards for damages?

More than just lack of consent is needed to make the premise plausible. But I suspect that 'more' will unravel the whole argument.

In reality, the "voluntary" tax honor system we have is not all that voluntary. — Bitter Crank

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?

Now, this is a "should" or "ought to" question which I am too small to answer.

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

Isn't that a rather strange interpretation of "voluntary?"

Our system only nominally works on the honor system, is only nominally voluntary, and for large corporations, is subject to various methods of screwing around with the tax code such that a lot of corporations can avoid income taxes altogether.

Are not taxes a reasonable price for not having anarchy or living in a failed state?

A "mild form of robbery" as Mill put it.

Therefore, taxation is theft. — Jacob

Well yes, I agree. I don't "willingly" pay my taxes.

Property is theft. To claim possession of some part of the world is to seek to deprive others of it. Therefore taxation is partial restitution.

Property is theft. — unenlightened

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.

To claim possession of some part of the world is to seek to deprive others of it. — unenlightened

Yes, and rightfully so. It's MINE!

Therefore taxation is partial restitution. — unenlightened

Ah, so property isn't theft when owned by the government, I see :P

More than just lack of consent is needed to make the premise plausible. But I suspect that 'more' will unravel the whole argument. — andrewk

How should we define "theft"? On the one hand we might define it as unlawfully taking someone else's property, in which case the premise is false. On the other hand we might want to say that hunter-gatherers from thousands of years ago were quite capable of theft even without any laws governing their behaviour, in which case we might define theft just as taking someone else's property without consent, and so the premise true.

Or maybe we define "theft" as the unjust taking of someone else's property, and then argue that sometimes taking someone's property is just even if they don't consent to it, e.g. fines and taxation, and that sometimes taking someone's property is unjust even if no law forbids it.

Seems like a reasonable solution that refutes Jacob's argument.

Yes, and rightfully so. It's MINE! — Agustino

No it isn't. the whole world rightfully belongs to me. Jesus left it to me in his will.

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. — Agustino

Private property is theft. There. I fixed it.

Just taxation requires a moral theory of justice.

All cooperative societies have costs or expenses. How these costs and expenses are to be justly distributed over a population is the question of taxation.

Rawls "Theory of Justic" general rule:

"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."

Taxation is a moral claim on this view. The sacrifice of income (tax) is necessary for maintaining a just society that is fair to both the most successful and the least successful in a society.

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

No, I have never been a libertarian.

I simply objectively stated a self-evident fact as a reply to the assertion that residing in a place is some kind of tacit or explicit consent: very few people have much or any control over where they reside much of the time.