GWB took that money from us, under the threat of force..
Rather frequently, on internet, radio, etc; we hear taxes described as if they were a form of theft. Things like this:
Now if this were an anarchist website, that would be perfectly understandable. But almost all of us here prefer to have some form of government, and the slogan of our Patriot forefathers was not "No taxation," but "No taxation without representation." So what's up with this? To say taxes are too high, and are wasted on too much nanny-state garbage is one thing. To say that taxes are theft is, well, I don't know what that is. ???
Anarchy is commonly accepted to be bad.
It cannot be ignored that federal income taxes are taken under the threat of force. If you do not pay taxes, you will have force used against you. Federal agents with guns will come and arrest you. Our money is taken from us, and then given to another. How is that not theft? We're not talking about taxation to run a government.
We have no power to opt out of the garbage they spend our money on.
Yeah, but has anyone ever really seen anarchy ???
I think it is about as rare as Bigfoot and test tube fusion.
In the fraction of an instant that there might be anarchy, people will start getting together and devising some sort of "government" - even if it is just a clan or neighborhood watch or vigilantes.
Because the people they're taxing appointed them to office
So you don't accept that our leaders and representatives are chosen by majority vote (or a modified form of that, in the President's case)? What form of government would you prefer? Monarchy? Medieval feudalism? None at all?
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
So you don't accept that our leaders and representatives are chosen by majority vote (or a modified form of that, in the President's case)? What form of government would you prefer? Monarchy? Medieval feudalism? None at all?I would prefer to have a constitutional republic where the rules are laid out and we only have majority rule on a small set of issues and a super majority is necessary for major changes.
what do you suggest?
sounds a might complicated.
So it would be acceptable to set up concentration camps and persecute a certain group of people, as long as it was the majority vote?Now you are equating taxation with concentration camps. Still, how do we decide that concentrations camps are legal or illegal, aside from a majority vote? Or how do we establish courts to declare them illegal, without a majority vote? Or how do we establish a constitutional republic with a bill of rights and a court system without a majority (or super-majority) vote? Or at least a vote by a majority of citizens of nine of the thirteen states, etc?
While it's falsely attributed to Ben Franklin, it's still sensible:Then how is your ideal tax system to be implemented? By a well-armed lamb telling everyone how much tax they will pay? How is that not theft? ;/QuoteDemocracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.Just because "everyone says so" doesn't make it okay.
Then how is your ideal tax system to be implemented? By a well-armed lamb telling everyone how much tax they will pay? How is that not theft? ;/
"Taxes" aren't theft.
"Taxes as one large lump sum with no itemization and no means to choose not to consume services as economic protest" is theft.
what do you suggest?
sounds a might complicated. has anything like that ever been done? on any scale? even corporate?
How about if the fed.gov assessed each state for a fraction of the national budget, probably based on population?
Then it would be up to each state to figure out how to raise the money. And all tax collections would be "local" and the citizens would have more control on how it was done.
To what extent we need taxation - which is theft - I would prefer to have the process of taxation limited by the usual instruments of a Constitutional Republic, like makattak outlined.
I would prefer a straight flat tax on income, regardless of what your income level is.
How about if the fed.gov assessed each state for a fraction of the national budget, probably based on population?
Population alone is a poor measure; one of the few legitimate purposes of Federal government spending is national defense, which is not particularly dependent on population. As an example, compare Alaska and Vermont: they have similar populations, but the resources required to defend Vermont would be crushed quickly if spread over the whole of Alaska.
Population alone is a poor measure; one of the few legitimate purposes of Federal government spending is national defense, which is not particularly dependent on population. As an example, compare Alaska and Vermont: they have similar populations, but the resources required to defend Vermont would be crushed quickly if spread over the whole of Alaska.
Or compare Wyoming ... can you imagine how many troops and forts are required to hold back an invasion of mongol hordes ...? ;/
Is there any way to do it nonviolently?