CreateDebate


Debate Info

256
269
yes no
Debate Score:525
Arguments:273
Total Votes:740
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (143)
 
 no (130)

Debate Creator

mudkipz2(358) pic



Taxation is Legalized Theft

yes

Side Score: 256
VS.

no

Side Score: 269
5 points

To a certain extent, it sure as hell can be. Yes, taxes are necessary for maintaining the state (security). But then there's an over amount of taxation that IS theft. The government seems to think that if you're alive and doing things that living people do, you must be taxed for it.

Hell, you get taxed for dying. You get taxed for buying shelter. You get taxed for buying transportation. Taxed for having a job. Taxed for buying shit. Taxed for just about anything these days.

One of the reasons why I hate the whole "legalize it and tax it" arguments. Taxing things seems to be so mainstream now a days that even stoners want their pot to be taxed.

Side: yes

The government seems to think that if you're alive and doing things that living people do, you must be taxed for it.

Ronald Reagen said, "if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Side: yes
4 points

if a man comes up to you on the streets and says give me your money. you would say no. if he comes back and with a threat, and you scared, paid him you would consider it robbery and theft. now if this man forms a group of people and call them selves the IRS and say that all people have to pay to this group or face consequences, does it still make it theft?

yes

no matter how many people steal does it make it right?

no a robber is a robber, statistics does not make right. we don't live in the world of Orwell's 1984.

it is wrong for a man or group to take you hard earnings, regardless if it s for good or not. if the gov wants to help the poor, it should set up charities, not forcefully take money form others to help them. a noble end does not justify a illegally wrong means. period.

Side: yes
YvetteL(18) Disputed
1 point

While I'm no fan of government or our government especially, this is a gross oversimplification. The final man is not simply some random person with no authority. You, the voter, have a (small) amount of control over the tax system. In exchange for all citizens paying taxes, the government provides benefits and uses it to, you know, govern. You probably vote, so I assume you want to be governed?

Is this the best system? No. But it's not theft if there is collective authorization to take the money. If you find that too terrible, I encourage you to give up every single government benefit and challenge the government on that. Good luck, if you really bother. I doubt it.

Side: No
cindy3(23) Disputed
0 points

(1984-creepy disturbing book :) ) Sure, if you look at it that way, I guess you could say theft is wrong, but I don't consider it to be theft. The government is not just using your money to help the poor, but you as well. They provide the roads you drive on, the police force you call when someone is breaking into your house, the fire department, the army to protect you, the list goes on and on. Poor or not, as a citizen, you need these things.

Side: No

Well, first, I am not a conservative libertarian aka borderline anarchist.

Therefore, some forms of taxation is legalized theft through the form of social programs such Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

However, minimal taxation is required in which law and order must be maintained through police and and protection from military.

Other public institutions must be established in order for a stable infrastructure such as access to water, electricity, plumbing and schooling.

Lastly, the most regressive form of taxation and legalized theft is inflation.

Side: yes
2 points

i don't entirely support you. that is, if water stopped coming into your house, wouldn't you pay some one to bring it back? thats the thing, make services private, this encourages competition and always for more reliable services because the company is paid by the people on their success.

but in government they don't give a damn if you get no water or to much. they tax you the same. if companies became local and sufficient for our needs, we would not need a government official 3000 miles away telling us what to do with our money. theft is theft.

if we liked taxation then it would not be called that, it would be called donation. which if the government needed, for say security i would be happy to give according to what i think i feel giving, not the standard they put on you and punish you for if you don't fallow it.

Side: yes

I grew up in a small town of 5000 people, so it was impossible to maintain a strong local public government, which means all police service was done by the county and town government really didn't have many responsible except roads.

Furthermore, water service is already private, except that non profitable.

Water utilities is considered as natural monopoly. Therefore, the water was owned by a private company but it was heavily regulated by the government either state or county.

So, yes, private ownership of the water utility was beneficial because it provided water yet at a discounted price because it was still regulated by the government.

Side: yes
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
1 point

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that everyone paid separately for all utilities including water. You may have to pay some taxes in order to get the pipes fixed or something, but you pay for the water that goes into your house.

Side: No
1 point

The prompt is in essence an oxymoron, and slightly a paradox. There is no such thing as legalized theft because theft is illegal. I guess the question is really asking whether or not taxes are good. And for that, like most things, I believe the key is moderation. (I'm not going to go into specifics.)

Side: yes
1 point

Lol @ everyone mindlessly down-voting everyone whom says "yes" (without adding any argument themselves) while up-voting everyone whom says "no" XD

Side: yes
1 point

Massive down voting on this side while massive up voting on the other side? It seems this has become a race instead of a debate.

what a fag.

Side: yes
1 point

It is basicly. When you get your paycheack you are not realy paid for the work you did because the government already took out some money and i'm not talkin alittel i mean for some people they lose alittle less then half. so wrong .that's like every month some one comes and steals your hard erned money.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes taxes is one way that the corrupt government steals from our wallets as governments continue to sink deeper into trillions of more dollars in debt!!!

Side: yes
1 point

over taxation is theft to me the government is getting billions to spend on whatever they need while the economy is struggling .we don't control our government they control us were slaves to them. Americas not free we pay everyday its better than most places but far from good

Side: yes

I like the term, "legalized theft." Yes, that would be a good description for taxation.

Side: yes

Yes, it is legalized theft. And, that is a great definition for it.

Side: yes
0 points

How... can... anyone even deny this? even from a purely definitional standpoint this is true. The mob... er "government" force you to give them your money or they will kidnap you and place you in their prisons, and if you don't let them kidnap you they will kill you.

Taking money under the threat of violence, you can call it "legal" or "moral" all you want, but even the most pro-state nut-job can see this is theft.

Side: yes
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
2 points

How... can... anyone even deny this?

Easily. Terminologically, it's paradoxical.

even from a purely definitional standpoint this is true.

Taxation is by definition not theft.

Taking money under the threat of violence, you can call it "legal" or "moral" all you want, but even the most pro-state nut-job can see this is theft.

Force or violence are actually a secondary issues, since theft can occur without either. So you're going to have to actually explain why taxation is equivalent to theft, when taxation is required of participating members of a modern society i.e. by remaining in said society, one tacitly agrees to being taxed, you are complicit in your own theft, which is equally paradoxical of the terminological problems of "legal theft".

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
2 points

but see, you agree to pay the government money, that is not taxation, it is donation. that is how our government worked before the civil war, no U.S citizen was ever taxed, but encouraged to pay denotations to support it. but now, i am a product of the government, they forcible take my money or i am put into jail for it.

and you say that being a citizen i am obliged to pay a unfair tax against my own will? Germans becoming citizens of Hitlers Germany who did not except the prosecution of Jews were praised by us, but denounced by their ruler? so were they not really German citizens then? and so on because the society says its OK, it makes it? i want to reform society and remind people. theft of earned goods is wrong.

my question is this, how can any one take my earned profits against my own free will and think its OK? if you can answer that then well, i guess I'm out of support for my argument.

Side: yes
ryuukyuzo(607) Disputed
0 points

"Easily. Terminologically, it's paradoxical."

Lolz. Why? Because it's "legalized"? I'm sure I can pull up just as many definitions of theft they say nothing of law as you can referring to law.

Besides, just because the people stealing from you call it "legal" doesn't change what they're doing. It's like the difference between murder and an execution. You can argue that one is more "moral" than the other until you're blue in the face (well, maybe not you per say) but the act is the same and I'm all for calling a spade a spade.

"Taxation is by definition not theft."

Define taxation (in your own words).

"Force or violence are actually a secondary issues, since theft can occur without either."

Note the word "threat". ;)

"So you're going to have to actually explain why taxation is equivalent to theft, when taxation is required of participating members of a modern society"

You assume taxation is needed. This is NOT true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W99ziyoUpSQ

"one tacitly agrees to being taxed, you are complicit in your own theft,"

I have a pretty good feeling that if the threat of not paying taxes went from jail time/ being murdered to nothing, a lot less people would be paying taxes.

I've yet to meet a person whom likes paying taxes and if taxes were not mandatory it would only be a few years at most until everyone stopped paying them.

I'd like to see just how much everyone agrees to taxation when there are no guns in the room ;)

Side: yes
0 points

100% true. If you don't let the government take your money, they'll just empty your bank account.

It's win-win! =D

Side: yes
2 points

I was down voted by someone without any dispute being written? o.O

Well, I suppose anonymous cowardice is the next best thing to proactively announcing ones ignorance and stupidity like an inbred walrus ardently crying its mating call...

=/

Side: yes
RDO12(3) Disputed
1 point

If you had no welfare, that would massively cause wages to drive down despite the fact that we would have to pay for loads of things we don't already, such as schools being private, roads being private etc. This would lead to massive increase in crime but no police force, and reduced people going to school would cause on the long term, literacy rates to drop and on the short term, people not being able to have qualifications, so despite being incredibly pro-rich people, it is as anti-aspiration as you can get. A decreased literacy rate and more uneducated people would lead to people only being able to offer manual labour jobs and the inability to rise up the social ladder due to decreased education opportunities would drive down wages further meaning higher cost of living, and any extra money in tax is lost through decreased wages. This again creates mass poverty, mass crime which damages businesses so even rich people would suffer financially as a result of this. This in in addition to all the public sector workers losing their jobs offering extra supply to the private sector pushing down wages further in addition to all the damage from an increased unemployment rate on the short term. No taxes would only give the illusion of more money.

It is also not legalized theft as for taxes like income, you only pay if you "voluntarily" get a job; VAT, you only pay if you "voluntarily" buy the goods; Stamp Duty, Only if you "voluntarily" buy a house; Corporationtax, no-one forced you to have a business etc

Side: no

We need to pay taxes to support infrastructure. I don't think this debate merits any more effort than I've already put into this argument, so I'll leave it at that unless you can come up with a viable alternative to pay for infrastructure.

Side: No
lawnman(1106) Disputed
2 points

Your post is irrelevant. The question of this debate is not about the costs of the infrastructure or the liability of those costs.

But according to your post, you don’t have a problem with theft as long as it benefits you and others. I also suppose your argument would be vastly different if the Christian populace used your taxable wages to pay for infrastructure which benefits them and others.

Side: yes
cindy3(23) Disputed
1 point

Duh! Its not theft if its helping everyone. Everyone contributes something so that everyone can have something. Do you like being able to drive on roads? Or having a police force to protect you? Not even just you, but your family and friends as well. So, according to you, because its helping everybody, its theft. Is that because you're not okay with helping anybody but yourself?

Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

If taxes are a payment for services (ie benefits) then it's not really theft then is it?

Side: No
mte13(1) Disputed
-1 points

Taxation is not theft genius you are paying for a service or services provided by the government. So I assume that means you believe that if I sell my car and you give me money for it that's theft right? Or if I say I will mow your lawn but I want monetary compensation obviously it's theft. Are you stupid or just an anarchist. My guess is you want everything privatized like the military and the fire department and the police force. Am I right?

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
-1 points

what is this mentality going around that we need government for every thing? if the government stops paying for police, wouldn't, we the people instead form to gather and pay for a privatized police force? thats what the west did for years during westwards manifestation. the city elected a sheriff who in return for money, protected the people.

if government stooped taking your garbage, wouldn't you, pay a private services company to take your garbage.

i think the problem here is that you people think that when i say no taxation, i mean no public services, when really on the contrary, all i want to happen is for government services to be privatized, so people have the ability to pay for it or not.

Side: yes
cindy3(23) Disputed
4 points

No, there wouldnt be people forming together to help others, because thats the mentality of the human race. Im not saying its right, but if you needed help and the only person that was able to help you also needed help, he would sure forget about you. Our country has been set up as every man for himself, and until everybody can be trusted to do the right thing, this system would not work. Youre placing too much faith in humanity.

Side: No
mte13(1) Disputed
4 points

Okay so you would rather our country be run by a giant conglomerate and the rich few rather than us the people. You would rather it be the ones with the money running things rather than us. I do agree with you on the idea of the government can be wrong and that is why we need to keep it in check because if we privatize we lose control. I will say this, socialism can be the best if done right just look at Sweden they did it amazingly.

Side: No
3 points

You still haven't explained where the money for infrastructure is going to come from.

Side: No
YvetteL(18) Disputed
1 point

Isn't this meant to be a debate and not a platform for your ranting? Get a blog.

Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
0 points

Everything you're saying has at one time been attempted and every time it has been tried it has failed. There is a reason why essential services are run by the government, so that everybody has access to the essentials regardless of ability to pay.

In regards to mob justice, well.....mob justice is an oxymoron. Many innocent people are killed by mobs, because there is no due process of law with mob justice. Say goodbye to "innocent until proven guilty" that won't exist either. There is such a thing as privatized police chief, he's called a warlord.

Side: No

and again, why do we need a government to do this? don't you think, if we needed a road we would contact a city builder to construct it for us? think people. its not that hard

Who is we? You and who else? Who has organized the collection of money (we're talking billions of dollars)? Who authorized the person who organized the collection of money to do so? What will happen when almost no one agrees to pay? The problems with your position are endless.

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
2 points

who do you think will organize the process.

us the people would pay him a fair share of money to make the road, was that difficult?

why do you believe you need some hired registered man who sits on his ass and paid to organize things(usually done poorly) to get any progress completed?

do we not wear shoes because its not government owned? no we put our own shoes on and use them.

the transition to privatizing things like police is not hard or scary, Switzerland's police are privatized and their crime rates are low. and they are paid handsomely.

Side: yes
1 point

us the people would pay him a fair share of money to make the road, was that difficult?

I know we're not supposed to attack each other, and I'm trying not to attack you, but it's quite apparent you haven't thought this through.

Since when do people do anything collectively without organization? They simply do not and cannot. Have you ever been employed? Have you ever employed others? If either is true, you must be aware of the fact that leadership is required.

You cannot be naive enough to think that it's possible for billions of dollars to be collected and transferred without a governing body.

You failed to answer a simple question as well. If it's not mandatory, what realistic expectation could you possibly have that anyone would be willing to pay for anything? It's lunacy. In your libertarian world, I simply wouldn't pay for anything. Why should I without a government in place to force compliance?

It probably wouldn't take a 5th grade study group more than a few minutes to realize how hopelessly flawed your logic is.

Side: No
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
0 points

Many municipal police departments are private, but the crime rates are still high. How do you explain that?

Comparing Switzerland to the U.S is almost impossible. The have less than 8 million people in the entire country, that's less than the city of New York.

Side: No
3 points

If private citizens did all the infrastructure themselves they would make it so that only they (the rich) people could use these facilities. They'd make it so that only they would have access things like medicare, roads, bridges etc. it would simply lead to those very small amounts of peoples getting things and very large amounts of peoples not having access to it.

In the end it would lead to totalitarianism and authoritarianism by the private citizens.

Trust me, unless you're millionaires, that means you wouldn't be allowed to walk on a well maintained road. Yes, that means YOU (libertarian foolish cunts)

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
2 points

it is amazing how retarded you are. the whole point of privatized facilities is that the people chose to pay for them to work. every instance of your argument goes back to saying that government would take over.

In the end it would lead to totalitarianism and authoritarianism by the private citizens.

um no. libertarians don't believe in government interaction period. so if a man started to impose regulations infringing on people's rights or property, he would be punished in a libertarian style. most likly banned form the area due to him trying to bring government to a non government society.

. so then if some one decided to say, hey, i own the roads and choose to put high taxes on them, then the people would build their own road or trade with an other town with out ridiculous demands. which would then, hurt the man who sent a high price on it in the first place. becouse then he would have no money to repair the road or he would be effected from no commerce.

if a soda company is charging 10 dollars for a soda, do u go. well i have to buy it. or do you look for a cheaper soda or don't drink soda at all and find a other way to quench ur thirst. its like that in a libertarian society. you have a freedom to choose ur options or to make ur own, as long as they don't intrude on other peoples ability to do the same.

Trust me, unless you're millionaires, that means you wouldn't be allowed to walk on a well maintained road. Yes, that means YOU (libertarian foolish cunts)

um no agian. the millionar would loose money and workers for his ridculous demands causing him to loose his finacial status and destoying his bussniess. if a man charges stupid prices for a service, you find some one else or find ways to have the person lower the pice for his service. in a libertarian scoiciety, its not a all or nothing set up. you have other options.

Side: yes
Kinda(1649) Disputed
0 points

Libertarians don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. If you build a house, you don't want to share it with anybody but family or w/e. If you build a road, you don't want to share it with anybody either. However it won't be just one person building all the roads up and down the country (lol). The richest people will pool their money together and build roads made of gold for themselves. They won't allow poor people access to these roads because they didn't pay for it.

A multibillion dollar company would have it so their workers lived in slum-like conditions (or enough to keep them from rioting) enough to let keep them alive so they can continue to slave away. People would throw away these 'freedoms' and 'rights' for financial stability.

Hopefully democracy intervenes and the people riot.

Side: No
lawnman(1106) Disputed
2 points

Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.

Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?

Side: yes
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
3 points

lol, so your saying that the only response to my arguments is that they say its legal (because government said so) making it not theft? if so, i agree, they have not come up with any good reasons for taxation not being theft besides things that i have shown can be done with out government help.

Side: yes
Kinda(1649) Disputed
0 points

Yeah I guess your right. For me its more about the retarded libertarian ideals rather than the debate itself.

So my stance is - taxation is NOT legalized theft.

I've got 2 arguments to this - so here's my first (not so strong)

Taxation isn't theft as the government is taking money that is being put back into society which benefits those who have paid the taxes - something theft does not entail.

Side: No
2 points

Theft is illegal taking. If the taking is legal than it's not theft.

Twisting definitions to suit idealogical positions is unproductive.

Or maybe we should we start calling pollution murder since pollution can lead to death.

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
3 points

"I think it could be shown through facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class besides congress."

Mark Twain.

Nothing is illegal to those who are above the law - namely, the lawmakers.

Side: yes
jessald(1915) Disputed
0 points

You just restated the original point. You didn't respond to my objection: that you guys are twisting words.

And many things are illegal to lawmakers. They are held accountable via a system of checks and balances. The constitution, the judicial system, and the voting public all limit what they can do.

Side: No
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
2 points

It's not ILLEGAL SEARCH if the government makes it legal (Patriot Act).

Side: yes
1 point

That's correct. Legal is not illegal.

If you want to argue that taxes are bad, argue that taxes are bad. But don't give me this wordplay shit. "If we define abortion as 'baby killing', then we can see that abortion is obviously wrong."

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
1 point

the whole point of my statement is that its political correct, which makes it logically incorrect. this type of wording is called doublethink, that is a paradox of two things that don't work but our put to gather to work. this is what government has done, legalized theft. if you have comprehended this then congrats, if not i will be expecting an other weak mustered rebuttal form you soon.

and way to to and take it to an extreme with a lame argument like well pollution can cause murder.

u people give this guy points because of a half sensed smart ass rebuttal?

Side: yes
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

the whole point of my statement is that its political correct, which makes it logically incorrect.

Which makes no sense.

this type of wording is called doublethink, that is a paradox of two things that don't work but our put to gather to work.

And a wonderful example of doublethink is conflating a legal and mutually complicit practice with an illegal, non-complicit practice, and conceiving them as the same thing. Y''know, like taxation being legalized theft.

this is what government has done, legalized theft.

Right: doublethink.

u people give this guy points because of a half sensed smart ass rebuttal?

I can give you a point if you want.

Side: No
cindy3(23) Disputed
2 points

Alright, you want a dispute? ITS NOT THEFT!!! The government is not just taking your money away from you and using it on its own interests. These services are in place to help you. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here. It's like when you're parents put some of your money away for you when you're little for college. They're not taking it away from you, they're doing something that will help you with it. And, alright, say, it is theft; its theft you agree to by living in this country. Once again, if you have a problem with it...and if not from the government, then where do we get this money from then, because not every town can afford to pay for their own services. That's why the system is in place the way it is: so everyone may receive these services. And, by the way, I didn't downpoint you just because I disagree. I disputed it. I don't know who's doing that on your side but its childish. If you're gonna downpoint me, explain why.

Side: No
2 points

govt...not is not an illigal thing......money should be there with the govt for doing things for the state.......govt will get money only from the people.....so if we want a woking govt, we are responsible for giving tax........

Side: No
2 points

No, taxation is what you are paying for roads, schools, police, fire etc...

albeit a good chunk of your taxes are being wasted, some taxation is necessary to pay for services we use everyday.

Side: No
1 point

Considering that a lot of taxes are voted for by the people and/or the money you give to the government comes back to you in one way or another, it's really just lending.

Side: No
2 points

Sorry, to burst the bubble, but under no circumstances, the people are allowed to vote taxes into law or for that matter, any kind of law. That is strictly reserved to local, state and federal government officials.

Referendums can serve as a recommendation for government leaders to act accordingly.

Side: yes
lyle91(87) Disputed
2 points

A 1 cent sales tax increase was just voted for here in Arizona in a special election.

Side: No

You can probably frame tax as paying off debt to the goverment, the goverment builds roads, schools other things which positively effect society. If the goverment is seen as a financial institution, then daily we take out a secured loan by useing its services which then needs to be payed. The only problem is the monopoly government has in some areas, which might be preferable to other options and might not. There are several ways which taxation can be framed which puts a different spin on it, I'm not sure which one i want to use.

Side: no
1 point

Quite easily, no.

Here's why:

When a criminal steals something from you, you get zero benefits from it. My garmin was recently stolen from me, do you know what I got from that? The inability to navigate. This is not a benefit.

However, when the government collects your tax money, you generally get a benefit in some form or another from it. For instance, when you are old and can no longer take good care of yourself, you might be thankful that medicare exists. When that robber decides that it's time to kill you and your family, you might suddenly think that the tax money that pays for the police sure is nice to pay.

When you drive to work in the morning, you might want to consider that the roads you drove upon were paid for by taxes, and your car is really only tolerably safe because of strict government regulations on the car industry... so, keep that in mind, too.

Taxes do a lot for you, and a lot more for big corporations. That network of interstates serves Wal-Mart to the tune of several more billion a year than it does me, so, don't even get on your flat tax bullcrap.

Now, compound all of that with the fact that the entire system of currency that you even use, and those dollars you "earn" and love so much are in fact not even "yours" to begin with. You are borrowing them for use from the government, that's why they put their own faces and monuments on them. Those dollars aren't yours, they are only representative of what you have done as perceived by others... and when the government wants you to assign some of your work-reward back to it, it has every right to demand it, since it establishes the system by which you profit.

Example:

Everyone who comes to my swimming pool and enjoys the waters and the rights to operate hotdog stands and be guarded by lifeguards must pay $3 to get in and continue enjoying said benefits. This allows me to pay my lifeguard so he can eat a hotdog every once in a while and keep my pool clean and safe. If you operate a hotdog stand on my pool grounds, I'm asking for another dollar because I have to clean up after you and let your suppliers in, as well as make a "no eating hotdogs in the pool water" rule that I have to enforce.

Since you make a lot more than the average pool denizen, you should be very happy to hand over that extra dollar.

And if you don't like it? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY POOL (AKA, go somewhere else to do your business and work).

Side: No
ryuukyuzo(607) Disputed
0 points

Well, that's an awful lot of writing for post so lacking in substance =/

From what I gather, your argument is

1. Taxation is not theft because we get stuff back from them

2. The government prints money and forces us to use their currency; therefore we owe them labor...

OK, so with 1 the problem is a lack of understanding on your part. You can steal a purse from one person and get whatever is in the purse, but if you're going to do the same to millions of people you're going to have to convince them that it's in there best interest to allow you to rob them.

Besides that, the government also now has the benefit of a coercive monopoly over all the most vital services.

The thing is, you don't need a group of small people with a vast geographical over claim to have a monopoly on police, roads, medical attention, food distribution etc. in order to have these things because if there is a large enough demand for these services that a government feels the need to enforce a violent monopoly then there is clearly a high enough demand that these things would be provided with or without such monopolies.

The reason is a simple as supply and demand, it's basic economics 101.

Now, on to number 2...

Just because the government has also forced a monopoly currency does not mean that you need; let alone OWE the government for this. You can have free-market currency and indeed there has been and still is.

What your saying here makes about as much sense as though a crazy general store owner is threatening to kill you unless you only buy what he sells and then telling your kids they should be grateful for the things the crazy general store owner does.

Sure, the store owner sells you goods and services, but then so could anyone else and in fact it's better to have other store owners because at least then you would have competition and an incentive lower prices down from the monopoly rate you would get by only having one insane store owner.

Your example proves nothing. you're talking about the free-market exchange between you (the pool owner) and everyone of whom both wants to swim and has the money to do so. This is unrelated to how government operates as you are not the only pool owner and you don't demand mandatory payment of every person living in the same country as you wheather they actually want to use your pool or not.

It's the same thing with letting other people sell hotdogs around your pool. They want to sell hotdogs, you want compensation so long as they do it on your property, but there's no coersion, you're nto forcing people to sell on your property just so you can force them to pay you. If they don't want to pay they can just open there stand a few feet off of your property but you can't do that with governments becuase they claim everything from coast to coast.

Side: yes
jkjudgex(13) Disputed
1 point

Yes, by definition, as per this debate, Taxation is not theft, it is Taxation. When you are stolen from, you do NOT get anything in return. There's a gulf of difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp for some reason.

As per your purse example, if they are ALLOWING me to take their purse, and I am providing a service in exchange for continued allowance, then I am NOT stealing their purse anymore.

As per your "crazy general store" owner example, all I can say is, "What?" ... do you actually read what you type on here?

If you don't want to pay taxes, DON'T EARN MONEY and DON'T OWN PROPERTY in this country. That's how you get out of it. Move to another country that doesn't charge taxes for anything (protip: there's not one). Or you could be homeless, or earn so little income that you can afford to rent a crappy house and pay for food and that's it, and you won't be paying taxes under current US law. Actually, other people's taxes will likely pay for quite a large portion of your food.

The US Government has never forced me to do anything. "Paying Taxes" is a CONDITIONAL CONTRACT between law abiding citizens and the government. When you pick up that piece of currency and put it into your pocket, you are acknowledging the powers that be... otherwise, LEAVE THE DOLLAR ALONE.

Again, tax avoidance:

1) Earn so little you pay no tax.

2) Move to another country.

3) Join a religious order and live life at a monastery or commune.

4) Become homeless.

You don't like those things? Everything else that exists here was built by a MAJORITY that agree that pitching in your share of the tax burden is expected, and reasonable. You don't think it's expected and reasonable? Don't use the roads we pay for, don't use the schools we pay for, etc.

Side: No
1 point

This debate seems to be more about whether anarchy is a viable system, than it is about taxation being theft.

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
1 point

mainly because the two go hand in hand. government lives off taking your property and bullshitting about how its for the greater good or some crap like that. once people wake up and decide they like their hard earned property, government will crap its pants.

Side: yes
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
0 points

Unless you can show me a time or place where sustainable anarchy has ever been better than our current system, you're forced to admit that they are right. Taxes are the sacrifice that we have to make in order to have the comfortable lifestyles that we have.

Side: No
1 point

Taxes are what support the government and keep order. It's because of taxes, you can go to the Police if you're in trouble. In the UK (which is where I live), it's because of taxes, we get free healthcare, basically free TV and benefits.

You don't want to pay taxes? Then get out of the country.

Side: No
ryuukyuzo(607) Disputed
1 point

Wow, your post is like reading out of a high-school civics textbook.

You don't NEED government to have police. Police exist in the first place because there is a demand for them. Would demand for police suddenly stop if taxation stopped tomorrow?

No, you DON'T have free health care. you pay for it with your taxes.

Leaving the country doesn't solve anything since all the other countries use taxation as well.

Side: yes
Topazxx(10) Disputed
1 point

And what exactly funds the Police? Taxes which are controlled by the government. We'll always need Police, but without taxes, they won't be able to run. If theoretically, you got rid of taxes, then the Police would have to turn into a business to be able to survive, and start charging for what they do, which I for one, don't want. Plus if it was to make it's own money, then criminal could easily make "donations" and suddenly become innocent.

Well, technically it's not free but you're not really paying for it. You pay taxes and tax go towards health care. However, in some countries you have to pay for your own health insurance or be charge a LOT of money when you need help.

True but at least you wouldn't be whining about how this government works.

Side: No
1 point

Theft is the act of taking property from someone against their permission, with the additional stipend that it must also be illegal to do so.

For example, towing the vehicle of a man who lost his license would be against his permission possibly, but is not theft because it is authorised by the state to do so.

Taxes might be against the consent or permission of the people, but it is mandated (authorised) by the state and so cannot be theft.

Side: No
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
1 point

if murder was allowed by the government would it not be murder? regardless of who allows it or enforces it it is still theft. don't think its not because government says its not.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

if murder was allowed by the government would it not be murder?

Correct. Illegal killing is murder. Killing with authorisation is assassination, self-defense, war, etc.

regardless of who allows it or enforces it it is still theft. don't think its not because government says its not.

Go back to the definition. You may as well call war murder, for example.

Side: No
1 point

No. It's taxation.

The principal function of the state is to guarantee the security of markets, without which modern economy cannot function. The state does this by enforcing all sorts of contracts through its legal system, and through the use of military and civilian force to defend personal and corporate property rights. As importantly, the state creates and maintains infrastructure required for the movement of goods and services. Even social services provided by the state are principally directed toward the creation of useful labor for production.

Taxation is a point of connection between two mutually dependent systems.

Side: No
1 point

In and of itself, no. As long as taxes are not repressive and if the public is properly represented, taxation is does not constitute theft.

Side: No
1 point

This should have been covered in high school in an economics or government class.

I guess funding public schools with stolen money is a bad idea.

Side: no
0 points

Depends, seeing as the government gives a "service" in return it's not theft. People receive services from firefighters, cops, ERs, parks, and roads in return for paying taxes.

So it's more like making people buy some shit they may or may not want.

Side: No
diomedes5(15) Disputed
1 point

Yeah....if it was just cops, firefighters, roads, the armed forces ect...that would be great. Virtually everyone wants the basic services and protections that organized government has traditionally offered. The problem arises when it ends up being billions for other countries, billions for banks and car companies, billions for social programs, billions for people that are not even citizens of our country......It's actualy more like making people buy some of the shit that they want and a whole lotta shit that they dont' want or need.

Side: yes
-1 points

This anarchy libertarian tea-party bs is getting out of control. Will you all please crawl back in your holes? I realize having a black president has rallied the racists among you, and Faux is treating you like a legitimate movement, but you are a group of idiots who if you ever had power would destroy the country.

Taxes are essential for any society. We pay taxes as part of a society, in return we get order. Theft is taking something, with nothing in return.

That one likes to cry about taxes and pretend they are some cosmic victim, does not make taxes theft.

Side: No
ryuukyuzo(607) Disputed
0 points

Hey David! I haven't seen you since you shied away from our last debate but I'm glad to see you're still trying your hand at the political stuff. ;)

"Taxes are essential for any society. We pay taxes as part of a society, in return we get order."

No, we pay taxes so we don't end up living like some sort up sentient blow up doll trapped in a room full of sexually frustrated serial rapists with a fetish for silicone.

Just because I wont shoot you in the kneecap so long as you give me $20 doesn't mean I've given you a well working leg to stand on. ;)

"Theft is taking something, with nothing in return."

Well, no corrections to make here. You clearly have the understanding on the topic of thievery as an elementary school student has on his classroom presentation of M-theory.

A government cannot stand on force alone. It needs the majority of the people living in the area it claims to believe in its own righteousness or the country becomes impossible to control. The only way to do this is to convince the population that they gain more from paying the mandatory ransoms then they would get by just spending the money directly on what they want to spend it on.

So, they throw just enough spare change at us to stop us from marching violently through the streets or worse, turn to some other government.

"That one likes to cry about taxes and pretend they are some cosmic victim, does not make taxes theft."

Well with that logic I could rob a child of his lolly-pop and claim it's not technically theft so long as the kid cries about it. =/

What makes taxation theft is that it's a mandatory payment punishable by death and/or imprisonment.

It quite literally has nothing to do with whether I view myself as a "cosmic victim" (whatever the hell that is) or not.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

shied away from our last debate

What are you talking about? Who are you?

Just because I wont shoot you in the kneecap so long as you give me $20 doesn't mean I've given you a well working leg to stand on. ;)

You're comparison makes no sense. You have many things because of taxes, from roads to a military - none of which you could afford on your own, so you are actually getting more than you paid for.

And because our taxes pay for police, people are hardly ever being shot in the knee cap. Without government in fact, you are far more likely to be shot in the kneecap. This analogy doesn't make sense.

Well, no corrections to make here. You clearly have the understanding on the topic of thievery as an elementary school student has on his classroom presentation of M-theory.

A government cannot stand on force alone. It needs the majority of the people living in the area it claims to believe in its own righteousness or the country becomes impossible to control. The only way to do this is to convince the population that they gain more from paying the mandatory ransoms then they would get by just spending the money directly on what they want to spend it on.

Ignoring your insults or attempts at humor or whatever that is, again, you do get more than what you pay for from government. There's like 12 billionaires in the country who could actually afford all of what government offers. Like really? You think you can hire your own personal guard, and pave the roads too and from your home and hire someone to test all your food so you are not poisoned with the money you would save by not paying taxes? I assure you you could not.

So, they throw just enough spare change at us to stop us from marching violently through the streets or worse, turn to some other government.

With all of your gun and protest analogies, I'm guessing you're a crazy extremist tea party type. I hate to break it to you, you are the minority. No one is ready, or even close to ready, to "march violently through the streets."

Once this oil is cleaned from the coast, and at this rate the job situation will be back to normal in a couple of years, even Faux is going to have to find a new camera baby other than these confused old couch potatoes. This rise of government mistrust and hatred you seem to imagine does not exist but in the 10-15% of crazies it has always existed in.

Well with that logic I could rob a child of his lolly-pop and claim it's not technically theft so long as the kid cries about it. =/

... that's not the logic at all. The logic is that a certain group of people just like to cry a lot. No matter what happens, they are a cosmic victim. They consistently fail to see the good government does, instead only focusing on these perceived evils. They never stop to think what would really happen if the government ceased to be funded, they fail to see how easily tyrants and criminals could gain power if we stopped funding government, they fail to see that they themselves have just as much a say in the government as anyone else. They are too busy crying to see it.

What makes taxation theft is that it's a mandatory payment punishable by death and/or imprisonment.

You have a habit of exaggerating to a ridiculous extent in order to back up your unsupported views. No one is ever killed for not paying taxes. And of course one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes, it is not fair that an individual get all the protections of the US, are appointed an attorney by the US against the US when they do go to court, that they get to drive on roads the US paid for, and eat food the US checked first, and not pay their fair share to the US.

It is no different than eating in a restaurant then skipping out on the bill.

Side: No