Skip to comments.Taxation is Theft
Posted on 04/16/2002 2:29:49 AM PDT by sourcery
click here to read article
Revolt or genocide. Your choice.
You are terrorizing yourself with unjustified paranoia. It seems to me that a government that is doing all the same things Jefferson so eloquently criticized in the Declaration of Independence--only to a far greater extent--is the one that should worry about revolution (not recommended, by the way--but it could happen).
It is logically impossible to revolt against a government that doesn't exist. And in the case of a minarchy, revolt would be logically possible, but there would be little motivation. The more powerful the government, the greater the potential rewards for taking it over. And the less poweverful the government, the less there is to be gained by its overthrow.
But you object that a minarchy would be overthrown and replaced with a severe Tyranny. And that is certainly possible. But it is only likely in the case where there is a social consensus for tyrannical government, such as we have in this country today. A society gets the form of government it thinks is right. No minarchy will be established here, or anywhere, as long as the social consensus does not favor it. But the same constraint would protect minarchical government in a society that was committed to minarchy.
NRST is the only fair tax. But idiots can still misspend even that.
The tarrifs were also theft. And they worked fine for raising revenue. The problem with them was solely political. Of course tarriffs wouldn't work now, because the government now--unlike 90 years ago--spends so much money on things that it has no Constitutional authority to buy.
Remember, the issue isn't how can the government eliminate taxes and still spend as much money as it currently does. The issue is how the necessary functions of government can be funded: police and military, courts, legislative operations, executive branch operations. It does not take anywhere close to 10 trillion dollars/year to do those things for the entire North American continent. We're paying Lambourghini prices for Yugo-level service. And the fact that taxes are coercively collected by theft is the major reason why.
Gee, if that's all they want, maybe I should just pay it and get it over with. But, if it turns out that they actually want substantially more than that, will you agree to pay the difference? :-)
If you really think that, get used to feeling ripped off for the rest of your life unless you are in prison.
Well, I'll admit that it's a substantial improvement over the present system. But it's still not moral. Nevertheless, since it is substantantially better than the status quo, I'm all in favor (I am not unrealistic, I know that taxes aren't going away anytime soon, and that the only hope of getting rid of them is incrementally).
But idiots can still misspend even that.
Yes. And why not? It's not like the government actually earned any of that money itself. There's just not much motivation to be frugal or effective with other people's money--especially when you'll be getting more next year, and can always increase the take whenever the urge strikes you.
I'm under no illusions. But great changes can come to pass, given sufficient time and preparation. If not in my lifetime, then eventually. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
What is it paying taxes is keeping you from getting?
Anyway, I am quite willing to pay for the goods and services that I agree to buy--including police services, legal services and road services. But I do insist on getting to decide how much of each service I want to buy, and who I want to buy it from (based partially on the asking price, among other considerations). What's immoral about that?
Would it be fair to call you a "cheat," because you refuse to buy from sourcery's political commentary magazine, at a price set by me over which you have no say?
1. "majority rule" stated in the sense of "democracy" is not the issue in such a trust.
The bequest of the Constitution was not by majority rule, it was by supermajority and created a rule of law laid down by the sovereign authority of the People to create a trust in perpetuity for the benefit of their Posterity.
An individual may decline such a bequest by renouncing his status and removing himself from access to its benefits. He may not however just quit participating in its requirements (specifically taxation) without such a renunciation.
2. Debt for service rendered benefits received.
Does not apply to the case of the bequest, the reqirements of the trust may be abrogated by simply renouncing participation and removing onesself from access to the trust's benefits and its protections of the law it establishes.
The only debt that might be said to accrue is that of not meeting the obligations of support under the trust while still a citizen, a matter of law, not of contracted service.
3. The social contract argument:
Doesn't apply either, the status of citizen is may be unilaterally renounced by individual action and departing. No social contract forcing obligating one to stay and perform, no consideration has been tendered to obligate you in the sense of a contract at all. It didn't even require your consent to become a citizen. The assumption arises from an accident of birth, or naturalization. Either status may be renounced unilaterally, and the individual may depart.
4. Moral debt argument to those in need.
You may renounce your citizenship at any time, doing so ande departing from the protections and jurisdiction of the trust, removes you from any future call on your resources.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.