This assumes other people know, even care about whether I pay my bills properly.
It does make sense. The only reason for the acquisition of something to be considered theft is if it is an act of unjustified seizure.This is not circular, it’s definitional.
Which begs the question, is it justified. Which is the premise of this whole discussion. Hence the reason why I mentioned “circular reasoning”.
I believe we’ve been through this with you already. Rent on a good or service is not a form of taxation.
So what is the reasoning that taxation is unjustified, other than assuming it?
What you quoted never claimed it was justified, so no, it did not beg a question. It was a definitional observation: that it is incorrect to categorize taxation as theft if taxation is justified. I fail to see why there is any reason to disagree with that statement.
I fail to see why your going off on an irrelevant tangent.
Scineram stated
If extracting wealth is justified than it’s not taxation. It’s simply owners of property taking whats rightfully theirs. If you want to continue calling it taxation then you, like Scineram, will kindly explain to us how. Juan already gave a good enough response.
Simple, I never agreed to nor desire the service rendered to me. In some cases I don’t even receive the service I am paying for. I am paying for it by way of extortion. I am unable to discontinue the service. The Mafia historically operated under the exact same premise. You pay them for security as a service, or your business will suffer from some sort of harm. Do you agree than that the mafia’s method of operating is legite?
Now explain to me, if I am under a condition where I do not want the services rendered to me by the state, how it is justified that a government can extract wealth and property from me without my consent.
What we are discussing here is the moral issue of taxation. We haven’t even touched the economic issues of coercively distributed services which is just as an important one.
There is nothing assumed at all. I don’t want your service, I’d like to take my money and property elsewhere.
Honestly Scineram what kind of response did you expect to get on this forum?
Scineram feel free to add something productive to this forum other than witty one liners that you think will return an emotional response. An explanation of your position would be a good start.
I did not expect anything else. You ruled out taxation because of some sort of absolute lockean property rights. But those need justification as well.
In addition to, the economic problems coercively distributed services bring, which will always under perform a market.
Well at least I got 3 sentences out of you this time. [:)]
What right has some “government” to my property?
I was responding to a quote made by you. If you think the subject of the quote was irrelevant, perhaps you shouldn’t have made it in the first place.
This is circular reasoning.
We’ve gone over this. As I said earlier, theft is the unjust seizure of property, defining it as an act of stealing doesn’t change this. The issue is still over whether a state has an ethical/legal claim to the property of “citizens” or a portion of that property for the provision of a monocentric justice system and military protection. If it does then taxation is justified and is therefore not theft.
You’re assuming that it is unjust to prohibit you from exercising this preference.
I should also point out, that the crux of both arguments for the justifiability of taxation and for the "un"justifability of it is that there exists a quantifiable and universal system of ethics that can be arrived at/deduced objectively. I have no problem with the view that actions can be just or unjust with respect to certain ethical systems. However I see no evidence that purposeful actions in and of themselves contain “just” or “unjust” as natural traits.
Negative.
You may have your own circles to deal with.
Your statement reworded
The states claim to private property is justified because it can better provide goods than a market can. Be it security or whatever.
The argument is utilitarian at best.
And again as I said above the argument fails twofold.
A) Just because a producer may be the most efficient one does not mean he has a right to extract the wealth of everyone, especially for those who do not wish to partake in its services. So it fails ethically still. This is the taxation is theft argument.
B) Socialized goods will always under perform market provided goods. So the utilitarian argument that a government is justified in stealing wealth and property simply because it provides security is false.
On the market we have consumer sovereignty. Only consumers decide who is the most efficient, most attractive producer. A coercive monopoly gets around this simply by forcing everyone to participate in it’s services whether they are right or wrong. Long story short there is no economic calculation as there is no consumer sovereignty when taxation is imposed. The coercive organization does not know when it is doing well or poorly, it already has, by way of violent force, compelled the entire nation into its services.
Your signature implies your a mises fan. You should know how prices are formed. [:)]
Thats fine but this isn’t about right and wrong. This is about stealing. Now whether you think stealing is right or wrong is an entirely separate topic. Feel free to jump on the moral nihilistic bandwagon with Bloom.
Let me guess. Banned is likely to answer that you are assuming what you need to prove. That theft only makes sense if you really own your stuff. But in reality you only own what the state lets you own. So, no, taxation is not theft.
“Just because a producer may be the most efficient one does not mean he has a right …” (from filc)
Greater efficiency does not (of itself) confer legitimate claim to special status among competing alternatives. This seems sensible.
“Socialized goods will always under perform market provided goods.” (from filc)
This appears to be an efficiency argument for market provision of all goods. Otherwise “socialized” or “under perform” may require more clear definition(s).
The attached has some thought-provoking excerpts (and reference) from a relevant article, including the following:
“It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market.” (p. 75)
“An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output.” (p. 75)
“Do Entitlements Imply that Taxation is Theft?”, Kearl, J.R. (1977). Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 74-81. Blackwell Publishing (full article available through JSTOR)
“It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market.” (p. 75)
“An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output.” (p. 75)
“Do Entitlements Imply that Taxation is Theft?”, Kearl, J.R. (1977). Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 74-81. Blackwell Publishing (full article available through JSTOR)
“It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market.” (p. 75)
“An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output.” (p. 75)
“Do Entitlements Imply that Taxation is Theft?”, Kearl, J.R. (1977). Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 74-81. Blackwell Publishing (full article available through JSTOR)
“It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market.” (p. 75)
“An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output.” (p. 75)
“Do Entitlements Imply that Taxation is Theft?”, Kearl, J.R. (1977). Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 74-81. Blackwell Publishing (full article available through JSTOR)
“It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market.” (p. 75)
“An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output.” (p. 75)
“Do Entitlements Imply that Taxation is Theft?”, Kearl, J.R. (1977). Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 74-81. Blackwell Publishing (full article available through JSTOR)
“It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market.” (p. 75)
“An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output.” (p. 75)