I believe that taxation is theft because it is a violation of labor rights. I have a right to 100% of my earnings; to take away even one cent of them without my permission is theft. Moreover, it does not matter if the government thinks that I benefit from the theft; only I am qualified to make that decision.
That having been said, saying that taxation is theft does not necessarily prove that the existence of government is illegitimate. Governments can sometimes derive revenues from sources other than taxation, such as oil or gas revenues. If a government derives all of its revenues from natural resources and does not take in one cent through taxation, would you still say that it is a “criminal organization”?
Governments are illegitimate because they do not have the consent of the governed. As to so called other sources of revenue, those sources were obtained by theft in the first place.
Taxation is not the root source of the evil of the State, it is a symptom of a deeper problem. Taxation is the logical extension of plunder or tribute. But taxation is more insidious than mere tribute or plunder. Why? Because tribute or plunder is gathered at the edge of a sword. The plundered are under no illusions about what is happening to them. (This line of reasoning is my regurgitation of some passage of Rothbard, can’t remember which one). Taxation is a kind of annuitized plunder to which we are subject by peer pressure. I have to pay taxes because my neighbors believe they (and I) have a moral duty to pay taxes. If we were being raided by Canadian marauders (I live above the 45th parallel [:P]) who collected exactly the same dollar amount from us as the US Federal government does, there would be widespread clamor for “defense” from the evil invaders who plunder us. Instead, even expressing distaste for being taxed is looked upon by a significant chunk of the taxpaying public in the same vein as being miserly, not wanting to give to charity, or kicking little puppies to hear them squeal. When you step back and look at the situation for what it is, you quickly realize that we are living in an upside-down world. In what quantum dimension does it make sense that robbers are the equivalent of charity cases?! If I intervened in a mugging where the victim was getting the upper hand and said, “No, you are being a miser, this fellow is only taking your purse so he can redistribute its wealth to help those who are more unfortunate than you,” no one would say I was acting morally or decently. In fact, I would be aiding and abetting a crime. My neighbors’ attitude regarding my duty to pay taxes to the State is no different. It is a sickness of society and deeply rooted immorality.
This immorality is subsidized by the plunder gathered by the State. Those at the pinnacle of power best understand the true foundation of their power and they fund all manner of public education and indoctrination to ensure that this bankrupt moral system is perpetuated. The primary means by which the system sustains itself is by maintenance of a dual legal system, one for itself and one for the rest of us. Those who are designated State actors are imbued with a mantle of legal immunity for their actions. State prosecutors and judges, for example, are granted absolute immunity for their actions while acting in an official capacity. This means that no matter how viciously a judge and/or prosecutor Nifong an individual, they are utterly immune from lawsuit. They might get disbarred but they will never pay a civil award or do jail time.
The priesthood used to be the vanguard of this system of immorality. In those days, the hypocrisy was more direct and easier to see. Today, our judges and lawyers have taken over the helm. Their job is to keep us believing that it’s OK for police to beat the shit out of people* while you and I can go to jail for so much as laying a finger on another person.
To bring this back to your question about a state deriving revenues from some other source than taxes, the question is simply this: is the organization in question utilizing a moral double-standard, whether enforced through law, propagandized through religion, or both or some other means, to create and maintain a privileged class of individuals who are permitted to engage in actions which any other individual could not justify or renege on obligations which any other individual would be required to honor? If so, then it is a government and it is evil. If not, it is not a government, it is something else.
Edited to add: Here is a great recent article on this very subject. Please read it and the linked article, Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State.
Clayton -
*Well, it’s not officially OK, but we’re not supposed to wonder at the obvious conflict of interests of the police investigating themselves when they commit crimes or the legal system enforcing the law on itself or government judges judging in conflicts between the government and non-government parties.
The capital they use to get the profits through exchange is not in the first place attained through exchange but violence so they do not legitimately own it(in the ROthbardian line)
“Governments can sometimes derive revenues from sources other than taxation, such as oil or gas revenues. If a government derives all of its revenues from natural resources and does not take in one cent through taxation, would you still say that it is a “criminal organization”?”
If it outlaws people trading those commodities without the added tax, then its a violation of free association = aggression