Taxation isn't theft

[Anonymous_Coward]

Or at least that’s what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual;

I’d like to point out that the “State’s theft of money” is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I’d guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance?

Sure, there are plenty of “money pits” in govt, but it’s just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.

Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as “intellectual property” rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this.

So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I’m not saying that we need the “Federal Reserve”, I’m not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I’m only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish.

A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was… Representative government!

Oh, it’s too much…

[Nitroadict]

@Anonymous Coward

Or at least that’s what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual;

I’d like to point out that the “State’s theft of money” is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I’d guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance?

Sure, there are plenty of “money pits” in govt, but it’s just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.

Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as “intellectual property” rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this.

So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I’m not saying that we need the “Federal Reserve”, I’m not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I’m only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish.

A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was… Representative government!

Oh, it’s too much…

The noodles are in the pot and they’re boiling, boiling I tell ya!

[Adam]

What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.

Your friend is totally right. The “economy” is a fabrication of the state to keep us believing that we need to push for higher GDP at the expense of everything else.

[Jon_Irenicus]

He ought to explain why property rights are fictitious, rather than just asserting it. Anyway, another stato-“libertarian”. Nothing new to see here folks.

-Jon

[emdoub]

Of course taxation isn’t theft.

If you take something from someone by threat of harm or inprisonment, that’s extortion - related, but different.

I’m not yet convinced that there is no need for government, but I’m pretty sure that government involvement in the economy is a bad idea.

You may ask your “libertarian” friend what studies they’re citing - I’d like a look at them myself.

Danno

[Byzantine]

@Adam

Your friend is totally right. The “economy” is a fabrication of the state to keep us believing that we need to push for higher GDP at the expense of everything else.

Excellent post.

[Andrew]

Taxation isn’t theft unless it hurts people. The fact that no one cares about the poor robber’s reason to steal is a prime example of this!!!

[anonnymous]

taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation

[ChaseCola]

@anonnymous

taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation

You are right, for a second I thought corporations were made up of people, then I realized they are just a bunch of mindless robots with no rights to property. [:^)]

[MacFall]

Corporations as they exist today are purely creations of the state. They are artificial persons with legal statuses of their own, and rights superior to those of any of the individuals within them. They are collectivist artifices which exist apart from the individuals who work “for” them.

[JohnSchreimann]

Roads? Ah shoot! I never thought of that.

That’s what I was forgetting all along.

[anonnymous]

correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,

[scineram]

They?

[Bostwick]

@anonnymous

correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,

No they aren’t. They are recognized by the state, but they are not created by the state. The state recognize certain rights, like property, but that does not mean property is a creation of the state.(Contrary to whatever Marxist think)

This anti-corporatism is just Marxist infiltration.

[wombatron]

“But, without the state, who will build the roads!?”

[:P]

[Brainpolice]

@JonBostwick

@anonnymous

correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,

No they aren’t. They are recognized by the state, but they are not created by the state. The state recognize certain rights, like property, but that does not mean property is a creation of the state.(Contrary to whatever Marxist think)

This anti-corporatism is just Marxist infiltration.

Their legal status as a “person” is a state granted privilege. That’s the point.

This pro-corporatism is just conservative infiltration. Nothing about libertarianism or laissez-faire to my knowledge implies corporatism. There is nothing “marxist” about opposing corporatism.

[Nitroadict]

@wombatron

“But, without the state, who will build the roads!?”

“Where we’re going… we don’t need ‘roads’.”

(BTTF, not RR)

[Bostwick]

@Brainpolice

Their legal status as a “person” is a state granted privilege. That’s the point.

This pro-corporatism is just conservative infiltration. Nothing about libertarianism or laissez-faire to my knowledge implies corporatism. There is nothing “marxist” about opposing corporatism.

Oh. A semantics fight. Obviously I dont endorse corporatism as defined as state capitalism.

Everything about libertarianism implies defense of the corporation. NAP anyone?

[Jain_Daugh]

That’s pretty muttled thinking by a person who claims to be ‘liberatarian’. Hasn’t s/he forgotten the non-aggression basis for liberartianism? And what are taxes if not aggression? They certainly aren’t voluntary that’s for sure!

I remain -

I’m Ataxist

Next time I’m asked what “Party” I support, I will reply “Ataxist”.

Ataxist is not a philosophy, its a mandate. Its not vague, it has a specific agenda and purpose - to eliminate participation in tax systems.

Of course the initial reaction will be negative, all changes are resisted by TTWIAHB (that’s the way its always has been). But as the following reasons become HEARD, I believe that such a movement may have a chance of catching on.

Reason #1 - Taxes are involuntary. This is theft backed by coercion.

Reason #2 - Taxing always ends up a corrupt system because it breaks the linkage of cause and effect, effectively eliminating any self regulating mechanism for discipling costs in relation to results.

Reason #3 - Direct means of payment are possible. Large organizations do exist that support themselves and provide a product/service, all on a choice to participate basis. (Telecommunications, consumer products, security services etc…)

If such a thing catches on, I believe that it may become possible that more people will start to see and think of the government as the entity that it really is - a service organization. Also this (non-)“party” can be accepted by, and possibly incorporated into other existing parties that want to achieve a freer life (Libertarian especially). Plus this is all legal. As an Ataxist I am NOT advocating non payment of taxes, I am declaring that I prefer an alternate system for payment. To that end I will do whatever I can to 1) pay as direct as possible for all products and services, and 2) not pay for those things that I do not want to receive or support.

Simple, direct and effective.

Jain

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

Their legal status as a “person” is a state granted privilege. That’s the point.

Agreed.

@Brainpolice

This pro-corporatism is just conservative infiltration. Nothing about libertarianism or laissez-faire to my knowledge implies corporatism. There is nothing “marxist” about opposing corporatism.

Do you actually know any conservatives?