4 votes

What would be required to convince me that taxation is not theft.

My dad dismisses much of my libertarian rhetoric because he does not view taxation as theft and does not see that the government is obviously organized force.

I've made my case quite convincingly. He's disagreed but offered no concrete defense of his position, just collectivist appeals to "governmental"/"societal" responsibilities.

What would be required to convince me that taxation is not theft, but a debt paid and a duty of citizenship? That's a toughy.

First you'd have to elaborate to me if there ever was a time when taxation would become so severe that it was indeed reprehensible thievery.

For instance, if the government taxed half of my property would this qualify as theft? 75%? 100%?

Now if you say that a government CAN tax totally, all that I have and all that I am, We would simply have to differ and part ways.

On the other hand, if you did reach a point of concession and admit that at point x the government's taxation constitutes theft, we may proceed.

Then you'd have to offer a rational, non-arbitrary defense as to why x%/amount of taxation is the true threshold, as opposed to another point.

If you can proceed from here I will be willing to hear you out. Of course my assumption is that there is no principled, non-arbitrary point.

It is easier to defend an individual's complete private ownership over his own property than partial ownership of that property by many actors.

That is, unless of course there is a binding contract explicitly stating otherwise; like a lease or a mortgage owned by both spouses.

Now you might assert that government is a contract, and this is how this once arbitrary, now agreed upon threshold was formed. Produce said contract.

You say the power to tax is "granted" (by whom, upon whom, how much, and for how long?) in the constitution. Suppose you are correct. Where is the maximum threshold expressly stated?

Even if this threshold was stated, where is my signature? Did I consent? By what right can one man commit unborn men to comply to contracts?

By what authority does government demand compliance from millions of noncompliant men to an arbitrary threshold or infinite degree of taxation?

I assert there is no such authority. Initiating force is unjust. Force must only be used negatively to punish plunder, not to partake in it.

We may tolerate taxation or legal plunder so far as it is used negatively to punish wrongful aggression. Anymore than this is intolerable.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about

if through no fault of your own (disability, injury, natural disaster, etc.) you were somehow unable to pay your property taxes. And when tax time came around the IRS acknowledged, that having a title deed in hand, you were in truth the rightful owner of your property and they decided not to seize it from you by force but instead sent you a letter thanking you for your years of voluntary donations.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

THE IRS man politely asking if you'd care to make a donation

and then going away and staying away if you tell him no?

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Healing Our World

The book "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary Ruwart is an excellent book with real-world explanations that teaches, in a gentle yet concise & clear manner, how taxes & other regs "forcing" people to do things (eg minimum wage laws, environmental laws, discrimination laws etc), harm the people those regs are designed to help. Tons of quotes & resources noted throughout the book.

The 1st edition is avail online free:

Working for US policy in the mideast that serves AMERICA's interests http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/

The True Moral Justification for Taxation

First, and foremost, it must be understood that criminals lie, and they will say anything to accomplish their criminal goals.

The word VOLUNTARY can be twisted by a criminal fraud to mean anything one minute and another thing the next minute.

If the word VOLUNTARY means an agreement, and if the word INVOLUNTARY means that one person forces something upon anther person, then in the context of non-criminal associations between adult human beings, the word INVOLUNTARY means CRIME.

If one non-criminal adult human being decides to enforce an injury upon an innocent person, against the will of the victim, against the knowledge of the victim, or against the agreement of the victim, that is stepping over the line of true moral conduct in all but a few accurately measurable instances, having nothing to do with the concept of self-government.

Voluntary agreement, actual agreement, not false agreement, is the condition of Liberty.

Enforced injury upon the innocent is the condition of crime.

I think that has to be understood as much as it must be understood that criminals lie.

The True Moral Justification for Taxation, submitted for agreement among the potential volunteers, is the investment of surplus power in the work of defense against people who choose to plan on injuring innocent people, and defense against those same people as those same plans are followed through, even when the criminals call themselves false names, such as Police Officer, or Governor, or King, or General.

Taxation can be known by example. One such example of non-criminal taxation is Insurance.

Another example of non-criminal taxation is a voluntary tax on land, which can be misunderstood, and misrepresented, or twisted, or spun, or falsified to be the opposite of a voluntary tax on land.

History teaches.


Trial by Jury

When criminal gangs of large power roam the Earth injuring innocent victims, enslaving them, torturing them, murdering them, the victims have figured out ways in which to defend against such massive crimes.

One way was to require a Tax of serving on both Trials by Jury and Military duty in case of invasion by foreign army.

If the enemy is invading and they are targeting the innocent, killing the innocent, enslaving the innocent, among us innocent people, your neighbors may ask for help in defending against those criminals. Failing to help, at such times, has been perceived by your neighbors as a measurable, but potential, transfer of power into the hands of the criminals invaders, and not much time to go through a due process of law to figure out if the person who has power can use that power to aid and abet the criminal invaders.

In places where recent invasions have occurred, suspicions of being one of The Terrorists, for failing to be one if US, are more likely to occur compared to a place where invasions do not happen for long periods of time.

What is one of US?

What constitutes one of us, relative to one of the criminals?

A person who does not plan on injuring innocent people, for profit, and a person who does not follow through with that plan to injure innocent people for profit, is one of US, where WE are innocent people, WE are not The Terrorists.

The Terrorists, or the Criminals, or even the Legal Criminals, or The Dictators, are the ones who are found guilty, even when presumed innocent initially, of willfully planning on injuring innocent people, and then following through with that plan, which is something a criminal does, which is how crime is defined by criminals, by what they do, not what they say.

Taxation, as voluntary as is expedient, can be nothing more than a choice between many options and then making that choice in time, choosing, for example, one final choice from an exemplary list of choices as such:

A. Insurance against Crime policy A.

B. Insurance against Legal Crime policy B.

C. No thanks, those are false choices, I will choose to defend myself as best I can.

Now, assuming that the father, or mother, daughter, or the son, or husband, or wife, or anyone else asking such questions is still following the logic of voluntary taxation, the subject of a Democratic Federated Republican form of government aught to be brought into the discussion, since History may provide evidence of a possible form of Voluntary Taxation under such a Voluntary Plan of Self-Governance as examples of working Democratic Federated Republican forms of Government - if ever one did exist.


It is a stone cold fact, that

It is a stone cold fact, that taking something from someone involuntarily is theft.

Even if he thinks that the theft is somehow "justified", he still has to acknowledge that it is still theft.

Otherwise he is being completely irrational.

Here is a thought experiment you can try on him.

Tell him to imagine that a masked man walks up on the street and points a gun at him.

Then the man says, "I'm sorry I have to do this, but I blew all my money and now I'm broke, and I need everything you have in your wallet."

Ask your father if he thinks this is wrong, is this man committing a crime, isn't he stealing from you, and is there any excuse for this?

Then tell your father, the thief has taken his mask off, it's somebody you've known all your life, IT'S UNCLE SAM, TOP HAT AND ALL!

Is this still a crime?

Is what he is doing still wrong?

Isn't he stealing from you?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

ultimately all misdemeanors are a death sentence

if there are stacks of unpaid parking tickets they'll come arrest you and if you resist enough they'll shoot you.


double post, my bad.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Just ask your father if he

likes paying taxes. If he really likes working 1.5 days for free to pay the federal govt. Then ask him if he agrees that the money is well spent. And ask him if he feels like the $16.2 trill national debt (not including the municiple debt, that's a whole nother rabbit hole) is something he'd be willing to pay more taxes for in order to pay off. Then ask him where the govt gets most of "their"(SIC) money. If he says federal income tax, tell him he is mis informed, for the federal income tax goes to pay off the interest of the money (USD's) that the govt had loaned to them by the FRB (.43 USD's/Dollar I believe.) Then tell him that he really pays more than 50% of his pay in taxes. About $1 USD of tax is payed per gallon of gas (depending upon where you live,) and every good and service you pay for is taxed. When you sell something, you have to pay taxes as well. Then ask him if he would like to keep all his money to spend the way he sees fit, and pay the taxes through the goods and services, and the H E Double Hocky Sticks with the FRB! LOL Of course, have all the info/sources for you info infront of you to back your side up as well.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Maybe you can convince your father

that "there is no money", only debt issued currency.

That Federal Reserve Note he's holding in his wallet is nothing more than a "promise to pay" you at some time in the future.

He's never been paid one red cent for any work he's ever done unless it was payment in silver or gold, but they've been taxing him anyway.

How do you charge someone a tax on money that has never been paid? They're taxing him on Monopoly money.

Since he's never been paid and has only been issued a "promise to pay" via a Federal Reserve Note, then why the hell is he paying taxes when he's never been paid?

He, like most of us have been conned into paying a tax on a dollar amount that we've never received. That $100.00 bill in his wallet is the governments way of saying:

We promise to pay you $100.00 in silver or gold at some point in the future, until that time comes, just use this worthless piece of $hit paper and don't worry about it.

Don't contact us for payment .... we'll contact you :)

Tell your father that he doesn't owe $hit in taxes until they pay him all his back money that they owe him.

Their sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars of his money that he's earned over his lifetime and are conning him into paying taxes on a worthless note that has no value.

You need to listen to some of Rod Class's radio shows and have your father listen as well.

Here's the archives; he usually has shows on Tues/Friday nights.


so in a nutshell: They are stealing his money AGAIN! They stole our money in 1931/33 in the form of gold and issued us worthless Federal Reserve Notes to use instead, and then have the audacity to charge you a tax on that worthless piece of paper, all the while using your money (gold) to make more money.

That's like taking an ice cream from a kid and handing him a wooden nickel; then taxing him on the wooden nickel.

The Gov't got the ice cream and the kid got screwed out of his cone and then got screwed again by having to give up 30% of his wooden nickel.

It's THEFT !

Yea, a tough one

Most arguments I get are from people insisting that I want something for nothing when I tell them I oppose payment of income taxation. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Most libertarians are honest people like me who simply want to pay a fair price for the services they have directly (vs. indirectly) chosen to use.

The way most government services are administered, there is simply no way to opt out, or the pain of opting out is very high. A free choice is never really a possibility for most of these services. In that sense, since someone is not given the choice, and withdrawal of choice comes under penalty, taxation is not functionally different from being held up by an armed thug. Whether someone would choose to take advantage of any or all government services if given a free choice is irrelevant to the question of whether coercion is involved in the current arrangement.

In government, there are exceptions but they are few like entrance to national parks, for example, and a few toll roads. User fees are the obvious answer however that generally would require drastic restructuring - and reduction in size - of local, state and federal governments.

The Government's Power To Tax

According to the Constitution For The Umited States, the Federal taxation ability is limited by a short and well-defined set of paramenters. NONE of these parameters is determined by an individual's trade of time for labor to another (considered as 'barter' by the Supreme Court, in several cases taken up by them in the 1910-s and 1920-s).

Tarrifs (TAXES) on imported goods (IMPOSTS) and internally produced Duties (EXCISE) are the only authorised taxes that Congress has the power to levy.
Read it in the correct grammar:
The Congress shall have Power To 'lay and collect' Taxes, Duties (Imposts and Excises),...(Article I, section VIII, Clause I).
A tax on the Toyota car from Japan, or the Savannah Tobacco, are, actually, 'legitimate' (as these are not considered as necessary to life, liberty, or the 'pursuit of happiness' {property ownership} avenues of revenue for the FED, under the Constitution.
A tax based upon the 'income' (the barter of a person's time to produce such as he or she is able to profit off of, based upon ability or skill) of an individual is considered to be out of bounds, according to the Constitution (Article I, Section XI, Clause VI).

I hope that this helps.


I have a question

What would you consider to be the 'fairest' tax that we face? Is it the excise because it's voluntary, or what? I don't know much about taxes but it sounds like you really do, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

you are correct

that is capitation and not a poll tax. As such it applies only to those who are employed or contracted by the fed gov.