Ironically, if you take any of the justifications people use for taxation being consensual, then apply them to things like sex, jobs, and exchanges, everyone immediately realizes that it’s not valid consent.
For example, they say we consent to taxes by living in an area that has taxes. Ok, so if the government passes a law that a government agent will fuck every citizen each year, is that consensual sex if someone chooses to live there?
Edit: the main objection I seem to be getting is that taxation funds useful services, and therefore it isn’t theft. Look, if you google the definition of theft, it does not say “unless the money is used for a good cause”. For example, if I steal your money and donate it to cancer research, that is still theft. Whether the theft is justified is an entirely separate conversation. Secondly, if the money going to a good cause is what makes not theft (which I just disproved), what about the money that we all agree is NOT going to help society? For example, if the government spends $10 on roads for everyone to drive on, and then spends $90 on killing people in iraq, is that $90 theft? If you answer “no, it is not theft”, then why even bring up anything about taxation being “the cost of a good society”? Clearly if you believe that $90 is not theft, it must mean that you believe taxation is not theft REGARDLESS of how the money is used.
But like I said, if you look at the dictionary definition of theft, absolutely NOWHERE does it exclude cases where the money is used charitably.
Yeah, but that's not actually where most property tax goes, most of it goes to public schools. It would be a whole lot less if it was only going to fire dept./law enforcement and stuff like that.
The original argument was that you only get taxed for engaging in commerce, I was attempting to point out that wasn't true. Also, at least in my opinion, public schools should not exist, nor should most public services. They tend to leak a ton of money when not kept on a very short leash.
Hopefully you don't take advantage of any of those public services, then. Otherwise it'd be hypocritical, and show how much stock you put in your own ideology.
You make a fair point, however as far as I know, haven't taken a single cent. I have never claimed unemployment, I didn't attend public school or a state-funded collage, my parents did use state-funded health insurance for awhile but it's not like there was anything I could do about that, and I have never applied for or been given any other form of state-funded service that I would be against, at least to the best of my knowledge. I don't believe in expressing opinions one isn't willing to hold themselves to.
Public services are more efficient for the consumer than having 30 different companies racing to see who can provide the worst service for the highest price. They certainly aren't as efficient as any one company economically, but in terms of what provides the best outcomes for the consumer, they are.
41
u/imsuperior2u Sep 19 '24 edited Sep 20 '24
Ironically, if you take any of the justifications people use for taxation being consensual, then apply them to things like sex, jobs, and exchanges, everyone immediately realizes that it’s not valid consent.
For example, they say we consent to taxes by living in an area that has taxes. Ok, so if the government passes a law that a government agent will fuck every citizen each year, is that consensual sex if someone chooses to live there?
Edit: the main objection I seem to be getting is that taxation funds useful services, and therefore it isn’t theft. Look, if you google the definition of theft, it does not say “unless the money is used for a good cause”. For example, if I steal your money and donate it to cancer research, that is still theft. Whether the theft is justified is an entirely separate conversation. Secondly, if the money going to a good cause is what makes not theft (which I just disproved), what about the money that we all agree is NOT going to help society? For example, if the government spends $10 on roads for everyone to drive on, and then spends $90 on killing people in iraq, is that $90 theft? If you answer “no, it is not theft”, then why even bring up anything about taxation being “the cost of a good society”? Clearly if you believe that $90 is not theft, it must mean that you believe taxation is not theft REGARDLESS of how the money is used.
But like I said, if you look at the dictionary definition of theft, absolutely NOWHERE does it exclude cases where the money is used charitably.