Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

... And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd. With such reasoning, every single horrific murder or act of non-defensive violence committed by a government against people who happen to be within its self-proclaimed borders would be considered consensual, which is clearly absurd. No Roman citizens were ever crucified by their government against their will, such absurd logic would have us conclude. They agreed to be crucified; it was consensual crucifixion, such absurd logic would have us conclude.


Never forget that everything Adolph Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighers did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.”
― Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are two courts. One is established by social agreements, such as a Constitution, which provides citizens with the means to select their legislators, so that they can choose those likely to create the laws they like. The other court is Conscience. And the judgements of these two courts agree on most things, but occasionally disagree.

Conscience generally supports a government's laws, because there is a moral benefit to having a general agreement as to the rights of individuals, such as the right to own property, and a right to live safely in an orderly society. Government is one of the means by which we guarantee these rights for each other.

And a democratically elected government assures that our own views of what is right and wrong have a hope of becoming the general view.

So, government has moral value. And to provide that value, we all pay taxes, because one of those rights we all enjoy is the right to pay our fair share of the costs, and no more than that.

The "fair share" thing is what gets taxation protesters. But if you really dive down into it, what is a taxpayer's share of road maintenance? Let's stipulate that everyone is going to try to get out of paying taxes as much as possible, such that if taxes were voluntary, the government would collect zero dollars. So the "fair share" argument is a smokescreen to get as vlose to zero as one can get away with. The reality is that whereas a poor guy gets a welfare pittance, the rich guy benefits from welfare also, and I'm not talking about duty to his fellow man, nor a warm and fuzzy feeling for doing good. The rich guy benefits from welfare because in it's absence, there would be rioting in the streets, which is bad for business. Similarly who benefits more from the police department? A poor person who is likely to be a victim of violent crime, or the rich guy who owns a business which could get vandalized in a looting situation in the absence of the police?

[Marvin_Edwards]

... Let's stipulate that everyone is going to try to get out of paying taxes as much as possible, such that if taxes were voluntary, the government would collect zero dollars.

No. Let's stipulate that everyone has a conscience, and some notion of right and wrong. And let's stipulate that they all wish to pay their fair share of public expenses for roads, bridges, schools, and other shared, public services.

Everyone wants to pay their fair share, but no one wants to pay more than their fair share. Neither do they want anyone else to pay more than their fair share. They want a practical and just system.

So, their problem is to come up with a tax system which puts no excessive burden on anyone, such that everyone will have the money to pay their share. The income tax provides such a system. It has exemptions for dependents and normal living expenses, such that no one will starve by paying their share. And it then taxes their income, according to their ability to pay, so that everyone actually has the money required to pay their fair share.

... The reality is that whereas a poor guy gets a welfare pittance, the rich guy benefits from welfare also, and I'm not talking about duty to his fellow man, nor a warm and fuzzy feeling for doing good. The rich guy benefits from welfare because in it's absence, there would be rioting in the streets, which is bad for business. Similarly who benefits more from the police department? A poor person who is likely to be a victim of violent crime, or the rich guy who owns a business which could get vandalized in a looting situation in the absence of the police?

Exactly.

[LuckyR]

... Let's stipulate that everyone is going to try to get out of paying taxes as much as possible, such that if taxes were voluntary, the government would collect zero dollars.

No. Let's stipulate that everyone has a conscience, and some notion of right and wrong. And let's stipulate that they all wish to pay their fair share of public expenses for roads, bridges, schools, and other shared, public services.

Everyone wants to pay their fair share, but no one wants to pay more than their fair share. Neither do they want anyone else to pay more than their fair share. They want a practical and just system.

So, their problem is to come up with a tax system which puts no excessive burden on anyone, such that everyone will have the money to pay their share. The income tax provides such a system. It has exemptions for dependents and normal living expenses, such that no one will starve by paying their share. And it then taxes their income, according to their ability to pay, so that everyone actually has the money required to pay their fair share.

... The reality is that whereas a poor guy gets a welfare pittance, the rich guy benefits from welfare also, and I'm not talking about duty to his fellow man, nor a warm and fuzzy feeling for doing good. The rich guy benefits from welfare because in it's absence, there would be rioting in the streets, which is bad for business. Similarly who benefits more from the police department? A poor person who is likely to be a victim of violent crime, or the rich guy who owns a business which could get vandalized in a looting situation in the absence of the police?

Exactly.

Well, we can agree to disagree on the drivers of human psychology. Tax policy is made using extremely crude stat measures, chiefly the ability to pay countered by the ability to influence lawmakers, which the rich, of course are high in both areas. Whereas the discussion of "fair share" is typically a conversation proposed by individuals individually.

[Marvin_Edwards]

... Let's stipulate that everyone is going to try to get out of paying taxes as much as possible, such that if taxes were voluntary, the government would collect zero dollars.

No. Let's stipulate that everyone has a conscience, and some notion of right and wrong. And let's stipulate that they all wish to pay their fair share of public expenses for roads, bridges, schools, and other shared, public services.

Everyone wants to pay their fair share, but no one wants to pay more than their fair share. Neither do they want anyone else to pay more than their fair share. They want a practical and just system.

So, their problem is to come up with a tax system which puts no excessive burden on anyone, such that everyone will have the money to pay their share. The income tax provides such a system. It has exemptions for dependents and normal living expenses, such that no one will starve by paying their share. And it then taxes their income, according to their ability to pay, so that everyone actually has the money required to pay their fair share.

... The reality is that whereas a poor guy gets a welfare pittance, the rich guy benefits from welfare also, and I'm not talking about duty to his fellow man, nor a warm and fuzzy feeling for doing good. The rich guy benefits from welfare because in it's absence, there would be rioting in the streets, which is bad for business. Similarly who benefits more from the police department? A poor person who is likely to be a victim of violent crime, or the rich guy who owns a business which could get vandalized in a looting situation in the absence of the police?

Exactly.

Well, we can agree to disagree on the drivers of human psychology. Tax policy is made using extremely crude stat measures, chiefly the ability to pay countered by the ability to influence lawmakers, which the rich, of course are high in both areas. Whereas the discussion of "fair share" is typically a conversation proposed by individuals individually.

The real challenge is how to drive human psychology toward seeking the common good over seeking selfish gains. And that is a role traditionally played by Churches and/or Schools. If it is not taught in churches then it must be taught in schools. I think it used to be called "Social Studies".

[LuckyR]

... Let's stipulate that everyone is going to try to get out of paying taxes as much as possible, such that if taxes were voluntary, the government would collect zero dollars.

No. Let's stipulate that everyone has a conscience, and some notion of right and wrong. And let's stipulate that they all wish to pay their fair share of public expenses for roads, bridges, schools, and other shared, public services.

Everyone wants to pay their fair share, but no one wants to pay more than their fair share. Neither do they want anyone else to pay more than their fair share. They want a practical and just system.

So, their problem is to come up with a tax system which puts no excessive burden on anyone, such that everyone will have the money to pay their share. The income tax provides such a system. It has exemptions for dependents and normal living expenses, such that no one will starve by paying their share. And it then taxes their income, according to their ability to pay, so that everyone actually has the money required to pay their fair share.

... The reality is that whereas a poor guy gets a welfare pittance, the rich guy benefits from welfare also, and I'm not talking about duty to his fellow man, nor a warm and fuzzy feeling for doing good. The rich guy benefits from welfare because in it's absence, there would be rioting in the streets, which is bad for business. Similarly who benefits more from the police department? A poor person who is likely to be a victim of violent crime, or the rich guy who owns a business which could get vandalized in a looting situation in the absence of the police?

Exactly.

Well, we can agree to disagree on the drivers of human psychology. Tax policy is made using extremely crude stat measures, chiefly the ability to pay countered by the ability to influence lawmakers, which the rich, of course are high in both areas. Whereas the discussion of "fair share" is typically a conversation proposed by individuals individually.

The real challenge is how to drive human psychology toward seeking the common good over seeking selfish gains. And that is a role traditionally played by Churches and/or Schools. If it is not taught in churches then it must be taught in schools. I think it used to be called "Social Studies".

Well we're never going back to traditionally since now that anyone can publish and broadcast there are an infinite number of influences on young folk developing their outlook. Thus tastes are fractured and splintered among a huge number of options.

[Belindi]

No. Let's stipulate that everyone has a conscience, and some notion of right and wrong. And let's stipulate that they all wish to pay their fair share of public expenses for roads, bridges, schools, and other shared, public services.

Everyone wants to pay their fair share, but no one wants to pay more than their fair share. Neither do they want anyone else to pay more than their fair share. They want a practical and just system.

So, their problem is to come up with a tax system which puts no excessive burden on anyone, such that everyone will have the money to pay their share. The income tax provides such a system. It has exemptions for dependents and normal living expenses, such that no one will starve by paying their share. And it then taxes their income, according to their ability to pay, so that everyone actually has the money required to pay their fair share.



Exactly.

Well, we can agree to disagree on the drivers of human psychology. Tax policy is made using extremely crude stat measures, chiefly the ability to pay countered by the ability to influence lawmakers, which the rich, of course are high in both areas. Whereas the discussion of "fair share" is typically a conversation proposed by individuals individually.

The real challenge is how to drive human psychology toward seeking the common good over seeking selfish gains. And that is a role traditionally played by Churches and/or Schools. If it is not taught in churches then it must be taught in schools. I think it used to be called "Social Studies".

Well we're never going back to traditionally since now that anyone can publish and broadcast there are an infinite number of influences on young folk developing their outlook. Thus tastes are fractured and splintered among a huge number of options.

My impression is society here in England is post-Christian, post-theist, vis a vis morality. If younger educated people cared to join something like a religion they'd be Humanists or Europeanised Buddhists which have no supernatural mythic narrative. The latter moralities are well within the Axial Age canon, and historically derived from it.

For the more poetically-minded, classical polytheism will make a comeback . Polytheism has Mars, Gaia, Neptune, Venus, Mercury all of them appropriate to specifically important issues of the world in 2022.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

you have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed

I absolutely 100% have not agreed to that, tacitly or otherwise.

So, no, it is not at all like robbery. You've agreed...

I have not agreed.

And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd.

There are two courts. One is established by social agreements, such as a Constitution, which provides citizens with the means to select their legislators, so that they can choose those likely to create the laws they like. The other court is Conscience. And the judgements of these two courts agree on most things, but occasionally disagree.

Conscience generally supports a government's laws, because there is a moral benefit to having a general agreement as to the rights of individuals, such as the right to own property, and a right to live safely in an orderly society. Government is one of the means by which we guarantee these rights for each other.

And a democratically elected government assures that our own views of what is right and wrong have a hope of becoming the general view.

So, government has moral value. And to provide that value, we all pay taxes, because one of those rights we all enjoy is the right to pay our fair share of the costs, and no more than that.

If your statements above are meant in any way to support your assertion that I (and all citizens and/or residents) "have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed", then they appear to me to be utter non-sequiturs.

The question of whether or not "government has moral value" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to the specific topic at hand. The topic at hand is in part whether taxation by big government is consensual or not, since presumably if it's consensual than it's not robbery. In fact, any question about whether anything is moral is irreverent to this forum topic. if you would like discuss whether or not a certain thing is moral or not (whatever that means), you can create a topic in the Ethics and Morality forum.

For the reasons above, I stand by my last reply to you:

you have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed

I absolutely 100% have not agreed to that, tacitly or otherwise.

So, no, it is not at all like robbery. You've agreed...

I have not agreed.

And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd.

[Marvin_Edwards]

you have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed

I absolutely 100% have not agreed to that, tacitly or otherwise.

So, no, it is not at all like robbery. You've agreed...

I have not agreed.

And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd.

The U. S. Constitution is an agreement ratified by conventions of people within each state. Anyone who claims to be a citizen of the United States of America cannot claim that they are not a party to the agreement, because citizenship in the U.S.A. only exists because the Constitution was ratified by popular agreement. No Constitution, no USA. No USA, no United States citizenship.

At least that's the way things work here. I don't know where you're from, but I suspect your nation also exists by popular agreement.

The mafia is a private organization dedicated to its members personal welfare.

A government is a public organization, created by the people, to serve their common welfare. And they have agreed that the expenses of government programs and services will be paid for by a system of taxation.

If you're not a citizen, then we may still require you to pay taxes while you're visiting. In any case, if you're not willing to pay your fair share of the expenses, then you are free to leave. If you choose to stay, then you have also chosen to be governed by our laws and to pay your taxes like the rest of us.

The claim that you have no such agreement with the rest of us will not stand, because we will enforce that agreement whether you like it or not. Your claims of "robbery" will be as empty with us as they would be with your landlord, or your car dealership, or your bookie.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The U. S. Constitution is an agreement ratified by conventions of people within each state.

Ratified by conventions of all people in every state? If so, when?

If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it?

When the 8 who are forcing themselves on the 2 despite the protests of the 2 and the claims by 2 that they don't consent, what do we make it of it when one of the 8 says, "The claim that you have no such agreement with the rest of us (to let us have sex with you) will not stand, because we will enforce that agreement whether you like it or not"?

Anyone who claims to be a citizen of the United States of America cannot claim that they are not a party to the agreement, because citizenship in the U.S.A. only exists because the Constitution was ratified by popular agreement.

That is a total non-sequitur.

Just because the existence of A (e.g. a government or citizenship under that government) wouldn't exist without B (the constitution or articles of incorporation), in no way does it remotely logically follow that the people affected by the document's decrees consent to those affects (e.g. that if the constitution legalizes prima nocta than prima nocta isn't rape because it's consensual, which is clearly absurd).

At least that's the way things work here. I don't know where you're from, but I suspect your nation also exists by popular agreement.

It's not clear what you mean by "popular agreement" but you seem to be committing a fallacy of equivocation when you somehow jump from your possibly irrelevant comments about "popular agreement" to telling me that I agreed?

When two wolves eat a sheep it isn't consensual just because the wolves outnumber the sheep. It doesn't mean the sheep agreed to be eaten just because the wolves outnumber the sheep.

A government is a public organization, created by the people, to serve their common welfare.

Replace "the" with "some" and I am inclined to agree with that sentence.

we will enforce that agreement whether you like it or not.

Exactly.

[LuckyR]

The U. S. Constitution is an agreement ratified by conventions of people within each state.

Ratified by conventions of all people in every state? If so, when?

If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it?

When the 8 who are forcing themselves on the 2 despite the protests of the 2 and the claims by 2 that they don't consent, what do we make it of it when one of the 8 says, "The claim that you have no such agreement with the rest of us (to let us have sex with you) will not stand, because we will enforce that agreement whether you like it or not"?

Anyone who claims to be a citizen of the United States of America cannot claim that they are not a party to the agreement, because citizenship in the U.S.A. only exists because the Constitution was ratified by popular agreement.

That is a total non-sequitur.

Just because the existence of A (e.g. a government or citizenship under that government) wouldn't exist without B (the constitution or articles of incorporation), in no way does it remotely logically follow that the people affected by the document's decrees consent to those affects (e.g. that if the constitution legalizes prima nocta than prima nocta isn't rape because it's consensual, which is clearly absurd).

At least that's the way things work here. I don't know where you're from, but I suspect your nation also exists by popular agreement.

It's not clear what you mean by "popular agreement" but you seem to be committing a fallacy of equivocation when you somehow jump from your possibly irrelevant comments about "popular agreement" to telling me that I agreed?

When two wolves eat a sheep it isn't consensual just because the wolves outnumber the sheep. It doesn't mean the sheep agreed to be eaten just because the wolves outnumber the sheep.

A government is a public organization, created by the people, to serve their common welfare.

Replace "the" with "some" and I am inclined to agree with that sentence.

we will enforce that agreement whether you like it or not.

Exactly.

You are absolutely correct that everyone has NOT agreed to the rules by which we are all governed.

However the error is that such agreement is required for a system to act ethically. You (as everyone else) is free to violate the rules you never agreed to. Though actions have consequences. Are you prepared to accept those consequences? I'm going with "no".

[Marvin_Edwards]

The U. S. Constitution is an agreement ratified by conventions of people within each state.

Ratified by conventions of all people in every state? If so, when?

Convention delegates, representing the cities and counties of each state, were elected by the citizens of those localities. Women and blacks had no voting rights back then. But it would be fair to say that all qualified voters could participate in electing their delegates. The articles of the new constitution were published in local newspapers, and widely discussed and argued.

In Virginia, for example, there 170 delegates, and the vote was close. There were 89 for ratification and 79 against. Virginia was the 10th state to ratify.

There was never any requirement for a unanimous agreement. Such a requirement would never be met. The same was true of the overall process, as only 9 states of the 13 were needed to establish the constitution.

So, how on earth could such a close vote be supported by everyone, even though a whopping 47% voted against it? Simple. It was the character of the people at that time to cherish democratic self-government. And democracy can only work if people are willing to form agreements that benefit everyone, and is willing to abide by those agreements in good faith.

If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it? ...

Are you forking kidding me? Obviously the 8 people have no commitment to everyone's welfare. Their rules are self-serving and immoral. You know, just like the treatment of the slaves at the time.

Just because the existence of A (e.g. a government or citizenship under that government) wouldn't exist without B (the constitution or articles of incorporation), in no way does it remotely logically follow that the people affected by the document's decrees consent to those affects ...

Unanimous consent on every rule is never required. If it were required then nothing would ever get done. So, it's not.

The key thing is that a general faith in the system itself has a broad consensus among the people. If you don't like a law that was just passed, then you can lobby for different laws and campaign for new representatives. If you convince enough people that your cause is just, then you may be on the winning side next time. On the other hand, if your arguments are not convincing, you may want to re-examine your position.

But if no one has faith in the fairness and the benefits of the system of democracy, then everything goes to hell. And nobody wants to live under those conditions.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The U. S. Constitution is an agreement ratified by conventions of people within each state.

Ratified by conventions of all people in every state? If so, when?

Women and blacks had no voting rights back then.

I think that's worth noting, so thank you for noting it.



---

you have tacitly agreed to all of the conditions specified in the constitution, and have agreed to obey the laws passed

I absolutely 100% have not agreed to that, tacitly or otherwise.

---

So, no, it is not at all like robbery. You've agreed...

I have not agreed.

And the logic used that would somehow suggest someone agrees to whatever laws happen to be decreed by the mafia or government ruling the vast lands upon which they happen to be born is demonstrably absurd.

---

If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it? ...

Obviously the 8 people have no commitment to everyone's welfare. Their rules are self-serving and immoral. You know, just like the treatment of the slaves at the time.

It's a yes or no question.

So let me ask again: If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it? Yes or no?



However, if you disagree with #1 from the OP as quoted below, then I ask you to reply in my other newer narrower topic instead of this one.

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.

To reiterate, if you disagree with #1 above, then please instead of posting in this topic, I ask you to reply in my other newer narrower topic (Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual).

Needless to say, if you think taxation by big non-local governments is consensual, then of course you won't think it is violent robbery. So I think there's no point in discussing the latter unless we agree on the former.

[Marvin_Edwards]

It's a yes or no question.

No, it's not.

So let me ask again: If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it? Yes or no?

Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Robbery is robbery. The requirement that you pay your taxes like the rest of us is neither rape, nor murder, nor robbery.

I reject your analogy.

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

The income tax was added to the constitutional agreement via the 18th Amendment. It was ratified by the state legislatures as stipulated in the constitution. The U.S. constitution itself was ratified by the people of the states via directly elected representatives from the local cities and counties.

So, the Constitution is an agreement between the citizens. That agreement specified the means of amendment ratification by state legislatures. And the 18th Amendment added the income tax to the Constitution.

Taxation, like it or not, is consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

That's the kind of nonsense we'd expect to hear from someone like Alex Jones, who just got sued for telling everyone that the Sandy Hook massacre was a faked event.

People pay their taxes because that is their civic duty. I use TurboTax these days. And Intuit has never pulled out a gun on me. I pay my taxes voluntarily, just like I pay all of my bills for services I've received and debts that I owe.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

Not surprising. I suspect that government has raised money for its services by many tax systems since governments were established.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.

I assume by "suppliers" you are referring to the U. S. Mint. Raising money by printing is inflationary. Prices and salaries rise every time the amount of currency increases. Inflation undermines everyone's rational management of their money. Inflation undermines and thus discourages savings.

Needless to say, if you think taxation by big non-local governments is consensual, then of course you won't think it is violent robbery. So I think there's no point in discussing the latter unless we agree on the former.

There is moral value in confronting dangerous falsehoods with the truth.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If 10 people live on an island, and 8 people convene together and decide to rape and murder the the other 2, does that make it consensual (i.e. not rape)? Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it?

It's a yes or no question.

No, it's not.

Yes, it most certainly is. The question is a yes or no question: Does that mean the victims consented/agreed to it?

Yes or no?


---

if you disagree with #1 from the OP as quoted below, then I ask you to reply in my other newer narrower topic instead of this one.

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

To reiterate, if you disagree with #1 above, then please instead of posting in this topic, I ask you to reply in my other newer narrower topic (Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual).

Needless to say, if you think taxation by big non-local governments is consensual, then of course you won't think it is violent robbery. So I think there's no point in discussing the latter unless we agree on the former.

Taxation, like it or not, is consensual.

Since we disagree on that, please do not reply here. Instead, please post a reply in my other more recent narrower topic about that specific issue: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

[Gertie]

It seems clear to me that taxation is violent robbery, at least when it is done by big non-local governments.

That isn't to say small local governments cannot commit violent robbery, but it tends to be more of a gray area. For instance, the so-called governing board of a condo community with a shared community pool is typically viewed as a consensual arrangement. Self-government is the antithesis of big government.

Likewise, four roommates sharing a house might each pay 1/4th of the utility bills (electric, gas, etc.), perhaps even under written signed contract such that non-payment would allow other roommates to evict the non-paying roommate. Again, to reiterate, self-government is the antithesis of big government.

Thus, this topic is not meant to discuss arguably consensual pseudo-taxes used by agreement at the local level to fund shared local services such as a community pool, a local fire department, or a local elementary school.

For example, I live in Manchester, Connecticut, USA.

The USA government spends over $12,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison, and one cannot avoid them even by moving to the woods or overseas. The total amount spent by the USA government is over $4 trillion per year. A trillion is one million millions.

The Connecticut government spends over $8,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison.

And the Manchester town has no income tax at all but collects $5,000 per person on average via surcharges on property ownership, which are used to fund the local schools, fire departments, and police. If someone doesn't pay these, it's a civil not a criminal matter, and I believe the debt is attached to the land not the person. It's mostly moot since few people own their land/house outright and instead a private bank pays the pseudo-taxes to the town and builds the cost into the private contractual consensually signed mortgage. In other words, these are consensual, literally to the point of generally involving actual signed contracts, signed before one moves in and agrees to pay.

It's worth noting that words like 'robbery', 'rape', and 'murder' tend to equivocally have both a statutory sense and a non-statutory sense. In the statutory sense, murder is only murder if it is illegal, and thus the Nazi government didn't murder any Jewish people in that sense, but that is not the sense in which I use the words. In the statutory sense, martial rape of a wife by a husband was not rape for most of history since it was only very recently criminalized in most jurisdictions, but that is not how I use the word. The way I use the words even legal murder is murder, and even legal robbery is robbery. In the sense in which I am using the words, legality is irrelevant to whether something is murder, robbery, etc.

If we need a specific definition of big, let's arbitrarily define it as a government that spends both more than $1 billion USD per year and more than $1,000 USD per person per year.

If we need a specific definition of non-local, let's arbitrarily define it as a government that violently rules over more 100 square miles of land.

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.


To be clear, this topic is not about whether taxes are 'necessary', whatever that might mean, whether they are immoral or morally good, whatever that might mean, or whether they are subjectively desirable. In theory, it's possible for someone to acknowledge that taxes are violent robbery, but still think that violent robbery is necessary for some purpose, or that it is desirable or such.

No-one has ever created the society they are born into. We all have to adopt and adapt to what exists, and do our bit to help change it if we don't like aspects of it. That's the reality we all deal with. If you want to opt out of society and live off the grid, forsaking all the benefits of living in an inter-dependant society, you might be able to find somewhere to do that, then you can create your own principles and laws from scratch. While you're building your home, transport, roads, electricity generator, hospital, school, internet server, etc.

But assuming you're not advocating that, then the question as 21st century American is -

Is it justifiable to call obeying the law in a Democracy, even a law I don't like, an act of Violent Robbery?

Well you could wrangle an argument together, but it would entail ditching Democracy as the justifaction for obeying the shared laws of a society, where you are free to stand for election or vote to change those laws.

I've disobeyed a law or two, I expect many people have, but I know there are consequences if I'm caught. I've also campaigned and protested against some laws, including civil disobedience, with varying success. So did Suffragettes and Civil Rights activists. This is how change happens in society. Libertarians can stand for election, go on marches and so on just like anybody else. But bear in mind every one of us will dislike some aspects of the laws democracy bequeaths us. And would probably be laughed at as dramatic entitled children for calling those laws Violent Robbery.