GE Morton wrote: ↑October 20th, 2022, 7:50 pm The theft (or tax) does not benefit the victim (taxpayer) if the "gift" returned to him is worth less to him than the money stolen.Your statement above might be true, but I believe it is irrelevant.
Whether or not a transaction is consensual (or is violent robbery) is not affected by what the person who obtains the funds via the transaction spends the funds upon later.
What the proceeds or profits are spent on is irrelevant to whether or not the activity used to obtain those funds is consensual, meaning whether the funder gave the funds consensually (versus being coerced into non-consensually providing the funds via the threat of non-defensive violence).
GE Morton wrote: ↑October 20th, 2022, 7:50 pm Some non-consensual (forced) payments are morally justifiable, namely, those collected to prevent free-riding.Whether what you say in the sentence above is true or not is irrelevant (to the titular question in this forum topic). The question/subject of this forum topics is whether or taxation by big non-local governments is consensual, not if it is "morally justifiable" (whatever that means).
Of course, you are free to make another separate forum topic to ask and discuss (1) the question of whether taxation is "morally justifiable" (whatever that means) or task and discuss the question of whether or not non-consensual transactions/interactions can be "morally justifiable" (whatever that means). But neither of those questions/topics are the question/subject of this forum topic. In this topic, they are irrelevant and off-topic.
In regard to this topic, I think we agree: taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
View Bookshelves page for In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All