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

[Good_Egg]

Government provides services (like roads) that people choose to benefit from. And services (like law and defence) that people benefit from without any choice being involved. And non-services that a given individual does not benefit from (there are non-defensive wars in this category, and vanity projects, and others).

It seems a philosophical error to think that an argument by implied consent which justifies hypothecated taxation to pay for infrastructure also justifies taxation for the other two categories of government spending.

Put another way, people can think that all taxation is theft, or some taxation is theft, or no taxation is theft. We agree that there is a good argument against the "all" version of the proposition. But the "some" version is very much still out there.

[Lagayascienza]

I agree with you and would add only that, in democracies, electors are free to lobby and campaign against particular spending measures and to vote against governments who spend on projects electors may not agree with. Democracy costs tax dollars to run and it's clunky, but it does give the electorate a measure of control. And if a person doesn't want to be part of a democracy then let them emigrate to N. Korea or Iran or wherever. They'll still be taxed there but at least they won't have to put up with democracy. The only other option is to go start their own country in whose constitution will be a clause stating that governments may not levy taxes unless by formal agreement with each elector.