Philosophy Discussion Forums

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.


These questions are not rhetorical. If you somehow believe that taxation is not theft, then I would like you to explicitly answer each of these questions so that I can learn more about your interesting and very different perspective. I love learning about different perspectives.

Please don't skip questions. If you are going to reply, please answer them all.

1. Was the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust consensual? Was it murder or merely consensual assisted suicide?

2. Is so-called "legal marital rape" actually rape, or is it consensual because it is legal?

3. Did Martin Luther King consent to being arrested and jailed?

4. Did Henry David Thoreau consent to being arrested and jailed? (Henry David Thoreau, the author of Civil Disobedience, was arrested and jailed for the crime of refusing to pay taxes, which he did to protest slavery and the Mexican–American War.)

5. Are the pacifists currently in prison in the USA for refusing to pay taxes to the USA Federal Government there consensually? Are they actual literal prisoners (i.e. kidnapping victims) or are they consensual guests consensually staying at the prison?

6. If a mafia protection racket happens to be running in your neighborhood, and the mobsters come to your business with baseball bats and say you have to pay them for their protection services or they will bust up your business and break your legs, so you pay them to avoid that violence against you, is that consensual? Or is that theft and/or robbery? What if the mobsters really are protecting you and the other businesses on your block from even worse out-of-town gangsters that would attack you if your in-town gangsters weren't protecting you and their turf. What if many of your neighbors who are paying into that protection racket would eagerly voluntarily pay into it even if they weren't being threatened with baseball bats? Is that consensual then? Did you consent to having your legs broken? If you pay them to avoid getting your legs broken, is that payment consensual? (Again, these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm really asking.)

7. If you go to a bank, shoot the teller, and then take all the money out of the register, but then go and donate that money to a wonderful charity, was that theft and/or robbery? Does the fact that you spent the money on charitable causes that are for the greater good have anything at all to do with whether or not the transaction to get the money was consensual and/or whether or not it was theft? Does you spending the money on something allegedly good or charitable render a would-be theft into a non-theft?

8. If you mug me at gunpoint, and then use the money you got from me to buy a pizza, and then you offer me a slice, does me saying that your taking my money was theft mean that I don't like pizza or that I don't want a slice of pizza or that I'd be a hypocrite or contradicting myself if I accepted a slice of the pizza you bought with the money you forced me to give you a gunpoint?

9. In the times leading up to the American Revolution, were the taxes issued by the British Monarchy on tea and stamps that lead to the Boston Tea Party and Stamp Act Riots consensual?

10. Were the taxes charged by Hitler's government on Jews (and other citizens) consensual?

11. In Nazi Germany, when labor camp and concentration camp inmates were required to give all their jewelry and valuables and money to the guards upon entry, was that consensual or was that legal theft?

12. In Nazi Germany, was the labor done by inmates at the labor camps slavery or consensual?

13. When big state or federal governments imprison people for victimless crimes such as marijuana possession or homosexuality, and then force the inmates to do labor, such as happens in California, is that slavery or consensual labor?

14. Is taxation by big non-local governments (e.g. the USA Federal Government, the Europaea Union, etc.) consensual or non-consensual? Let's assume that this big non-local government charges taxes on anyone born in its vast huge lands, and won't let them leave without paying an exit tax. If they refuse to pay, they go to prison. If they resists going to prison, they get violently forced to go their killed for resisting arrest. Is that consensual or not consensual?

For the sake of argument, let's define a "big non-local government" as a government that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdiction spans more than 10,000 square miles
- jurisdiction covers more than 10 million people
- annual budget is greater than $100,000,000,000 USD ($100 billion)
- won't let people leave, at least not without charging them an exit tax, and/or charges taxes even if people do leave


Please do not answer question #14 until you have answered all 13 of the previous questions.

Please also do not reply to allege that one question creates a 'false analogy' with another. Please do not read between the lines like that. I am not saying that the different things being asked about in the different questions are analogous. In fact, if they were perfect analogies, I wouldn't need to ask all 11, I could just ask 1.

I'm just asking different questions about consent, so I can understand your perspective about consent and various other related philosophical concepts, so I can see what patterns are there if any between your answers, so I can better understand your unique view and perspective. I love learning about new viewpoints.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes









---
---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

I believe that taxation is theft. But I am unable to think of an economical model that can run with absolutely zero taxation. Hence, I am answering your questions.

1. Holocaust killings:
No, the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust was not consensual. It was murder.

2. Legal marital rape:
Legal marital rape is still rape, as legality does not equate to morality.

3. Martin Luther King’s arrest:
Dr. King did not consent to his arrest. He accepted the consequences as a strategy of civil disobedience.

4. Thoreau’s arrest:
Similarly, Thoreau did not consent to his arrest. His refusal to pay taxes was an act of protest.

5. Pacifists in prison:
Pacifists in prison for refusing to pay taxes are not there consensually. They are prisoners, not guests.

6. Mafia protection racket:
Paying the mafia to avoid harm is not consensual; it’s coercion.

7. Robbery for charity:
Taking money by force, even for charitable purposes, remains theft.

8. Mugging for pizza:
If someone mugs you and buys pizza with your money, the act of theft remains theft. Accepting a slice of pizza doesn’t erase the initial act.

9. Pre-Revolution taxes:
Taxes imposed by the British Monarchy on American colonists (not only the American colonists, they imposed taxes on all the countries that they forcefully commanded) were not consensual.

10. Nazi taxes:
Taxes levied by Hitler’s government were non-consensual.

11. Confiscation in camps:
Taking valuables from concentration camp inmates was theft, regardless of legality.

12. Labour in camps:
Labor done by inmates in Nazi labor camps was slavery, as it was forced and done without consent.

13. Forced labour in U.S. prisons:
Forcing inmates to work for little or no compensation in U.S. prisons is a form of modern slavery.

14. Big non-local governments and taxation:
Taxation by large, non-local governments are non-consensual because individuals are compelled to pay under threat of legal or physical consequences.

Here's a 15th. Is it theft if a nontaxpayer uses a government service paid for with taxes?

1. Was the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust consensual? Was it murder or merely consensual assisted suicide?

It was clearly nonconsensual. As far as we know, the Jews had no intention of suicide, assisted or otherwise. Their killing was murder. They were not killed as punishment for disobeying any law. They were killed simply because they were Jewish. Same with the Roma, with gays, the disabled and anyone else the NAZIs did not like. .

2. Is so-called "legal marital rape" actually rape, or is it consensual because it is legal?

Legal does not equal consensual. Without consent, sex within or without marriage, is rape, IMO. Even in countries where nonconsensual sex within marriage is lawful, it is still rape, IMO. It may be lawful rape, but still rape, and it is morally repugnant.

3. Did Martin Luther King consent to being arrested and jailed?

MLK did not consent to arrest and imprisonment. But he understood that it was a likely corollary of his civil disobedience. He had no other way of publicly and peacefully advocating for change in America. He bravely did so despite the risk to his freedom.

4. Did Henry David Thoreau consent to being arrested and jailed? (Henry David Thoreau, the author of Civil Disobedience, was arrested and jailed for the crime of refusing to pay taxes, which he did to protest slavery and the Mexican–American War.)

He may not have consented to arrest and imprisonment even if his arrest and imprisonment were lawful.

5. Are the pacifists currently in prison in the USA for refusing to pay taxes to the USA Federal Government there consensually? Are they actual literal prisoners (i.e. kidnapping victims) or are they consensual guests consensually staying at the prison?

No, they are probably not in prison consensually even though their imprisonment is lawful. They did, however, understand that refusal to pay their lawfully levied taxes renders them liable to punishment. And that’s what they're getting. And rightfully so, IMO.

6. If a mafia protection racket happens to be running in your neighborhood, and the mobsters come to your business with baseball bats and say you have to pay them for their protection services or they will bust up your business and break your legs, so you pay them to avoid that violence against you, is that consensual? Or is that theft and/or robbery? What if the mobsters really are protecting you and the other businesses on your block from even worse out-of-town gangsters that would attack you if your in-town gangsters weren't protecting you and their turf. What if many of your neighbors who are paying into that protection racket would eagerly voluntarily pay into it even if they weren't being threatened with baseball bats? Is that consensual then? Did you consent to having your legs broken? If you pay them to avoid getting your legs broken, is that payment consensual? (Again, these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm really asking.)

The mafia’s theft, robbery and violence are nonconsensual and they are unlawful.

7. If you go to a bank, shoot the teller, and then take all the money out of the register, but then go and donate that money to a wonderful charity, was that theft and/or robbery? Does the fact that you spent the money on charitable causes that are for the greater good have anything at all to do with whether or not the transaction to get the money was consensual and/or whether or not it was theft? Does you spending the money on something allegedly good or charitable render a would-be theft into a non-theft?

A robbery is a robbery. Robbery is unlawful and nonconsensual no matter what the proceeds of the robbery are spent on.

8. If you mug me at gunpoint, and then use the money you got from me to buy a pizza, and then you offer me a slice, does me saying that your taking my money was theft mean that I don't like pizza or that I don't want a slice of pizza or that I'd be a hypocrite or contradicting myself if I accepted a slice of the pizza you bought with the money you forced me to give you a gunpoint?

A mugging is nonconsensual and unlawful, and this is so no matter what the money from the mugging is spent on.

9. In the times leading up to the American Revolution, were the taxes issued by the British Monarchy on tea and stamps that lead to the Boston Tea Party and Stamp Act Riots consensual?

Taxes are lawfully imposed by lawful governments. Once the Americans disentangled themselves from British rule in the War of Independence and set up their own independent constitutional government, they were able to stop paying taxes to the British government and were able to pay taxes instead to the new American government. Taxes imposed by the American government were lawful but may not have been consensual in all cases. Those who didn’t want to pay their taxes probably kept moving west until civilization caught up with them. Federal and state governments had constitutional power to levy taxes and they did so. And for good reason.

10. Were the taxes charged by Hitler's government on Jews (and other citizens) consensual?

Usually, but not always. No doubt some German citizens felt taxation by their government was nonconsensual. However, such taxation was lawful.

11. In Nazi Germany, when labor camp and concentration camp inmates were required to give all their jewellery and valuables and money to the guards upon entry, was that consensual or was that legal theft?

The confiscation of property in the camps was nonconsensual and it was theft. Most of the people in concentration camps were not there for having broken any law, the breaking of which prescribed the penalty of confiscation of property. They were there for being the wrong race or the wrong sexuality.

12. In Nazi Germany, was the labor done by inmates at the labor camps slavery or consensual?

It was nonconsensual. It was forced and unpaid labor. As such, it was slavery.

13. When big state or federal governments imprison people for victimless crimes such as marijuana possession or homosexuality, and then force the inmates to do labor, such as happens in California, is that slavery or consensual labor?

Punishment for law breaking is not slavery but neither is it, generally, consensual. However, it is lawful. People who do not agree with laws that imprison people for victimless crimes need to agitate, protest and work for the election of representatives and governments who will take such laws off the stature books. And that is what has happened in regard to laws about homosexuality and marijuana possession in many jurisdictions.

14. Is taxation by big non-local governments (e.g. the USA Federal Government, the Europaea Union, etc.) consensual or non-consensual? Let's assume that this big non-local government charges taxes on anyone born in its vast huge lands, and won't let them leave without paying an exit tax. If they refuse to pay, they go to prison. If they resists going to prison, they get violently forced to go their killed for resisting arrest. Is that consensual or not consensual?

It is usually consensual, if only implicitly so. I made no formal agreement, but I consent to paying my taxes to the federal and state governments, even though I might bitch about the details of how they are spent. I believe that taxation is implicitly accepted by most people because they see taxation as necessary to enable a civilized nation to function. People therefore implicitly consent by paying their lawfully levied taxes.

Those who explicitly do not consent to being lawfully taxed are free to break the law by ceasing to pay their taxes. In so doing, they understand that they will be liable to lawful punishment which may involve imprisonment. Although such punishment may be nonconsensual, it is lawful and, I believe, necessary. Civilization, stability and lawfulness are, IMO, better than lawlessness and anarchy which would ensue if central governments were rendered powerless to carry out the necessary economic and social roles. Governments must have revenue in order to provide their populations with the benefits of civilization such as the maintenance of defense and police forces, the building of public infrastructure and the provision health care, education, etc. Taxation is necessary to build and secure the nation.

Those individuals who do not consent to being taxed by a central government and who, by refusing to pay their taxes are willing to risk lawful punishment, may not consent to being punished, but they won’t get much sympathy from the majority who understand that their civilization depends on taxation. Levies put in place by local governments cannot replace taxation by central, state and national governments. People who don’t want to pay their taxes must expect to suffer the lawful consequences if they don't. Either that, or they need to emigrate to a country with a government who will not tax them. Or they need to organize and campaign in their own countries for the election of governments who will not tax them. Good luck with either of those options.

I like the 15th question.

Some preliminary remarks before attempting your questions:

I approach this from the position that philosophy is inescapably about language. So that at least half the question is about how we use the word "consent" and its derivatives.

"Consent" means something like "agree to a course of action proposed by another". Consent is thus a choice. And only minds can make choices, and only individual people have minds.

That's simple and straightforward where there is a single act involved. An easy example is where a fellow-pupil asks if they can borrow your ruler. You choose to say yes or no, and so when they take it and use it that act is either with your consent or without.

More complex cases arise where an act has "strngs" attached - where people link two or more acts. If the man who runs the corner shop will sell you a chocolate bar for a dollar, and you choose to accept that offered trade, then most of us would say that you consent to paying him a dollar. Even though you might rather have the chocolate bar without paying, the fact that you have the choice to refuse the transaction means that in common usage we would say that you consent to pay.

(Absence of consent to the transaction might be exemplified by an alternative scenario where you've stolen a chocolate bar from your brother and your father finds out, grabs you by the collar, drags you to the corner shop and compels you to buy a bar for your brother to replace the one you stole).

But now suppose you buy the chocolate bar, but then run into the school bully who proposes a transaction where you give him the chocolate bar and in exchange he won't punch you in the face. If you give it to him, is that consensual ? You have the choice...

Seems to me that some people have a notion of moral rights. And therefore see a difference between the two situations. They would say that if you part with the chocolate bar only to avoid a wrong being done to you then that action is coerced by the threat of wrongdoing and is thus not consensual.

Whereas your option not to buy the chocolate in the first place involves no breach of rights and therefore is a valid "free" choice. It is not true to say that your desire for chocolate coerced you into parting with a dollar against your will.

I know you don't believe in moral rights. But am suggesting that many people do, and use that concept to distinguish between threats (linkages which coerce) and options where there is legitimate choice.

You may be able to make that distinction without a notion of rights. Or you may end up with consensuality being purely a matter of opinion, depending on subjective judgment of whether an alternative is "reasonable" (implying that the option selected is consented-to) or "unreasonable" (implying that the option selected is coerced and thus not consented-to). If you see what I mean.

Second point is that one of the words derived from "consent" is "consensus". One possible process for group decision-making is to require consensus - to not do anything unless everybody agrees. (Noting that agreement may be reluctant - someone might agree to (i.e. give consent to) something they would prefer not to happen, just for the sake of ending the tedium of a long drawn-out decision process).

Such a process can be contrasted with a process of voting whereby only a majority have to consent; the minority have to put up with it. That's a viable decision process, which scales up to large numbers in a way that decision-by-consensus does not.

Or contrasted with a decision-process where the leader asks for information and suggestions and arguments for and against various courses of action, and then makes a decision.

Voting is thus more consensual than some decision-processes and less-consensual than others.

So being consensual is not a binary yes/no concept, but a scale.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 29th, 2024, 5:37 am Here's a 15th. Is it theft if a nontaxpayer uses a government service paid for with taxes?

That's the crux.

We're born into societies with established systems, infrastructure and governance. That means from birth many of us are gifted with the use of that infrastructure and services which have been paid for by the society at large, our fellow citizens. From roads to schools, hospitals to bridges, electricity grid to train lines, wefare to army, etc.

If as adults we make the choice not to pay in when our turn comes, then it would be theft. The option to opt out would require living off grid, and building your own infrastructure. That's a tough choice to make, but it's the fair and just one.

Gertie wrote: ↑January 15th, 2025, 9:07 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 29th, 2024, 5:37 am Here's a 15th. Is it theft if a nontaxpayer uses a government service paid for with taxes?

That's the crux.

We're born into societies with established systems, infrastructure and governance. That means from birth many of us are gifted with the use of that infrastructure and services which have been paid for by the society at large, our fellow citizens. From roads to schools, hospitals to bridges, electricity grid to train lines, wefare to army, etc.

If as adults we make the choice not to pay in when our turn comes, then it would be theft. The option to opt out would require living off grid, and building your own infrastructure. That's a tough choice to make, but it's the fair and just one.

It's Psychology 101, everyone wants to use services, no one wants to pay for them. Ho hum...

As summed up by Gertie and luckyR, we don't have a right to what we refuse to pay for. Deciding not to contribute to the infrastructure, both physical and social, that one's society needs to function is a decision to freeload which is akin to theft, and theft is a moral wrong which the law rightly punishes.

It's pretty much impossible in the modern world to go off-grid and be totally self-sufficient. Try it. Try not being dependent on a police force and the military for the security and protection of your life and property. And don't use the roads or social security or the schools or the health system or anything else the rest of us have paid for, and are paying, for with our taxes.

The days when one could just venture out into the wilderness and find a unclaimed plot of land by a creek somewhere and call it one's own are long gone. And even people who own farms and grow their own food still need to use the roads and other infrastructure that connects them to the wider world. So called "sovereign citizens" who argue that they are not obliged to pay taxes are freeloaders and our law is right not to allow freeloading.

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑January 17th, 2025, 12:56 am As summed up by Gertie and luckyR, we don't have a right to what we refuse to pay for. Deciding not to contribute to the infrastructure, both physical and social, that one's society needs to function is a decision to freeload which is akin to theft, and theft is a moral wrong which the law rightly punishes.

It's pretty much impossible in the modern world to go off-grid and be totally self-sufficient. Try it. Try not being dependent on a police force and the military for the security and protection of your life and property. And don't use the roads or social security or the schools or the health system or anything else the rest of us have paid for, and are paying, for with our taxes.

The days when one could just venture out into the wilderness and find a unclaimed plot of land by a creek somewhere and call it one's own are long gone. And even people who own farms and grow their own food still need to use the roads and other infrastructure that connects them to the wider world. So called "sovereign citizens" who argue that they are not obliged to pay taxes are freeloaders and our law is right not to allow freeloading.

Exactly. In fact declaring one's Libertarian independance online is somewhere between ironic and silly, since who do you think paid for ARPANET (the basis of the Internet)? The US federal government.

Q. What happens to a large country that stops gathering the funds needed to defend itself?

A. It will fail to compete with countries that do gather monies to fund institutions like military, police, etc.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 18th, 2025, 8:59 pm Q. What happens to a large country that stops gathering the funds needed to defend itself?

A. It will fail to compete with countries that do gather monies to fund institutions like military, police, etc.

While there's truth in what you're driving at, the concept applies to things that don't actually contribute to the public good. The reality is, neither the President nor individual taxpayers have a line item veto. You have to accept the whole system or veto the whole system, from a functional (not a conceptual or ideological) standpoint.

TAXATION IS THEFT PERIOD.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 19th, 2025, 2:37 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 18th, 2025, 8:59 pm Q. What happens to a large country that stops gathering the funds needed to defend itself?

A. It will fail to compete with countries that do gather monies to fund institutions like military, police, etc.

While there's truth in what you're driving at, the concept applies to things that don't actually contribute to the public good. The reality is, neither the President nor individual taxpayers have a line item veto. You have to accept the whole system or veto the whole system, from a functional (not a conceptual or ideological) standpoint.

The complaining about tax on this thread is naive, ignoring the fact that societies that tax are the most successful in history. That's why all large societies today tax effectively - because they out-competed those that didn't tax. There is not a single large society that does not tax. Zero.

It would be lovely to live in a world of rainbows and fluffy bunnies, but we live in a world of predation and blood. While we have managed to gentrify in our giant societies, the savagery and competition still exist, only on a larger scale. Countries vie for control of land and resources. Without revenue, it is impossible for a country to compete, and they will be screwed by stronger nations.

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑January 17th, 2025, 12:56 am Deciding not to contribute to the infrastructure, both physical and social, that one's society needs to function is a decision to freeload which is akin to theft, and theft is a moral wrong which the law rightly punishes.

I'd tend to agree. But our host doesn't believe in moral wrongs. Scott's questions are about consensuality, with the deliberately-not-spelled-out implication that taking someone's money without their consent is theft.

Imagine that somebody walks into a shop, takes a chocolate bar off the shelf, and eats it. Then tries to leave the shop without paying, loudly proclaiming their they are offended by something that they have seen in the shop and therefore do not consent to paying the shopkeeper anything.

The answer that I would make to such a person
would be that whatever their current state of mind, they implicitly consented to pay for the chocolate bar when they took it.

Similarly, if someone says that they do not consent to pay tax on their income, having used the public highway to get to the job that earns them the money, then we can say that that portion of the tax that pays for the roads is something they have implicitly consented to pay, regardless of their current feelings on the matter.

That argument extends to any government service that the individual has chosen to benefit from. Taxation to pay for infrastructure that people use is not theft.

Government also provides protective services (e.g. defence of the realm) which we can say that we do not want, until we need them. There are public services that individuals cannot meaningfully opt out of (i.e.deny consent to).

But it seems entirely meaningful to not consent to foreign wars that make the world a more dangerous place (for example).

How far does the "implied consent" argument stretch ?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑January 20th, 2025, 5:30 am

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑January 17th, 2025, 12:56 am Deciding not to contribute to the infrastructure, both physical and social, that one's society needs to function is a decision to freeload which is akin to theft, and theft is a moral wrong which the law rightly punishes.

I'd tend to agree. But our host doesn't believe in moral wrongs. Scott's questions are about consensuality, with the deliberately-not-spelled-out implication that taking someone's money without their consent is theft.

Imagine that somebody walks into a shop, takes a chocolate bar off the shelf, and eats it. Then tries to leave the shop without paying, loudly proclaiming their they are offended by something that they have seen in the shop and therefore do not consent to paying the shopkeeper anything.

The answer that I would make to such a person
would be that whatever their current state of mind, they implicitly consented to pay for the chocolate bar when they took it.

Similarly, if someone says that they do not consent to pay tax on their income, having used the public highway to get to the job that earns them the money, then we can say that that portion of the tax that pays for the roads is something they have implicitly consented to pay, regardless of their current feelings on the matter.

That argument extends to any government service that the individual has chosen to benefit from. Taxation to pay for infrastructure that people use is not theft.

Government also provides protective services (e.g. defence of the realm) which we can say that we do not want, until we need them. There are public services that individuals cannot meaningfully opt out of (i.e.deny consent to).

But it seems entirely meaningful to not consent to foreign wars that make the world a more dangerous place (for example).

How far does the "implied consent" argument stretch ?

Exactly. I'd love to hear how someone can earn a dollar without direct or inderect use of a service paid for by the federal government.