If taxes are theft then your definition of theft is so broad as to be useless.

You are a bad faith actor who has lost this argument 100x.

Recognizing that the government stealing people's income is theft is not a definition 'so broad as to be useless'.

Its a catchy slogan that has illuminated the immorality of the state.

Taxes being stealing also means your definition of stealing is so broad as to be useless

how is "you take something that's mine without my permission" a useless definition for stealing?

even if there was an option to pay for public services it wouldn't be stealing. you could for example not be able to register or drive a car without paying a tax for road construction, and not be allowed to receive food stamps unemployment or social security, etc. not many would take this option im sure, or would and then realize its something they can't sustain and go back.

but lets be honest, you, me, cam, everyone has zero idea what value their tax brings them compared to what it costs. the govt clearly isn't 100% efficient, but we also have no idea how inefficient they really are. if u didn't pay any you may have somewhat of an idea based on services lost.

Right to property is predicated on property being taxed for protection using the monopoly of force provided by whatever that force is.

If there is no rules agreed upon a central body to protect things then there's no monopolization of violence and we could all use violence to our own ends within her own capabilities. Property carries the pretense that we agreed not to kill each other for stuff... And that when somebody does we agree upon a central force to punish that person classically through death and dismemberment contemporarily through imprisonment.

Your taxes pay for people to kill and dismember and in present imprison people so that your property can be safe.

They are anarchists who cling to the belief that they can own things after death.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 30 2020 04:43pm

Because it's akin to saying my landlord is taking from me without my permission. Ultimately his taking of my money is also backed by the threat of the state removing me from the property. I can use literally every argument they use. "I was born here" or "I don't consent to the current system" etc. etc.

Literally word for word I can use every argument I've ever heard to show that their definition of stealing or theft as they apply it to taxes applies to the entire system of private property.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 30 2020 04:42pm

ok so just take taxes for cops and you're still stealing 90% of my tax through paycheck for other things I don't consent to. 10% of taxes being legitimate doesn't legitimize 100% of the taxes.

if someone doesn't want social security, food stamp and welfare security blankets, public schooling, roads, and many other taxes how is it not stealing to take from them?

honestly just seems like liberals are scared of the buzzword of stealing similar to how they want people to be scared of being called a racist. I steal shit all the time, who cares about stealing.

even on the subject of property, property taxes directly fund schools. if my kids don't go to public school or I don't have kids I should get a discount for that. if I then have kids and enroll them I should be charged more.

Cool, so the part of my rent that goes towards the back yard I never use is theft. And I didn't want that third room, so that part of my rent is theft as well. I just wanted the living room after all. He should rent the back yard to somebody who wants it so I can just get the parts I want. The world should revolve around me and my specific set of circumstances or it's not fair and it's theft.



Having to use money at all is honestly theft, since I don't consent to a system that requires money and allows private property. Therefore since every penny of every transaction I made is theft, since I haven't given anybody permission to impose this system on me.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 30 2020 04:57pm

you looked at a place, knew every aspect it had, every room, and the backyard, before you voluntarily entered into an agreement to rent it. your comparison is embarrassingly bad tbh and ignores consent. no one forced you to rent that place or agree to pay that price. even the rent itself isn't govt mandated, and you could have tried to negotiate for lower rent. you could have offered your landlord to air bnb the 3rd room, you could cede the backyard entirely for less rent. in reality this would never happen, but there's no govt mandated force stopping you or your landlord and im sure some obscure low number of rental agreements include such allowances.

and on that note I don't find protection of your property to be legitimate, you could be able to opt out of police enforcing your property is you wanted to in theory. and the same people who are anti tax are generally pro gun and more than able to enforce their own property. if say someone trespasses on my property ill be lucky if the cops show up in 2 hours to stop it. unless there's a gun involved the cops aren't hurrying to protect me at all, and if I give them a description they wont investigate and search for the trespasser. they'll tell me to take a picture next time or call them again.

I didn't voluntarily enter into an agreement. I need a place to live and never agreed to the system of private property we currently have. My consent was made under coercion since I can't leave the system for a new one.

All of the things you brought up as potential considerations all apply to government taxation as well. You're free to leave, attempt to negotiate, influence the tax rate, etc. etc., but they're not realistic.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 30 2020 05:07pm