Taxation is violent robbery.

[Ecurb]

Robin Hood was a violent robber. That doesn't mean I root for Guy of Gisbourne, the Sherriff of Nottingham, or Prince John. Violent robbery isn't so bad. In fact, as portrayed by Errol Flynn, Robin cut quite an attractive figure!

Maybe the Tax Collectors should start robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, like Robin. (Didn't Jesus dine with tax collectors, against the advice of his disciples? I suppose He might have been willing to dine with other violent robbers, too, so we can't go by that.)

To Scott: You and I are rich and have it easy BECAUSE of civilization. Of course we sympathize with the oppressed and impoverished, but dismantling the system that made us rich, long-lived and comfortable might bring us down to the level of the oppressed and impoverished instead of bringing them up to our level of wealth, health and comfort.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

So, if resistance to a government leader/robber is possible but the victim measures the pros and cons of resistance and decide to go along and give the government leaders/ robbers and let them have what they want, the victims understand that they are getting something in return.

I agree that there are pros and cons to a victim's cooperating with violent victimizers who are using the threat of violence to (attempt to) coerce the victim into a certain behavior. When a bank robber says, "put the money in the bag and I won't shoot you," there are pros and cons to cooperating. When an arms mobster comes int your store and says, "pay into my protection racket or else I will send my men here to ruin your business," I agree that there are pros (protection service) and cons (his armed men using violence against you) to obedience versus disobedience. I agree with on all of that.

So, this isn't robbery in my opinion it is more like balance within the living beings in a country. A true robber generally has no concern about leaving its victims with an incentive not to terminate the relationship; they just take while hidden and then vanish.

I disagree with this for the reasons mentioned above.

A rapist can give a rape victim a cupcake as compensation for the rape. That doesn't make it consensual or non-rape; it just means the victim is a rape victim with a cupcake.

It could be a million dollars instead of a cupcake. It doesn't matter in regard to the point at hand (i.e. what makes something rape/robbery) because it's still violent and non-consensual.

I can agree with your point of view here but only partially. If the rape victim, upon receiving the cupcake decide to forgive the rape, take it out of her mind/memory and go on as if all is fine and adopt the rapist's perspective then I would still agree that from an observer's position it was still a rape that occurred however I don't value much the observer's position in case of such disputes. I value the victim's opinion, and I will give women the last word on such matters.

For this reason, I am unwilling to see, for instance, Melania wife of former POTUS Trump as a rape victim although I think of former POTUS Trump as a cunning rapist. When you are a narcissist and manage to turn others into your puppets, I will seee that these victims have been robbed of the essence of their personalities and go on in life like vampire victims and perhaps becoming vampires themselves subsequently.

To be a true victim you must never lose your spirit of resistance to evil monsters until you die. Once that's lost, all is lost and if you are still alive after losing it all, your life really isn't yours any more and so whatever victimization may go your way will not really reach you from that point on. Puppets don't truly suffer themselves.

Sometimes, I believe that a significant portion of the population can lose themselves this way to some cunning politicians. Subsequently, you can see that they do not mind the prospect of being on the receiving end of government violence because that can't really reach them anymore and they'll be supportive of the government's approach to taxation and deride other options as unworkable dreams.

[LuckyR]

It's easy to want lower or no taxes, but the discussion is intellectually dishonest until the conversation is completed by choosing which public services do you want to cut by your restriction of revenue.

[Steve3007]

So would you regard taxation as (as you put it) selfish violence which people rationalize for the so-called "greater good"?

Often yes. Always no.

I am sure some people murder out of unselfishness, for instance, but I would bet that is the exception, not the rule. The same goes for taxes by big governments on the national scale, and other non-defensive violence committed by big governments on huge national scales.

I'm not quite sure how "Often yes. Always no" works there, but the explanation following it suggests "As a rule yes, but in exceptional cases no". You appear to think that, as a rule, taxes are selfish violence which people rationalize for the so-called "greater good". But, for some reason, only when they're imposed by central government.

Fair enough. It takes all sorts! As I've said, I wouldn't want to live in a society without taxes. The resulting violence and anarchy would be a turn off to me.

[NickGaspar]

Robin Hood was a violent robber. That doesn't mean I root for Guy of Gisbourne, the Sherriff of Nottingham, or Prince John. Violent robbery isn't so bad. In fact, as portrayed by Errol Flynn, Robin cut quite an attractive figure!

Maybe the Tax Collectors should start robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, like Robin. (Didn't Jesus dine with tax collectors, against the advice of his disciples? I suppose He might have been willing to dine with other violent robbers, too, so we can't go by that.)

To Scott: You and I are rich and have it easy BECAUSE of civilization. Of course we sympathize with the oppressed and impoverished, but dismantling the system that made us rich, long-lived and comfortable might bring us down to the level of the oppressed and impoverished instead of bringing them up to our level of wealth, health and comfort.

I think that taxation is more of a scum than a robbery. IT is an agreement and one of the parties just never delivers.

[Steve3007]

I think that taxation is more of a scum than a robbery. IT is an agreement and one of the parties just never delivers.

You've convinced me not to live in Greece. A Greek former-colleague of mine (who left the company recently) had a similar story to tell.

[Pattern-chaser]

...I don't understand what it means for something to "belong to society".

Some things belong to an individual, like my spectacles belong to me. Other things belong to society as a whole, not just to one person. These things mainly seem to be immaterial things stemming from our social culture, like the 'rights' we confer on ourselves and each other, and the duties that go with them. Society itself belongs to society. When society owns physical things, it refers to things that are owned by us all, collectively, like your Capitol and Pentagon buildings, and much of their contents too. I suppose all those tanks, missiles and guns belong to you too. ("You" plural: all Americans.)

[1] If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), you are saying that you think taxes are paid to big governments such the USA Federal Government consensually? Is that right?

Consensually? No, probably not, on reflection. Perhaps "contractually" is a better choice of word? If you are a member of American Society, and you are, you have the opportunity to earn money in some way or another. This opportunity comes at a price: taxes (and other things too). This opportunity, and its price, are part of the contract you have with your society. [Yes, it is compulsory and may not be avoided.] We could think of needing a licence to earn money within a society, and the price of that licence is paying your share toward the cost of the things that society provides to all of its members. Your society is entitled to a proportion of any and all wealth you earn (or otherwise obtain). This is a contractual condition of you being allowed to earn money within your society.

[2] In other words, you are saying that people--including some disenfranchised pacifists--are not coerced (i.e. made to comply via threat of non-defensive violence) to pay money to the United States Federal Government?[/i]

No, I'm speaking the unpalatable truth: taxes are owed, not coercively stolen. Those who evade their debts are punished in most societies.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that taxation is more of a sc[a]m than a robbery. It is an agreement and one of the parties just never delivers.

Ah, now that's a different matter, but one that illuminates this discussion well. Our governments are entitled to the tax they levy, but this is a sort of contractual situation, and society, represented by those we elect to govern us, must deliver on its obligations too. Much (all?) dissatisfaction concerning taxes relates to this, I think: what government delivers by its use of that tax income. This is not the topic here, but I think it has a significant influence on what the topic encourages us to discuss.

[Sy Borg]

Tax isn't the scam. It's the misuse of those taxes by governments beholden to vested interests.

The Australian PM, Scott Morrison, has promised half a billion dollars for "clean energy projects". It's really just a handout to fossil fuel companies, Morrison's Liberal Party's political donors. This kind of thing happens all the time, more so in recent years. With weapons and security technology, the masses appear to be considered too weak to pose a credible revolutionary threat, so governments are increasingly acting with impunity, supported by a media environment rife with vested interests (usually of the fossil fuel variety).

Half a billion. Many will be able to contribute less than a million in tax - 1/500th of the latest fossil fuel company grants - throughout their entire lives. So that grant, singed off in a hurry in time to lie to the Climate Summit, effectively used up the lifetime contributions of many people.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Violent robbery isn't so bad.

I am not saying that violent robbery is "bad" (or not) because I don't know what that would mean.

I am not saying taxation is "bad" (or not) because I don't know what that would mean.

I am simply saying that taxation is violent robbery, and it seems we agree about that.

Maybe the Tax Collectors should start robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, like Robin.

Respectfully, I think that's a pipe dream. I call it the benevolent dictator fallacy. To me, it denies thousands of years and countless governments all doing essentially the same thing, which ultimately amounts to various forms of violent plutocracy or violent oligarchy of some sort or another. I will bet ten times out of ten that big huge violent governments will always tend to work for the rich and powerful to both keep them rich and powerful and increase wealth and power.

To Scott: You and I are rich and have it easy BECAUSE of civilization. Of course we sympathize with the oppressed and impoverished, but dismantling the system that made us rich, long-lived and comfortable might bring us down to the level of the oppressed and impoverished instead of bringing them up to our level of wealth, health and comfort.

I'm not suggesting "dismantling the system" whatever that would mean.

If the only way you can imagine realistically eliminating large-scale non-defensive violence between adult humans on this earth is by "dismantling the system" whatever that means, then I'm all for it, but I wouldn't say it because I don't know what it means. Regardless, I will never ever support non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

I'd rather die than become a murderer, so threatening me with poverty--or much worse--won't change anything.

Utilitarian arguments will not convince me to support or engage in non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). I am not a utilitarian.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So, if resistance to a government leader/robber is possible but the victim measures the pros and cons of resistance and decide to go along and give the government leaders/ robbers and let them have what they want, the victims understand that they are getting something in return.

I agree that there are pros and cons to a victim's cooperating with violent victimizers who are using the threat of violence to (attempt to) coerce the victim into a certain behavior. When a bank robber says, "put the money in the bag and I won't shoot you," there are pros and cons to cooperating. When an arms mobster comes int your store and says, "pay into my protection racket or else I will send my men here to ruin your business," I agree that there are pros (protection service) and cons (his armed men using violence against you) to obedience versus disobedience. I agree with on all of that.

So, this isn't robbery in my opinion it is more like balance within the living beings in a country. A true robber generally has no concern about leaving its victims with an incentive not to terminate the relationship; they just take while hidden and then vanish.

I disagree with this for the reasons mentioned above.

A rapist can give a rape victim a cupcake as compensation for the rape. That doesn't make it consensual or non-rape; it just means the victim is a rape victim with a cupcake.

It could be a million dollars instead of a cupcake. It doesn't matter in regard to the point at hand (i.e. what makes something rape/robbery) because it's still violent and non-consensual.

I can agree with your point of view here but only partially. If the rape victim, upon receiving the cupcake decide to forgive the rape, take it out of her mind/memory and go on as if all is fine and adopt the rapist's perspective then I would still agree that from an observer's position it was still a rape that occurred however I don't value much the observer's position in case of such disputes. I value the victim's opinion, and I will give women the last word on such matters.

When I speak of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), I mean non-consensual violence.

Any given single specific real life interaction between two people involving consent can get very muddy, especially when diachronic inconsistency is involved. For more on that, you may be interested in my other topic, Time and Consent.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It's easy to want lower or no taxes, but

My claim isn't that I want no taxes, or that I want you to want no taxes.

My claim is that taxation is violent robbery. More specifically, my claim is that taxation by big governments (e.g. the USA government) is by definition an act of non-consensual non-defensive violence.

I am sure that there are many humans who want non-defensive violence to occur, whether as an end in itself (e.g. revenge) or as a means to some other end (e.g. murdering a fat man by pushing him in front of trolley to save five other people).

My philosophy has no shoulds and oughts.

Whatever it is, it is what it is.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So would you regard taxation as (as you put it) selfish violence which people rationalize for the so-called "greater good"?

Often yes. Always no.

I am sure some people murder out of unselfishness, for instance, but I would bet that is the exception, not the rule. The same goes for taxes by big governments on the national scale, and other non-defensive violence committed by big governments on huge national scales.

I'm not quite sure how "Often yes. Always no" works there, but the explanation following it suggests "As a rule yes, but in exceptional cases no".

That's what I meant. Sorry, I can see it was written unclearly.

I think I meant to write something more like, "Often, yes. Always? No."

You appear to think that, as a rule, taxes are selfish violence which people rationalize for the so-called "greater good". But, for some reason, only when they're imposed by central government.

You aren't wrong to say that per se, but I think that's a misleading to way to put together independent statements I've made.

My understanding is that you and I both agree that strictly speaking taxation is by definition an act of non-defensive non-consensual violence. The reason I exclude small local so-called "governments" and small local so-called "taxes" is that those may tend to be misnomers, meaning they would often be more accurately called pseudo-governments and pseudo-taxes, insofar as they are consensual and/or non-violent. Examples of such arguably consensual nonviolent pseudo-government may include the local schools in my town that is almost entirely funded locally from residents in the town, not from the $4+ trillion pear year of violently robbed money the USA federal government spends nor the $31+ billion per year of violently robbed money the State of Connecticut spends on things like the War on Drugs and violent international imperialism. Generally speaking, local services aren't funded by those taxes. We pay for our roads, town police, and schools, and one can escape the jurisdiction of the town by walking a few miles; they don't even need a bicycle to get to freedom.

I also believe that almost any action by any human tends to be for selfish reasons, not just violent actions. But I do believe that the motivations of violent people tend to be even more selfish than the motivations of nonviolent people; that is, in terms only of non-consensual non-defensive violence. But those points are not particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

The way you've worded it above is not necessarily incorrect, but it seems like it may give the false implication that there is something specific about taxation in particular that makes it more associated with selfishness than other types of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.) which would be an inaccurate representation of what I think.

I think all non-defensive violence tends to be committed for selfish reasons, even if the one committing the non-defensive violence rationalizes it as unselfish or allegedly utilitarian.

But for the topic at hand that's a moot point, the way I see it at least.

For myself personally, I don't care if any specific instance of non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) is selfish or not, or if it is utilitarian or not.

Whether the acts happen to be selfish or unselfish, I am equally opposed to committing acts of non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery). Selfish murder or unselfish murder is still murder. Selfish non-defensive violence or unselfish non-defensive violence is still non-defensive violence.

But that's just me, and my philosophy only affects my choices.

Others may choose to commit non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), and that's their choice. As with everything, it is what it is.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

...I don't understand what it means for something to "belong to society".

Some things belong to an individual, like my spectacles belong to me. Other things belong to society as a whole, not just to one person. These things mainly seem to be immaterial things stemming from our social culture, like the 'rights' we confer on ourselves and each other, and the duties that go with them. Society itself belongs to society. When society owns physical things, it refers to things that are owned by us all, collectively, like your Capitol and Pentagon buildings, and much of their contents too. I suppose all those tanks, missiles and guns belong to you too. ("You" plural: all Americans.)

I'm sorry; I still don't understand what it means for something to "belong to society" or what you even mean by "society".

I understand the concept of joint ownership by multiple humans of a single thing. For instance, five people can buy a house and each be listed as equal owners on the deed.

I don't really understand the concept of coerced ownership via something called "society" that you seem to be described.

What do you mean by "society"? Do you just mean a group of humans such that saying "society murdered that man" would simply mean the same as saying "a group of humans murdered that man"?

In any case, I am likely misunderstanding, but it seems like you may be committing the Pathetic Fallacy in the way you talk about "society".

Hi, Pattern-chaser, I may have missed it but I still think you haven't answered my question: What quality do you believe robbery must have that taxation by a state, national, or global government doesn't?

Coercion.

Robbery would be taking something that is yours. It can be argued that your taxes are owed from the time you earn the money. To take from you what you owe is not robbery, in the normally understood sense of the word.

[1] If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), you are saying that you think taxes are paid to big governments such as the USA Federal Government consensually? Is that right?

Consensually? No, probably not, on reflection.

Then, do you agree taxation by big governments is violent robbery?

If not, what quality do you believe robbery must have that taxation by a state, national, or global government doesn't?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

So, if resistance to a government leader/robber is possible but the victim measures the pros and cons of resistance and decide to go along and give the government leaders/ robbers and let them have what they want, the victims understand that they are getting something in return.

I agree that there are pros and cons to a victim's cooperating with violent victimizers who are using the threat of violence to (attempt to) coerce the victim into a certain behavior. When a bank robber says, "put the money in the bag and I won't shoot you," there are pros and cons to cooperating. When an arms mobster comes int your store and says, "pay into my protection racket or else I will send my men here to ruin your business," I agree that there are pros (protection service) and cons (his armed men using violence against you) to obedience versus disobedience. I agree with on all of that.

So, this isn't robbery in my opinion it is more like balance within the living beings in a country. A true robber generally has no concern about leaving its victims with an incentive not to terminate the relationship; they just take while hidden and then vanish.

I disagree with this for the reasons mentioned above.

A rapist can give a rape victim a cupcake as compensation for the rape. That doesn't make it consensual or non-rape; it just means the victim is a rape victim with a cupcake.

It could be a million dollars instead of a cupcake. It doesn't matter in regard to the point at hand (i.e. what makes something rape/robbery) because it's still violent and non-consensual.

I can agree with your point of view here but only partially. If the rape victim, upon receiving the cupcake decide to forgive the rape, take it out of her mind/memory and go on as if all is fine and adopt the rapist's perspective then I would still agree that from an observer's position it was still a rape that occurred however I don't value much the observer's position in case of such disputes. I value the victim's opinion, and I will give women the last word on such matters.

When I speak of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), I mean non-consensual violence.

Any given single specific real life interaction between two people involving consent can get very muddy, especially when diachronic inconsistency is involved. For more on that, you may be interested in my other topic, Time and Consent.

That's interesting. The legal killing of a duly convicted person, such as for instance the sentence of Socrates, who drank voluntarily himself from the poisoned cup after his conviction. Is that non-defensive violence? I think it's important to clarify this concept because if nondefensive violence or otherwise can also more simply be called justice then your contention could imply that taxation is just robbery, just in the sense that it is approved by the government. Somehow, I think that this is not truly the point you are trying to make here.

When you put the state in charge of defining violence, you often get real twists to the meaning, for instance people harvest animals and the state treats that violence as something completely different from violence in-between people. That violence becomes caring for animals, so long as it isn't prolonged unduly.

So if you reject the state's language or official viewpoint, it makes you an outlier and then whatever your opinion will be, it will be, socially speaking, a marginal opinion because you fail to use properly the dominant language of the state.

So if you reject the language of the state and work with your own instead, where will that get you?

If taxation is paid voluntarily, such as when you go to a store and buy a product that has a sales tax on it that you could easily dodge by using other means to obtain the product you want, then how is that robbery? If you don't want to pay it then it simply limits your choices as to how you go about to get your product and that is regulation and understandably, this regulation is violent, but then it isn't the taxation that is violent but the regulations that come along with the taxes. So I continue to agree that taxation is violent robbery within the context you have set out originally but only because the regulations that apply to the collection of taxes are violent. That actually may even be more precisely the point you are attempting to make here.