Taxation is violent robbery.

[Steve3007]

Your last question isn't clear to me; if you would be kind enough to restate in in other words, maybe that would help me understand. Thanks for your questions.

OK. But just to recap, the question was this:

Would the fact that animal testing of drugs occurs mean that the answer wouldn't be taxation?

The reason I asked it is that when you said this:

My concern is that as I start reading the arguments from those who support taxation as it works today, I am struck by the powerful stench of greed emanating from them. I stand shocked by it.

I asked you this:

Could you quote an example of that stench?

And your reply contained this:

See, I am vegan and now we have a covid vaccine that has been tested first on monkeys and which is now in the process of saving the world but I can't have it myself because I am vegan and that's an animal tested product.

Products that have been tested on animals bear an incredible stench, don't you agree?...

So obviously I got the impression that your objection to taxation was due to the fact of animal testing in drug development. Hence:

So your objection is to the use of animal testing in drug development which you see as an objection to taxation. Understood.

You didn't object to that. So, on the basis of what you've said there, it seems that you wouldn't pay the salaries of such people as police etc from taxation, because, among other reasons, you're against paying taxes because of, perhaps among other reasons, your objection to animal testing.

You remember saying these things right? Just for future reference: If I ask you a question and you quote that question and then say something underneath it, is that something underneath it intended in any way to be an answer to the question? Or just a general comment about various aspects of the world, like animal testing or the Canadian Prime Minister?

[Steve3007]

My interest isn't in stoping any bad guy because they are like children misbehaving to get attention and you got to know which battle is worth your time.

OK. For my part, I'm in favour of trying to stop children from misbehaving to get attention if that misbehaviour is destructive. For example, if a child burst into my apartment with a gun demanding money I'd be in favour of trying to think of ways to disincentivise that kind of behaviour in future, other than by me having to sit facing the door with a gun in my lap.

I am much more in favor of defunding the police for instance. Now that would be a more reasonable activist goal.

As far as whether I support any policing, I would say that no, I don't support any policing as we know it today in a world where taxation is obtained through violent means.

OK, that's clear. I disagree with you there. I'm not really into the whole anarchy and no law enforcement thing. If somebody robbed my house I quite like the fact that I can call the police and don't just have to round up a posse and go git 'em. And if the police who I call weren't paid to do their job, I suspect they'd be less inclined to do it. I guess your experience of the police has been less than entirely positive, and you extrapolate from that?

[Sculptor1]

No one could earn any money without roads, security, government, and other sort of infrstructure provided by governments.
Money is only worth anything because of the need to get some to pay tax in the first place.
Unless you want to rely on barter and the intrinsic vlaues of small pieces of metal, and rely on passing armies to build roads as they go, you have to have tax so that you money means something.

Money is not simply a commodity though sadly it has been treated that way. It is fiat.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

To be clear, the topic is not "are taxes necessary". Also, the topic is not "do you support taxes".

It's possible for a person to simultaneously believe all three of the following:

1. Taxation is violent robbery.
2. Taxation is necessary.
3. Taxation is good and desirable.

This particular forum topic is about whether #1 is true. It is not about #2 or #3.

There are many other topics on the forums about utilitarian violence, or other reasons people have for engaging in or supporting the commission of non-defensive non-consensual violence. One such topic is the following:

Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

And here is another topic that I just made now:

Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

Of course, anyone is free to make a new topic about something else, such as whether taxation is necessary, or whether organized violent robbery is ever desirable.

[Robert66]

To be clear, the topic is not "are taxes necessary". Also, the topic is not "do you support taxes".

It's possible for a person to simultaneously believe all three of the following:

1. Taxation is violent robbery.
2. Taxation is necessary.
3. Taxation is good and desirable.

This particular forum topic is about whether #1 is true. It is not about #2 or #3.

There are many other topics on the forums about utilitarian violence, or other reasons people have for engaging in or supporting the commission of non-defensive non-consensual violence. One such topic is the following:

Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

And here is another topic that I just made now:

Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

Of course, anyone is free to make a new topic about something else, such as whether taxation is necessary, or whether organized violent robbery is ever desirable.

Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.

The government owns you, and the rich own the government.

It is not corrupted. This is by design.

Using violence to make the rich richer is a feature of big government, not a bug.

In other news, the U.S. Federal Government spends over $4 trillion per year. That's over $12,000 per person in the USA and over $27,000 per taxpayer in the USA. And it's not guys like Bezos who are paying those taxes. Violent big government will never work for the peaceful masses, only the powerful robbers using violence to get and stay rich.

In other words, non-defensive violence is not the answer, and it never will be. Non-defensive violence is and always has been the problem, never the answer.


What do you think? Would you prefer to live in a society with significantly less non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)? What is your opinion regarding violent robbery and non-defensive violence in general?

So as you can see, the questions are:

'Would you prefer to live in a society with significantly less non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)? What is your opinion regarding violent robbery and non-defensive violence in general?'

and the statement:

'Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer'

makes clear Scott's position.

Therefore all the discussion so far has been on-topic, and it appears that the contributors are divided, with one side deluded that the removal of so-called violent robbery otherwise known as taxation would be preferable.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So as you can see, the questions are:

'Would you prefer to live in a society with significantly less non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)? What is your opinion regarding violent robbery and non-defensive violence in general?'

and the statement:

'Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer'

makes clear Scott's position.

Therefore all the discussion so far has been on-topic, and it appears that the contributors are divided, with one side deluded that the removal of so-called violent robbery otherwise known as taxation would be preferable.

I stand corrected.

Thank you for pointing this out.

I just now made a new topic to focus on the issue of whether or not taxation is violent robbery:

Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?

[LuckyR]

To be clear, the topic is not "are taxes necessary". Also, the topic is not "do you support taxes".

It's possible for a person to simultaneously believe all three of the following:

1. Taxation is violent robbery.
2. Taxation is necessary.
3. Taxation is good and desirable.

This particular forum topic is about whether #1 is true. It is not about #2 or #3.

There are many other topics on the forums about utilitarian violence, or other reasons people have for engaging in or supporting the commission of non-defensive non-consensual violence. One such topic is the following:

Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

And here is another topic that I just made now:

Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

Of course, anyone is free to make a new topic about something else, such as whether taxation is necessary, or whether organized violent robbery is ever desirable.

Thanks for the clarification. As mentioned previously, the violence you refer to is the consequence of not paying taxes. That is, those who pay don't experience violence. They have the threat of violence, but don't experience it. By that measure if taxation (through tax evasion) is violent, then so is drinking (through public drunkenness), driving (through speeding), eating (through skipping paying your restaurant bill), sleeping (if you don't pay your hotel bill). Basically everything could be violent if you break the law in regards to the topic and the justice system is brought to bear on you due to your lawbreaking.

Therefore the title of this thread could be: Taxation (like everything else) is violent, ho hum, nothing to see here, move along.

[Steve3007]

This particular forum topic is about whether #1 is true. It is not about #2 or #3.

OK. Here's another perspective about whether #1 is true:

It is not true because taxation is not robbery. All forms of taxation are optional. For example, if I don't want to pay sales taxes I can refrain from freely entering a contract with the seller, using the government's money, which contains in its terms the paying of sales tax. If I don't want to pay income tax I can refrain from freely entering a contract with an employer, using the government's money, which contains in its terms the paying of income tax. Nobody is forcing me to use the medium of exchange that the government puts at my disposal.

[Steve3007]

If I want to enter into a private agreement with somebody to do something for them in exchange for them doing something for me then, as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal. If I want to write down that agreement (perhaps on a piece of paper) and call that a contract, as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal either. No taxation would be involved in that process.

But if I wanted that agreement to be legally enforced, then I'm asking for the services of the taxation-funded police and judiciary services to enforce the contract laws created by taxation-funded legislators. And if I wanted to do something other than swap my labour directly with somebody else's labour, and use the government's money as the means to do that, then I'm also making use of taxation.

I can't have my cake and eat it. Either I want to make use of the systems of exchange and contract enforcement provided for me by the society in which I live, or I don't.

[Sculptor1]

If I want to enter into a private agreement with somebody to do something for them in exchange for them doing something for me then, as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal. If I want to write down that agreement (perhaps on a piece of paper) and call that a contract, as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal either. No taxation would be involved in that process.

But if I wanted that agreement to be legally enforced, then I'm asking for the services of the taxation-funded police and judiciary services to enforce the contract laws created by taxation-funded legislators. And if I wanted to do something other than swap my labour directly with somebody else's labour, and use the government's money as the means to do that, then I'm also making use of taxation.

I can't have my cake and eat it. Either I want to make use of the systems of exchange and contract enforcement provided for me by the society in which I live, or I don't.

You might also want to drive to the court case. In which case you will be depending on taxation that provided the road, the highway code, and the enforcement and security of same so that you can get there safely and without getting mugged by every tom dick and harry that wants a piece of you, on the way to the court that would not exist without taxation.

[Sculptor1]

Deleting posts without notice or warning is NOT moderation; it is dictatorship

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Thanks for the clarification. As mentioned previously, the violence you refer to is the consequence of not paying taxes. That is, those who pay don't experience violence.

Yes, that's generally how violent robbery works.

For instance, a bank robbers say give me your watch or I shoot you, and if you give the bank robbery your watch you generally don't get shot.

They have the threat of violence, but don't experience it.

I include coercion at the threat of non-defensive violence as violence.

Thus, I consider armed bank robbery to be a violent crime even if the bank robbers don't actually shoot anyone but only threaten to.

The same goes for sexual crimes, such as if someone gets sexual favors (instead of money) via the threat of violence.

Coercing someone to do something with their body via the threat of non-defensive violence, even if the coerced action is as simple as giving away an expense watch, a sentimental wedding ring, or a small sexual favor, is still violence as far as I am concerned.

I think it's a moot point if some of the victims aren't compliant and the threats are thus fulfilled. If you hand your watch over but another victim doesn't and gets shot, then the difference seems to be a moot point between (1) being robbed via the threat of non-defensive violence versus (2) having the threats fulfilled when you don't comply with the robber's coercive demands made at the threat of non-defensive violence.

Basically everything could be violent if you break the law in regards to the topic and the justice system is brought to bear on you due to your lawbreaking.

Yes, exactly. I totally agree.

I believe I already linked to it, but if you haven't already, I highly recommend reading this great article from the Washington Post about the subject: Don't support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce

Granted, as explained in the article, in practice there are some exceptional exceptions such as non-enforced laws like those declaring a holiday.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If I want to enter into a private agreement with somebody to do something for them in exchange for them doing something for me then, as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal. If I want to write down that agreement (perhaps on a piece of paper) and call that a contract, as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal either. No taxation would be involved in that process.

In the USA, you have to pay taxes on income to the federal government no matter what currency you earn it in. If you gamble at a casino with bitcoin, you would still be legally required to report your winnings and pay taxes them. This applies to all USA citizens even if they do not live in the USA and even those earning are earned outside the USA in a currency other than USD.

If I could legally avoid paying for things like the very violent war on drugs simply by refusing to do business in USD, I absolutely would in a heartbeat. But unfortunately that is not the case. If doing business in Bitcoin meant legally avoiding paying taxes to the very violent United States government, I (and surely many others) would do it in heartbeat, but that is not how that works.

In fact, we are now required to report on our annual taxes if we own any cryptocurrency at all, even if you make no income via that medium.

So even if an American buys $1 of Bitcoin with money that was already taxed, the American is legally required to report that they own crypto on their taxes.

What you are describing sounds more like a fee for using a certain currency, not a tax by a big non-local government.

For instance, if someone sends me money via PayPal, there is a fee attached to that charged by PayPal. I don't consider that a tax or act of violence or robbery, for the reasons you explain.

Even Bitcoin essentially has fees attached, which are paid to the "miners" processing the transactions, and again that's neither a tax nor violent robbery since as you say one can simply not use that currency. One can avoid the fee for the service by refusing the service, thus neither the service nor the fee are non-consensual (i.e. violently forced).

If the USA government wanted to charge a fee on every transaction in USD or such, then indeed that could be construed as being neither a true tax nor violent robbery.

Of course, if that's what they wanted to do, presumably an easier way to do that would be to just print more USD and keep it.

They aren't charging for using USD, neither by intention nor by actual action, neither in a de facto way nor in a de jure way.

[NickGaspar]

Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.

I find this sort of argument a bit childish.
The state creates the money and if you want some of it you have to pay some of it back.
The function of tax is to justify and make money valuable.
If you don't like tax, then do not take any money.
If you have some on you, now, get it out of your pocket and tell me what you see. The queen maybe? George Washington; icons of the government?

You are promoting an ideal picture that isn't real. Yes that is the idea on paper, but that is not what is going on in real life.
The way taxation is applied in the western world resembles more the the definition of slavery(for most members of the society) than the idea to channel the surplus wealth for the needs and problems of the society.
The idea of taxation emerged with our agricultural societies. The members of a society understood that they needed to store their surplus wealth for future setbacks and for acquiring important commodities for their town. So they came up with the role of the king (βασιλέας), a trustworthy individual who kept the extra grain in their Basilica (where the name Basileas/king originates) and was responsible for the fair distribution of it.
Things went south when Basileus/kings understood what they could do by using those wealth to ensure their position and rule.

In short this system is some thousands of years old and it was based on our scientific ignorance on human behavior.
In the process we attached some fancy pseudo philosophical ideologies (Capitalism, Socialism, Communism) but the recipe remains the same. The only thing that changes is the handful of people that have access to that "pie".

[Sculptor1]

Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.

I find this sort of argument a bit childish.
The state creates the money and if you want some of it you have to pay some of it back.
The function of tax is to justify and make money valuable.
If you don't like tax, then do not take any money.
If you have some on you, now, get it out of your pocket and tell me what you see. The queen maybe? George Washington; icons of the government?

You are promoting an ideal picture that isn't real. Yes that is the idea on paper, but that is not what is going on in real life.

No I am not. I am describing money as it is; fiat.

The way taxation is applied in the western world resembles more the the definition of slavery(for most members of the society) than the idea to channel the surplus wealth for the needs and problems of the society.

If you are naive enough to think that way, then stop taking their filthy money and break your chains - no one is stopping you.

The idea of taxation emerged with our agricultural societies. The members of a society understood that they needed to store their surplus wealth for future setbacks and for acquiring important commodities for their town.

Heirarchies were built, protection was offered.
Things have moved on since then.

So they came up with the role of the king (βασιλέας), a trustworthy individual who kept the extra grain in their Basilica (where the name Basileas/king originates) and was responsible for the fair distribution of it.

No, Taxation started thousands of years before ancient and archaic Greece.
Before him was the (w)anax. And taxation and the idea of the centralised redistributive economy started in the Levant millenia before Greece

Things went south when Basileus/kings understood what they could do by using those wealth to ensure their position and rule.
In short this system is some thousands of years old and it was based on our scientific ignorance on human behavior.
In the process we attached some fancy pseudo philosophical ideologies (Capitalism, Socialism, Communism) but the recipe remains the same. The only thing that changes is the handful of people that have access to that "pie".

You have a very poor understanding of ancient history. And clearly you do not understand how that mght be relevant today.
Originally "tax" was in the form of food and goods, until transfered to little bits of precious metal. Copper rings, small ingots were more conveniet forms of exchange. By the time the Basileus was actually a king, and not more like a "big man" on the antroplogical scale what emerged from the first dark age was coin in silver.
The silver stater became pretty much ubiquious througout the Med, until Rome minted smaller denominations in bronze, and higher in gold.
Before Rome money was cashed out in actual intrinsice value of the metals. But as time went on, money gained a faith in which the value stopped relating to intrinsic value bu extrinsic values of the demonination. Black billion replaced silver, but these debased issued lost vlues outside the empire. From that time to about 120 years ago values of money were a mix of extrinsice and extrinsic, paper money was one example - promisary notes.
Eventually the silver and gold standards were completely abandoned, and money was purely notional.

But tax is a fact of life for ALL civilised societies.
The alternative is chaos.