Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?

[Belindi]

There is an interface between taxation by big governments and violent robbery. However the disconnect between taxation by big governments and violent robbery is greater.

[d3r31nz1g3]

No, taxation is extortion. Point remains the same though.

Everything is wrong when it comes to taxation. Money is skimmed from the worker's wage which de-incentivizes purchasing and thus hurts the economy. Sales tax makes every single thing you buy more expensive which further de-incentivizes transactions.

It's an economic parasite and no other market entity operates with such a monetization policy.

In a world of big corporations, industry, and international trade why is government still funding themselves through taxation? Can they not conjure a superior method of money-raising? Why doesn't industry itself simply directly fund "government functions"? Certainly, if industry did, they would invent methods of monetization to supplement what they're forced to spend on social control.

[d3r31nz1g3]

I can't figure out how to edit my post so I'll make the following correction:

*disincentivize

[LuckyR]

No, taxation is extortion. Point remains the same though.

Everything is wrong when it comes to taxation. Money is skimmed from the worker's wage which de-incentivizes purchasing and thus hurts the economy. Sales tax makes every single thing you buy more expensive which further de-incentivizes transactions.

It's an economic parasite and no other market entity operates with such a monetization policy.

In a world of big corporations, industry, and international trade why is government still funding themselves through taxation? Can they not conjure a superior method of money-raising? Why doesn't industry itself simply directly fund "government functions"? Certainly, if industry did, they would invent methods of monetization to supplement what they're forced to spend on social control.

Oh, you're expecting corporations who hire the best legal minds available to figure out ways of weaseling out of paying for anything to step up and take on the lion's share of government expenditures? Did the turnip truck pass by here recently?

[d3r31nz1g3]

No, taxation is extortion. Point remains the same though.

Everything is wrong when it comes to taxation. Money is skimmed from the worker's wage which de-incentivizes purchasing and thus hurts the economy. Sales tax makes every single thing you buy more expensive which further de-incentivizes transactions.

It's an economic parasite and no other market entity operates with such a monetization policy.

In a world of big corporations, industry, and international trade why is government still funding themselves through taxation? Can they not conjure a superior method of money-raising? Why doesn't industry itself simply directly fund "government functions"? Certainly, if industry did, they would invent methods of monetization to supplement what they're forced to spend on social control.

Oh, you're expecting corporations who hire the best legal minds available to figure out ways of weaseling out of paying for anything to step up and take on the lion's share of government expenditures? Did the turnip truck pass by here recently?

I believe true free markets to be naturally self-balancing. Powerful unions and civilian organizations would pressure industry to directly fund social services. Industry in their natural inclination to weasel out of paying for it would come up with the most effective monetization policies. This would be good because it would build more wealth and cause less expenditure. Everything would ultimately work in the interest of all.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Gertie,

Thank you for your reply!

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.

No-one has ever created the society they are born into. We all have to adopt and adapt to what exists [...]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you did not answer the primary yes/no question from the Original Post (OP): do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

And, if not, which of the 5 numbered statements from the Original Post (OP), do you disagree with?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.

There is an interface between taxation by big governments and violent robbery. However the disconnect between taxation by big governments and violent robbery is greater.

What disconnect? What is the alleged difference between (A) taxation by big governments versus (B) violent robbery?

Are you saying you disagree with one or more of the 5 numbered statements from the Original Post (OP)? If so, which of the 5 numbered statements are the one(s) with which you disagree?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

No, taxation is extortion. Point remains the same though.

Everything is wrong when it comes to taxation. Money is skimmed from the worker's wage which de-incentivizes purchasing and thus hurts the economy. Sales tax makes every single thing you buy more expensive which further de-incentivizes transactions.

It's an economic parasite and no other market entity operates with such a monetization policy.

In a world of big corporations, industry, and international trade why is government still funding themselves through taxation? Can they not conjure a superior method of money-raising? Why doesn't industry itself simply directly fund "government functions"? Certainly, if industry did, they would invent methods of monetization to supplement what they're forced to spend on social control.

Oh, you're expecting corporations who hire the best legal minds available to figure out ways of weaseling out of paying for anything to step up and take on the lion's share of government expenditures? Did the turnip truck pass by here recently?

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

I may be misremembering since I originally started this thread nearly 2 years ago, but I don't recall you ever answering the question in the Original Post (OP):

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.


To be clear, this topic is not about whether taxes are 'necessary', whatever that might mean, whether they are immoral or morally good, whatever that might mean, or whether they are subjectively desirable. In theory, it's possible for someone to acknowledge that taxes are violent robbery, but still think that violent robbery is necessary for some purpose, or that it is desirable or such.

[Emphasis added.]

[LuckyR]

No, taxation is extortion. Point remains the same though.

Everything is wrong when it comes to taxation. Money is skimmed from the worker's wage which de-incentivizes purchasing and thus hurts the economy. Sales tax makes every single thing you buy more expensive which further de-incentivizes transactions.

It's an economic parasite and no other market entity operates with such a monetization policy.

In a world of big corporations, industry, and international trade why is government still funding themselves through taxation? Can they not conjure a superior method of money-raising? Why doesn't industry itself simply directly fund "government functions"? Certainly, if industry did, they would invent methods of monetization to supplement what they're forced to spend on social control.

Oh, you're expecting corporations who hire the best legal minds available to figure out ways of weaseling out of paying for anything to step up and take on the lion's share of government expenditures? Did the turnip truck pass by here recently?

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

I may be misremembering since I originally started this thread nearly 2 years ago, but I don't recall you ever answering the question in the Original Post (OP):

With those important clarifications in mind, do you agree that taxation by big non-local governments is violent robbery?

If not, please specify which of the following statements are the ones with which you disagree and which are the ones with which you agree:

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

2. Taxation is violent.

3. If a pacifist with children in the USA making slightly below the median income in the USA refuses to pay taxes to the federal USA government, armed agents will go with guns to the pacifist's house, forcefully break down the door if needed, and put the pacifist in prison.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

5. The suppliers and/or owners of a currency can fund their organization and services without taxes and without non-defensive violence simply by printing more of the currency and keeping the extra for themselves.


To be clear, this topic is not about whether taxes are 'necessary', whatever that might mean, whether they are immoral or morally good, whatever that might mean, or whether they are subjectively desirable. In theory, it's possible for someone to acknowledge that taxes are violent robbery, but still think that violent robbery is necessary for some purpose, or that it is desirable or such.

[Emphasis added.]

In order:

No, I do not agree that taxation is robbery, violent or otherwise. It is no more robbery than a merchant demanding payment for goods and services rendered, is "robbery".

1. Most agree with the concept of the consent of the governed, as put forth in the Declaration of Independence. Some hold out for unanimous consent. The latter would likely call taxation non consensual, though I disagree, as most do.

2. Taxation is no more "violent" than the supermarket. If you shoplift (don't pay for what you get) you may end up in jail. So if you find supermarkets to be "violent", then under that definition I would acknowledge that taxation is also "violent".

3. Being a pacifist, having children and income level are supposed to be immaterial to what happens to lawbreakers. Though I AGREE that choices (such as lawbreaking), have consequences.

4. I agree.

5. I agree that the government CAN use devaluing their currency instead of taxation, and I suppose they can decide to not punish lawbreakers, though most including myself would prefer not to reside where no laws are enforced because eliminating GOVERNMENTAL violence (meaning law enforcement by your definition) would lead to more TOTAL violence, in my opinion.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

1. Most agree with the concept of the consent of the governed, as put forth in the Declaration of Independence. Some hold out for unanimous consent. The latter would likely call taxation non consensual, though I disagree, [...]

If taxation by big non-local government is consensual, then I agree it isn't violent robbery, since I think violent robbery is non-consensual by definition.

Since you think taxation by big non-local governments is consensual, please instead post in my other topic dedicated specifically to that topic:

Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

as most do

That seems like an ad populum fallacy, but, as moot of a point as I think it is, I also think it's untrue (i.e. it seems to me most people do not think taxation by big non-local government is consensual), based on the replies in my topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

[LuckyR]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

1. Taxation is non-consensual.

1. Most agree with the concept of the consent of the governed, as put forth in the Declaration of Independence. Some hold out for unanimous consent. The latter would likely call taxation non consensual, though I disagree, [...]

If taxation by big non-local government is consensual, then I agree it isn't violent robbery, since I think violent robbery is non-consensual by definition.

Since you think taxation by big non-local governments is consensual, please instead post in my other topic dedicated specifically to that topic:

Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

as most do

That seems like an ad populum fallacy, but, as moot of a point as I think it is, I also think it's untrue (i.e. it seems to me most people do not think taxation by big non-local government is consensual), based on the replies in my topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

Actually I based my comment on the popularity of the agreement of citizens in the right of the government to tax them by the rarity of citizens who refuse to pay taxes citing lack of consent.

Of course, one might attempt to distract by stating that a large number of folks who pay taxes do so ONLY because of the threat of prison, but that they believe that the government does not have their consent to tax them. But if one buys that idea, one could also say that "most" people think murder is perfectly morally acceptable, but they don't run around murdering folks solely because they are scared of going to prison. Both are inaccurate on their faces.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Some hold out for unanimous consent. The latter would likely call taxation non consensual, though I disagree, as most do.

That seems like an ad populum fallacy, but, as moot of a point as I think it is, I also think it's untrue (i.e. it seems to me most people do not think taxation by big non-local government is consensual), based on the replies in my topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

Actually I based my comment on the popularity of the agreement of citizens in the right of the government to tax them by the rarity of citizens who refuse to pay taxes citing lack of consent.

I will reply to that argument about the alleged consensuality of taxes (which I consider utterly fallacious on its face) at:

Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Here is an Instagram Reel showing how statists view Prima Nocta.

Somehow, they think it's not rape, but consensual.

Same goes for what most of us call "legal martial rape". The statists claim it's consensual because it's legal.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If anyone thinks taxation by big non-local governments is somehow not violent robbery, then please do post a reply in the following new topic I just created today:

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


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott