Philosophy Discussion Forums

It seems clear to me that taxation is violent robbery, at least when it is done by big non-local governments.

That isn't to say small local governments cannot commit violent robbery, but it tends to be more of a gray area. For instance, the so-called governing board of a condo community with a shared community pool is typically viewed as a consensual arrangement. Self-government is the antithesis of big government.

Likewise, four roommates sharing a house might each pay 1/4th of the utility bills (electric, gas, etc.), perhaps even under written signed contract such that non-payment would allow other roommates to evict the non-paying roommate. Again, to reiterate, self-government is the antithesis of big government.

Thus, this topic is not meant to discuss arguably consensual pseudo-taxes used by agreement at the local level to fund shared local services such as a community pool, a local fire department, or a local elementary school.

For example, I live in Manchester, Connecticut, USA.

The USA government spends over $12,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison, and one cannot avoid them even by moving to the woods or overseas. The total amount spent by the USA government is over $4 trillion per year. A trillion is one million millions.

The Connecticut government spends over $8,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison.

And the Manchester town has no income tax at all but collects $5,000 per person on average via surcharges on property ownership, which are used to fund the local schools, fire departments, and police. If someone doesn't pay these, it's a civil not a criminal matter, and I believe the debt is attached to the land not the person. It's mostly moot since few people own their land/house outright and instead a private bank pays the pseudo-taxes to the town and builds the cost into the private contractual consensually signed mortgage. In other words, these are consensual, literally to the point of generally involving actual signed contracts, signed before one moves in and agrees to pay.

It's worth noting that words like 'robbery', 'rape', and 'murder' tend to equivocally have both a statutory sense and a non-statutory sense. In the statutory sense, murder is only murder if it is illegal, and thus the Nazi government didn't murder any Jewish people in that sense, but that is not the sense in which I use the words. In the statutory sense, martial rape of a wife by a husband was not rape for most of history since it was only very recently criminalized in most jurisdictions, but that is not how I use the word. The way I use the words even legal murder is murder, and even legal robbery is robbery. In the sense in which I am using the words, legality is irrelevant to whether something is murder, robbery, etc.

If we need a specific definition of big, let's arbitrarily define it as a government that spends both more than $1 billion USD per year and more than $1,000 USD per person per year.

If we need a specific definition of non-local, let's arbitrarily define it as a government that violently rules over more 100 square miles of land.

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.

Using your definition bringing lawbreakers to justice is violence, (either as robbery if money is garnished/fines levied, or kidnapping if incarceration is performed).

Okay, you are free to create that definition as this is your thread. So, by that definition your OP is correct. Of course, breaking any law would therefore qualify too. Thus jaywalking is violent robbery too (I once received a $10 ticket for crossing in the middle of the street). Walking Down the Street is Violent Robbery. Whoo hoo. Sounds controversial, yet isn't.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 2:26 am Using your definition bringing lawbreakers to justice is violence, (either as robbery if money is garnished/fines levied, or kidnapping if incarceration is performed).

Okay, you are free to create that definition as this is your thread. So, by that definition your OP is correct. Of course, breaking any law would therefore qualify too. Thus jaywalking is violent robbery too (I once received a $10 ticket for crossing in the middle of the street). Walking Down the Street is Violent Robbery. Whoo hoo. Sounds controversial, yet isn't.

I think you are describing a tautology.

Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:22 pm 1. Taxation is non-consensual.

No. Not voluntary would better describe it. You continual citizenship implies consent. If you do not like it you are free to seek other arrangements.

2. Taxation is violent.

No. Violence can follow non compliance. But it is consentual by social contract.

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.
This is not a question.

4. Taxation predates the invention of paper money.

True. Before paper money the state was unable to create money so taxation had to be in metal, or other valuable items.

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.

True. But without tax money looses credibility, since no one has the need to acquire the specific currency that runs the infrastructure. Additionally, all the things that the state finds necessary to provide requires control of the money supply. Taxation is a useful tool to control the money supply and avoid disabling inflation.


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.

You have said what the thread is NOT about but you have failed to say what it is in fact about, excpet that you seem to want to insist that it is violent.

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

As I understand it, you define "violence" as any instance of doing something to somebody to which they do not consent and have not consented to in the past by way of a freely entered contractual agreement. And being born into a particular society doesn't constitute that consent. So imprisonment or the imposition of a fine, or any other punishment is, in your usage, violence. And robbery is taking money or possessions from somebody when they do not consent to it and have not consented to in the past by way of a freely entered contractual agreement.

With those definitions, I agree that income tax, specifically, is arguably violent robbery. But only if you take the simplistic view that you own the money that the government prints and allows you to use as a medium of exchange in the same sense that you own other possessions. I also think that the size of the government is irrelevant because there is nothing in those definitions of "violence" or "robbery" that references the size of the group of people performing those acts.

As I said in the previous topic on this theme, my take-home message is that, with those particular definitions of "violence" and "robbery" I am very much in favour of some forms of violent robbery.

But, consider this...

And the Manchester town has no income tax at all but collects $5,000 per person on average via surcharges on property ownership, which are used to fund the local schools, fire departments, and police.

If somebody tells you this is a tax (and is therefore violent robbery) you could argue that it's not violent robbery in that it's consensual in that they aren't forced to buy those houses. The surcharge on the property is presumably a clearly stated part of the contract that they sign when buying the house. But if you argue that then, as far as I can see, you have to agree that (for example) sales taxes aren't violent robbery either. Whenever you buy anything you're entering into a contract, and part of that contract is your agreement to pay the sales tax. If you don't want to pay that sales tax, don't buy anything. At least not with the money that the government prints.

You could then say: "Ah! But the sales tax is imposed externally by the government without the consent of the seller or the buyer". So the question then is: Is that also true of the surcharge on property ownership in Manchester Connecticut? Who decides to impose that surcharge? If it isn't the house seller or the house buyer then whoever it is, by your definitions, it's violent robbery isn't it?


(Note: for the avoidance of unnecessary argument: expressions like "money that the government prints" always use the term "prints" metaphorically.)

If we follow this line of argument further, we can now argue that income tax is also no more violent robbery than that property surcharge in your hometown is. When you sign your employment contract with your employer, you freely enter into an agreement to pay income tax. Nobody is forcing you to take that job. If you don't want to pay income tax, look for a company that's willing to compensate you for your work using something other than the government's money.

Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:22 pm 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.

Hello neighbor, I live in CT also, small world.

I follow your argument but don't agree that taxes are violent robbery, and would base this primarily on a disagreement with #2. I suppose if you define any use of force as violence, then you would see all law enforcement as a form of violence, but I think that stretches and dilutes the definition of the word so far as to make it somewhat meaningless.

Have you ever been the victim of a violent robbery? If so, then you would know that it's a sudden, unexpected and generally very frightening and traumatic experience that often results in bodily injury as well as severe mental distress. In such a situation, one usually has no rights or ability to negotiate - you are simply at the mercy of the perpetrator. This isn't the experience I usually undergo when I pay my taxes.

Though I might object to some of the uses of my money or feel that it is unjustified, immoral, or a deprivation of my rightful property, taxation is categorically and qualitatively different from violent robbery. Unlike robbery, taxation - at least where we live - is a relatively transparent process where I can understand the rules, know what I will owe in advance, can plan and allocate my resources to optimize how I will pay them. I have the opportunity to be informed as to how the taxes are used, can voice my opinions or objections. And at least I get something in return for those taxes, even if it's not everything I would hope for, which is never the case in a robbery. If I fail to pay the required tax, I have the right to due process with the opportunity to state my case in a public court. Even if I were to ultimately face arrest for refusing to pay taxes, it would likely not amount to violence unless I was determined to resist arrest through my own use of force.

In my opinion, to call taxation violent robbery is hyperbole, though I would concede that might not be the case in all nations or in all historical periods.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am

Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:22 pm 1. Taxation is non-consensual.

No. Not voluntary would better describe it.

I use the phrases non-consensual and not voluntary synonymously, so I interpret what you wrote as a contradiction.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am 2. Taxation is violent.

No. Violence can follow non compliance.

Again, this seems to be a blatant contradiction.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am 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.
This is not a question.

None of the 5 numbered statements are questions.

Instead the singular question, was which of the 5 you agree with, and which of the 5 you disagree with, and from your reply it seems you agree with all 5 statements, granted with other wording such as "not voluntary" instead of "non-consensual", but I take the slight re-wording as indicative of general agreement.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am 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.

You have said what the thread is NOT about but you have failed to say what it is in fact about, excpet that you seem to want to insist that it is violent.
[/quote]
The topic/question is as follows: Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?

Scott wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:24 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am

Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:22 pm 1. Taxation is non-consensual.

No. Not voluntary would better describe it.

I use the phrases non-consensual and not voluntary synonymously, so I interpret what you wrote as a contradiction.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am 2. Taxation is violent.

No. Violence can follow non compliance.

Again, this seems to be a blatant contradiction.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am 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.
This is not a question.

None of the 5 numbered statements are questions.

Instead the singular question, was which of the 5 you agree with, and which of the 5 you disagree with, and from your reply it seems you agree with all 5 statements, granted with other wording such as "not voluntary" instead of "non-consensual", but I take the slight re-wording as indicative of general agreement.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:26 am 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.

You have said what the thread is NOT about but you have failed to say what it is in fact about, excpet that you seem to want to insist that it is violent.

The topic/question is as follows: Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?
[/quote]

1. People give their consent though it is not voluntary. Consent can be withrawn. Taxation is not voluntary in any sense.
2. Taxation is not violent since people consent to it. Calling it violent is simply an abuse of langauge. You might understand this better by looking into the issue of deontology.
3. Taxation is not voluntary. But it is never mandatory.
4. If the topic is ": Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?. Violence does not apply as people consent.

5. WHY are you making the distinction "non-local"? Do you have a reason for this?

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:36 am Hello neighbor, I live in CT also, small world.

Hi! Small world, indeed.

Scott wrote:2. Taxation is violent.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:36 am I follow your argument but don't agree that taxes are violent robbery, and would base this primarily on a disagreement with #2. I suppose if you define any use of force as violence, then you would see all law enforcement as a form of violence, but I think that stretches and dilutes the definition of the word so far as to make it somewhat meaningless.

Yes, that is what I mean.

I think Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter explains my thinking on this better than I could in his article published in Bloomberg:

Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:36 am Have you ever been the victim of a violent robbery?

Are you asking me if I have ever been coerced into give my money to someone against my will under the threat of non-defensive violence such as but not limited to a mafia protection racket in which if I don't buy their service they will send men with guns to my house or business?

If so, the answer is yes.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:36 am If so, then you would know that it's a sudden, unexpected and generally very frightening and traumatic experience that often results in bodily injury as well as severe mental distress. In such a situation, one usually has no rights or ability to negotiate - you are simply at the mercy of the perpetrator.

I've been to jail for victimless crimes such as but not limited to marijuana possession. Have you?

Your description of what it is like is apt.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:36 am This isn't the experience I usually undergo when I pay my taxes.

If you are a bank clerk, and you do what the bank robber claiming to have a concealed gun says, what do you suspect would happen? Are you saying that you wouldn't consider such a robbery to be 'violent' unless the robber actually has to fulfill their threats, presumably due to non-compliance on the part of the victim?

I consider armed robbery to be violent even if the gun never gets pulled out and nobody gets shot due to the compliance of the victims. In other words, I consider coercion at the threat of non-defensive violence to be violent.

However, it's important to remember that you alone are the only potential victim. The US government does not only rob you, and in the bank hypothetical you are not the only would-be victim in the bank. So an important question is: what happens to those who do not comply like you do?

In other words, what would happen to you if you suddenly stopped paying your taxes and absolutely refused to ever pay them again? Keep in mind, that is happening to other people. The bank robber may have not shot you, but that doesn't mean violence was not used against other victims.

You may not consider yourself to be much of a victim due to your compliance, but since you are not the only would-be victim, that logic doesn't work.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:36 am Even if I were to ultimately face arrest for refusing to pay taxes, it would likely not amount to violence unless I was determined to resist arrest through my own use of force.

I don't think arrest and imprisonment by armed men can be construed as non-violent, but yes if that's non-violent then I suppose neither taxation nor the war on drugs is violent.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:41 pm People give their consent though it is not voluntary.

That is a contradiction.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:41 pmTaxation is not violent since people consent to it.

The idea that I would or do consensually donate money to the United States government is absurd. I'd literally rather see my money ripped up and literally flushed down a toilet than go to the United States federal government for the horrendous violent things it does with the robbed tax-dollars.

I would never ever consensually give money to the United States government, an organization that spends billions each year waging a war on drugs, a country that incarcerates over 2 million people for mostly non-violent crimes, a government that dropped two nuclear bombs on cities full of civilians, an organization that's primary purpose and goal IMO is to make the rich richer and otherwise serve the wealthy special interests that control it via campaign contributions, paid lobbyists, and kickbacks.

I donate to many charities and consensually buy services from many organizations, but I would not ever consensually buy services from or consensually donate to the USA Federal Government.

I only pay money to the United States government because I will be victimized with non-defensive violence if I don't, the same reason I might hand my watch over to an armed robber at the bank. Men with guns would come to my house and kick my door down if I don't pay money to that violent organization that uses violence to make the rich richer.

The idea that taxes are paid consensually to such a grossly violent organization by peaceful people like me is ridiculous. I would never consent to such a thing. That is why they have to threaten peaceful people like me with extreme non-defensive violence; if they didn't, I wouldn't pay.

Even if I could just flush the would-be taxes down the toilet rather than send it to the violent USA Government, I would.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:41 pm Taxation is not voluntary.

I agree.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 6:32 am If we follow this line of argument further, we can now argue that income tax is also no more violent robbery than that property surcharge in your hometown is.

You could argue that but one could argue the opposite.

However, if I don't pay the town of Manchester, I won't be put in jail. It's a civil matter.

If I didn't pay the apartment/condo fees for a community pool (when living I lived in an apartment complex with a shared community pool), it would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Regardless, I am not saying that violent robbery (e.g. taxation) cannot happen locally by small groups. I exclude those from the discussion solely for simplicity. A small local government can exist, can be violent, and can engage in the violently robbery and call it taxation. That is all very possible.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 6:32 am When you sign your employment contract with your employer, you freely enter into an agreement to pay income tax.

I've never signed such a contract in my life, and I haven't been employed since 2014.

When I was employed, I was typically paid below minimum wage, and was not on contract. Namely, I worked in restaurants as a bartender or server, and most of my pay was tips, which were taxed.

My weekly paycheck was typically $0 due to the taxes, and the fact that my hourly pay (without tips) was significantly below minimum wage, making my weekly pay lower than my taxes.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 6:32 am If you don't want to pay income tax, look for a company that's willing to compensate you for your work using something other than the government's money.

Many of my customers pay me via methods other than USD. I still legally have to (and do) report those on my taxes, and pay taxes on that income. I would have to pay taxes even if I solely did business through bitcoin or DOGE. It would essentially have absolutely zero affect on my reportable income and tax liability. The USA Government does not tax us based on what currency we get paid in. Does your government only tax you if you get paid in their local government-printed currency?

Scott wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 1:08 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:41 pm People give their consent though it is not voluntary.

That is a contradiction.

I'll tell you why it is not.
Paying tax is not voluntary.
YOU consent to paying your taxes.
Case closed.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:41 pmTaxation is not violent since people consent to it.

The idea that I would or do consensually donate money to the United States government is absurd.

You pay your taxes. That is consent.
If you live in the USA you voluntarily fill out your 1040 every year and send a cheque.

I'd literally rather see my money ripped up and literally flushed down a toilet than go to the United States federal government for the horrendous violent things it does with the robbed tax-dollars.

Yet you do not.

I would never ever consensually give money to the United States government, an organization that spends billions each year waging a war on drugs, a country that incarcerates over 2 million people for mostly non-violent crimes,

Yet you do

.. a government that dropped two nuclear bombs on cities full of civilians, an organization that's primary purpose and goal IMO is to make the rich richer and otherwise serve the wealthy special interests that control it via campaign contributions, paid lobbyists, and kickbacks.

And yet you chose not to do anything about it.

I donate to many charities and consensually buy services from many organizations, but I would not ever consensually buy services from or consensually donate to the USA Federal Government.

I only pay money to the United States government because I will be victimized with non-defensive violence if I don't, the same reason I might hand my watch over to an armed robber at the bank. Men with guns would come to my house and kick my door down if I don't pay money to that violent organization that uses violence to make the rich richer.

The idea that taxes are paid consensually to such a grossly violent organization by peaceful people like me is ridiculous. I would never consent to such a thing. That is why they have to threaten peaceful people like me with extreme non-defensive violence; if they didn't, I wouldn't pay.

Even if I could just flush the would-be taxes down the toilet rather than send it to the violent USA Government, I would.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 12:41 pm Taxation is not voluntary.

I agree.

Yet you consent evey year.
You did not answer my question about "non-local".

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 6:25 am And the Manchester town has no income tax at all but collects $5,000 per person on average via surcharges on property ownership, which are used to fund the local schools, fire departments, and police.

Scott wrote: If somebody tells you this is a tax (and is therefore violent robbery) you could argue that it's not violent robbery in that it's consensual in that they aren't forced to buy those houses.

I would argue that it is consensual, but more importantly non-payment would be handled civilly not criminally. Worst case, I think the town would auction the land if the taxes aren't paid in a very very long time, and then it would be up to the new private owners to evict any non-paying tenets or squatters, which is not easy or quick to do.

No pacifists are in jail or prison for refusing to pay money to the Town of Manchester.

In other words, I think it is both consensual and nonviolent, for separate reasons.

Credit card debt is more vigorously enforced, especially since credit card debt is attached to the person not the real estate/land. But even that is not really enforced violently, but just civilly.

However, it is a moot point for the topic at hand, because I am not arguing that small local violent governments cannot exist or do not exist. I am not arguing that legalized violent robbery cannot occur on local levels by small local groups or small local organizations or small local governments. It can and surely does happen.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 1:37 pm You pay your taxes. That is consent.

By that absurd logic, if I hand my watch to a bank robber because he demands it, threatening to do violence if I fail to comply, then it is consensual not violent robbery.

That is simply not how consent works.

Obedience or compliance under threat of violence is not consent.