Why Taxation is Theft

OK, libertarians often talk about how taxation is theft while statists call the libertarians crazy. The statists don’t understand why libertarians would call taxation a form of theft and honestly many libertarians who make the statement that taxation is theft don’t fully understand why. Thus we have a lot of people with a misunderstanding walking around and I feel it necessary to explain the concept of taxation being theft. Really this post is me being selfish, instead of having to retype this argument every time I make it I’m just going to link back to this.

The foundation of libertarian philosophy is founded on something we like to call the non-aggression principal. The non-aggression principal states all aggression is illegitimate. Aggression is defined as any initiation of force, be it physical or simply a threat, against another person or their property (which I’ve explained is actually an extension of a person). This means any time somebody initiates force or coerces somebody to perform an action it is seen as illegitimate by libertarian philosophy.

Taxation is the collection of money by the state. This collection isn’t voluntary though as not paying money to the state will lead to them either confiscating your property or placing you in prison. The threat of property confiscation and prison time are forms of aggression and thus the action of taxation is seen as illegitimate by libertarian philosophy. When one party uses aggression to obtain property of another party the act is called theft and we say the first party stole from the second party. For example if I threatened to kidnap you and hold you in my basement for 10 years if you don’t pay me 10% of your earning every year most people would consider my act theft. Thus comes the phrase taxation is theft.

Libertarians aren’t claiming taxation as theft because we’re greedy. The claim is made because the entire concept goes against the very foundation of libertarian philosophy, the non-aggression principal.

Now you statists can stop calling us crazy when we claim taxation is theft. You are more than free to make an attempt of arguing for social benefits of taxation but please stop screaming, “YOU’RE FUCKING CRAZY!” We’re getting sick of hearing it and it makes you look like a moron who lacks a real argument against our statement. Those identifying as libertarians please understand the reason behind the phrase, “Taxation is theft.” You’re not helping libertarianism by making statements you can’t explain, it just makes us look crazy to the statists.

A Contradiction of Thought

This is really a post that has nothing to do with anything but is a thought I had. How can somebody complain about the police but then turn around and demand more laws be enacted? It seems to be a popular opinion of many people I know; they complain about how terrible the police are but later talk about wanting more laws and regulations put into place which would require more enforcement agents be hired.

Trying to make sense of it only causes my head to hurt.

When Did the Definition of Voluntary Change

I’m a bit confused. Some point between the time I learned the definition of voluntary and yesterday the definition of the word was changed. I say this because Harry Reid has stated that paying taxes is voluntary:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8]

Thankfully Google still has my back here as it contained the old definition of voluntary which reads in part:

of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled

Voluntary action is action taken by choice and free of any coercion. Paying taxes on the other hand is something we do because the government has threatened us with violence if we do not. If you or I don’t pay our taxes the government will take one or all of several actions which include taking the money from us (garnishing wages), tossing us in prison, taking your property, or having one of their hired thugs beat us should we refuse to comply with either of the two previous retaliatory actions.

So I’m very confused and would like to know this new definition of the word voluntary that Harry is using. It’s not in any dictionary so I’m guessing it’s probably in the newest version of the Newspeak.

How It’s Done

Here is yet another reason that we need more people on Capital Hill like Ron Paul. Dr. Paul returned $141,580 of his budget to the government because he doesn’t go on rampant spending sprees:

Congressman Ron Paul has returned $141,580 of unspent office funds to the US Treasury. This represents just over 9% of the total office funds, and an increase over the $100,000 returned last year.

It would seem in a time of financial crisis that we could use more monetarily responsible representatives. Granted with the history of government spending I’m doubting we’ll get such people anytime this century.

Voluntary Taxation

Last week I brought up the idea that those whining about not being taxed enough should put their money where their mouth is and cut the state a check. You can also do it on a federal level if you so choose:

So, if anyone out there feels like Uncle Sam’s letting you off too easy, stop bitching and cut the Government a fucking check. Make it payable to “Bureau of the Public Debt” and send it to:

Bureau of the Public Debt
Department G
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

There you go. If you think we aren’t being taxed enough cut your government a check for whatever amount you feel is appropriate. When you finally pay up I’ll start listening to you when you go on about not being taxed enough. Until then feel free to shut up and let the rest of us who don’t believe the government is doing a good job keep the money that is rightfully ours.

Ownership Rights

Linoge has a post talking about a person who faced charges for defending his property (the person was found not guilty thankfully). The defense of property is one of those debatable things in the gun community with many claiming it’s perfectly fine while others claim a gun is for defense of life not merely property. I think the remarks Linoge has in his post exemplify the fact that defense of property should be an acceptable thing.

This subject crashes head first into another topic of have a big interest in, economics. I find the philosophical concept of ownership rights to be very interesting as an argument can be made several ways. One of the arguments against ownership rights is the fact that all products produced have derived from natural resources that nobody can make rightful claim to. I would like to present a different argument, one that is in favor of ownership rights.

None of the ideas I’m going to present here are my own. Instead they are ideas that have been described by many libertarians and Austrian economists. The best description of these concept that I’ve found can be found in Murray Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty.

In the United States we have many rights described in our Constitution. These rights are protections from our government and arguments can be made against their universality (for instance a right to due process only applies in as society with a state and thus can not be considered a right deriving from nature). There is one right though that can be derived purely from human reason and can be considered the one right all others derive from; the right of self-ownership. Self-ownership can be summed up as the simple fact that you own you. Even if you are a slave you still are the owner of yourself which is why you can perform such actions as attempting to escape or even kill your capture.

As you own yourself you also own your labor. Of course you can trade your labor for the products of other people’s labor but you own your labor. There is a valid argument in stating nobody can lay claim to the natural resources found on this planet as they came into being without any human action. What can also be argued is that mixing your labor with natural resources gives you a rightful claim to those resources by the fact that you own yourself and thus your labor.

By mixing your labor with natural resources you have produced something that is consumable. This applies to everything from farm goods to automobiles. By mixing your labor with natural resources you have made something new, something more useful. As this new thing is a product of your labor it is valid to claim ownership rights to it as an extension of self-ownership.

These items can then be traded to other people for products of their labor. Going up enough rungs of the trade ladder we’ll create an economy. In this economy any property owned by a person will ultimately be a product of their labor either through production or trade (which is simply a voluntary exchange of ownership rights). Voluntary trade is the basis of the free market which the United States economy is very loosely based on.

What Linoge stated in his post can be derived from the right of self-ownership. When somebody takes your property they have taken a product of your labor and thus an extension of yourself. Working a job is an agreement between employer and employee where you trade your labor in exchange for another good (usually money). When somebody steals your television they haven’t just stolen the physical device but a product of your labor and thus have taken a part of yourself. As you have a finite amount of time to live the theft of labor can be considered the theft of the hours that the labor was being performed.

Using this progression of reasoned steps a conclusion in favor of property defense can be arrived at. When defending your property you are defending yourself in the form of your labor. When a thief deprives you of your property they are also deriving you of your life in the form of time you must spend in replacing said property. Even if you have theft insurance you must still use your labor to pay for that policy which would be unnecessary if it wasn’t for criminal elements.

So it’s not unreasonable to claim people should be allowed to defend their property with the same vigilance as they may defend their life. In the grand scheme of things both situations are really the same.