Is taxation theft?

the rise of the state yes because we can observe that. But there is no reason to think that the state is required

t. thief

They're not wrong. Whether taxation is theft or not is irrelevant. It's not like there's a god to punish tax collectors. All that matters is if the ends justify the means.

but he will

Taxation is indeed theft, but I'd argue that extracting profit and rent-seeking is much more damaging

La plus grande erreur du président a été d’annuler les impôts sur la fortune. L'aristocratie d'aujourd'hui est une élite nationale stagnante. Ils ne sont pas plus tournés vers l'avenir et soucieux du bien-être général que l'aristocratie d'une époque antérieure. Ils nous retiendraient! L'impôt sur la fortune affaiblit leur pouvoir et encourage la société à progresser progressivement. C'est une erreur de l'annuler. C'est une erreur de favoriser ceux qui ont déjà assez à consommer par rapport à ceux dont le potentiel est gaspillé à la merci des puissants. Si des puissances enracinées ont laissé leur propre désintégration nous priver de notre droit de naissance en tant que peuple libéré, il serait peut-être temps de leur voler à nouveau la tête!

No, taxation isn't theft, property is, read pic related.

Attached: La Propriete-1840.jpg (500x500, 14.35K)

No entendi ni una wea

taxation is theft for the same reason property is.

What lolbergs don't realize is that their complaints about taxation apply equally to private property

it doesn't though

ancap

no

libertarian?

communist

The primary libertarian argument against taxation is that it's being enforced by violence and the people paying it don't get to decide if they're going to pay it or not.

This is an argument that applies to private property in production just as well.

private property is only enforced through violence when the state is involved

real ancap hours who up

Taxation is only theft in a philosophical context. Theft, same as property is a human construct. So, it only counts as stealing if both parties agreed that the stolen object belonged to the stolen person in the first place.
The state enforces its own philosophical and moral system on it's subjects. Most states include in this system a concept of theft that is seen in a negative light and susceptible to punishment. When the state has complete power over its moral system he can therefore exempt himself from his own logic, especially when it needs to do so to justify it's survival.

So, to all autistic ancaps. Were it not for the state, theft wouldn't even be a thing you can complain about.

Attached: spidah boy.jpg (1746x3104, 1.2M)

Ceux qui ne peuvent pas vivre en paix sont ceux qui ne peuvent pas vivre en paix. Ceux qui réclament du crédit pour la construction de la société doivent être ceux qui vivent dans la société et ceux qui y vivent doivent réclamer du crédit pour la construction de la société. Il y a un prix à payer pour tout dans ce monde et la Terre est la planète des gens qui doivent en payer le prix.

Pray tell, what non-violent enforcement of private property rights prevents the expropriation of the capitalist classes when the state isn't involved?

i never claimed this one

So then what is the enforcement?

Doesn't really matter either way. I suppose that you could classify it as theft, but this seems, at best, misguided, when the theft of labor by the state through taxes is miniscule when compared to the theft of labor by the bourgeoisie though wage labor.

In a socialist state, I could see some level of taxation existing, to fund state projects, the military, or other non-profitable but socially necessary endeavours. Whether or not this constitutes theft is irrelevant, as it is better than the alternative.

self defense

Why isn't the violence that enforces tax collection considered defense of the state? What makes it violence when the government collects taxes, but self defense when the capitalist collects rents?

choice

That is a form of violence.

You're entirely allowed to leave the country.

yeah but its justified

not really and void of government there'd be no country to leave

This is dumb as shit dude. If somebody comes and sleeps in your living room, initiates no violence, then your assault of them to remove them from “your” living room is an initiation of violence you simply redefine as self-defense because you’ve already defined the initial entrance of the house as an aggression. If somebody takes a banana out of a grocery store and the owner shoots them, the owner committed the violent act. It’s only the concept of “private property” that can be used to insist that the initial act was the real violence.

Fuck off dipshit, I got triggered this wasn’t immediately pointed out.

Are you disagreeing that you are allowed to leave the state you live under? Who is forcing you to stay?

Yeah just like how you're technically free to not pay a landlord but in reality not really because you need somewhere to live and a piece of paper says he owns it even though he doesn't live there. See how capitalism is bullshit now?

why wouldn't i assault them for sleeping in my living room?

...

how?

The illusion of choice, you mean. Your only choice is which landlord you give your rent to - just like your only choice is which government you give your taxes to.

Your baited me, but no longer.

Because the 'choice' to pay your landlord rent is no more voluntary than paying taxes. You can choose which landlord but that doesn't make it not oppressive.

Taxation is part of International Law, if you don't pay your taxes, the Govt you are under can do literally anything to you.

except the government has no right to take your money. Landlords don't take your money you give it to them in exchange for rent.

taxes are not voluntary. Rent is trading money for a place to stay

How is that voluntary when you need a place to live to survive and someone else owns them all?

because renters value having a place to rent more than the money it costs to rent it
so they chose to give the money to a landlord in exchange for a house/apartment

This is bait you idiots.

...

The reason you are obviously trolling is BECAUSE you are answering like a fucking idiot. You literally said you should be allowed to assault someone in your living room. You already admitted you use violence to assert right to something as much as the state.

So you're admitting it's not a real choice then? Okay.
Then on to the exchange argument: governments take your money in exchange for living on their land. How is that different from a landlord?

Watch, he will find a way to say some tautological nonsense about how his pre-determined property rights mean that he is allowed to initiate violence and demand payment while the state has no right to anything, just because.

Only when it's from the proletariat.

I didn’t say a state, I said a central administrative authority.

workers' primary exploitation is by capitalists, tax is a distracting issue to get caught up on.

Taxation is simply a condition the state puts on the existence of property. You are allowed to own things as long as you pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes you break the social contract that first enabled you own things in the first place, and thus the rest of the community has no reason to continue this relation into the future. This has nothing whatsoever to do with theft.

...

this isn't what is happening though.

You give the landlord money in exchange to live on their property

FUCK LANDLORDS
FUCK OP

Attached: 1424398594774.png (700x498 578.76 KB, 38.61K)

t. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, not even a fucking Marxist

Attached: adam smith.jpg (540x694, 120.7K)

ok and?

Valuable and extensive property necessarily requires state violence.

property can be defended through self defense void of the state

Not to the extent that it could ever become valuable or extensive. Any system based around private property and capital accumulation and reproduction necessarily requires a state.

Capitalists are the real thieves, taxes are here to give back the money to the people.

why not?
just because that is what has happened so far doesn't mean it is true for the future.
If we are going off of that logical then Marxism always leads to state capitalism and ruin

the government could loan out as much money as it wanted to give the public the best possible services, but they don't. Taxes are actually used to pay back banks, not directly fund projects. Just need a good communist in power to kill off the bankers afterwards.

no taxes are just as much theft

Because the class system it causes necessarily causes antagonisms that the propertied class can only be secure in with state protection.

Dialectics. This is what must necessarily happen as capitalism develops as a living system. No class system can exist without a state, even if its a privatized state.

Except that's not what happened. The old Marxist-Leninist states didn't lead to "ruin" anywhere.

Well I'm talking about private property here which can be defended with self defense void of the state. That has happened all throughout history.

privatized and state are mutually exclusive.
Simply saying dialectics isn't an argument.

bread lines

Look, he did it:

If you beat somebody up for entering a building it is pre-determined to be “breaking and entering”, thus its different. This fucking moron literally can’t even give a reason as to why this is different than any other violence, so he just redefines it tautologically do sustain his retarded, moralizing worldview.

I don't see what the problem is. You're going to be met with violence if you break into somebody's home anywhere in the world.

Not really. Generally speaking, any property larger that, say, the property of a hunter-gatherer or maybe very small subsistence farmer has to be defended by more than one person to maintain it on a daily basis. And said subsistence farmers would still need to band together to protect themselves from raiders and the like.

No they aren't. The state is simply a special body of armed men enforcing law through the fear those arms inspire. The state is privately owned under feudalism and any system calling itself a "monarchy".

I'm saying you should look at how things develop and evolve in reality instead of subsisting entirely on sterile abstractions and hypotheticals.

Breadlines were not a communist thing. They were an American thing from the Great Depression, and continue to be a thing, though now they've been renamed "food banks".

Now we see our visiting moron fully inhabit his role as an ignorant, delirious retard by simply shrugging his shoulders and saying he doesn't have to investigate his moral pre-suppositions that he pulled from fucking nowhere but his pitiful, limited experience. He isn't even sure why there is a question, but he is completely convinced of how to answer the previous question for vast categories of activity. It is a self evident truth to the drooling monkey that the state is mean and bad for taking his money, and that this is different from a landlord which is good and rightful. He will continue to fail to explicate why this is the case, falling back on his own experience of not enjoying paying money to the state, and then rationalizing it by drawing large arbitrary lines around things that he will point to every time he is challenged as though they actually exist.

Yes this is true. But self defense doesn't have to be only a single person.

We are discussing the modern state which is a result of the treaties of Westphalia.

It is no more of an abstraction than end stage communism.

thanks big government

...

Realizing that he cannot answer the question of why this is different, he continues to evade with all of the skill of a bumbling fucking idiot by crying.

Impressively* our retard manages to avoid another inconvenient truth. When his moralizing categories don't apply, he sidesteps the issue by saying they don't apply because time has passed!

*Read: with miserable predictability

do you have an actual question? because right now you're just shitposting

I don't see how systems of a bygone era are relevant to today

I'd be impressed that this idiot pretends to be unaware of what came only moments ago, but unfortunately I'm afraid he is slipping into early dementia.

The idiot is literally delirious at this point. He has either forgotten what the topic even is, or he is a monarchist.

...

lol but assuming you are serious one thing I don't understand is how you sustain your delusions after resorting to evasion multiple times. How do you manage to mentally block them? Do you just pretend it isn't you doing it? Again, assuming sincerity. If you're trolling this was all a good bit. Very authentic.

Attached: saitama.png (1920x1080, 2.72M)

do you have an actual question?

because right now you're failing to make an actual counter argument and resort to shitposting in place of one

I don't see how it's bait when a majority of society actually believe in this voodoo.

I can say just as equally that taxpayers value a peaceful life more than an extended legal battle and possibly jail so they voluntarily pay their taxes. It doesn't make a difference whether the landlord himself is inflicting the consequences you would feel from sleeping on the street, he as a member of the rent-seeking class enforce that system where you have to pay him money he didn't earn or be homeless.

Attached: big bill haywood dollar.jpg (236x169, 12.26K)

Attached: ancap_scroll_of_truth.jpg (960x956, 107.66K)

Attached: feudalism ancap 1.jpg (440x440 491.64 KB, 415.2K)

imagine actually being an unironic ancap

Attached: an-craps will ruin halloween.png (1409x503, 206.03K)

You're right, I think he was serious. I assumed only trolls are so disingenuous in argument, but he may just be lying to himself. Very sad.

And if these people joined together to, say, impose the authority of landholders over the landless and protect the landed in the possession of their land, you have a state.

States have always been what I just described. Whatever fucking treaty doesn't change that.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
- Karl Marx
"End stage communism" is merely a theoretical state a classless society could develop into when taking the socio-economic forces behind it into consideration. Communism isn't a utopian movement and any vision of "end stage communism" is beside the point.

The Great Depression was caused by the implosion of the stock market caused by private interests.

yes it does because the state initiates violence against you landlords do not.

no you don't have to pay a landlord or be homeless.
even if that was the case there is no force being initiated against you

no thats not a state sorry.

No the modern nation state has only existed for a few hundred years before that kingdoms worked differently and are irrelevant today

- Karl Marx

like I said what I am talking about is just as theoretical as Marxism

It was an implosion of private monopolies made possible by government

You give the government money in exchange to live on its land.
It's the same thing dude.