Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Theft is the taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent. Are those who dont give consent vicitms of theft? Is it theft but still accpetbale since it is used for supposedly good ends?

    Read this for some background
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin044.pdf#
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If you live in a country, you have to accept the law. The law says you will be taxed for being a citizen. If you don't like it, go somewhere else - you are consenting to be taxed by living in a place where it is expected for you to pay tax. So no, it is not theft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, we pay taxes to be protected from crime and stuff like that. Perhaps paying income tax shouldn't be compulsory, but if you do not, you don't get anything. No police protection, no health provision, no library card. If people think they can survive without, it is their right to do so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    If you live in a country, you have to accept the law. The law says you will be taxed for being a citizen. If you don't like it, go somewhere else - you are consenting to be taxed by living in a place where it is expected for you to pay tax. So no, it is not theft.
    Perhaps everyone wishing to remain in the country should sign a contract agreeing to pay taxes. Therefore taxation would stop being theft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Theft is the taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent. Are those who dont give consent vicitms of theft? Is it theft but still accpetbale since it is used for supposedly good ends?

    Read this for some background
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin044.pdf#
    Not really.

    Without taxation, there would be no Government expenditure, and no legal system. Therefore, there's no judging body in existence to declare it theft under the law.

    The Government can acts as it likes so long as it is within the law. Laws decree that taxation is legal (indeed, not paying them is illegal). Therefore, it is not theft.

    Morally, of course, it's easy to argue that taxation isn't theft because it benefits others. [don't take this point without the legal context though, you can't use it to argue that stealing from a supermarket to give to the poor isn't theft].
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    If you live in a country, you have to accept the law. The law says you will be taxed for being a citizen. If you don't like it, go somewhere else - you are consenting to be taxed by living in a place where it is expected for you to pay tax. So no, it is not theft.
    Do you think immigrating to another country is that easy?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you live in a country, you have to accept the law.
    If i lived in Nazi Germany and was Jewish, should i have just obeyed as it was the law. Since when did law=just. If i lived in France under Nazi occupation would it have been wrong for me to work for the resistance?

    If you don't like it, go somewhere else -
    If i leave a crime ridden street does that excuse the fact that crime is occuring?

    you are consenting to be taxed by living in a place where it is expected for you to pay tax.
    There is a difference between terriotory and government. Isnt government in the wrong to tax, just because it been done for many years does that make it right? The Libs have not been in power for decades, its that right because they've never been in power for decades. Such an argument is circular and illogical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think taxation for police protection and stuff is necessary because its like part of the social contract theory. the government has the obligation to protect the people therefore certain taxes are essential in order to maintain a legit government. but taxation for welfare or redistribution of wealth seems wrong according to the modern conception of governments obligation i.e. social contract. the government's first obligation is to protect life liberty and property of each individual therefore to redistribute wealth would be like robbing someone else of the wealth. this transfer of entitlements is therefore immoral for the government. its like saying i.e. a sick person shall die if he does not eat two people a day to survive, logically the government cannot make this redistribution of life just like it cant do the same with property
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Without taxation, there would be no Government expenditure, and no legal system. Therefore, there's no judging body in existence to declare it theft under the law.
    Not true government could be supported by a system of vol taxation in a simailr way that people pay for insurance. Rand suggests a govt lottery. Also she claims that another possibilty is this. As govt is the only body which can render the protection of contracts, than she suggests govt should only legally recongise those contracts which had been insured by payment to govt of a fixed sum. There is no compulsion to insure a contract, but the result of not doing it is so risky that most would.


    The Government can acts as it likes so long as it is within the law. Laws decree that taxation is legal (indeed, not paying them is illegal). Therefore, it is not theft.
    Theft is also a moral concept. Just because you can enforce your will on someone does not bring legitimacy.

    Morally, of course, it's easy to argue that taxation isn't theft because it benefits others.
    Redistrbution causes damage as it leads to dependcy. Also just because someone is in need does that give you a right take someone's hard earned money? If someone mugged you but said it was for a local orphanage, would you acpet it and not bothering to report it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It wouldn't be practicable to employ a system of voluntary taxation, at least not for all publicly provided goods because there is no rivalry in consumption and they are non-excludable, that is, if you provide the good for one person you cant stop others from using it. This would apply to things like flood defences, military defence, street lighting and to a large extent law and order. The theories behind taxation are quite simple, it's necessary even at a basic level to provide goods for which the markets would be missing, and also on a moral level to correct market failure caused by externalities...

    Whether or not the redistribution of income is a good thing is a very contentious issue and you can't really make a blanket statement and use it to support a certain viewpoint about taxation IMO.

    Having said that, it might all be refuted in the link you posted which I didn't bother to read, but I hope not...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Not true government could be supported by a system of vol taxation in a simailr way that people pay for insurance. Rand suggests a govt lottery. Also she claims that another possibilty is this. As govt is the only body which can render the protection of contracts, than she suggests govt should only legally recongise those contracts which had been insured by payment to govt of a fixed sum. There is no compulsion to insure a contract, but the result of not doing it is so risky that most would.

    Theft is also a moral concept. Just because you can enforce your will on someone does not bring legitimacy.

    Redistrbution causes damage as it leads to dependcy. Also just because someone is in need does that give you a right take someone's hard earned money? If someone mugged you but said it was for a local orphanage, would you acpet it and not bothering to report it?
    Bloody hell! Can you please quote the whole thing together so it doesn't lose its cohesion? You have systematically taken apart sentences and ignored the rest of the post.

    It's pretty frustrating when you post this.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Theft is also a moral concept. Just because you can enforce your will on someone does not bring legitimacy.
    completely ignoring what I say later on in my post (indeed something separately you reply to)

    (Original post by me)
    Morally, of course, it's easy to argue that taxation isn't theft because it benefits others. [don't take this point without the legal context though, you can't use it to argue that stealing from a supermarket to give to the poor isn't theft].
    THEN you simply take the first part, completely ignoring the context and my explanation that it was not a self sustaining point, and merely a subsidary explanation.

    and reply
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Redistrbution causes damage as it leads to dependcy. Also just because someone is in need does that give you a right take someone's hard earned money? If someone mugged you but said it was for a local orphanage, would you acpet it and not bothering to report it?
    Of course moral arguments only go so far to prove that taxation isn't theft - but it gives them a degree of legitimacy. Why do you think the vast majority do not complain about why they have to pay taxes?

    It is only a supporting factor to the legal dimension which gives them legitimacy nationally and declares them fair and legal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bloody hell! Can you please quote the whole thing together so it doesn't lose its cohesion? You have systematically taken apart sentences and ignored the rest of the post.

    It's pretty frustrating when you post this.
    You made three paragraphs and so three points, i addressed them in the way you put them across.


    completely ignoring what I say later on in my post (indeed something separately you reply to)
    If i ignored it how did i reply to it?



    THEN you simply take the first part, completely ignoring the context and my explanation that it was not a self sustaining point, and merely a subsidary explanation.

    It is only a supporting factor to the legal dimension which gives them legitimacy nationally and declares them fair and legal.

    You seem to be concered with justifying your rather confused layout, rather than focusing on the issue, suggesting you are avoiding the issue. Also how does a legal dimension give legitimacy, surely moralty does? A legal dimension gives power but not legitimacy. Otherwise was it legitimate to kill Jews in concentration camps? You fail to counter the moral issues effectively.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    If you live in a country, you have to accept the law. The law says you will be taxed for being a citizen. If you don't like it, go somewhere else - you are consenting to be taxed by living in a place where it is expected for you to pay tax. So no, it is not theft.
    As far as I know, it's only stateless countries (Somalia used to be one) don't tax their citizens. The 'go elsewhere' option doesn't exist.

    I own my property, no one else does. That's why I believe involuntary taxation is theft. What gives anyone else the right to state what 'the law' is on my property?


    thevlad: Well, we pay taxes to be protected from crime and stuff like that. Perhaps paying income tax shouldn't be compulsory, but if you do not, you don't get anything. No police protection, no health provision, no library card. If people think they can survive without, it is their right to do so.
    If you actually think about it, none of those services work for the average person. The police have never once intervened to 'protect' me, I have private health care (and that's the way I likes it) and I use my university library. Ha.

    Without taxation, there would be no Government expenditure, and no legal system. Therefore, there's no judging body in existence to declare it theft under the law.
    The state does not require taxation to exist in some form. A judiciary could exist and be funded which without having to steal out of the pockets of others.

    And theft is not just a legal concept.

    The Government can acts as it likes so long as it is within the law. Laws decree that taxation is legal (indeed, not paying them is illegal). Therefore, it is not theft
    That's nonsense. Government existed before established laws. Just because a law says something does not mean it is true. Plus, who gave Parliament the authority to make these laws?

    Of course moral arguments only go so far to prove that taxation isn't theft - but it gives them a degree of legitimacy. Why do you think the vast majority do not complain about why they have to pay taxes?
    Oh, so the majority is allowed to rob* from me now?



    *Notably robbery is distinct from theft in that it carries with it a threat of violence. Not paying your taxes carries a similar threat from the state. Hence, it is robbery, not just theft.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Just because a law says something does not mean it is true.
    I agree with you - but that does not stand up in the court of law - which is where you would have to argue against the taxation system.

    Plus, who gave Parliament the authority to make these laws?
    The constitution declares Parliament is the sole sovereign body in the UK.

    The bottom line is, if you are a citizen of most countries, you will have to cough up. The state is there to protect its citizens from "outsiders" and to provide services to the people within it. Whether or not you choose to use them is irrelevant. By claiming citizenship, you are obliged to pay taxes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=thekillersrock]It wouldn't be practicable to employ a system of voluntary taxation, at least not for all publicly provided goods

    I accept that, and have no problem with that as im in favour of abolishing the welfare state and belive the state should only defend and maintain law and order.

    because there is no rivalry in consumption and they are non-excludable, that is, if you provide the good for one person you cant stop others from using it. This would apply to things like flood defences, military defence, street lighting and to a large extent law and order.
    Flood defences? Insurance companies exists, also those who are flooded could gome together to invest in a defence scheme of their own after all if they wernt being taxed they'd certainly have alot more money (same with street lights). I accpet defence must be the resposibilty of the state as well as law and order. They would be funded though a contract scheme - if you do a deal and want that insured (i.e if someone goes back on the deal, you can sue them) than you must pay the state to insure it. You dont have to so its not compulsion, but the risk of not doing so would be so great, that people would. And given so many people make contracts th revenue would be immense.

    The theories behind taxation are quite simple, it's necessary even at a basic level to provide goods for which the markets would be missing,
    Like what? If there is a demand people will pay.


    and also on a moral level to correct market failure caused by externalities...
    Market failures are caused by too much govt intererance, govts dont help they hinder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=objectivism]Not true government could be supported by a system of vol taxation in a simailr way that people pay for insurance. Rand suggests a govt lottery. Also she claims that another possibilty is this. As govt is the only body which can render the protection of contracts, than she suggests govt should only legally recongise those contracts which had been insured by payment to govt of a fixed sum. There is no compulsion to insure a contract, but the result of not doing it is so risky that most would.QUOTE]

    You could also have voluntary payments for healthcare. No one would ever be deprived of the best available healthcare because everyone would voluntarily hand over the fixed cost of insuring themselves. Except of course children, many of the elderly, the mentally ill, physically disabled etc etc because they wouldn't have the means to provide this fixed cost.

    Voluntary taxation would work where everyone had the same opportunity and capacity to create sufficient wealth to pay for what they need. It is an unfortunate fact of life that this state of affairs doesn't exist and couldn't exist.

    It is unfortunate that the existence of welfare encourages dependancy however it is difficulty to see how social cohesion could exist in the alternative.

    z
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you - but that does not stand up in the court of law - which is where you would have to argue against the taxation system.
    Im arguing against the concept in a forum and so moral arguments are perfecty accptable. In fact why do we have laws? Because we beleive it is the most moral way to live. Everthing comes down to morality, including law. Please dont try to avoid the issue


    The bottom line is, if you are a citizen of most countries, you will have to cough up. The state is there to protect its citizens from "outsiders" and to provide services to the people within it.
    The state should be there to protect people and our freedoms. However taxation (compulsoy) undermines this. Also why do you think that defence = compulsory tax. What about the vol scheme proposed by Rand as i have noted before.

    By claiming citizenship, you are obliged to pay taxes.
    Legally yes, but morally?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You could also have voluntary payments for healthcare. No one would ever be deprived of the best available healthcare because everyone would voluntarily hand over the fixed cost of insuring themselves. Except of course children, many of the elderly, the mentally ill, physically disabled etc etc because they wouldn't have the means to provide this fixed cost.

    Voluntary taxation would work where everyone had the same opportunity and capacity to create sufficient wealth to pay for what they need. It is an unfortunate fact of life that this state of affairs doesn't exist and couldn't exist.
    Their misfortune does not give them the moral right to steal.

    Also if people werent forced to hand over so much of their income chairty giving would increase. Government takes away any natural virtue humans have. In those coutries without welfare states people have organised friendly societies to help them out in need, a type of private insurance for them and their families.

    Also if people had not been taxed so much the elderly would have been able to put away wealth for their retirement instead of having to rely on state hand outs.

    Also more wealth would be created in society as more businesses would emerge and locate here, thus more welath woud be in the economy and with that the trickle down effect.


    It is unfortunate that the existence of welfare encourages dependancy however it is difficulty to see how social cohesion could exist in the alternative.
    social cohesion? As long as they do not attack my or my property or anyone else's i dont care about social cohesion. Theres no such thing as society after all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    social cohesion? As long as they do not attack my or my property or anyone else's i dont care about social cohesion. Theres no such thing as society after all.
    Are you advocating an anarchial society (I mean this ideologically, not the way anarchy is loosely used)?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Are you advocating an anarchial society (I mean this ideologically, not the way anarchy is loosely used)?
    No as i believe there should be a democratically elected government to preserve law and order and defend the country. I just accpet that compulsory tax is not needed to do this. On the social cohesion point, theres nothing anarchist about that, in fact Thatcher said something farily similar.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,696

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.