Taxes are theft....are they?

[The Script]

I was debating with an acquaintance the other day and he made the argument that taxes aren't really stealing because the money is not yours to begin with.  Basically his argument was that companies take tax rates into account when they decide salaries and so the taxes you pay come from that extra money the company appended to your salary.  Now he admitted that for the higher tax brackets the amount added by the company doesn't compensate for your entire tax burden, but at lower levels it accounts for most of it.

As I see it, that's still theft, even if it is at a reduced rate.  Also, it simply means the businesses are footing more of the bill rather than the individual tax payers.  Or actually, the customers of the businesses pay the difference as businesses pass those extra costs onto their products and services.  So really, isn't the individual tax payer still paying for it?

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting argument and was one I hadn't heard before.  Thoughts?

[1714663623]

1714663623

[1714663623]

1714663623

[1714663623]

1714663623

[Garrett Burgwardt]

If that's the case, cut out the middle man and just tax corporations. They'd still be stealing from corporations, but that's another fight.

[trentzb]

I was debating with an acquaintance the other day and he made the argument that taxes aren't really stealing because the money is not yours to begin with.

I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.

[NghtRppr]

If companies were to take into account the fact that many people are mugged each year and adjusted the average wage accordingly, by his reasoning, mugging people wouldn't theft.

[goatpig]

His point isn't related to taxes.That your company ensures the gov doesn't steal from you doesn't negate the fact that taxes are theft. Moreover, there aren't only income taxes out there. What about the rest?

[The Script]

I was debating with an acquaintance the other day and he made the argument that taxes aren't really stealing because the money is not yours to begin with.

I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.

Do explain?  I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[trentzb]

I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.

Do explain?  I'd like to hear your reasoning.

If you are in the USA (and most other countries), whose money is it when you work for an employer and receive FRNs or the equivalent checkbook money in exchange for your labor? Most people believe it is their money. But literally, I mean LITERALLY whose money is it? Who literally owns the money and who has supreme property rights in that money? If you do not own the money yourself don't you feel it is right and just to pay a tax or rental fee for use of someone else's property?

[The Script]

I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.

Do explain?  I'd like to hear your reasoning.

If you are in the USA (and most other countries), whose money is it when you work for an employer and receive FRNs or the equivalent checkbook money in exchange for your labor? Most people believe it is their money. But literally, I mean LITERALLY whose money is it? Who literally owns the money and who has supreme property rights in that money? If you do not own the money yourself don't you feel it is right and just to pay a tax or rental fee for use of someone else's property?

Hmm, I see your point, but I believe that when you provide a good a service to someone and they give you money it LITERALLY is your money. Especially since it is mandated that we use this money and it is illegal to use other ones.  The alternative, to me, is unthinkable.  Because if the government owns all the money, then does not that mean they own all the fruits of our labor, and therefore us as well? 

[trentzb]

Yes, the alternative is disturbing. I don't claim that this understanding is correct/valid, but it is food for thought. Contemplate also property rights and ownership related to IOUs and how that may equate use of FRNs. FRNs are simply IOUs (Notes/Promises to pay) and they have have signatues as evidence of such...more food for thought.

[FreeMoney]

I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.

Do explain?  I'd like to hear your reasoning.

If you are in the USA (and most other countries), whose money is it when you work for an employer and receive FRNs or the equivalent checkbook money in exchange for your labor? Most people believe it is their money. But literally, I mean LITERALLY whose money is it? Who literally owns the money and who has supreme property rights in that money? If you do not own the money yourself don't you feel it is right and just to pay a tax or rental fee for use of someone else's property?

If I carve a little wooden toy top and trade it to you for something is it really your top?

But I made it!

[silversurfer]

I was debating with an acquaintance the other day and he made the argument that taxes aren't really stealing because the money is not yours to begin with.  Basically his argument was that companies take tax rates into account when they decide salaries and so the taxes you pay come from that extra money the company appended to your salary.  Now he admitted that for the higher tax brackets the amount added by the company doesn't compensate for your entire tax burden, but at lower levels it accounts for most of it.

As I see it, that's still theft, even if it is at a reduced rate.  Also, it simply means the businesses are footing more of the bill rather than the individual tax payers.  Or actually, the customers of the businesses pay the difference as businesses pass those extra costs onto their products and services.  So really, isn't the individual tax payer still paying for it?

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting argument and was one I hadn't heard before.  Thoughts?

This is related to the 'deadweight loss' of taxation.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

[error]

If FRNs are a promise to pay, exactly what is promised to be paid?

[trentzb]

If FRNs are a promise to pay, exactly what is promised to be paid?

Today it is more FRNs. It used to be that notes/certificates were redeemable in silver/gold. That is no longer, but look at some old notes. The promise is printed directly on the dollar/note.

Try taking a FRN to a bank or even a FR district bank and all you will get in return is more FRNs. I recall reading this in the US Code. I am mobile ATM and can't cite the section.

IANAL.

[trentzb]

And also what is promised seems moot to me today as the promise itself has value placed on it. If a promise was worth nothing than few investors would be buying CDOs and Mortgage Notes...granted the asset has value as well, but investors dont really want assets do they?

[The Script]

Yes, the alternative is disturbing. I don't claim that this understanding is correct/valid, but it is food for thought. Contemplate also property rights and ownership related to IOUs and how that may equate use of FRNs. FRNs are simply IOUs (Notes/Promises to pay) and they have have signatues as evidence of such...more food for thought.

Also, technically, the US government does not own the Federal Reserve Notes, the Federal Reserve does.  So taxes cannot even be considered "rent" on FRNs because they are not owned by the US government.  But I think you have to look at how those bills get into circulation.  The Federal Reserve doesn't print the money and then distribute it equally among everyone, but rather gives it to the various banks underneath it who then use it to pay their bills and lend out to people.  The rent you pay on using the banks money when you take a loan is interest, but when you get the FRNs from people as payment for goods and services, they become your property.  The other thing that happens when the Fed prints money is that it lends it to the US government (who has to pay it back later at interest) which then uses the FRNs to pay its bills. 

Are FRNs still considered IOUs?  They aren't backed by anything, but rather you can only trade them at a bank for money of the same.  If you look on the bills they say:  "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."  I mean, I realize the whole US monetary system is debt-based on promises to pay that never get paid but traded around, but at some point people just accept the IOUs as currency.

[SgtSpike]

So, we vote people in to power, who require money to run a government, yet you call it theft when they take said money from your paycheck to run the government you elected them to run?   

I'm not a fan of taxed either, but to have services like police and fire and courts/justice systems and public transport and roads etc etc, it requires some forced contribution.  These things just wouldn't happen otherwise.

The government is horribly bloated and inefficient, but I don't view taxes as theft.  JMO.

[The Script]

So, we vote people in to power, who require money to run a government, yet you call it theft when they take said money from your paycheck to run the government you elected them to run?   

I'm not a fan of taxed either, but to have services like police and fire and courts/justice systems and public transport and roads etc etc, it requires some forced contribution.  These things just wouldn't happen otherwise.

The government is horribly bloated and inefficient, but I don't view taxes as theft.  JMO.

Question:  If I chose not to participate in the voting process or in the government system at all and refused to pay taxes, what would happen?

Also, I'm curious, how would you define theft?

[NghtRppr]

I'm not a fan of taxed either, but to have services like police and fire and courts/justice systems and public transport and roads etc etc, it requires some forced contribution.  These things just wouldn't happen otherwise.

The major roads in England and the early American colonies were privately owned and operated. There are still private roads that exist. You simply have to pay a toll. Many fire departments in rural areas are voluntary. Meaning, if you don't pay, they watch your house burn down. Many private justice systems, aka "arbitration tribunals", exist. The police aka "security guards" in private parks are vastly superior. Don't believe me? Go wave money around Central Park at night and I'll do the same thing at the same time in Disney World and we'll see who ends up on the 11 O'Clock news first.

Most people think these things can only be done by the government under threat of violence because that's all they've ever known. The fact that things have been historically done a certain way is never an argument for continuing to do it that way. We used to burn witches for causing disease but we know better now.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

So, we vote people in to power, who require money to run a government, yet you call it theft when they take said money from your paycheck to run the government you elected them to run?   

I'm not a fan of taxed either, but to have services like police and fire and courts/justice systems and public transport and roads etc etc, it requires some forced contribution.  These things just wouldn't happen otherwise.

The government is horribly bloated and inefficient, but I don't view taxes as theft.  JMO.

I'm actually writing a thesis on how you're wrong (except the bloated and inefficient part )

It'll be posted on the forums when I'm done.

[SgtSpike]

I expected some good responses to my arguments. 

[trentzb]

If I carve a little wooden toy top and trade it to you for something is it really your top?

But I made it!

I don't know...is it my top? Shouldn't we ask the question of where did the wood to carve the top come from? And where did the something I traded you come from? It is my belief that if we both have supreme property rights to our respective items that yes it indeed would be my top and my something I traded to you would be yours.

What did we trade with our employer for FRNs? Our labor/skill? Do we have supreme property rights in our labor/skill? Where did our employer get those FRNs and what did he/she/they trade to get them? Did he/she/they have supreme property rights in what they traded?

When I refer to supreme property rights I mean that there is no other person/entity that has a right or interest attached to it. There is no person/entity that you need to ask to do what you wish with that property. There are many things that we all consider to have supreme property rights of such as our laptop, hair brush, microwave, etc....but do we really?

There is a better term than supreme property rights, it is slipping my mind at the moment.

I won't argue that we do or we don't ultimately own supremely the things we purchase with FRNs or via the FR system. I do encourage the thought and contemplation of such however. Research, education and understanding never hurts anyone.

[trentzb]

I expected some good responses to my arguments. 

Do you mean better responses than what is here?

[The Script]

I expected some good responses to my arguments. 

It doesn't look like you are using the sarcastic font, but I can't actually tell.    If you are, perhaps you can explain why you think our responses are no good?

Also, I would like to hear your definition of theft.  There's no point in making arguments if we aren't talking about the same thing.  I would define theft as:  The taking of someone else's property through force, deception or fraud.  I'm sure there are better definitions out there, but I think that one covers the basics.  Do you agree with that definition?

[The Script]

I won't argue that we do or we don't ultimately own supremely the things we purchase with FRNs or via the FR system. I do encourage the thought and contemplation of such however. Research, education and understanding never hurts anyone.

Absolutely.  That's what I love about this board: I am constantly being introduced to new ideas and arguments, and my current ones are being challenged and refined. 

Here's a thought:  I personally wouldn't mind if the US government and the Federal Reserve printed dollars and said, "Everyone is welcome to use our currency for trade and commerce as long as they pay rent on it at the end of every year.  However, if you do not want to use it you are welcome to create your own or use another one of your choice."  That would be valid, in my opinion, but instead they say that we have to use their currency, and then we have to pay taxes.    

[SgtSpike]

I expected some good responses to my arguments. 

It doesn't look like you are using the sarcastic font, but I can't actually tell.    If you are, perhaps you can explain why you think our responses are no good?

Also, I would like to hear your definition of theft.  There's no point in making arguments if we aren't talking about the same thing.  I would define theft as:  The taking of someone else's property through force, deception or fraud.  I'm sure there are better definitions out there, but I think that one covers the basics.  Do you agree with that definition?

Lol, I'm sorry.  That's what I get for being distracted by my daughter... anyway, I meant to imply that those were good responses, and I expected good responses, so you all lived up to my expectations.  Not sure that I necessarily agree, but you've put up good enough arguments that I really don't feel like debating it further, at least at this time of night. 

[The Script]

I expected some good responses to my arguments. 

It doesn't look like you are using the sarcastic font, but I can't actually tell.    If you are, perhaps you can explain why you think our responses are no good?

Also, I would like to hear your definition of theft.  There's no point in making arguments if we aren't talking about the same thing.  I would define theft as:  The taking of someone else's property through force, deception or fraud.  I'm sure there are better definitions out there, but I think that one covers the basics.  Do you agree with that definition?

Lol, I'm sorry.  That's what I get for being distracted by my daughter... anyway, I meant to imply that those were good responses, and I expected good responses, so you all lived up to my expectations.  Not sure that I necessarily agree, but you've put up good enough arguments that I really don't feel like debating it further, at least at this time of night. 

Ha ha, fair enough.  I'm glad you approve of the responses, and even though you don't agree you are willing to give them a listen and to think about them.  That speaks volumes about you, as a lot of people shut out anything they don't agree with and will blindly stick to their positions even if they cannot defend them.  Anyway, have a great evening/early monring and thanks for the discussion!   

[trentzb]

Absolutely.  That's what I love about this board: I am constantly being introduced to new ideas and arguments, and my current ones are being challenged and refined. 

+1

That would be valid, in my opinion, but instead they say that we have to use their currency, and then we have to pay taxes.    

What causes you to believe that we have to use their currency? In my research I have never found any definitive evidence that would cause me to believe I have to use a particular currency or that I can't use another currency.

If you mean that we have to use their currency to pay taxes (or rent/fee) for the use of their currency, that makes absolute sense to me and we should have to pay taxes in the currency they demand. They don't want tax paid with chickens or carrots. The property owner dictates/regulates the terms of the use of their property. Use of the property of another is always subject to the terms of the property owner.

If when I walk to the store I find that if I can shortcut through my neighbors yard to save 10 minutes and I ask him if I can walk through his yard and he allows/permits/licenses me to do so it doesn't change the owner of the yard. I have been given a privilege/benefit or temporary right to trespass on his yard without penalty. If he one day tells me that I can no longer walk through his yard on Tuesdays and Thursdays then my privilege/benefit has been regulated. He has that absolute right to do so. If he further states that I must drop a carrot by his back door as I pass on all other days but Tue/Thur then my option is to either not cross his yard or to drop a carrot for him. If I drop a chicken by his back door instead one day I have violated our agreement no matter if I believe he may want a chicken more than a carrot.

IMO property rights are very important if not the most important right one can possess and are a foundation to societal interaction both with individual men and women as well as with governments and other entities.

[The Script]

That would be valid, in my opinion, but instead they say that we have to use their currency, and then we have to pay taxes.    

What causes you to believe that we have to use their currency? In my research I have never found any definitive evidence that would cause me to believe I have to use a particular currency or that I can't use another currency.

I'm not sure which country you hail from, but I know that here in the US you cannot use alternate currencies (which is why a lot of BitCoin users are worried about the legal ramifications of our beloved currency).  See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/486.html.  Actually this law is only for metal coins, but I'm betting they would find a way to make it apply to paper currency as well.  An experiment by some people who created the Liberty Dollar just ended when the FBI and Secret Service arrested them.  http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/110319006/Liberty-Dollar-creator-convicted-federal-court  The charges were "terrorism", if you can believe that:

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”

Sadness. 

If you mean that we have to use their currency to pay taxes (or rent/fee) for the use of their currency, that makes absolute sense to me and we should have to pay taxes in the currency they demand. They don't want tax paid with chickens or carrots. The property owner dictates/regulates the terms of the use of their property. Use of the property of another is always subject to the terms of the property owner.

I don't want to pay taxes or have to use FRNs, but I see what you are saying.  I understand why they would demand that taxes be paid in FRNs and not chickens or carrots (though carrots are better than bitcoins, as we all know  ), I just don't want to have to pay taxes at all.  Perhaps I'm being overly idealistic, but that's another story. 

I also agree that the property owner gets to dictate the use of their property, I'm just not sure that it's been proven that FRNs are their legitimate property.  As I mentioned earlier, the US government doesn't even print the money, a collection of private banks does.  Which is a pretty odd situation in itself.

If when I walk to the store I find that if I can shortcut through my neighbors yard to save 10 minutes and I ask him if I can walk through his yard and he allows/permits/licenses me to do so it doesn't change the owner of the yard. I have been given a privilege/benefit or temporary right to trespass on his yard without penalty. If he one day tells me that I can no longer walk through his yard on Tuesdays and Thursdays then my privilege/benefit has been regulated. He has that absolute right to do so. If he further states that I must drop a carrot by his back door as I pass on all other days but Tue/Thur then my option is to either not cross his yard or to drop a carrot for him. If I drop a chicken by his back door instead one day I have violated our agreement no matter if I believe he may want a chicken more than a carrot.

I completely agree.  Also, I love that you are using chickens and carrots as an example of currency.    If you don't know the inside joke about bitcoins and carrots let me know.  I think it's hilarious. 

IMO property rights are very important if not the most important right one can possess and are a foundation to societal interaction both with individual men and women as well as with governments and other entities.

Very well said, and you are right.  In fact, I think all rights are property rights.  For example, your right to life is your right to own your body and not have other people trespass on it. 

This is why I dislike taxes and governments, as I feel they infringe on my legitimate property rights.  Unfortunately, not everyone agrees what are and are not ones "legitimate" property rights.  Hence thousands and thousands of years of human suffering and misery. 

[The Script]

In keeping with my ratings policy of informing those I rate (plus OR minus):

I'm giving trentzb a +1, because he's been articulate, polite and engaging in our conversation about taxes.  Also, no one can accuse me of trying to get a reciprocal vote from him, because he doesn't have enough posts and is a long way from having enough.   

[hazek]

It's a question of private property. If we believe in it then taxes are theft since you were forced to pay even though you didn't want to. The guy you were debating obviously doesn't believe in private property.

[左]

Taxes aren't theft because you aren't forced to stay in the country. If you don't like it leave!




(Opinions express above are not the opinions of the poster.)

[hazek]

Taxes aren't theft because you aren't forced to stay in the country. If you don't like it leave!


(Opinions express above are not the opinions of the poster.)

Again a question of private property. If you believe in private property you can't possibly believe in a government owned continent where any land you'd live on and work with was owned by a small minority representing the state.

I suggest you watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_1nbahAts particularly 46:30 mark

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Taxes aren't theft because you aren't forced to stay in the country. If you don't like it leave!




(Opinions express above are not the opinions of the poster.)

Not so - leaving is not fiscally possible for many people. Besides, that's like saying mugging isn't theft because you can just run away.

[FreeMoney]

If I carve a little wooden toy top and trade it to you for something is it really your top?

But I made it!

I don't know...is it my top? Shouldn't we ask the question of where did the wood to carve the top come from? And where did the something I traded you come from? It is my belief that if we both have supreme property rights to our respective items that yes it indeed would be my top and my something I traded to you would be yours.

What did we trade with our employer for FRNs? Our labor/skill? Do we have supreme property rights in our labor/skill? Where did our employer get those FRNs and what did he/she/they trade to get them? Did he/she/they have supreme property rights in what they traded?

When I refer to supreme property rights I mean that there is no other person/entity that has a right or interest attached to it. There is no person/entity that you need to ask to do what you wish with that property. There are many things that we all consider to have supreme property rights of such as our laptop, hair brush, microwave, etc....but do we really?

There is a better term than supreme property rights, it is slipping my mind at the moment.

I won't argue that we do or we don't ultimately own supremely the things we purchase with FRNs or via the FR system. I do encourage the thought and contemplation of such however. Research, education and understanding never hurts anyone.

It seems disingenuous to start out talking about theft and then later question property. Obviously there is no conversation to be had about theft between people who don't agree that someone own their labor and what they produce.
 
I would say any term is better than supreme property rights. I haven't the slightest idea how that differs from regular property rights.

[tomcollins]

I was debating with an acquaintance the other day and he made the argument that taxes aren't really stealing because the money is not yours to begin with.  Basically his argument was that companies take tax rates into account when they decide salaries and so the taxes you pay come from that extra money the company appended to your salary.  Now he admitted that for the higher tax brackets the amount added by the company doesn't compensate for your entire tax burden, but at lower levels it accounts for most of it.

As I see it, that's still theft, even if it is at a reduced rate.  Also, it simply means the businesses are footing more of the bill rather than the individual tax payers.  Or actually, the customers of the businesses pay the difference as businesses pass those extra costs onto their products and services.  So really, isn't the individual tax payer still paying for it?

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting argument and was one I hadn't heard before.  Thoughts?

Have government put a $1M tax on every worker.  See how many are employed.

Your friend is an idiot.

Sure they may take it into account (if you live in a high tax area, you would be willing to move to a low tax area for a lower overall compensation package that nets you more, so the high tax area employers have to pay more to attract workers), but it doesn't mean it doesn't affect them.

In the end, a business that pays more than someone else for the same product will be less profitable and will be either less valuable or go out of business.

[trentzb]

I would say any term is better than supreme property rights. I haven't the slightest idea how that differs from regular property rights.

Do you have a property right in your car/truck/motorcycle/boat (assuming USA)? Of course you do. Is it a supreme property right? Absolutely not (IMO). If you had a supreme (maybe superior is better word) property right in those items you would not be paying a registration fee. Superior/supreme/sovereign property rights owes no due to another.

This is likely to be debatable, but in California (I'm pretty sure all other states also) look at the title of a vehicle you believe to "own" (the pink slip) and see if you have the possession of title to your vehicle. I am pretty sure you don't have possession of title to your vehicle and if you don't you don't own it. It makes no difference whether you are paying for it to a loan company or whether it is completely paid off, I believe you still don't own it. I have only known of a small handful of folks who actually own their vehicle and possess title.

That is the difference I was meaning when I referred to supreme property rights.

[hazek]

I would say any term is better than supreme property rights. I haven't the slightest idea how that differs from regular property rights.

Do you have a property right in your car/truck/motorcycle/boat (assuming USA)? Of course you do. Is it a supreme property right? Absolutely not (IMO). If you had a supreme (maybe superior is better word) property right in those items you would not be paying a registration fee. Superior/supreme/sovereign property rights owes no due to another.

This is likely to be debatable, but in California (I'm pretty sure all other states also) look at the title of a vehicle you believe to "own" (the pink slip) and see if you have the possession of title to your vehicle. I am pretty sure you don't have possession of title to your vehicle and if you don't you don't own it. It makes no difference whether you are paying for it to a loan company or whether it is completely paid off, I believe you still don't own it. I have only known of a small handful of folks who actually own their vehicle and possess title.

That is the difference I was meaning when I referred to supreme property rights.

What you're talking about is called Allodial title.

also anyone confused on rights, privileges and property rights should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26ENNxHiPg

[FreeMoney]

I would say any term is better than supreme property rights. I haven't the slightest idea how that differs from regular property rights.

Do you have a property right in your car/truck/motorcycle/boat (assuming USA)? Of course you do. Is it a supreme property right? Absolutely not (IMO). If you had a supreme (maybe superior is better word) property right in those items you would not be paying a registration fee. Superior/supreme/sovereign property rights owes no due to another.

This is likely to be debatable, but in California (I'm pretty sure all other states also) look at the title of a vehicle you believe to "own" (the pink slip) and see if you have the possession of title to your vehicle. I am pretty sure you don't have possession of title to your vehicle and if you don't you don't own it. It makes no difference whether you are paying for it to a loan company or whether it is completely paid off, I believe you still don't own it. I have only known of a small handful of folks who actually own their vehicle and possess title.

That is the difference I was meaning when I referred to supreme property rights.

I don't think we can have a productive conversation about this.

If I buy something from someone there is no paper that restricts or undoes this in any way. It's fiction. I don't need a paper to own a car any more than I need a paper to own my shoes or my teeth. There was ownership long before paper.

If I have a car and someone, anyone comes to me and says "Buy this sticker or I'll take your car" they are stealing the price of the sticker on threat of stealing the car on threat of hurting me. None of that reduces my original claim on the car. It's just me being stolen from.

[trentzb]

I don't think we can have a productive conversation about this.

Maybe not, but I have no desire to convince anyone I am right and someone else is wrong. I am just sharing my understanding of how I see the government/taxes and the relationship to property rights. My understanding suits me and makes sense to me, it may or may not suit others or make sense to them. I apologize if I have made it sound like I am trying to convince/convert anyone. I enjoy discussing and debating this topic and I learn new things from others often as a result of such.

If I buy something from someone there is no paper that restricts or undoes this in any way. It's fiction. I don't need a paper to own a car any more than I need a paper to own my shoes or my teeth. There was ownership long before paper.

I agree. You don't need a paper to own something. The paper (in my view) is simply the evidence of ownership. Try walking into a court to defend your property rights without evidence and I believe you would have a difficult time preserving your property.

If I have a car and someone, anyone comes to me and says "Buy this sticker or I'll take your car" they are stealing the price of the sticker on threat of stealing the car on threat of hurting me. None of that reduces my original claim on the car. It's just me being stolen from.

Again, I agree. It does not reduce your claim to the car. But is your claim valid? Do you have evidence of your claim? What evidence supports your claim?

If you go to Hertz Car Rental, rent a car for a week and after the week you fail to return it to Hertz don't they have the right to demand you to pay additional fees, sign new rental terms or almost anything else they can think of? And if you fail to satisfy their demand and continue to maintain possession of the car don't they have the right to report it to law enforcement for recovery and/or bring a case to court to recover their property and damages?

Now just as an exercise imagine in a hypothetical world that Hertz was a state/federal government...wouldn't the government have those same rights? To imagine this you have to assume that if Hertz had superior title to a car (extending them rights to recovery/damages) then in the hypothetical the government too had superior title. Thinking over this scenario it would make sense to me (if it were true) why and how it would seem like the government would be stealing your car from you when all they are doing is exercising their property rights.

This makes sense to me and explains (to me) why government does many things that they do. I don't like most things that government does but after looking at all these various, seemingly evil things they do and comparing to property rights and contract law I changed my view of government dramatically. I moved from looking at government as an evil force determined to use violence to destroy everyone and everything to government as a property owner protecting their property.

Is my view and understanding correct? I don't know, I think it is, it makes a lot of sense to me...but regardless it doesn't matter much because it gives me peace to have removed this hatred and despise of government I had for a long time. I don't need conflict with government in my life. I make effort to not interact with government anyway.

Back to the OP topic, myself I don't feel taxes are theft. But again that is just my opinion.

[FBI]

No comment.

[The Script]

No comment.

Ha ha ha, well played, well played.