By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SamuelRSmith on 30 November 2011
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
richardhutnik said:

The basis of something being theft can't be because a majority voted for it.  What comes in the theft debate has to do with the nature and quality of life, based upon what societies must do to maintain things.  Societies can vote to have government do a number of things, like provide fire protection, police, infrastructure maintenance, medical coverage and so on, to prevent problems from arising and maintaing a degree of order and predictability that has people feel they can live and succeed.  These services need to get paid for, and can be either done voluntarily or by the use of government.  So, on the theft front, what do you call a society that doesn't pay for these services that are needed?  Is it possible for a society to rob from itself?


I don't really get your point. Is it that if a society votes for fire protection, but then isn't provided with it, then that is essentially theft from the society?

What do you call it if a society fails to do what is needed to perserve itself?  Or they end up going into deficit spending to do such, without raising sufficient tax revenue?

There is claims of taxation as being theft.  But what do you call someone who can pay for something that is needed, and benefits from it, but lives in a state that borrows to pay for it?


Well, deficit spending is taxation, so deficit spending is still theft. You and I have very different ideas of what is needed for society to preserve itself. All the Government needs to do, particlarly the Federal Government, is protect our liberties, and defend our borders.

Now, of course, these things still cost money, and I argue that all taxation is theft. So how do I propose the Government raises this money? Well, through a number of avenues:

 - The Federal Government still owns a vast amount of land, which it could sell or lease.
 - Tariffs, duties, and fees. While I still argue that these are immoral, they're not as bad as, say, income tax, as they are voluntary and (in the case of fees), one-off. The ONLY purpose of these taxes, however, should be to maximise the revenues of the tax. A tariff on imported goods, for example, should not be a protectionist action - the tariff should be set at the level where it has the least effect on the action, whilst generating the most tax (or any level below that point).
 - I also see no problem with the Government running businesses. As long as the business is run off its own resources (not backed by tax money), and the Government doesn't give it any unfair advantages in the market place. So, the Government can continue running the post office, but it must be on a model of profitability, and there must be no laws preventing other companies from performing exactly the same functions. This is a tedious option, however, as I fear it could easily be abused.