Originally posted by IshDaGegg
It's not only a privilege for me to live in this society. Last time I looked, I worked on behalf of it too. I even contributed to its wealth on net balance. So it's a privilege to have me in it too. Maybe my fellow citizens would prefer me to stay even if the government want to throw me in jail or kick me out.

Also, it is not possible for others, in wha

The analogy is incomplete for taxation for a few reasons. But are they relevant?

Contract law imputes agreements to people all the time. If a doctor saves a person choking in a 7-11 by performing a tracheotomy with a Bic pen and a straw (as generally happens on medical dramas), the doctor can send a bill and sue for it if it is unpaid. I could renounce criminal laws and announce that henceforth, I refuse to agree to abide my them, but if I rob a bank, they're going to throw me in the hoosegow just the same. Part of living in a society is that you conform to that society's rules, whether you agree to them or not.

Originally posted by sh76
Contract law imputes agreements to people all the time. If a doctor saves a person choking in a 7-11 by performing a tracheotomy with a Bic pen and a straw (as generally happens on medical dramas), the doctor can send a bill and sue for it if it is unpaid. I could renounce criminal laws and announce that henceforth, I refuse to agree to abide my them, but if I ...[text shortened]... ng in a society is that you conform to that society's rules, whether you agree to them or not.

To be fair to him, your legalist approach assumes things will always be that way. But that is just part of the way our current society is organized.

Of course, the only solution to avoid such implicit contracts would be the existence of an anarchist territory where people who didn't want to conform to those rules could go to.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
I don't want to discuss the meaning of the word theft. I want to discuss whether taxation is or is not theft. This may involve considering what the term "theft" means. But that is not the primary goal.

One can argue that taxation is bad because it is theft without concluding that one shouldn't impose taxation, without concluding that the alternatives w ...[text shortened]... ng theft. But not every substantial or true conclusion rests on such prima facie arguments.

You pay taxes primarily to prevent Spaniards or Chinese or Kentuckians from riding in, eating your crops, burning your house, killing your horse and carrying off your wife.

And believe me -- THEY will do it in a flash if they think there is the slightest chance THEY can get away with it. You know how THEY are!

So taxes are not theft. You are paying into a common protection fund. True, you don't get to decide on your level of contribution, so it isn't a free market transaction. But it isn't theft, either.

Originally posted by Palynka
To be fair to him, your legalist approach assumes things will always be that way. But that is just part of the way our current society is organized.

Of course, the only solution to avoid such implicit contracts would be the existence of an anarchist territory where people who didn't want to conform to those rules could go to.

*insert Ennio Morricone music*

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
*insert Ennio Morricone music*

Logical conclusion: Clint Eastwood would rule.

Originally posted by spruce112358
You pay taxes primarily to prevent Spaniards or Chinese or Kentuckians from riding in, eating your crops, burning your house, killing your horse and carrying off your wife.

And believe me -- THEY will do it in a flash if they think there is the slightest chance THEY can get away with it. You know how THEY are!

So taxes are not theft. You are payin ...[text shortened]... our level of contribution, so it isn't a free market transaction. But it isn't theft, either.

Those Kentuckians will not get California without a fight! 😠

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Those Kentuckians will not get California without a fight! 😠

true -- the Kentuckians will prudently wait for Arnold's term to expire first.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
true -- the Kentuckians will prudently wait for Arnold's term to expire first.

And then immigrate illegally - our weakness!

Originally posted by spruce112358
You pay taxes primarily to prevent Spaniards or Chinese or Kentuckians from riding in, eating your crops, burning your house, killing your horse and carrying off your wife.

And believe me -- THEY will do it in a flash if they think there is the slightest chance THEY can get away with it. You know how THEY are!

So taxes are not theft. You are payin ...[text shortened]... our level of contribution, so it isn't a free market transaction. But it isn't theft, either.

One purposes of compulsory taxes is to help ensure that the government who collects them can defend the country it governs. This involves stopping at least some people from getting in that country some of the time.

Let's suppose this is a benefit, one paid for by taxes. That fact that is a benefit still may not make compulsory taxation not theft.

For example, if I took your money as a private citizen, and spend it on something that benefited you and others, I would still be thieving your money, wouldn't it?

So, what's your argument that taxation isn't theft?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Are there any local governments anywhere that have tried this approach?

Don't know. One would need test cases like this.

However, the benefits accruing to the voluntarily taxed here would be limited to what the local government could provide, so they would have less incentive to contribute. Still, if it did work at the local level, that would be an excellent sign it could work at a national level.

Originally posted by sh76
Contract law imputes agreements to people all the time. If a doctor saves a person choking in a 7-11 by performing a tracheotomy with a Bic pen and a straw (as generally happens on medical dramas), the doctor can send a bill and sue for it if it is unpaid. I could renounce criminal laws and announce that henceforth, I refuse to agree to abide my them, but if I ...[text shortened]... ng in a society is that you conform to that society's rules, whether you agree to them or not.

I think one can presume consent, but one cannot impute it. It's just not imputable.

The fact that most people consent to pay taxes does not logically or causally or in any other way entail that I give my actual consent. Sure, if I don't give my consent, I may be ungrateful; sure, I may be breaking the law; sure, I may be a free rider on public goods; sure, I may be undermining the process whereby those goods are provided. But it's not possible in principle for my consent to be taxed to be imputed from the consent of the majority.

I am assuming that "imputed" carries some ontological force, that it means that I have actually consented in reality if most other people have given their consent.

But:

Maybe by "imputed" you mean "presumed" or "inferred". In that case, we have no quarrel. But presuming of inferred X does not make X the case. That lots of people give their consent for X cannot make me give my consent by X. But it may be a good basis for inferring or presuming that I would give my consent, in the absence of definitive evidence. For reasonable taxes spent well by a government, there may well be a presumption of consent to pay them.

Or maybe by "imputed" you just mean "legally enforced". In that case, we also have no quarrel. If you have legal authority, you can deem that I have given my consent on the grounds that most people have or would in such circumstances, if you think it's a good law to make (and it might be). But you would still be wrong to think that makes it the case that I have given my consent. The law here is telling me how I should be, not how I am.

Turning to your example, nearly everyone would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum to a doctor in thanks for saving their life by tracheotomy. Here, consent can usually be presumed.

But suppose I was trying to commit suicide by choking. Assume too suicide that is legal, and that the doctor knew I was trying to commit suicide. Should I still owe the doctor money if he acted to save my life? I say no. The fact that most people would want their life to be saved in such a circumstances does not mean that my consent can be imputed if I don't happen to give it. It can of course be presumed with high certainty under most circumstances; it a rare person who would willingly choke themselves to death. But if that presumption can be shown to be wrong in my case, I think I should owe the doctor nothing. The law could make me owe something; but it would not make be consent to paying it. I maintain that the doctor would be thieving my money, even if the law said I should pay. The law would support a form of theft. Maybe tax laws do the same.