He has a point, you know?

It always amuses me that there's literally a millimeter-wide line between fascism and libertarianism.

I willingly pay my taxes every year. Willingly paying someone money can not by definition be theft.

Okay. Who's going to pay for the roads?

Ancap is just corporate fascism tailored specifically for jewish pedophiles. That's all there is to that ideology.

Can you be willing when under duress?

>let

Is citizenship a privilege conferred at the pleasure of a absolute soveren?

>their country

Who is they? The cabal of the politicians in the current government?\
I was born here, it's as much my country as anyone else's.

Of course taxation is theft.

>I eat
>if I didn't eat I would die
>therefore I'm eating under duress
This is you.

You're eating under necessity, strictly speaking.

Which is why freedom is a meme and shouldn't even be pursued. You will always be cucked by your own biology and laws of physics.

It's not theft, it's part of the social contract. I wish to live in civilized society with goods and services. To facilitate this for the good of myself and everybody in the society, the government requires money to pay for these things. That is where taxes are necessary.

It's only theft if the government fails to put those taxes to good use.
More often than not, they fail miserably.

What gives you the right to occupy the land you do? What right dictates that others aren't allowed to use it as they see fit? Why isn't the government allowed to levy its military to control the land you live on?

>he fell for the "social contract" maymay

Are you retarded? I'm a statist btw.

What gives you the right to occupy the land you do? What right dictates that others aren't allowed to use it as they see fit? Why isn't the government allowed to levy the military which is under its payroll to control the land you live on?

Too easy, basic human rights are inalienable, they are not given or granted by anyone or anything.

>levy
What is this fucking medieval times? serfdom?

how is social contract a meme?
it is literally the foundation of the modern secular state

Oh, my bad. Forgot that words have an expiration date.
/s

You believe in some very silly things

...

Your opinion of my beliefs has no impact on anything.
You believe in some very silly things as well.

>Your opinion of my beliefs has no impact on anything
Yes it does
Welcome to democracy, sweetie

You think I'm wrong, so what? I think you're wrong too. What is this impact you speak of? Nothing in the world has changed despite us both conveying our opinions with the exception of the text present on a Ukrainian hiking enthusiast forum.

Nothing in the world changing is preferable to me than the world changing to suit you. Therefore, my preferred version of reality exists and yours does not. That's a nontrivial impact.
You'll never get your way, and it's my way that you should not get yours. Because other people aren't as silly as you, your dreams won't come true and a subset of my dreams will.
Democracy.

The world doesn't need to change to suit me. I agree with it already.
What a bunch of fancifully dressed nonsense.

Try actually reading the post. I'm not saying
>It's a social contract, therefore it's irrelevant

I'm saying that
>It's a social construct, and therefore, you can only define it as theft in terms of prevailing social norms
Which taxation as theft does not try to do, and cannot do.

You do realize you're in a thread about theft right? It's kind of a premise to the subject.

We're not talking about whether or not those theories are going to change the world or not. We're debating as to which is right within the realm of possibility.

Taxation literally isn't theft, pick up a dictionary.

"""Libertarians""" are just closeted authoritarians

Let's make a deal. You pay 0 (zero) taxes. And in return you can not benefit from anything that was made with or provided by tax money. Agreed?

If the taxation has been sanctioned through a lawful democratic proces then it is no different than the enforcement of any other just law.
You can always leave if the particulars of a society wrestle your jimmies.

No roads for me then :DDD

>You can always leave if the particulars of a society wrestle your jimmies.
I wonder what is this magical place where i can create my own society and be completely independent from international law...

International law does not tax you
Also Sealand

Somalia

Guessing when you make it with blacks or make it with jews/whites can bring different results.

Taxation isn't theft, it's a loan I give the government which is then returned to me in the form of public services to improve my standard of living.

Fuck off.

google "social contract" Should have learned this in basic education growing up but seemingly we have a lot of people with the tism running around.

It goes back far longer than that.

Individualism is a scam and intellectual poison

>"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…"
"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture… The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call-to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."
Adolf Hitler at Buckeburg, Oct 7, 1933

>ancaps
>anarchists

Ancaps are better called feudalists.

>Introduction to Anarchism
libcom.org/files/intro pamphlet reading.pdf

>The Anarchist FAQ
infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionA

>Is 'Anarcho'-Capitalism a form of Anarchism?
infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF

>Anarcho-'Capitalism' is impossible.
c4ss.org/content/4043

>What is Property, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

>The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

>Markets not capitalism
radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/Markets-Not-Capitalism-2011-Chartier-and-Johnson.pdf

I don't think you can reduce taxation to a simple matter of acquisition of property; it is more akin to confiscating a certain percentage of the value of ones labor, if we're talking about income tax. Property may be a social construct, but a necessary one to ensure the value of ones labor is adequately rewarded, thus incentivizing further labor. Reducing income to property alone, as say, a piece of inherited land, ignores the important distinction between the two. I personally don't believe taxation is theft either, but it is made more than an appropriation of property.

Go live off the grid on an island or some shit then. You won't have to pay any taxes but you also won't be able to benefit from publicly provided roads, hospitals, education, and law enforcement.

> Reducing income to property alone, as say, a piece of inherited land, ignores the important distinction between the two.
But there is no real distinction between the two, other than the definition one; property being things you own at a given time, and income being an expected earning of property over some timespan. Once you've earned that income, it's property, same as any other property.

He does indeed have a point.

Taxation, plain and simple, is theft.

No it isn't. And that Kokesh quote is retarded. All property, as well as property transfers, of which theft is simply a wrongful subset of, are backed by force or the threat of force. Taxation, in that sense, is no different than a contract that you're relying on the threat of force to enforce in case of a breach.

Except it's an involuntary contract that no one agreed to or even had the choice to negotiate.

The government, by threatening me by force, forces me to give them my property and justifies it by "giving" me back some of that as gifts, gifts I didn't ask for or agree to in the first place.

>or even had the choice to negotiate

That's where you're wrong, kiddo

Except one is tied to the value of ones labor and one is not.

>Except it's an involuntary contract that no one agreed to or even had the choice to negotiate.
The border's that way. Start walking.

We (the American born people) are born slaves. Born numbered and processed and placed in the government system. It is not until over a decade later do we have a chance to begin to navigate our own path. And even then still under the watchful eye of government.

>waaah im a slave
Bitch, nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can choose your future as soon as you have the efficacy to do so. If you're so against authority, go live in a van in the middle of the wilderness. Nobody will come looking for you.

The cost of living in society is subservience to authority, because authority keeps society running, like it or not. The truth is that you value indoor plumbing and internet access more than your ideals of freedom.

>Ancaps are called retarded

Fixed that for you

>Except it's an involuntary contract that no one agreed to or even had the choice to negotiate.
Missing the point, again.

>The government, by threatening me by force, forces me to give them my property and justifies it by "giving" me back some of that as gifts, gifts I didn't ask for or agree to in the first place.
Idiot. EVERY instance of property rights is maintained by either force or threat of force. When you sign a contract to buy a car, you're implicitly relying on force (usually that of the government) to punish the dealer if he doesn't deliver you a car, and he's in turn relying on that same government to punish you if you don't make payments. The difference between you using force to eject a trespasser on your land, (rightful) and you using force to eject your neighbor off of his land (not rightful) is entirely in the realm of some society, which, by the way, you did not agree too or have the chance to negotiate with, recognizing that one is a valid interest and can be defended with force, while the other is not.

You can't have theft without property, and you can't have property without a society; and if that society decides that a certain type of transfer is a legitimate one, it is not theft, by literal fucking definition.

So what? The existence of property is not necessarily tied to labor and I'm not sure why you think it should be. That the amount of taxation is often calculated by a percentage of income and thus labor doesn't have anything to do with what property, and by extension theft is at its core.

Isn't taxation RENT, not theft? Assuming, at least, that you don't live in some Soviet shithole that doesn't let you leave?

What is the deal with authoritarians wanting to get their boipussy reamed by their governmental father figures?

>go live in a van in the middle of the wilderness. Nobody will come looking for you.
That is where you are wrong, I already live in the middle of nowhere desert and the government sure as shit still wants their taxes.

In a van?

That's not actually true. Rothbard was just a retard. Also, libertarianism attracts nutcases who think "hey, I'm not a Dem or a Rep. What am I? I know, a libertarian!" So for example, right now there are all sorts of alt-rightists who think of themselves as libertarians even though the two ideologies are virtually complete opposites. And you have Trump supporters who think of themselves as libertarians cause "hurr durr Trump is more libertarian than Hillary". Etc.
But it's simply not the case that all libertarians are like this.

Shit mang, you got me. I'm in an RV

I'm not an authoritarian
and given that you're conversing with me on an indo-chinese gardening forum you're not off-the-grid enough to evade the taxes you're so philosophically opposed to paying

There are millions of undocumented motherfuckers evading taxes every day but your dumb ass still can't figure out how to do it? Give me a break.

If you live in an RV park then you are subject to taxes.

If you live, literally, in the middle of fucking nowhere, you're not going to pay taxes. Don't get a job. Don't buy things. Don't drive on public roads.

No taxes. Enjoy

What about all of the documented people evading taxes? I'm not claiming that it's impossible. I'm just showing you that government is essentially mafia and taxation is a shakedown.

It's not a shakedown, it's the cost of living. You wouldn't walk into a restaurant and expect to be fed if you didn't pay anything. Why should you expect the government to provide you with services if you don't want to pay for them?

And by the way, you DON'T have to pay for them. You can leave the country. You can go into hiding. You're not a criminal or a person of interest so nobody will come after you. You can hunt deer and sleep under the stars and get dysentery if your heart so desires. Just don't go to the ER if you step in a bear trap; you didn't earn that privilege because you didn't pay taxes.

this The "theft" is not necessarily by the government. It is kind of like the trolley problem, if you don't tax people and hire a cop they will lose a lot more when they are extorted by a local gang. Is it really your fault that people have to pay taxes?

That said, the government is not perfect. Maybe a better way of looking at it is in the proportion of taxpayer money that is wasted and lost due to corruption and serious incompetence.

Not an argument.

Also not an argument.

Not an argument

>Why should you expect the government to provide you with services if you don't want to pay for them?

Is this supposed to be a pro-theft argument?

Jesus christ.

It quite literally is an argument.

Holy shit you are blind.
>[taxes are] the cost of living...
That is fundamentally incorrect. The fact that you see that as normal is evidence of your brainwashed unbreakable viewpoint.

>You're not a criminal or a person of interest so nobody will come after you
The second you stop paying taxes you are a criminal. What makes this patch of dirt "Their Country"? The constant threat of violence looming over my home and life if I don't do as I am told? Do you believe life is something that is bestowed upon us by Government?

Those are both arguments, you just don't want to address them.
The first argument is basically: if you don't want to pay taxes, you're free to leave the country. So how are taxes theft? Aren't they more like rent?
The second argument is basically: the only reason why your existing wealth hasn't been stolen by violent sociopaths yet is because one gang, the government, enforces a monopoly on violence in this territory. This gang requires funding. Sure, it's a gang, but at least you can alter its behavior to some extent in a democratic process, and it's a much lesser evil compared to the gangs that would probably be fighting over who gets to loot you in its absence.
These are both good arguments. Do you have any answers to them?

>The second you stop paying taxes you are a criminal. What makes this patch of dirt "Their Country"? The constant threat of violence looming over my home and life if I don't do as I am told? Do you believe life is something that is bestowed upon us by Government?
What you don't seem to understand is that getting rid of the government wouldn't get rid of the constant threat of violence looming over your home and life - on the contrary, that threat would probably significantly increase. Without some form of government in place, you would be constantly having to fight off attacks from violent sociopaths who wanted to take your stuff and rape your loved ones. To protect yourself, you would inevitably try to create some kind of organization. This organization would, over time, evolve into a new government. That's how governments emerged in the first place.

>The first argument is basically: if you don't want to pay taxes, you're free to leave the country. So how are taxes theft? Aren't they more like rent?

Not an argument.

>The second argument is basically: the only reason why your existing wealth hasn't been stolen by violent sociopaths yet is because one gang, the government, enforces a monopoly on violence in this territory. This gang requires funding. Sure, it's a gang, but at least you can alter its behavior to some extent in a democratic process, and it's a much lesser evil compared to the gangs that would probably be fighting over who gets to loot you in its absence.

Not an argument.

Retard statists can't even come up with a single good argument for theft.

Life isn't bestowed upon you by the government, but the military and police that protects your property from your fellow citizens is. And it costs money.
If you think you can protect your property all by yourself, you're free to experiment.

>he doesn't agree with me so he must be brainwashed
You're brainwashed, not me. If you honestly gave a shit about your ideals you'd stop doublethinking and go live innawoods. But you're content to rail against the government while taking advantage of its infrastructure, as if paved roads are a god-given right. Fucking please. You're no better than the anti-intellectual movement that wants to abolish science because white men made it, posted to Twitter from the latest iPhone.

As the guy who wrote the second one, that is NOT my argument.

My argument is, at its core
1)"theft" is, by definition, a wrongful and intentional transfer of property.
2) Property, both in existence and transfer, is a social construct; an object or plot of land does not intrinsically change when ownership is transferred, merely who has certain rights and obligations pertaining to that object transfers.
3)given that property is a social construct, and transfers of property are also social constructs, "theft", wrongful transfers of property, can only be such if you have a social sense that such transfers are wrongful.
4) society does not view such transfers as wrongful, therefore taxes are not theft.

The only difference between Government and violent sociopaths wanting to take my stuff is that Government is a legal institution (by it's own virtue).

>Military and Police protect my life
Yes all of those foreign wars and killed civilians make me feel very secure about my property and "rights". It's funny that you want to equate me with a boogeyman that you invented within your mind instead of realizing the reality of your situation.

I'm not a statist. I'm a moderate libertarian/classical liberal. I want the smallest possible government, but I'm not so blinded by ideology that I seriously believe we could do without government completely. I have been disabused of any naive notions I once had about the fundamental goodness of my fellow humans by having watching them in action for the last three decades. 90% or so of people are genuinely kind. However, the other 10% or so will fucking rape you and kill you and take your shit if they are not dissuaded by fear of consequences. To fight them, some of the relatively nice people have to organize together. Once organized, in order to be effective against the sociopaths, the relatively nice people need some form of external funding structure so that they can focus on their main task of protecting rather than also worrying about where to get food.

Ah got it. Sorry for putting words in your mouth. That's not a strong argument, though, in my opinion. The reason is that the word "theft" also has a moral meaning in addition to a legal one. Even in the absence of a formal social structure there would be such a thing as "theft". For example, two ape-men are sitting in a cave. One is starving to death, the other is a bit hungry but not too bad. The second ape steals the last shred of food from the one that is starving to death, grabbing it by force. Legally theft? No. Morally theft? Yes.

If I came to wherever it was you're living right now and beat the shit out of you and stole your money, you would call the police. You expect the government to protect your property, with a threat of violence against me, the thief. You're entitled to such protections because you pay taxes. You participate in society. You are responsible for keeping it running.

You can't have it both ways.

And those foreign wars and dead civilians? Those happened in other countries, not here. You can choose to enlist in the military, and you acknowledge that you might die. If we abolished the state it wouldn't be long before armed thugs were marching through your front lawn and you wouldn't have a choice in whether or not you wanted to fight.

>The only difference between Government and violent sociopaths wanting to take my stuff is that Government is a legal institution (by it's own virtue).
The government lets you leave if you want to.
The government won't kill you or rape you for fun while taking your stuff.
The government will follow a written legal process to take your stuff.
The government will let you live on the nation's territory and, if you don't make above a certain threshold of income, it won't take your stuff.
You can change what the government does by voting or by persuading other people who vote, or who vote with their money.
If you got enough people to vote for it, you could literally abolish taxation. If 80% of Americans voted to get rid of taxation, it would actually happen. The elites would not be able to stop it. The nation would fall apart within months, but you could do it.

You both live in delusional fantasy worlds. Your mantra is "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it will never happen" Neither of you seem to have any knowledge of history or logical view of the world. Idealists like you are exactly the kind of people who hold the door open for corruption and abuse.

>labor doesn't have anything to do with property
It absolutely does though, I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not taking a position in regards to OPs point, just saying that it is fallacious to view all property as equally valid and not recognize the differences between property arbitrarily gained by fiat, say, to use Rousseaus example, Balboa claiming South America for Castille on the virtue of him wanting it, and the voluntary exchange of property in the form of income between two persons. If you paint in such broad strokes and adopt the intellectually lazy position of treated all property as subject to the same rules, (which is not the case in any legal system on the planet, and as we all know, legal systems are social constructs themselves giving societal approval to other social constructs,) then you could equate the value of ones labor to this abstraction of property and declare it a construct itself. The value may be a construct, but only to a certain degree; after all, the labor itself has been performed.

Is this an argument?

It's a fact

Maybe if you keep believing it, it will be true.

>Your mantra is "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it will never happen"
There are, obviously, violent corrupt governments.
And all governments are to some extent violent and corrupt.
However, what I wrote is true of all modern Western governments.

Taxation is theft.

Taking someone's possessions without their consent is literally the definition of theft

I don't know what "Morally theft" means, outside of appealing to one particualr group's sense of morality and deciding whether or not a given transfer of property is theft or not (or if it is theft, some sort of justified theft). Turn your example on its head, where you have the starving caveman take food by force from the one who isn't dying of hunger. Ask different people whether that is morally theft (or morally wrong if it is theft) and you're likely to get diverging answers.

Furthermore, how can you have theft without property? You're already presupposing that it is "theft" in your example. If a vulture is picking at a carcass of a dead animal and some other scavenger comes along, chases it off, and eats the carcass, is that "theft"? In a moral sense, since it obviously isn't such in a legal sense.

There wouldn't be property without the government to enforce property rights in the first place.

>just saying that it is fallacious to view all property as equally valid
But I don't. I'm not saying that all property is equally valid, I'm saying that all property is part of a social system of recognizing something belongs to a person or group, and that absent that system, there is no such thing as property in the first place; and therefore, you cannot have "theft" if the system you're using doesn't consider it theft. Taxes CAN be theft, but they also are not necessarily theft, and that will hinge entirely on what society you're talking about and what they feel about their taxing government.

Furthermore, while I haven't read Rosseau in this instance, I don't really see a necessary practical (maybe there's a moral one) between Balboa claiming South America and some sort of exchange. At least in Balboa's system, he HAS created a recognizable interest in South America for the crown of Spain/Castille, one that would be recognized by mechanisms such as the papacy or Spain's own military forces. It was remarkably stable in keeping things smooth between them and Portugal, who did acknowledge such authority, but not say, with the natives, who of course did not.

So again, I'm not really seeing where labor enters into it, except perhaps as your own personal moral proclamation as to what sorts of transfers should be considered valid ones that you can appeal to greater force to defend. That has little to do with the reality of how a given system will actually defend such rights.