Is taxation theft? What are the legitimate arguments for taxation as theft? What are the arguments against it...

Companies function perfectly well without taxation. Taxation doesn't mean "any income the government receives from the people," it means incomeit receives from people under threat of force. A government can exist perfectly well where people willingly give their money in a system only indistinguishable from taxation by the fact that people can secede.
Of course, secession would offer many negatives. You couldn't use the roads of the government you had seceded from. You couldn't use their police, any welfare they may have, Etc.
But, as long as you are free to opt out of taxation, it isn't theft.
That is literally the only ideal of Anarcho-Capitalism. Freedom of secession.

Where's your argument, you dense shit? All I hear is non-arguments from a big goverment cuck. It took me two posts to push you to your last argumentative resort. You skipped the whole process of failure and just skipped right to the name calling and buzzwords because you lack an actual rebuttal.

>t.communist
>thinks private enterprise should pay for everything, aka taxing only the rich

whose the real commie here

Fuck you, I'm a fucking pure Yankee, you Goddamned idiot.

>two one sentence replied
>starts personal insults

looks like you're the one skipping argumentative steps

>Voluntarism, fundraising, private enterprise, and international trade are more than enough to fund a country's endeavors.
for a very small nation that has no major presence in global affairs maybe. Secondly the government is the defacto land owner for landmass in it's boundaries, you're retarded if you think otherwise. Taxation is more equivalent to rent.

No, idiot. Private enterprise generates services and products which people desire and pay for, which generates competition, which generates innovation, which benefits the country as a whole - all without the need for government funding or intervention. Do I really have to explain that? Or do you not understand basic economic principles?

Or you could look at my other two posts that provided actual arguments and respond to them. I'm still waiting.

Government doesn't need to have sole rights to the land. The social contract requires them to protect the land and its people, and that doesn't necessarily require the government to be a landlord for its citizens. Its citizens can own the land, privately trade it amongst themselves, meanwhile those same citizens can fall under government jurisdiction and law, but it can still be their private property. The government should protect their property, not own it.

>thinks private enterprise would provide their profits to the government
>doesn't see the lengths coroperations go to to avoid tax under a system where it isn't optional

which banker fucked you and made you want to suck their dicks so much

>for a very small nation that has no major presence in global affairs maybe.
Why does being influential in global affairs matter?

Why does every fucking retard respond to this by assuming private enterprise would have to pay the government anything? Government doesn't belong in the equation. All they'd be there for is enforcing certain laws unrelated to funding. Natural competition and the invisible hand would take care of the rest. Other things such as infrastructure could be handled by this along with the other alternatives I listed. Seriously, why does any enterprise need to pay the government to innovate technology? And what does this shit have to do with the banks? It's not a hard concept to grasp.

no you're so right let me just call nestle and see if they'll pay for my cancer treatment

Neither of these seem particularly practical, though I'm sure there are nuances to the positions I am unaware of. Is taxation in the form most nations currently have it the only way to maintain the same quality of life? Even if taxation is truly theft, is it justified in the face of the greater good? Or are there legitimate other avenues to avoid this seeming inherent coercion? Have any countries throughout history come even close to eliminating taxes?

>Government doesn't need to have sole rights to the land. The social contract requires them to protect the land and its people, and that doesn't necessarily require the government to be a landlord for its citizens.
If the government does not have ownership of the land than by why would they govern it? Either they do have sole ownership of the land, lest they choose to sell it, or they govern in at the behest of others so expecting payment in some form.
because the greater presence one has in the world affairs, the greater ones capital must have.

So are there aren't any real arguments against taxation as theft? If you had to play devils advocate, what are some potential points that could be made for taxation not being theft? Are either of you entirely against taxes?

Nestle is not related to medicine, in any capacity. Where do you pull this shit from, man? Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you some fucking government shill? I'm guessing you live in some socialist bumfuck country where you have been conditioned to operate under these narrow preconceived notions, and you jump to false equivalencies to support your "arguments". In reality, these successive non arguments are actually supporting my case.

You do know that healthcare can be privatized, right? And that this doesn't require the government, right? Maybe this topic is too difficult for you.

Theft, though defined sternly, can be broadened and become vague.

Is it theft for a millionaire to steal from a homeless man? Yes
Is it theft for a millionaire to steal from a middle class worker? Yea, pretty much.
Is it theft for a middle class worker to steal from another middle class worker? Yea, depends on the situation
Is it theft for a middle class worker to steal from a millionaire? Probably.
Is it theft for a homeless man to steal from a millionaire? That's debateable.
Is it theft for a homeless child to steal from the richest man on Earth? No; I couldn't call that theft.

Point is, the meaning changes when the situation changes; because we rely on morality, rather than law, to be the true authority and arbiter. It makes a huge difference when we add race or gender to the equation.

We've made a law for our society, and we've treated that law like a standard for morality; and as a result, our morality decays, and with it our authorities and justifications. It's a cyclical bubble that pops when it inflates, and the divided peoples are the leftovers, divided between class, ethnicity, race, culture, and language. Greece, Rome, Spain, France, The British Empire, the United States; all great kingdoms that inflate and divide between its divisions. They are all civilizations that, rather than rely on the morals within their people, have relied instead on the laws between their peoples.

tl;dr:
It depends who is doing the taking. The government will take from its people to build itself bigger to tax more people, whereas your tribe/family/community will take from you and give back more than what you're worth, out of generosity, NOT greed.

taxation isn't theft, it's rent, you can literally buy land, state that you wish to form you own governing body with no ties to them and the government will sell it to you if you give them enough money, or tell you to fuck off because they aren't selling.

They govern it because the people desire to be governed. In the ideal scenario, if they refuse to accept the duties of their job, the people replace them. And if the new governors fail as well, the cycle continues. Considering the vast social and economic benefits you get from being in a high political position, I'm sure that they'd want to keep it, regardless of if they own the land or not.

>Is it theft for a homeless man to steal from a millionaire? That's debateable.
>Is it theft for a homeless child to steal from the richest man on Earth? No; I couldn't call that theft.

Where are you pulling your definitions from? Theft is taking something from someone else against their will. Class does not factor into it. This is 100% theft.

>muh free market will provide!!!!
>corperations will provide!!!
>healthcare is privatized though

i think you're the one having difficulty here muscles. what if someone is too poor to afford the now privatized healthcare? do you just let people die because you think your paycheck is more important than a human life?

In a monarchy, sure. When we're talking about a government run "by the people, for the people", it is contradictory to separate some citizens into landlords and others into tenants. Then there is a clear distinction between the people and those who own their land.

>nestle is not related to medicine, in any capacity
Actually, it is moving in that direction rather quickly
>>nestlehealthscience.com/

So bet it. Under taxation, you're potentially risking more lives by taxing those same poor people. Now they aren't only poor, but they're also getting money skimmed off the top of their paycheck. How is it any different from what I'm proposing? The only difference is that those people aren't getting robbed as well. You still have to fucking pay for healthcare, and you don't even want to TOUCH universal healthcare, because that comes with a new ocean of death and disadvantages.

But hey, I see you preaching the moral high ground. How many dying people have you saved with your extra money? Instead of buying a computer and shitposting on Veeky Forums, you could be making extra cash and distributing it to the impoverished. Have you paid for anyone's hospital bills recently? I highly doubt it. Because guess what, you're a fucking hypocrite and you're playing to half-baked morality to defend your objectively flawed argument. You have no skin in the game and you simply reap rewards off the paychecks of those more successful than you. No wonder you defend such a system, you leech.

Lel that's besides the point, man.

>Have you paid for anyone's hospital bills recently? I highly doubt it.
Actually i have, many people's hospitals bills in fact, because i pay my national insurance.

Leaving the lives of people up to their spending power and profitability as a market is not ethical, unethical practices should be avoided.

Of course taxation isn't theft.

Theft, by its simplest, broadest definition is the transfer of property from one party to another by a method that falls outside of whatever you consider to be a legitimate means of transferring property.

But what is "property"? If we have a book on a table, and I transfer ownership from myself to you, nothing physical about the book has changed. What has changed is a set of social expectations about who can use the book, who can lend the book, who can touch it, who is responsible for it if it somehow causes damage, etc. It is in fact fair to say that property as a whole is a social construct, and is meaningless in absence of a society that is dealing with goods and multiple people.

With that in mind, methods of properly transferring property are also necessarily social constructs. If however you define a "society" says that X is a valid method to transfer property from party A to party B, it cannot be theft.

Generally, at least in the Western cultural ambient, states are at least thought to broadly represent their populaces, and states are given the power to tax. Therefore, taxation, while onerous, is an expression of societal approval, and thus cannot be a form of theft, since the society approves of the removal of property in that manner.

good thing we tax the rich more than we tax the poor you got damn brainlet. you keep using this word robbed but what do you call people in your precious 'merica dying because they can't afford drugs are are tax funded in other nations? i'd say they're being robbed of their right to live.

not to mention in any forward thinking democratic nation tax rebates exist for those on low incomes, meaning they get the money they paid into the tax system back, which kinda shuts down your moral highground of not robbing the poor

also nice personal insults, strawmen, false equivalency and ad hominem in the last paragraph. wanna fit more argumentative flaws into such a short space? you can do it chief i believe in you

The only argument that I can think of against it is that you are trading your right to freedom from tax with the government in return for their protection and guarantee of other rights. But that's a self defeating argument because if you don't pay your taxes they initiate force against you, which is the opposite of protection. It's much closer to coercion. Not paying is different from a typical crime because it is not morally wrong to protect your property. It is simply determined by law to be a crime by a government that benefits from taking your hard earned cash. The law exists to benefit them, not you - no matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise.

Another argument I can think of is that, at least under fiat currency, the value of your money is determined partially by your government, therefore they have certain rights to the currency of their country. Which I guess can be stretched to having certain rights over your income.

>Where are you pulling your definitions from? Theft is taking something from someone else against their will. Class does not factor into it. This is 100% theft.
Definitions are loose and based on a fallible system.
You're saying that theft is always theft, but what I'm saying is that there's always a degree in which it's debatable.
For example, you would say that it's theft for one person to take from another person what's not theirs.
Are you saying that on the basis of morality, or semantics?
Since you're strict with your definitions, I would assume that you're arguing from a semantic perspective, but that's not what this thread is about.
Since theft brings negative connotations, I couldn't (in good conscience) condemn my brother for shoplifting a bottle of water when we had no money; I can't say that he's a thief, because I'm acting from a moral perspective. You can say whatever you want.

But from an entirely moral perspective, theft can be and can sometimes not be "theft".

Speaking on topic, would taxation be considered theft?
The Dictionary might say so, but I would say that it depends.
Taxation benefits a government whose only goal is to benefit itself until it expands and divides, like all other governments before it. I don't think taxation is moral, therefore I'm more inclined to say that it's theft, not because I believe in individual rights, but because I DON'T believe in individual rights. I believe we act according to our conscience, a conscience that is collective in nature.

user we live in a capitalist society you can shove your "They govern it because the people desire to be governed but don't want to provide compensation for the work/effort involved" commie bullshit up your ass. If someone does a job you will pay them for their work or they will retaliate.
>In a monarchy, sure. When we're talking about a government run "by the people, for the people"
No that's what you're arguing the original question was "Is taxation theft?" not "is taxation theft in a government run by the people for the people". Even if the original premise was implied to be for such a government, any governing body that heads it has the right to levy taxes so it may continue to function. And it is normally stated so in their constitution. If a party does not agree to said terms of the constitution they can withdraw from it.
>But muh lack of succession rights
tough shit, you refused to agree to the terms that were set and therefore have no rights. Move the fuck out, or buyout said governing party and create a constitutions that guarantees said succession rights.

see>>, I hadn't noticed your post when I wrote mine.

societal approval isnt enough to justify transfer of property ,by your argument a community could just decide by voting mass that your house belongs to them ,and by that margin remove you from your house with force ,youmight argue thats ok since its a democratic desiosion ,but that goes against any notion of property exchange being not theft if both parties do volunteer to that exchange. tldr. Societal approval is not the same as individual approval. Theft is theft even if most people would approve of this transfer of property.

Without societal approval, property has no meaning. When you say this chair, or this book, or this piece of land is yours and not someone else's, what you really mean is that you have a sociatally recognized set of rights and possibly obligations pertaining to that whatever.

Without society, there is no property at all. So yes, if that same society in which you live in no longer recognizes your rights to your house and it in fact belongs to them, you don't have ownership in any meaningful fashion, other than what you tell yourself at night as to how things ought to be but in fact aren't.

>,but that goes against any notion of property exchange being not theft if both parties do volunteer to that exchange
What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of involuntary legal methods of exchange. Repossession, for instance, is hardly voluntary.

>Theft is theft even if most people would approve of this transfer of property.
Popular will while possibly the root of "societal approval" is not in fact the same thing. Most people might not agree with say, a given court case into a property dispute, but if that court is the duly appointed repository of societal power whether to award a house to party A or party B, then that court's decision is what really counts.

How'd I guess you're a eurocuck

So the solution is to heavily tax the people who provide the resources necessary to save the poor? Have you ever wondered why the death toll and overall prosperity of those in socialized economies is higher? Or why technologically those countries fall behind? It's because you fucking retards tax the same people who use their wealth to invest in utilitarian technologies. The fact that you can type on your damn PC and communicate with someone across the world from your Euroshit garbage heap is because of private enterprise. People can't afford drugs in this country, and yet we have socialized healthcare. How do you figure that? We have the very system you're advocating for, and yet people are still dying! And guess what, they're dying in your country, too - and in your neighboring country, and in their neighbor's. It's inevitable, and you wish to give up even more of your freedoms, and leave your life and cash in the hands of strangers simply because you can't handle personal responsibility. If you spend your whole life sitting on your ass and smoking, and get cancer as a result, why the fuck should people pay for your mistakes? PAy for it your damn self, and if you can't because you contributed nothing to society - then see ya later, that's natural selection. A free system encourages hard work and contribution, while a socialized system encourages greed, gluttony, and laziness - despite the fact that people (retards) like you are convinced of the opposite.

By the way, pindick, it's not a strawman to ask you if you have saved anyone with your own money, considering you're blabbing on about "letting people die". Practice what you preach, otherwise, you're only defending my own argument. You only fear such a free system because in it, you yourself, in all your incompetence would be left to die. You need the state to parent you in order to survive.

Definitions are not loose. Moral relativism is stupid.
>They govern it because the people desire to be governed but don't want to provide compensation for the work/effort involved
Nobody said that. People should pay for any services that the government provides for them. But they should be able to opt out of taxation if they so wish to, also giving up any other rights to use of government-financed services.

Rights are not granted. They are inborn. The government exists to guarantee these rights, not to grant them.

Has nothing to do with communism. You can govern a people without taking from them what isn't yours. This concept is the reason we aren't all living under totalitarian dictatorships - because there's an alternative. I'm advocating for less government, not more. How does that make me a commie? If anything I'm advocating for libertarian ideals. A government is paid by its citizens in many other ways besides taxes, and desiring that they don't tax me isn't being communist. Communist countries are functionally opposite to that idea.

>overall prosperity
I meant to say lower in this case. Minor correction.

i'm from aus not euro but i'll let you keep jerking yourself off thinking you got an assumption right.

i agree that if someone smokes their whole life and gets cancer and dies, who cares. but, big surprise, a lot of people who get cancer don't smoke, and there's a lot of other terminal illnesses that aren't caused by the fault of the person. that's natural selection in your eyes, if you aren't extremely rich (which, under your system of government by definition only a select amount of people can be). you're essentially bringing back class structure to society and saying the poor should die for the sin of not being rich. and in b4 "just get rich" bullshit rhetoric. can people get rich? absolutely, but again by definition only a select amount, and the poor will remain poor. "A free system encourages hard work and contribution, while a socialized system encourages greed, gluttony, and laziness - despite the fact that people (retards) like you are convinced of the opposite." is also one of the dumbest things i've ever read. go back to my class statement, and if you can't join the dots and see your own irony you really are the brainlet i think you are

i mean again nice personal insults but i'm in one of the higher tax brackets, i donate to charity, i don't get tax rebates like lower tax thresholds but i'm not a retard sociopath who thinks deepthroating muh free market is more important than a human life

Am I to assume all lolbertardians are corporate bootlickers?

Coca Cola has deposited two bottle caps into your account.

And how do you opt out you loon?

Not an argument, samefag.

Lmao only fools argue with your ilk faggot. Go be retarded somewhere else.

t. Man without an argument

...

Freedom of secession.
That way, small republics, democracies, communes, monarchies, and anything else can exist and compete, capitalistically, for citizens.

You must be a special kind of stupid.

Where's your argument?

In your attempt to prove me wrong, you're proving me right. Either present a rebuttal, or take an L. There is no in between. Your choice.

"Theft" is illegally taking stuff from somebody else. Key to the concept is "illegally." If taxes are illegal where you live, then yeah. But if taxes are part of, say, a suite of tax laws, then no.

Note that "legal" and "moral" are distinct and separate concepts.

Dropping this in here for all the 8 year olds phoneposting lazy, unsubstantiated responses.

>being libertarian

>But they should be able to opt out of taxation if they so wish to, also giving up any other rights to use of government-financed services.
You opt out by moving out of the governed area, and renouncing your citizenship.
>Rights are not granted. They are inborn. The government exists to guarantee these rights, not to grant them.
user, governments chooses to recognize rights. It doesn't matter what you say, think, or feel you were inborn with, if the someone doesn't recognize them they don't exist. Governments exist first and foremost to govern and the fact you think they exist to guarantee rights is disgustingly naive. On the assumption you're using the US Constitution as the basis of your arguments, the Bill of Rights can be amended for this very reason, because as time passes the rights the forefathers came up with were not the sum total of rights that you posses, only the rights they could recognize at the time.
And as for your dumbass self I was clearly using commie as an ad hominem. It doesn't matter what you think the government gets paid with, they want cash, as detailed by the power to levy taxes, stated in whatever constitution the governing body has. If you have a problem seek arbitration, or move the fuck out and renounce any citizenship you may have with whatever governed area you claim residency.

>Is taxation theft?
Yes. However it's theft that is often in the public is interest.

Rent, industrial profit, and interest are also theft, though, and they most certainly are not in the public interest.

What gives the government the right to declare its jurisdiction as including land that you own? Might?
Your argument boils down to "Might makes right," which is slave bullshit. If I know that I can kill you and get away with it, does that make it right?
Rights of people are inborn, and include the right to private property and freedom of association and dissociation. Just because these rights are being infringed doesn't mean that they aren't rights, and doesn't mean that you shouldn't fight for them.

So whatcha gonna do about it except bitch and moan?

So what happens when the people can protect their own rights without government guarantee? Does government dissolve?

Taxation is rent. Literally just leave the country.

As long as I bitch and moan, I have a chance at convincing others. If enough people are convinced, we can shake off the shackles of our master. The only thing holding us to him is our own slave mentality.

>What gives the government the right to declare its jurisdiction as including land that you own? Might?
Literally read the post three posts above yours.

You're almost as deluded as Liverpool fans.

What do you expect me to do? Bomb a building?
Anyway, am I wrong? Is what I said incorrect?

They'll form a new state you fucking idiot. Move to Somalia if you don't like it.

You fail to understand the ideal. The ideal isn't no states, it's no state monopolies. By that, I mean freedom of secession.

>form a completely free society where no one pays taxes
>no one recognizes you because LMAO you refuse to define yourself as a statal entity
>everyone attacks you because you're easy picking and having access to superior tech and bekng actually organized turn you into slaves

GG would rape your wife again. And again. And again. Ad infinitum.

Not him, but without a state, or at least society, there is no "land that you own". Ownership of anything, such as land, is itself a societal manifestation, and cannot exist in some innate, theoretical sense; it's just a series of responsibilities and obligations to other people.

What gives the right of the government to declare its jurisdiction? The same right to declare ownership of this, that, and the other things. You can't have one without the other.

>taxes determine whether or not a state is recognized

So how much do you get paid to shill here, nigger?

Once again, I did not say no states. I said no state monopolies. In such a world where anyone could secede, I believe it likely that many people would group together in states that were more successful than others, if only for protection. They would pay taxes, but, as long as they could secede, it wouldn't be theft. Even beyond that, I believe many of these states would form defensive pacts and unions.
Still, your argument is just "Might makes right."
See above.

then refute it dipshit

I see reading comprehension is non-existent in Libertardia.

And yes user, I am getting paid to shill on a Yukon Moose Fucking Enthusiast Forum because statism creates jobs.

How do you secede? And no, people wouldn't, because people like stability not running around with guns talking about muh rights while fearing getting shot by clans of [insert ethnic/religious group].

The above has no meaning to what I said. You can't have theft without property, and you can't have property without a society. And if you rely upon that society to have property in the first place, you adhere by its rules as to what are and aren't valid transfers of such. If you don't like the society in which you live, that's a shame, but it doesn't change the fact that said society is where ownership exists, not in your individual, innate feeling of rights.

Also, I have never advocated Might makes Right.

Society does not determine rights. Rights are natural and inborn. These rights include the right to private property and the freedoms of association and dissociation.
How do you secede? You send a letter to the government saying that you have seceded and that you will no longer pay taxes. You include what lands you and the people you are seceding with own. Your licenses are repealed and you no longer have the right to use government services and infrastructure. You are put on a map, which would make very small states the targets of thieves. This would not be an issue, however, for well-thought-out small states and large seceding states.
You have made no argument.

>Society does not determine rights. Rights are natural and inborn. These rights include the right to private property and the freedoms of association and dissociation.
That is irrelevant to what I said. Do you not understand my point? You don't have PROPERTY without society, not rights.

Private property is one of those rights.

OK user, you're bot delusional and stupid.

>Thinks the social contract is a real contract and not a metaphor.

The ownership of property is not a physical construct. If you buy a house from me, the house itself does not change. What changes is who gets to exclude others from it, who has to pay taxes on it, if any, who has obligations if poor maintenance of the house injures someone, who has the right to any revenues from the house, etc.

These are all social phenomena. Ownership of anything is a declaration that you are going to garner the benefits and assume the responsibilities of the thing owned. Without a society, property has no meaning.

You have made no argument.
May I direct you to a post made earlier in the thread?

>I am no longer citizen
>gets deported
>loses all property

Good going.

I didn't say that society wouldn't exist. Society would exist.
You know what? I've completely lost track of your argument, could you repeat yourself?

It was his property, so he doesn't get deported.

When I talked about signing any documents I wasn't referring to the social contract, should have worded that better.

Theft is transferring property by some sort of mechanism that is not proper.

Property itself is a societal construct; you can't have it without a society, and you can't transfer it except according to whatever rules that said society that creates the property construct itself allows for.

Taxation is not theft because it is societally recognized as a valid mechanism for transferring property. It might not be a particularly nice one, but it is still valid. And if you go ahead and say that you yourself don't recognize that society that allows for taxation, then you're also putting yourself outside of the society that is the same one vouchsafing the property in the first place, without which you don't own it anyway.

Then I am preaching of an ideal where society recognizes taxation as theft. It doesn't matter what society's beliefs are. I know I have fringe beliefs. That's why I preach them, to convert others. I believe that I am right. I have seen to evidence to the contrary. I just want others to also believe.

> jurisdiction as including land that you own?
user if you actually owned the land you wouldn't pay taxes for it, because it's yours and other entities wouldn't have a legal claim to it.
>Your argument boils down to "Might makes right," which is slave bullshit. If I know that I can kill you and get away with it, does that make it right?
user there was a time and place where children were sacrificed, doing so was right and good. And attempts to stop it were wrong. It doesn't matter what's "right" or what "rights" you claim to have if they are not recognized by the society you live in. Because unless you live in a society that agrees with you will not be able to exercise them fully.
>Rights of people are inborn, and include the right to private property and freedom of association and dissociation. Just because these rights are being infringed doesn't mean that they aren't rights, and doesn't mean that you shouldn't fight for them.
user you have those rights, as you said they are inborn. That doesn't mean shit if a governing body doesn't recognize them, and if a governing body doesn't recognize your rights seek arbitration, leave areas where said body governs, or remove said body and replace it with one that does.

>So what happens when the people can protect their own rights without government guarantee?
Then they protect their own rights without government guarantee, this doesn't mean that they can suddenly ignore obligations they have and not face reprisal.
>Does government dissolve?
Why would it? Governments exist to govern areas that they claim to be theirs. If you believe that they are wrong seek arbitration, move away from the area they govern, or succumb to "might makes right" and change it either peacefully or violently.

>user if you actually owned the land you wouldn't pay taxes for it, because it's yours and other entities wouldn't have a legal claim to it.
I disagree. I believe that the rights of the owners of land to not pay taxes are being infringed.
>user there was a time and place where children were sacrificed, doing so was right and good. And attempts to stop it were wrong. It doesn't matter what's "right" or what "rights" you claim to have if they are not recognized by the society you live in. Because unless you live in a society that agrees with you will not be able to exercise them fully.
Then I must try to convince society of these inborn rights.
>user you have those rights, as you said they are inborn. That doesn't mean shit if a governing body doesn't recognize them, and if a governing body doesn't recognize your rights seek arbitration, leave areas where said body governs, or remove said body and replace it with one that does.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm trying to change society. I'm starting by trying to convince people on a forum I often browse. Maybe I'll try public speaking, someday.

Taxation in free countries (as opposed to shitholes like the USSR) is similar to rent. If taxation is theft, so is rent. If rent is theft, so is taxation. If taxation is not theft, then rent is not theft. If rent is not theft, then taxation is not theft.
Ancaps usually despise communists, but the funny thing is that they are actually very similar in certain ways. Just as a communist might view rent as theft, an ancap views taxation as theft. But the ancap, for some reason, doesn't realize that if taxation is theft then logically, so is rent.
Ancaps might argue against this and say "but the state will force you to give them money at the point of a gun". While this is true, it's also true that if you live in a free country, you can leave that country and give up your citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes to that country. Sure, there's nowhere to move to that isn't either a combat zone, a desert, or a place where you'll get taxed by the locals. But there is no reason, logically speaking, why that matters. If it mattered, then using the same logic you'd be able to argue that rent is theft because you'll have to pay rent no matter where you try to move.
A landlord, too, would force you to give them money at the point of a gun if you stayed on their property without paying rent. They'd just have the state point the gun at you rather than do it themselves.

taxation is theft
profit is theft
inheritance is theft

Assuming that you don't live in some USSR-type shithole that keeps its people prisoners, you can move out of your country and give up your citizenship. Then you won't have to pay taxes to that country.
To me, that seems more like rent than like theft. Unless you think that rent is theft, of course.