Government is evil but a necessary one which means it and everything connected to it must exist at a bare minimum and only for functions that a private entity truly cannot handle either reliably or impartially.
That means tax is not theft inherently, the disaster known as the Articles of Confederation proved we need a minimum level of federal government as our Constitution outlines and that requires money from somewhere. However, tax becomes theft when it is either based on something the federal, state and/or local government have no jurisdiction over OR when it targets citizens unequally.
That means most forms of tax that exist today are theft; death tax, property tax, income tax, etc. As they’re designed to ensure that businesses and estates are hard to inherit and that nobody truly owns their land. Income is abominable as it demands different percentages person to person and because it by nature makes a distinction on how money was earned. Such as by income or capitol gains.
There are only ways in my mind of Constitutionally funding our federal government but in my mind both have their flaws and pitfalls. Either the old way of Tariffs which was pretty much the entirety of it before the 1900’s but that would also tie the functioning of our federal government to our ability to trade with other nations.
Or a true Flat Tax that is based on total money accumulated in any way shape or form over a year and that does not change percentages, rules, definitions, etc. for any class, race, religion, political bent, age, sexual persuasion and any other form of prejudicial bullshit self-righteous assholes can come up with. But the downside here is that we have established the right of the fed gov that they can take portions of acquired money.
The Federal government placed an excise on liquor in 1791. If you made whisky in your own home, with your own grain, you had to pay them money. Is that theft?
If it was for selling then still no, it singles out people who make liquor. That was already explained.
Your turn, my long previous answer explained to you in detail how I approach taxes. There was no point to this follow up question. So what point are you even trying to make? Do you simply have a contrary opinion on the matter?
I don't follow. If it's for personal consumption, wouldn't you say the government has less jurisdiction over it; so less right to tax it? Either way, an excise doesn't take that into account. It was just the act of distilling liquor itself. You could sell it, drink it, barter it, burn it; Tax collectors would come, basically just look at your distillery size, look at how much grain you've grown and sold, then demand payment. People who ran larger, more industrial stills were also taxed proportionally less.
I'd have thought that's a cut-and-dry case of theft for a libertarian.
Anyway, I do have other opinions, but more importantly, the Founders did. About a lot of stuff in your other post, not just the taxation.
Is taxation theft?
Government is evil but a necessary one which means it and everything connected to it must exist at a bare minimum and only for functions that a private entity truly cannot handle either reliably or impartially.
That means tax is not theft inherently, the disaster known as the Articles of Confederation proved we need a minimum level of federal government as our Constitution outlines and that requires money from somewhere. However, tax becomes theft when it is either based on something the federal, state and/or local government have no jurisdiction over OR when it targets citizens unequally.
That means most forms of tax that exist today are theft; death tax, property tax, income tax, etc. As they’re designed to ensure that businesses and estates are hard to inherit and that nobody truly owns their land. Income is abominable as it demands different percentages person to person and because it by nature makes a distinction on how money was earned. Such as by income or capitol gains.
There are only ways in my mind of Constitutionally funding our federal government but in my mind both have their flaws and pitfalls. Either the old way of Tariffs which was pretty much the entirety of it before the 1900’s but that would also tie the functioning of our federal government to our ability to trade with other nations.
Or a true Flat Tax that is based on total money accumulated in any way shape or form over a year and that does not change percentages, rules, definitions, etc. for any class, race, religion, political bent, age, sexual persuasion and any other form of prejudicial bullshit self-righteous assholes can come up with. But the downside here is that we have established the right of the fed gov that they can take portions of acquired money.
The Federal government placed an excise on liquor in 1791. If you made whisky in your own home, with your own grain, you had to pay them money. Is that theft?
If it was for personal consumption then fuck no.
If it was for selling then still no, it singles out people who make liquor. That was already explained.
Your turn, my long previous answer explained to you in detail how I approach taxes. There was no point to this follow up question. So what point are you even trying to make? Do you simply have a contrary opinion on the matter?
I don't follow. If it's for personal consumption, wouldn't you say the government has less jurisdiction over it; so less right to tax it? Either way, an excise doesn't take that into account. It was just the act of distilling liquor itself. You could sell it, drink it, barter it, burn it; Tax collectors would come, basically just look at your distillery size, look at how much grain you've grown and sold, then demand payment. People who ran larger, more industrial stills were also taxed proportionally less.
I'd have thought that's a cut-and-dry case of theft for a libertarian.
Anyway, I do have other opinions, but more importantly, the Founders did. About a lot of stuff in your other post, not just the taxation.