Truth-Bringer

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov

[From Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, by Frank Chodorov; The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1962, pp. 216–239.]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as "that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects." That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word "compulsory" looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to ques*tion the "right" of the State to this use of power. What sanc*tion, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?

On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the key*stone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxa*tion per se; the State's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.

The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postu*late is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.

If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.

Rest of article here


Taxation is not a contribution, folks. If you refuse to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. If you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you. That is taking money by threat of force, and by force if the threat isn't sufficient. That is theft, which is continual in the case of taxation and which therefore equates to slavery, and it is immoral.

"To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent where no consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did not, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent. The government's pretense of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he does not desire it, or does not bargain for it, the government has no more right, than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it." - Lysander Spooner, "Trial by Jury"

TheHat

Awesome read man!

It goes right into the founding of this country itself. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? The founders didnt want the kind of shit we got today going on.

Our government today is nothing short of a mafia itself. The only difference is they dont shoot you on sight for not paying up "THEIR" money.

Funny thing is, we got politicians who want more taxes....lol. And to boot, more people applauding them and their ideas....lol.

Begs the question: DO I really own MY land or does the government?

iTaliAN_ICe

This guy sounds like a fool. Taxation isn't robbery, it's paying the state for protecting you, providing and maintaining crucial infrastructure, and generally running the country. If someone isn't satisfied with this deal, he or she can end it any time they'd like by getting the hell out of here.

__________________


"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.

TheHat

Really? Tell me, is giving my tax dollars to another private organization the business of the government or providing me with a service?

This guy sounds like someone who has a clue to me. Our government in its founding, never allowed the taxes we see today.

Infrastructure and protecting me are fine, those are valid reasons. But I dont see how that costs 3 trillion dollars to do. Or give the right of the federal government to tax everything under the sun for its own benefit.

iTaliAN_ICe

I don't really understand what you're asking. Can you re-word this question?

Obviously. Our government in the 18th century couldn't possibly have foreseen the need for these taxes. America was a small and powerless agrarian society of a few million people at the time of its founding. I think a tax increase may be in order when a society industrializes and increases its size exponentially.

Mostly because of Social Security. I'll agree that that's an issue that needs to be addressed.

You speak of the federal government as if it's an entity entirely separate from the American people. We are our government.

__________________


"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.

Truth-Bringer

No, it's not. Once we had honest judges in this country that ruled truthfully on this matter:

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." - Loan Association v. Topeka, United States Supreme Court (1874)

No, it didn't even allow any permanent internal taxation, as was the understood meaning of the original intent of the Constitution. The Federal Government operated just fine without any permanent internal taxes from 1802 to 1860:

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

Link

No, much of that spending is due to fraud, waste and abuse. Not to mention that over a third of the income tax goes just to pay the interest on the national debt.

The government never had the right to spend according to its own whim under the general welfare clause.

Truth-Bringer

Ad Hominem fallacy.

Funny, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation or liability in protecting the general public.

Also, the military intelligence community is not protecting us in my opinion. It is creating more enemies for us.

Let's take the example of Iran, 1953. When the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader so that British Petroleum could maintain rights to the oil. The oil nationalization bill passed unanimously in the Iranian Parliament. I don't believe in socialist policies - however - that was what their democracy decided. The Shah - the U.S. puppet - had a secret police force that made several people "disappear." And that was the spark that caused the Iranian hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy. Not because they just woke up one day and decided to "hate us for our wealth and freedom."

The CIA's own report, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight," stated that the United States should expect "blowback" - meaning violent retaliation - for its role in the coup.

Could I please have a little less of that?

Could this be done privately? Certainly.

This could easily be done via tariffs, as shown in my previous post.

Invalid. As to the territory issue, why doesn't the State just leave? Who is entitled to occupy the space?" Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but libertarians reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. The State doesn't rightfully own property; people do.

Dr House

Damn straight.

-Dr House

Future Leader

[quote=Truth-Bringer;169832] the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation or liability in protecting the general public.[quote]

Then what the hell are we paying cops for?

TheHat

[quote=Future Leader;169931][quote=Truth-Bringer;169832] the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation or liability in protecting the general public.Same thing we are paying the federal government a tax for in social security...lol. Power for them over us.