Taxation is theft

Based

Attached: Hobbes war.png (300x316, 99K)

>Lefty meme
>Wall of text
Shockedface.jpg

A king and his nobles can live off of the profits of their own property and they con provide for a common defense based upon oaths of fealty. No taxation nescesary.

Attached: Manor.jpg (1280x720, 322K)

> abolish all indirect taxes, like income tax
> abolish all social plans/benefits for the poor
> raise direct taxes, a lot. 30-35% VAT or whatever
> use that money to provide a liveable UBI
What do you think? Everyone should be happier than now (except tax advisors, I suppose). Smaller gubmint, less bureaucracy, harder to evade taxes, the poor are cared for, less crime...

I mean anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron because capitalism implies hierarchy but yes you are right about one thing.
Now you need to understand that it being theft doesn't acrually matter because you can't expect everybody to subscribe to the same morality that you do. The State doesn't give a shit and neither do most ignorant, bluepilled citizens.
It ultimately doesn't matter because at the end of the day there's nothing physically preventing me from stealing your shit either, so why can't the State?

What about property taxes? Even if your home is completely paid for, they would take it from you if don't pay. I guess you really never truly own a home.

>because at the end of the day there's nothing physically preventing me from stealing your shit

Guns user, guns.

To give an example, US GPD per capita is about 60k. You raised VAT from around 6% to 35%. That's about 16.5k/capita tax. The state currently spends about 2k/capita, which should drop to 1-1.5k if you remove social stuff, bureaucracy, savings from less crime, etc. You are left with enough money for more than 15k UBI, i.e. more than $1200 for each man, woman and child every month. Not a lot, specially considering that prices for everything are ~30% higher now, but enough for people to survive.

Sorry, retard, but it is inherently unfair that some people should be forced to PAY for the government, and others should be paid BY the government. Your idiotic post completely disregards that the ideal tax rate is 0%. If people cannot support themselves, they should either rely on VOLUNTARY charity, or they can fucking die. The only service I am willing to pay for to help the poor is the euthanasia charity, to which I would gladly contribute to have the vermin of society HUMANELY being put to death. I am not a sadist, I don't want to see them suffer, but they need to die. And so do you.

That doesn't necessarily stop me. Guns CAN stop me, but there is no law of physics that stops me from breaking into your house is what I'm saying. Likewise, there is no God watching my every action waiting to punish me.
The same goes for the State.

TAXATION IS THEFT

Attached: 1532714704775.png (420x420, 9K)

Why are you defending some stupid pipe dream of a utopia where you have no government and everyone lives how they want. The horde is coming for your stockpile. Good luck defending it.

early america functioned on import tax, theres no reason that couldnt work

Is VAT theft in your eyes? The product/service you bought wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for the state-provided infrastructure.
Also you didn't read my comment. EVERYONE pays, EVERYONE gets paid.

based and redpilled

Private property is theft. You literally can't argue with this.

Yes I can, finny

I can't justify taxation but I can justify tithes.
The church should be able to handle the few needs of the american people. Freeloading illegals get the fuck out.

If something isn't payed by a voluntary transaction it's breaking the natural law
-t. Catholic Ancap Gang picking Yang Gang for Acceleration Gang.

You're literally seizing by force something which belongs to everyone. That's the very definition of theft

everything belongs to everyone? explain how, mr finland

Attached: 1393229484455.jpg (1280x960, 168K)

I never agreed to your concept of private property, therefore you have no right to enforce it on me. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm using autistic libertarian bullshit arguments against libertarianism itself

that is left libertarianism bud. Dont be a boomer please and tell me to reeeed horseshoe theory

they're straight-up brainwashed dood

Okay, deal.
Then how about this.
Part 1:
You pay a minimal tax to support the administration and military that are protecting you from being taxed by other countries.
If not, your citizenship gets revoked.

Can you accept this?

Part 2:
You have no initial access to any public services whatsoever.
Access to each service will increase the percentage of your tax up to a 50% sealing.
Police, firemen, state healthcare, welfare, pensions, etc., are all funded separately by the consumers themselves.

Can you accept this?

Are you too stupid to get the point? Those same arguments made against taxes can also be made against private property

>in case you haven’t figured it out yet
whoa. Impressive.

Attached: EF882335-CB86-4ED5-9AFA-AFF98896EC7C.png (403x448, 53K)

desu, id almost take it, problem is I/we would never be allowed to leave, these degenerate socialist niggers need us.

not at all, possessing something via the effort of voluntary trade and labor , i e your wages and what you buy with them , is not logically comparable to theft. get off of welfare, bro.

>not at all, possessing something via the effort of voluntary trade and labor , i e your wages and what you buy with them , is not logically comparable to theft.
Just like paying to upkeep the social contract is not theft
>get off of welfare, bro
I'm a net contributor, it's just that lolbertarianism is a retarded meme ideology

You wouldn't have to leave.
Once your citizenship gets revoked you may stay in the country until your next departure(though you may not return), or you re-purchase citizenship with a doubled minimum tax for 5 years, only if you are a former citizen.

Also private alternatives to public services may be subscribed to.

roads

>just like paying to upkeep the social contract is not theft

social contract? what contract? the contract that the men in suits change every year? how sacred can something be if it is constantly changed and evaded by the people who constantly rewrite it? your """social contract"""" is far more expensive than mine, does attempting to reduce the cost constitute a violation as well?

no no I mean the socialists would never let us leave, they know without us their welfare state becomes Venezuela tier

Attached: fu.jpg (738x481, 22K)

I’m an ultra-libertarian who really believes in freedom and didn’t sign any social contract agreeing theft is wrong.

The context and the agent of a given action change how it is to be morally apraised.

Shooting a man is not wrong if it is done by someone who is defending his life against an illegitimate aggressor. It is self-defense, not murder.

Coercively seizing property is not wrong if it is done by an institution to obtain funding in order to seek an end it is legitimized to seek. It is taxation, not theft.

>the socialists would never let us leave
Oh. Well possibly, though it would be in their favor to do so(or at least that's what you tell them).

Less people participating, but less people receiving as well.
"Surely you, the socialists are healthier and less prone to disease than those evil white people, after all, your own liberal lifestyle is truly the right way for a human to live. So why pay for them if they don't want to pay for it themselves?"

Social contract refers to the society which you and your fellow citizens voted for, and from whom it derives its legitimacy

See

Until it's time to retake the Holy Land. Or the Kings inbred son takes over.

>assuming all governments were elected
wew
>voting for something makes it legitimate

bro, I get that libertarianism isnt your cup of tea, but fucks sake, you just defacto validated every depraved , sick, horrific state ever to exist.

Attached: 1531303533943.jpg (346x346, 29K)

>assuming all governments were elected
>le strawman

>voting for something makes it legitimate
Democracy 101 kiddo

>bro, I get that libertarianism isnt your cup of tea, but fucks sake, you just defacto validated every depraved , sick, horrific state ever to exist
>le strawman 2

The social contract means if you don’t actively fight a power you acquiesced to it.

If I came to your house and fucked your wife and you just sat there, you wife is getting fucked. You may not like it but you let it happen.

you just said the social contract makes legitimate action taken by the state due to democracy, not all states are democratic. not all democratic states are good. Not all elections are fair. can you re-explain how your view of the social contract fits non democratic states and nominally democratic states?

that is autistic as fuck, we need only observe the millions murdered by a state. if you break into my house, throw me in a cage for 20 years and fuck my wife you cant just yell
BUT YOU LET IT HAPPEN BROOOOOO

Attached: 1548175563677.png (633x758, 320K)

"An end that it is legitimized to seek"
The problem is the relative question of morality. Society can determine that giving all of it's money to Israel is "morally correct" but this in no way legitimizes an aim of a state. The job of the state is to protect the life & assets of it's citizens. Foreign tariffs are the only justifiable tax a state shpuld impose, everything else is Jewish psychology.

The reason why we're taxed is because the massive amount of niggers and gibsme and lazy fucks who live the welfare life.
Without them, it's quite possible we wouldn't have to pay taxes.

Sounds like you wouldn’t acquiesce to that.

But you also think taxation is theft right? Well do you still pay taxes or do you fight it? If you still pay them then you acquiesced. Probably bc the costs outweigh the benefits

This isn’t about formal contracts. The social contract is about social phenomena. The state of nature is a state of war.

Your mistake is the naturalistic fallacy. It’s not a matter or should, but is. Survival of the fittest

If it is not a formal contract how does one determine violation?

Attached: 1494459166972.png (598x452, 135K)

As long as you are cool with tax dodging and harming people who work for or support the state , that view is consistent and I would agree in a sense

Attached: big-iron-full-length-version-marty-robbtns-says-li-y-o-gonna-36046457.png (500x522, 138K)

This is pretty much where I have landed on this thought train.

>you just said the social contract makes legitimate action taken by the state due to democracy, not all states are democratic. not all democratic states are good. Not all elections are fair. can you re-explain how your view of the social contract fits non democratic states and nominally democratic states?
Obviously the social contract only applies to democracies with fair elections. I would agree that dictatorships are illegitimate. Second, you can take that guilt by association bullshit and shove it up your ass. It's the Nirvana fallacy. Democratic governments aren't perfect, but they're the best we have (ancap states aren't a real thing that exists). It's a stupid tangent and it can just as easily be applied the other way (not all corporations are good either)

Indeed it is.
A lot of people are going to argue and say we need it for the roads and everything.
Whether or not you think we need taxes has nothing to do with the fact that it's still theft. You could say the theft is justifiable and necessary but it's still theft. Or actually robbery, but whatever.

I prefer republics to democracies, but either should be constitutionally limited in that peoples rights to property and non aggression must not be violated. once they are the state is invalid regardless of procedure. I would gladly accept a minarchist constitutional republic.

Attached: 1546439351144.png (806x1136, 436K)