Taxation is theft

We do not agree on the importance of taxes, I do recognize that they MAY be unavoidable, however, that is a topic for another debate. We do agree on the importance of the services taxes currently fund, tho I do not agree that taxes must be the only way to fund those services. You say that "The use of violence to enforce the law (depending on the circumstances obviously) is simply illegal. " but also state that the government "..has the right to enforce their laws accordingly,.." Yet these are mutually exclusive. The government must ultimately rely on violence to enforce all of its laws. It may give you every opportunity to comply before actually using any force, but that doesn't change the fact that the threat is present. If I don't pay taxes I'll get a letter, if I ignore that letter I'll get a visit from an auditor. If I don't let him onto my property the government will go to the bank to take it's money directly. If I beat them to it and keep my money in a safe on my property they will eventually send police to seize the property and/or arrest me. If I resist the arrest or attempt to defend my property, the police will use violence to take me into custody and seize the "taxes" by force. If I resist hard enough (using the same force used against me) it could well end with me shot and killed. I am not familiar with American tax law but I am sure that it must play out similarly. The simple truth of it is if laws did not include the threat of violence, however far down the chain of escalating consequence, no one would follow them. Or at least far fewer people would. "You define theft as ""taking of the property or services of another without consent"". The consent to you paying taxes is being a citizen of the country in which you live. It is your duty as a citizen to pay taxes." And yet being a citizen is not voluntary, I was born in this land and feel tied to it but never consented or agreed to be part of the organization of Canada. I wish Canada no harm but if I wish to be left alone to "do my own thing" Canada will not allow it. If I try to do so without permission Canada will eventually send men with guns. "It is your duty as a citizen to pay taxes." And what does this mean? I believe I have a duty to help my fellow humans, but how and when I choose to do that is the jurisdiction of no one but myself. And so each person must decide what they feel they have a duty toward. I do not have a duty to do anything just because a group of other people in a fancy room somewhere said so. Elected or otherwise. "I will definitely agree that "the use of violence must always be always immoral", but I need you to give an example of violence being used to enforce laws regarding taxation. To say that it's happening without any evidence does not solve any problems. Give me some examples and we can discuss them together." I hope my explanation above explains my view on this. Eventually, all laws end at the point of a gun, they must if they are to have any real power. Without the use of force, the government would have no recourse when people disobey their laws. For my example of the $1000 robbery it to be a false equivalent, there must be some difference between the government and the average human or citizen. Something so significant and fundamental that the immoral can become moral. What gives the government this power? Did the government of Nazi Germany or Mao's China have this same moral exemption? How far can a government go for "The greater good". Is anything any government does "moral" by default, so long as they pass a law saying it is ok before they do it? Are some governments exempt from morality and others not? Or are they all exempt so long as they call themselves a government? "You added that I ""might then claim that the government has some standing that gives it the power to make the immoral moral"", which ridiculous. The government has the right to make laws in which its citizens agree to follow and enforce them." You used here the wording "agree to" this implies consent which is the most important principle here. But your agreeing or disagreeing with a law is irrelevant. You must follow the law whether you agree or disagree with it. If you don't your choice is to accept the consequences or continue to disobey until the government uses force. I am sure you would not argue that "Because X thing is legal X thing is moral" Most all of the worst atrocities in history where entirely "Legal". Legality describes what a government has said is allowed or not allowed, it does not equate to morality. The idea that a government is held to a different standard of morality is an incredibly dangerous idea. I might go so far as to say the most dangerous idea ever conceived. Governments have certainly killed far more humans than other force. But they are a tool like any other. A tool I suggest we hold to the same moral standards we hold ourselves to.