Taxation is not theft

As stated by the definitions above, theft is the wrongful taking of another person’s property. But in order for this to occur, the property being taken must first belong to the person being deprived. Below I will outline 3 different theories of ownership and why taxation fails to qualify as theft in each of them: Natural Ownership Under this theory, the only property a person can own is their own body. My hands, and my feet for example are mine because they are a part of me and are completely natural. Anything a person acquires does not fall into this definition of ownership, therefore under this theory taxation fails to qualify as theft because money can not naturally be ours. Societal Ownership This is the most commonly referred theory of ownership, which could also be called legal ownership. I call it Societal Ownership because laws are simply the product of society. This theory dictates that the relationship between an owner and their property is that of societal recognition. So in other words if I own a piece of land, what makes me the owner is the fact that society recognizes me as the owner. This is usually supported with a title to the property and documentation filed at the county clerk’s office. Taxation under this theory fails to qualify as theft by the definition alone since taxation is written into the law, therefore giving government the legal right to the money taxed. Arguing against ownership under this theory would be a logical absurdity. Moral Ownership This appears to be where the debate is. Allow me to explain Moral Ownership with the following analogy: Suppose I own an umbrella. Now suppose it is raining and I need to walk to the corner grocery store to pick up a case of beer. Not wanting to walk outside in the rain, I ask my friend Bob to go to the grocery store for me. Since I know Bob has no umbrella to walk home with, I entice him by offering him to keep my umbrella if he buys me a case of beer. Bob accepts and proceeds to the grocery store. But what if he returns and did not buy me a case of beer? What if he instead decided to pick up something for himself? The obvious conclusion would be that he does not have a moral right to keep my umbrella, because he did not fulfill his responsibility which was a condition of his right to keep my umbrella. Now suppose I take the umbrella back; is that theft? It would be absurd to consider it theft because I can not steal something which is mine to begin with. Had Bob bought me a case of beer the umbrella would have been rightfully (morally) his, but he failed to do that. The analogy highlights the main consideration in determining the moral owner of anything, which is that of acquisition. A person who acquires something immorally does not have a moral right to that which they acquired. What makes the acquisition moral is that it is acquired by following the terms and conditions set by the previous owner. So if I give something of mine away then that something morally belongs to that person. But if I do not give something away and they take it, then I still have every moral right to that which was taken. Applying Moral Ownership to Taxation The claim often made that taxation is theft seems to stem from the Moral Ownership theory, supported by the concept that it is wrong for the government to forcefully take money from unwilling citizens. However, the problem once again is that for this argument to be valid they must establish that government is taking something that is theirs in the first place. This is quite problematic, since taxation is imposed before any individual makes a decision that will result in taxation. An individual for example who earns a paycheck may claim that the government is taking his money by taxing him. However this argument only works if the pre-tax dollars are his. To make this case he must disregard the fact that paying those taxes was a condition of his earning that paycheck in the first place. Being that the condition was set before he ever began to offer his services to his employer, this is factually false. If that employee tries to keep that money then he is keeping that which is not his, because he did not acquire it under the terms and conditions set for him. But one might ask, what gives government the right to set those terms and conditions? Quite simply, the fact that it was the government who printed the money in the first place as part of its monetary system. Once it was created it became morally (and legally) owned by that government. From there it is distributed under the conditions that it would be part of a system of exchange which includes being subject to the laws of taxation. Therefore anyone who acquires this money must accept the terms and conditions of doing so in order to have a moral right to it. Accepting that money under those conditions is a choice, therefore anyone who chooses to take part in the system is choosing to release a portion of that money back to its rightful owner. This contradicts the concept of theft and thus is not theft. Coercion Argument It is often argued that it may be a choice but in reality there is no reasonable alternative so Americans are being coerced into paying taxes. Coercion is simply the act of forcing someone to act in a manor which is against their will. For example if a robber puts a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, you would be smart to give it to him. But under the same logic utilized above, that is a choice and therefore not theft. I will grant Con this argument if he can show how this analogy is valid, however it is not. Remember that the keyword in the definition of theft is wrongful. Showing that someone has no better alternative does not mean that the person offering the choice is being wrongful. Putting a gun to someone’s head and asking for their wallet is coercion because they are ultimately forced into making a decision which is against their will, which is wrong. But if I ask for his wallet by offering him 1 million dollars, that is not coercion because his ultimate decision will not be against his will, and is therefore not wrong. Living in the US qualifies as the latter example not the former. Every American has a choice, they can either take part in our system of taxation, or move to another country or even a deserted island. Those who claim that this is coercion do so under a false pretense that they are entitled to the lifestyle we enjoy in this country, a lifestyle built on a system of taxation. No such entitlement exists. The US is not responsible for the fact that no other nation in the world can offer the same lifestyle, and the US is certainly not responsible for the fact that living on a deserted island somewhere being forced to hunt for food for a living is an inferior lifestyle. In fact the lifestyle of the latter is the only moral entitlement we as human beings have.