Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

"Not just that. Taxation requires implied and informed consent. Theft omits both."So as long as I consent to letting them take my money it's no longer theft? That's like saying the little old lady who gives up her purse to a mugger in exchange for not being beaten to death wasn't robbed because she "consented" to it.Sure I consent to paying taxes, but only because it's either that or prison/death.Sure, you may define theft as the use of force to extract goods and money as opposed to the threat of force to extract goods an money, but then you'd just be arguing semantics."So can I. But, this seems somewhat irrelevant because it's not the referring to its illegality, but the omission of consent that makes it theft and distinguishes theft from, for example, a loan or taxation."The difference is, with a loan you won't be kidnapped and thrown in prison for not making one, but with taxation you don't have a choice. You have to pay whether you even want government services or not."I've never once made a moral argument in this debate. So I don't see why I would start now or why you're bringing the initial point up."Well, thank science for that. I was beginning to think everyone on here is some sort of heavy moralist or another."But a tax and theft are two different things"Only if you define theft as the use of force (to extract whatever) as opposed to the threat of force.Does it really make that much of a difference to you, though, whether the money is paid before the guns come out or after? Either way, the government is using violence as a tool to extract funding from persons. "A levied charge on human activity i.e. a poll tax, that is charged in exchange for the ability to vote."And if I don't want this ability to vote, or any state run service for that matter, is it still not theft then?"It was. "Threat" of force, for example, is redundant, since force sociopolitically (and legally) refers to power that is exerted in order to make some thing happen. "Precisely. It's redundant. It doesn't matter whether the money is extracted through the use of force or the threat of force, it's the exact same thing in principle and that is why I call it theft.Legalized theft perhaps, but theft all the same."No, I don't."Oh? Are you some sort of anarchist? Or is it that you KNOW taxation is needed? Hmm?Well, go on. School me on the merits of taxation."And the video you linked makes a fairly shallow argument for the "superiority" of private ownership"Alright, there's a lot we could debate about in what you've written in those 3 paragraphs, but for simplicities sake I'm going to agree to disagree for the time being and move on. If you're really itching to debate those points, however, the video's author is always looking for someone to debate."Well, "being murdered" is a little extreme, since not paying taxes isn't a capital offense. And murder is an illegal action, not a legal one. Please stop conflating legal and illegal activity."Oh, jeez =/Alright so say you don't pay your taxes. You may get a letter, then a few more. Then an officer will come to your home for the money, if you still don't pay you will be given a date to show up to court. If you still refuse to pay (or just don't show up) you will be arrested. If you don't let them arrest you, you will be killed.The state doesn't go straight to the guns because, historically, that's a fast track to a revolution; but all those other things (letters, court, etc.) mean nothing without the threat of death to back them.Ultimately, the punishment for absolute defiance of even the smallest of offenses is (and must be to cement the power of the state) death."It's not about liking it."Not as long as you have no choice. Don't forget about that part ;)"We could make this same argument for almost any legal issue."And indeed I do. I stand opposed to all forms of government.