A Beginner’s Guide to Voluntaryism, Part 2: Taxation Is Theft (Extortion)

Please see the video/text here: https://odysee.com/%40VoluntaryJapan:1/Beginner%27s-Guide-to-Voluntaryism%2C-Part-2—Taxation-Is-Theft-%28Extortion%29:0?r=6SqL5XtdhNiE2fifqgJEyPXSgNdtQ3pz

Part 2: Taxation Is Theft (Extortion)

If we can agree that hurting people and taking their stuff is wrong, then we must agree that taxation as practiced by all modern states, is also wrong, and legally criminal. This is the point in the conversation on Voluntaryism where many so-called “mainstream” individuals will scoff and even laugh. The idea of taxation being unnecessary, and even a crime, is so foreign to many that they are almost incapable of entertaining it. And yet, here it is, a striking, simple truth: Taking someone’s property under threat of violence — by force — is wrong, and the very definition of extortion. More specifically, if we ask Oxford Languages, the provider of definitions for Google’s search function, to “extort” is to “obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means.”

Even if you are a completely non-violent individual, who is willing and eager to help his community monetarily, by providing funds for this or that infrastructure or project or charity, if you do not pay for what the state wants you to pay for (which often includes horrendous things like bombs and human trafficking and genocide) you will go to prison. You will be put in a cage for humans. To pretend this system is fair, or just, or not based on stealing, is the height of absurdity. Let’s try a thought experiment:

***

Imagine you live in a small community with neighbors all around. Crime is low, the kids are happy and can play outside in the parks, and on the sidewalks safely, and most everyone watches out for one another. Then, one day, one of your neighbors shows up requesting money for a project that could make the community even better. A bigger park with new playground equipment for the kids, and fountain and relaxation area where the adults can pass the time while the children play! It is a wonderful idea, and you express your support. You tell your neighbor you will gladly donate $200 right away to the completion of the project, and maybe more, later. But there’s an uncomfortable silence, and a kind of grimace crawls over your neighbor’s usually friendly face.

“Here’s the thing,” he says, lowering his eyes. “I’ve decided that payment for this project — the park — will not be optional.” Confused, you laugh a little and ask what he means. “I’ve decided that in order to ensure our community is home to only those most enthusiastic about the well-being of our children, those that don’t support these new projects should be sent away. I’m sorry, but I can see no other way.” Thinking he is joking, you laugh again, and calmly ask who made him boss, and how he proposes to enforce his silly idea. “Well, it’s not just me, he says, it is me and five other families that think this is the best way forward. Soon I reckon we will have the majority on board, but we haven’t been able to introduce the payment plan to everyone just yet.”

“And if I don’t pay?” you ask. 

“Those who don’t pay will be sent away.”

“Sent away where?”

“To a facility outside of the community.”

“And how will you force them to leave? This is my property, by the way. I own this land and this house.” You have now realized your psychotic neighbor is dead serious. 

“And with that ownership comes a responsibility to the whole. If you don’t pay more than your tiny $200 gift for this park right now, we will kick you out by force, and if you fight, we will subdue you by any means necessary, up to and including killing you.”

Once again you look around for the hidden camera, sure your neighbor is pulling your leg. But you realize in horror that no, he is indeed serious.

***

So If one man attempting this kind of robbery on his neighbor is absurd, then what about two? Is it justifiable if a group of two come to your door and threaten you in this way  to pay for the park? How about three? Or better yet, what if the whole neighborhood agrees and collectively threatens you with force on your doorstep in this manner? Does it make it okay? Even if we continue to expand the size of the group attempting to extort you, everyone knows the immorality of the act remains. Mob rule is no way to govern a society. So why then do the masses today make an exception for that large group of human individuals called the state, when they engage in the exact same practice? Thus we see that to oppose theft, yet support taxation, is logically and morally inconsistent.

Just like in the thought experiment, every modern state has: 1. An arbitrarily chosen “leader” that may have minimal or massive support, but still doesn’t have the consent of each and every non-violent individual in the area to be governed. 2. A threat of violence if the amount of money this leader desires is not paid, regardless of the cause or morality/immorality of the project to be funded. 3. A willingness to employ physical violence up to and including death in order to collect the funds. 

It does not matter to the logical argument one iota if someone thinks this violent act of extortion, of theft, may be somehow necessary to the greater good. so-called. What matters is that it is clearly, logically, and by definition theft. While some definitions may tack on the word “illegal” to conveniently allow legal, statist extortion, the fact that it is stealing does not change. You wouldn’t do it to your neighbor unless you were a psycho, or in an act of desperation knowing it was wrong. So why do we allow that state — which itself is merely a group of individuals no better than you and I — to engage in this exact same process?

Hopefully you can now see how immoral, criminal, and illogical support for taxation is. And luckily, communities and societies throughout history have survived just fine without engaging in this ugly practice, and still do! More on that in the subsequent sections.