Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

So, now it's not rent, but association dues?

I've been in a Home-owner's association, before, they had a big long contract I had to sign before I could move in. I could probably still dig it up.

Where's the contract? When did I sign it?

Hmmm... Compelling argument.

The part where you say you don't care, but keep posting.

Taxation is payment to your country/government for their "service" of allowing you to live/reside in their "property".

Now, you said that this was not a fair argument because countries don't really "own" their land because they claimed it through violence etc, but I disagree.  How else does one claim/own land (if not through violence)?  This goes back to John locke and Rousseau's ideas about property, but it is not possible for anyone to own anything without committing a "violence" against others.  If one wishes to claim land/property he is necessarily impeding on the rights of others by saying that they cannot enter/use this property now, he is committing a "violence" against them.

Imagine a "state of nature" where everybody owned/shared everything (no property). The first man to "claim land" is directly impeding on the rights of others by taking their property/preventing them from "using" the land that they were once able to use.

I suppose one could also imagine the "state of nature" as existing where nobody owns anything.  Still, a person claiming land and fencing out others is impeding on the "rights" of the others to possibly claim that land... This is perhaps weak, but still valid IMO.

I think there are only 2 rational conclusions:
1. Property is immoral and not-just.  Perhaps a "state of nature" as Rousseau described is what is "just"
2. property, and thus taxation, is "just"

I edited my argument for further clarification.


yes

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

John Locke would say that work entitles one to ownership.  His followers/thinkers claim that if one puts work into something, he necessarily owns it.  Incidentally, Karl Marx thinks the same thing...  Locke would say that you would own the land because you planted wheat, and it would be just for you to defend the wheat from others.

Rousseau would say that you can plant the wheat if you want, but that does not entitle you to ownership of the land.. OR of the wheat.  Anyone can just come take the wheat from you (well, he would claim you never owned it anyways) essentially..

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

Well that works I suppose .  So now the question is did the "government" put "work" in and justly acquire their "land" and therefore have the right to levy taxes?