The Landlord Analogy
Imagine you were born and raised in an apartment building. It's a pretty good apartment building, the owner keeps up with maintenance and even provides a small security staff to handle disputes between tenants.
Eventually you grow up and want independence from your parents, so you move out and wander through the building finding another apartment you like. To make this easy we'll say it's vacant, but it doesn't really matter. The point is you move in, and now live in the building.
The landlord comes by and asks for his rent.
(Image from Maricopa County Bar Association)
Do you reply that "rent is theft?" Most reasonable people would agree the owner of the property is due to compensation from the people living there, regardless of how they ended up living there.
This is the essence of taxation. This is why taxation is not theft, the government either owns or is the steward of any property within its borders. You might claim you own land, but to stick with the analogy if you own a condo you're still going to be paying fees to the condo for building upkeep and maintenance.
If you don't want to pay rent to the landlord you cannot live in the building. However when translated to the government level this creates an additional difficulty. As a landlord I can follow a legal process and kick out a tenant who does not pay rent, as a government all the other land (buildings) are taken so you can't kick someone out without forcing another landlord to take them in. Thus a person who doesn't pay his taxes (aka) rent may end up in the worst part of the building (jail) instead.
Another argument might be that, in a Democracy, the people own the government or the land. We can extend the metaphor for that as well, with the tenants rising up against an unjust landlord. Once done, the building still needs to be managed. Repairs need to be made, etc. So the people vote in a person responsible for managing the building, and to keep him from becoming another slum lord hold votes to potentially replace him every few years.
In this case, the building still needs to be maintained, the landlord still needs to set and collect rent and the tenants still need to pay. The only difference is the tenants have more say in how the landlords money is spent.
This is the modern government. Now, as a landlord myself I sincerely hope my tenants never rise up and take over my property... but if they did I suspect they will still charge rent.
But how did the government gain stewardship and/or ownership of the land in the first place? To validly own something you can either homestead it, create it, or have it voluntarily given to you as a gift or in trade. The government, at least in the case of a democracy, consists of elected officials that act as representetives of the people, carrying out their political will by proxy. But at no time did any individual trade away their title to the land they own or other property. When you vote for someone in congress do you turn over the deed to your land or home to them? No. So if the government is the landlord how did they aquire ownership of the land in the first place? Did they homestead the land? No, the settlers and colonists did that or the First Nations did that. So any claim of original ownership the government may have upon the land is completely invalid. The only land the state legitimately owns would be land it bought outright voluntarily from citizens using funds it raised but wait all government funds are aquired using coercion. And given that the government is not legitimately the owner of the "building" in the first place it has no right to tax the citizens either.
To use your metaphor it's like the tenants all building the apartment building and then some douche coming along and starting a protection racket, then declaring himself their "landlord" when in fact he's more like a mob boss. He doesn't legitimately own the building, he never created it and has no right to their money but rather simply came along and started using coercion to get their money and stay in power.
Well, the US did buy a significant portion of it's land. :P
Seriously though does it matter? This fits into the latter half of my analogy, the building is currently managed by a landlord chosen by the residents. The original owners are all dead.
The U.S. didn't buy significant portions of it's land. The U.S. either formed treaties with the First Nations at the given time (First Nations which are largely still alive and which are trying to hold the U.S. accountable to said treaties) or they used force and conquered a given people which invalidates their claim to the land. If you're referring to how say the government, say the BLM, buys land from individuals please take note of those individuals that DON'T want to sell out their land and the sanctions imposed upon them. And finally in the U.S. it is illegal for the federal government to own large amounts of land. Please read your own constitution and legal code.
But for the sake of argument let's assume the state does buy a large section of land voluntarily from the citizenry. 1. Where did the state get the money to do that? 2. What happens when a citizen wishes to buy a section of land back from the state?
It seems like circular logic to me. The state buys land with taxes that are not considered theft because the state owns the land? But if the state owns the land why does the state need taxes in order to buy the land? And if the state doesn't own the land what is the justification for taxation in the first place in order to buy the land? See what I mean? Either way taxation is theft: Either because the money to buy the land was gained using force or because the land itself was gained through force.
And to address your second question as to why it matters: It matters because the descendants of those original owners are still very much alive (ex. First Nations or just regular folks whose ancestors settled the land) and it matters as to what values one wishes to base a nation on. Do we want a dictatorship oligarchy or a libertarian democracy? (Frankly I don't see any point to government at all but am using this as an example of value contrasts). It matters because if we don't consider carefully whether the owner of the "building" has a ligitimate claim then we're stating that might makes right is a valid method of aquiring property. If it's acceptable for the state to aquire land through conquest why is it not acceptable for anyone else to do so as well? Why do we have laws against things like theft or fraud or murder for example? If its okay for the state to use violence to aquire property by using these things why is it not okay for the average citizen to do the same? And if the average citizen must not use violence then should not the state be held to the same standard?
If you own property why do you have to pay property taxes. Does that not imply "the government" owns "your property" And you have to pay them for renting.
Another perspective.
You are renting the place from "them", and as long as you pay them you can call yourself "the owner" according to them. If you stop paying rent, you will see who the real owner is.
pretending/thinking you are "the owner", is an illusion you hold up, for whatever reason.
But you saying you are "the owner" while paying rent for using your property.
would be the equivalent of one of your renters pretending to be and calling themselves " the owner" of the property they rent from you. Even if they rented it out to someone else that still would not make them the owner.
If you own something you do not pay rent for the usage of that thing, you don't have to ask permission to use it, and if someone would take it from you cause you did not pay them it is called theft. If someone can decide for you when, how etc. you may use a thing, than that means they own the thing.
That was the condo part of the analogy.
Well, yes. Private land ownership is governed by law, what I really own is a piece of paper that says I have the rights to this property. Failing that, what would you claim defines ownership of property?
Again: Condos.
How do you define owning something?
"Well, yes. Private land ownership is governed by law, what I really own is a piece of paper that says I have the rights to this property. Failing that, what would you claim defines ownership of property?"
You can't give license concerning something you don't own. If land possession is merely akin to exchanging license agreements then this again highlights the question of how did the government procure the land in the first place? It obviously didn't buy it from it's citizens because it doesn't give ownership of land to it's citizens, it simply grants a license agreement to use the land. So how did the government get the land in the first place? Ownership is the result of creating something, homesteading, or receiving in voluntary exchange. So how did the government get it? If the government didn't create it, homestead it or receive it voluntarily then they should have no ability to license it, ergo rent metaphor ergo taxation.
The funny thing is you're using the government definition of ownership. Government has literally defined how you can own something, and you're trying to say government can't own something by its own definition.
Remember tribal cultures don't even have a concept of land ownership, and I think private land ownership itself is a relatively new concept (I just haven't been able to find a date.)
The reality is that without government defining how land can be owned, it would fall to "possession is 9/10 of the law" or "might makes right."
Either way, the important part of the analogy is that you chose to live here knowing the conditions.
Do you reply that "rent is theft?" Most reasonable people would agree the owner of the property is due to compensation from the people living there, regardless of how they ended up living there.
This is the essence of taxation.
This is not the essence of taxation though I can see why government would want you to think this. This is actually called a contract. The owner of the building agreed to let you rent the place, and you as the tenant agree to pay whatever you agree upon.
Government does not have stewardship over the land. They have more guns than a individual can defend against. In 1933 an act was signed into law that was called Trading With The Enemy ACT and was specifically referring to the public as the enemy. I remember the exact name of the act because it had to do with another act that made ownership of gold (real money) a finable and imprisoning offense. Read the ACT for yourself.
War, prison, and rules do not support the people. Notice that officials have admitted braking federal law in congress. Note that not a one of them is in jail and I bet not a one of them goes to jail either. It really is US vs THEM and they made it that way.
And if you don't agree to pay rent what happens?
Nice
Pls upvote me iam new here