>>723260706
the fact that taxation is enforced with violence does not mean that taxes are theft. i can give you one significant distinction: taxes are legal. theft is not.
>"b-b-b-but"
yes, this is the part where you say that, like, it's all subject, man. great. but obliterating all of the meaningful distinctions between theft and taxation is a semantic attempt to reframe the conversation in a way that aligns with your rhetorical needs, not an accurate description of the world.
taxes and theft are different. that doesn't mean that taxes are right and theft is wrong, it just means they're not the same. that's why we have different words for them. because they are different things.
failure to acknowledge this obvious fact only proves that you are dishonest and disingenuous.
>"b-b-but that's not actually an argument justifying taxation"
here then is my argument: this is our land, not yours, and if you want to live here then you obey our rules. that property you think you own? it belongs to his majesty the king. it belonged to his mother long before you were even born, dating all the way back to the 1700s when this country was conquered. the sovereign has unbroken legal custodianship over all lands and territories on which you are permitted to live and that permission can be revoked because that land is theirs, not yours.
pay your taxes or get the fuck off the king's land.
of course this argument only works in a commonwealth country, but it is ironclad. the property rights you so vaunt defeat you. even if you are american, the same logic applies - the state always has reserve power to reclaim its land. the country is owned by the country. you just have a temporary permission to exist here, called citizenship.
