Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.""
"Civil asset forfeiture" precisely resembles the worst caricature of the behavior we were attempting to defend against when we wrote that. And it's affecting everybody going through police jurisdictions that rely on that revenue, not just the minorities that the drug war was designed to persecute in order to get Reagan & Bush Sr re-elected.
I understand some of the politics of why the executive and the legislature ramped this up - perceptions that a generation of children was being lost to a class of sinister urban drug-pushers, and a desire for vigilante justice even when we couldn't convict them of anything. I don't understand how any judge anywhere could approve any of it. They're supposed to be above that. If you accept these legal fictions into your worldview, what's the point of having a justice system at all?
This should have been ended decades ago, when hysteria about the 'crack epidemic' wore down. As far as I'm concerned, when a local cop steals money from you and claims he has a form that says that's okay, that's a reason for the FBI or Internal Affairs to come in and prosecute that person. Because they stopped being a legitimate representative of the people in any capacity: they stopped shepherding law-abiding citizens and started feeding on them. We used to have a word for that, 'dirty cops', and we used to believe, or at least hope, they were aberrations.
Have you not noticed the names they put on bills to get them through Congress (state or federal)? Right to Work? No Child Left Behind? DOMA, Internet Freedom Act. Hell, the Affordable Care Act (I SAID IT, sue me!)
These guys have it figured out, and when we figure it out they just change tactics. If they're that brazenly Orwellian on the title page how can they not be spending time softening the text in the middle?
It is called "Neusprech.org" (newspeak.org translated). Really a great resource.
I would say that calling civil forfeiture as theft makes more sense then comparing civil forfeiture to taxation. Unless you live in an area where "taxation" means armed men come to your house and demand all your cash on April 15th.
Honestly, I don't really buy the argument that in cases like this, its wrong to call the action theft. I don't find the terms mutually exclusive depending on the context.
They don't bother with armed men. If I refuse to pay long enough, they just take it straight out of my paycheck (wage garnishment). No need to intimidate someone when you own their bank.
It's the threat of armed men being sent for them that compels most people to pay their taxes and file the return.
Both taxation and civil forfeiture have much in common with theft.
Under some legal systems you can own a sex slave, but don't you dare call it rape.
Under some legal systems the government can take what they want because the law allows them, but don't you dare call it theft.
It is both.
> calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
Taxation today is theft.
Taxation is you paying the bill you've incurred for living in this country. You've lived here, gotten some benefit from the services the government provides, and when the bill comes you start saying "theft!! theft!!!"?
The anti-tax crowd is the biggest bunch of moochers and freeloaders this side of Wall Street. They're just out for a free ride, leaving the rest of us to pay for it.
For example, a one time tax of 30% of all bank accounts would be considered theft. Paying a gas tax to care for the road you use would not.
Also, some of the corrupt dealings of Congress would be theft from the government, and since that raises taxes on the individuals, I think it would be reasonable to consider it theft.
I am not "anti-tax". I think taxation is a good idea as it helps a community re-invest in itself. I am anti-theft.
Saying today's taxation is not theft won't change the reality that it is. Nor will downvoting this post change that reality. In fact, barring a change in the definition of the word, there is not a single action in this universe that can change the reality that taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission is theft.
Taxes aren't theft any more than the check at the end of a restaurant meal is theft.
In both cases, you agree to pay something in exchange for something (a meal, a functioning government, etc).
Does one agree to civil forfeiture by continuing to live where it is legal?
If we were free to move to a country where we agreed with the laws you might be right. That's not reality though.
We are not (currently) free to choose how we pay taxes in any country and our freedom to move from one country to another is restricted.
So, sorry, I never agreed to pay these taxes, I have little say in how they're used, and I have no alternatives except to go to prison. That's not freedom. That's simply coercion and theft.
If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want, that does not grant you the right to take a car without paying for it.
So, yes, you do agree to pay these taxes by continuing to live here.
Please explain how I can do that. I would actually like to move to Switzerland, could you explain how I can freely do that as everything I've researched indicates it's neither free nor possible in any reasonable amount of time. If not Switzerland I'll settle for some other country where I can live freely and be safe from coercion.
> If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want...
Nobody is forcing me to buy the car with the threat of prison if I don't, and I do not need a car to survive. I do need to live someplace however.
For some reason, most anti-taxers consider this not to be "coercion" but to be an efficient way of allocating resources and will defend to the death the landlord's right to demand that I compensate him for occupying a particular location he has a prior claim over. The rationale behind treating private territorial claims on my wealth more favourably than public ones continues to elude me...
Someone born in a particular house with a third party claiming ownership rights faces exactly the same keep paying up or vacate dilemma as someone born in a particular country. In both cases, they might find it difficult to find a piece of territory that is both appealing to live and doesn't involve paying someone else for their right to occupy it.
The relationship governments have with their citizens is unique.
It goes like this: give us a chunk of your entire income forever or else we'll throw you in prison. Don't like it? Say good-bye to all your friends and family and enjoy surviving in a country where you don't understand anything anyone is saying, which will probably just give you the same ultimatum.
That's simply mafia-style protection-money robbery.
There is another option: voluntary association and voluntary taxation. This is just one possible form it can take: http://groupcurrency.org
Finding a jurisdiction in which English is widely spoken and there's no income tax is actually surprisingly easy...
When you're a child, and your parents have custody of you, they make that choice for you--you're a citizen here, here's where you'll live, be politically involved, and pay taxes.
When you're old enough to make that choice for yourself, that's when you can stay--with all that entails--or go.
It's therefore impossible for any US citizen to legally avoid paying tax at least once, assuming sufficient income to have to pay tax in the first place.
Do note that this law also applies to foreign born US citizens, who are citizens by blood but who have never even visited the US. For obvious reasons, many of these citizens either don't know about their obligations under US law, or deliberately ignore it.
Or, don't work until you decide to leave, and then leave.
That it requires very quick timing or unusual planning to end your obligation does not mean that you don't need to pay it when you are obliged to.
In any case, the current cost to renounce your citizenship is $2,350. You might say it's a "fee" and not a "tax". That label is irrelevant in the overarching context of financial obligations imposed upon a person. Otherwise the US should just charge everyone a fee for having US citizenship and forget about the whole "tax" issue.
Moving just within the United States can end up being an expensive endeavor as is. Moving out of it isn't any more affordable, meaning that your argument basically amounts to "tough luck, poor people".
Not that I believe taxes are inherently bad, but the implication that "you can always leave if you don't like it" is misleading at best (and realistically outright false for a rather large segment of the American population).
If the country of your choice doesn't permit you to emigrate, that doesn't mean that you're suddenly free from your obligations to whatever country will host you.
Wouldn't that be convenient? "Sir, I don't have to pay taxes. I want to move to Switzerland, but they're full right now, so I can't."
(And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole out of the antitax crowd--for nearly all cases, they'll simply garnish your wages, or something equally non-freedom-constraining.)
Oh they regularly send people to prison for failing to pay taxes. Does the name Wesley Snipes ring a bell? They sent him to prison for three years on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns, even after he brought a check to court for the outstanding balance.
On a basic level, that's what all laws are. They are a series of escalating punishments and threats that end soon after "then, we'll send guys with guns to take you to prison".
You have to renounce citizenship, pay a fine for renouncing said citizenship to avoid paying taxes and possibly be audited. And you might argue that's fine, because they should be able to collect back taxes but you'll generally have to pay taxes for the next 10 years.
So, putting aside the immigration issues, and assuming you could move to wherever you wanted it's still not possible.
> And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole...
It's not hyperbole. If you willfully fail to file that's grounds for imprisonment:
http://www.businessinsider.com/terrible-things-that-could-ha...
You're probably thinking of cases when people "forget" or make "mistakes" in their filing.
> ...out of the antitax crowd
I mentioned this already, I am not anti-tax. Please cut it with the labeling. It's late. We're going in circles. Have a good night, I won't be replying to whatever you post next.
And again, whether all other countries do not meet your preference or requirement does not free you from your obligations to this one, as long as you live here.
Whether other countries don't allow you in, don't allow you to stay, don't govern the way you like, or whatever other complaint you may have about other countries, that does not change your present-day relationship to this one: that you live here, and as such are obligated to pay taxes as long as you do.
And of course there are, right now, many other countries that you could emigrate to if you liked. Even if your A-list countries aren't open, you still have lots of options.
Sorry, itistoday2, I'm sure you're a nice person in person, but the argument you're making is obnoxious. Have you noticed how people get really annoyed when you make it? It's not because it's a good argument!
People also used to get annoyed when people said the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.
Of the most "livable" countries:
- United Arab Emirates: don't want to live in the middle east, no thanks. I disagree with many of the laws there and have no close family or friends anywhere nearby.
- Bahamas: gotta buy land there or pay an annual fee. This is probably the most reasonable of all options, but my work precludes me from living there.
- Bermuda: One of the world's most expensive places to live. Possible if I could afford it (can't at the moment).
- Andorra: would be awesome. Not sure what the situation is with living there as a non-citizen (it takes 20 years to become one). Since one has to be a citizen of some country one wouldn't be able to renounce their US citizenship for 20 years (at least) and therefore would still have to pay income taxes to the United States.
- Monaco: "Getting a residence permit practically requires millionaire status."
I think ebrenes framed the situation well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9540888
Copied here:
~~~~
While you can theoretically leave the U.S. whenever you want, you cannot stop paying taxes whenever you want.
You have to renounce citizenship, pay a fine for renouncing said citizenship to avoid paying taxes and possibly be audited. And you might argue that's fine, because they should be able to collect back taxes but you'll generally have to pay taxes for the next 10 years.
~~~~
10 years, 20 years, whatever.
None of this changes the fact that what is being done in the United States is theft, plain and simple. The government never came to me and asked if I agreed to any of these income taxes, they just say pay up or we'll ruin your life. No negotiation, no agreed upon exchange for goods or services, just extortion.
You listed several countries you could move to. The fact that you don't want to move to any of them, for whatever reason, does not turn US taxation into "theft".
And again, you agree to pay them by continuing to live here.
Just like, when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal, you're agreeing to pay for it without negotiation, without a specific contract outlining specifications for the food, etc. Don't like it? Go to another restaurant.
There is a verbal agreement (contract) outlining the specifications of the food. It says "pancakes" in the menu, it shows me the price, and I choose to order the pancakes for that stated price.
That is completely different from how taxes work in the United States. An appropriate analogy would be being born in a restaurant and being forced to pay money for what you have no idea and no say in. There is no menu. What's given to you is chosen by people you don't know and who you've never had a single conversation with. And btw, you can't just "get up and leave" the restaurant either.
When the analogy is this incompatible, you can compare anything to anything else and declare that bananas are just like soap.
If you can't see the difference, you are deluding yourself.
As an adult, you can revoke your consent and leave.
You keep telling me how:
1) Other countries don't offer what you want, 2) It's expensive to move to another country, 3) Many countries won't grant you citizenship,
And so on.
None of those mean that you can't leave and go somewhere else. They just mean that wherever you go, you'll have to make a compromise.
Being forced to make a compromise elsewhere does not mean that taxation here is theft.
None of your claims support the false assertion that "taxation is theft".
I really don't understand what part of this you're missing. I really don't get what part of this plain language is in dispute.
To revoke consent I would have had to have been of a mind to have given it in the first place.
My parents payed taxes when I was a child. I did not. I then grew into a situation where I had to make money to stay off the streets and was forced to pay this government.
Maybe this isn't so black and white. I would be willing to agree that your point of view carries more weight the longer I stay here in a capacity where I am capable of moving to another country.
However, it starts out as theft and remains so until I have no excuse remaining for not leaving, and then it's only if there is a fair alternative available.
If there's some country out there that doesn't have an income tax but rapes its citizens 12 hours out of the day, that can't be counted as a fair alternative. It would still be extortion then ("pay us or get raped!").
The government provides you services, and you consent to paying for them by continuing to live here.
Before you were old enough to give consent, your parents made that decision for you. As an infant, you weren't capable of making such decisions, and as your guardians, your folks made it for you.
Now that you're (presumably) old enough to give consent, you are doing so by remaining here.
The government isn't forcing you to stay, even if you can't afford to leave right now. If your finances don't permit it, then I would suggest you save up until you can afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico, and then emigrate. Our government won't stop you at the border. (Canada or Mexico might, but that's them, not us.)
That you don't like the other countries out there (they aren't "fair alternatives") does not mean that, suddenly, taxation here is actually theft. It means you're picky, or you don't want to compromise, or whatever.
It doesn't change the fact that, as long as you're here, you're obligated to pay for a small share of the government's cost of doing business.
You may not like that obligation--it's still not theft. You may disagree with how tax dollars are spent--it's still not theft. You may dislike how you never signed an "I agree to pay taxes" contract--it's still not theft.
> That you don't like the other countries out there (they aren't "fair alternatives") does not mean that, suddenly, taxation here is actually theft.
Yes, it does. The word for it is extortion.
1. No consent existed to begin with and money was taken forcibly. Theft. By definition. Go argue with a dictionary.
2. An alternative presents itself but the alternative is rape and so the choice is between theft or rape. This is called extortion. By definition. Go argue with a dictionary.
You also keep ignoring the facts that: 1) You consent to taxation by living here, 2) And your parents consented for you when you were too young to do on your own.
You keep saying "no consent existed" but it has existed all your life, first by your legal guardians, and now by you.
Why this is wrong was addressed previously so not gonna repeat myself.
> And your parents consented for you when you were too young to do on your own.
Your parents cannot give this consent for you. Can they consent for you to be raped? Would their approval of you being raped suddenly make it not rape?
No. You're arguments are nonsensical. Go home. I'm done here.
You say "theft" like it's the typical "take" act that the word normally implies. It's more like someone stealing $200 and giving you a bicycle you didn't ask for, but you're likely still going to use it anyhow. ie. it's complicated, so it gets a new word :)
Several million dollars later, the initiative is scrapped and all bicycles are replaced at taxpayer expense with Enduros, in a move completely unrelated to the opening of the new Enduro factory and recent election of extremely popular Mayor Nathan Enduro, who ran on a platform of smaller government and the freedom to spend your money on as much gasoline and Enduro parts as you want.
Sounds like we're in agreement then. :)
> and giving you a bicycle you didn't ask for
s/bicycle/war. No worries, I make that typo all the time. ;)
And bring healthcare up to French standards.
The anti-tax crowd is just like the anti-vax crowd. They both want a free ride on the rest of our backs; the anti-vaxers want the benefit of herd immunity, and the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world.
(*edited to a missing word)
In a world where everyone gets hit on the head with a baseball bat once a week, some people are saying "what's with this? Can't we figure out some way of not getting hit by baseball bats every week?" And you're turning that into "I don't want to get hit by a baseball bat, someone else should get hit instead of me".
I don't think those features are particularly relevant to the mistake Frondo was making.
Frondo claimed that "anti-taxers" were free riders, which models well with the modified analogy as those who opt-out of being hit in the head, at the expense of everyone else, yet still likely benefit, even if only indirectly, from living in a world where others take the hits to achieve the benefits.
Note that I'm not saying Frondo is correct, I was just showing that the analogy given didn't refute his claim in any way I could see.
Personally, I expect most people against taxes fall under my last category of people trying to find another way to get the needed benefits without being hit in the head, or at least want to get more bang for their buck or a more fair distribution of cost/benefit.
Sure it is. It's good for the people being employed to operate the baseball bats. It's also good for the people being employed to make the baseball bats.
I don't know anyone like that, and I suspect they're in a tiny minority.
For my part, I'd consider those taxes to be theft when they are used for purposes other than a strict list of constitutionally mandated purposes. The other things are services I want to neither pay for nor receive.
Some examples: unemployment (ahem, now "Reemployment") tax, social security tax, welfare, domestic spying operations, Medicare/Medicaid, public education, the Affordable Care Act, much of our military spending, corporate bailouts, lots of alphabet agencies' budgets, etc.
Note that it's not freeloading; I don't want anyone to have them paid and/or provided for by government, including myself.
As for not wanting something, but still being obligated to pay for it, there many transactions in the world where you have to pay for more than you want; no automaker will sell you a brand-new car with all of the seats missing, and very often when you go to a restaurant, even if you ask for some ingredient to be left out, you still pay full price for the meal.
That some of your taxes go to things you don't like does not mean you are free from paying for them.
The route to changing what your taxes go to is the political arena, not merely claiming that, because you don't like it, they're "theft".
10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This simply isn't true. Anti-taxers want to choose where their dollars go - each and every one.
In none of these cases--paying for a car where you'll take out the seats, paying for a meal where you don't get the mushrooms, paying taxes for government services you don't agree with--is the payment suddenly "theft".
The difference is consent. People consent to paying for those meals or the car. But nobody ever consented to taxation. That's all part of the "social contract" we're born into.
You're right that initial decision of consent was made for you by someone else--it was made for you by your parents, when you were a child and they had custody of you.
As an adult, you are free to revoke your consent by leaving the country and ceasing to enjoy the benefits its government provides.
(And as for "nobody consented to taxation," I consented, and continue to do so, because I like contributing to the country where I live and where I'm a citizen.)
Even then, it would be basically impossible to avoid benefiting in some way without leaving the country altogether. There will always have to be at least some "core" services that everyone has to pay into, but that doesn't mean techlibertarian's idea totally lacks merit. Maybe some things should be partially opt-outable. Maybe people would start to question whether America really needs to spend half of its tax revenue on the military; maybe there would be more pressure to get some of the presently useless (and very expensive) 2.3 million prisoners back into the workforce.
We are unable to give consent (consent implies choice), so it is theft through coercion (prison).
See "group fund" for a voluntary form of taxation: http://groupcurrency.org
As far as Proudhon (first time hearing this), it seems he was referring to land only, and that "property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
It's unclear to me how someone can "own" a piece of land which they did not create but stumbled upon. To me it just seems like a situation where the person with the biggest gun wins, and has nothing to do with "property". So in that sense, perhaps, yes, claiming ownership over something you did not create (Earth) might very well be interpreted as theft.
However, the notion of "land property" is a potentially convoluted rabbit hole that is very different from a straightforward discussion about taking money people earned with their own labor under the threat of force.
A compelling argument. In that case this appears to be a non-story, and I'm not sure what the fuss is about.