The idea that taxation is a necessary evil, a civic duty, or even a pathway to social good is deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness. We're told it funds essential services, builds infrastructure, and supports those in need. But what if we peel back these layers of assumed legitimacy and confront a more uncomfortable truth: that taxation, at its core, is nothing short of government-sanctioned theft?
The argument isn't new to American freedom fighters, less so Aussies, but it's one that deserves constant re-examination, especially in an era of ever-expanding government reach and increasingly complex tax codes. At its heart, theft is the appropriation of property without the owner's consent. When a private citizen takes another's money by force or threat, we call it robbery. When the government does it, we call it taxation. The fundamental difference often boils down to a perceived legitimacy born from a social contract theory that many never explicitly agreed to.
Let's consider the mechanics. We earn our money through our labour, our innovation, our risk-taking. It is a direct result of our efforts and, by all rights, our property. Then, the government steps in and, under threat of legal penalties, fines, imprisonment, seizure of assets, demands a portion of that income. There is no voluntary exchange. There is no mutual agreement. There is only a demand backed by coercive power.
Some might argue that we consent to taxation by living in a society with a government. But is this true consent, or is it merely acquiescence to an inescapable reality? If you are presented with a choice between having a portion of your earnings forcibly removed or facing severe repercussions, is that truly a choice, or is it coercion? It's akin to a mugger offering you the "choice" between handing over your wallet or facing a beating, and then him taking your wallet anyway, and beating you for good measure! The option to refuse, without consequence, is absent.
Furthermore, the very nature of how tax revenue is spent often highlights the injustice. While some funds undoubtedly go towards services that benefit society, a significant portion is frequently allocated to projects, programs, and bureaucracies that many taxpayers vehemently disagree with. From foreign interventions to corporate subsidies, from inefficient public works to bloated administrative costs, our money is frequently used to advance agendas that we might find wasteful, immoral, or even actively harmful. In the US Musk's DOGE has shown just how much waste and utter corruption and fraud occurs. Yet, we have no real say in how our forcibly extracted wealth is utilized. We are compelled to fund ventures we oppose, making us unwilling accomplices in actions we might otherwise condemn. Oh, contact your local member to put him/her right? Well, good luck with that one (not to say don't do it for the sake of experience), given that the local member, if not an independent, bows to the party dictates or is out: Graeme Campbell's expulsion from the Labor Party for taking on Paul Keating, is a good example.
The concept of "redistribution of wealth" often cited by proponents of higher taxation, particularly those aligned with social democratic philosophies, further illuminates this injustice. While the stated goal might be to reduce inequality or achieve a "more equitable wealth distribution," the means employed are problematic. Taking from one individual, regardless of how much they have, and giving to another, without their explicit consent for that specific transaction, is fundamentally an act of appropriation. It bypasses the principles of voluntary charity and mutual aid, replacing them with a system of compelled giving under the guise of social justice. This isn't about compassion; it's about control and re-engineering societal outcomes through force.
In essence, when we strip away the euphemisms and the noble intentions, taxation reveals itself as a mechanism by which the government asserts ownership over a portion of our labour and its fruits. It's an infringement on individual sovereignty and the right to one's own property. Until we can engage in truly voluntary transactions with the entities that govern us, and until we have genuine control over how our earned wealth is utilised, the shadow of government-sanctioned theft will continue to loom large over every pay deposit and every transaction. The argument isn't against supporting essential services, but rather against the coercive means by which those services are funded, and the inherent injustices that arise from such a system.
The bigger question is a financial reform one, to rework the economy and finances, along Douglas social credit lines so taxation can be eliminated. While that may seem unthinkable to many normies, note that universal taxation is a relatively recent burden, and did not exist in the early development of most of the West. With the yearly tax slug coming, it is time to debate the question of taxation, a state monster that weighs upon the shoulders of battlers already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis, both in Australia and across the West.
https://mises.org/wire/taxation-theft-and-cannot-be-justified-even-charitable-causes
"In her article "Multinationals Make Obscene Profits Out of Global Crises—Tax Them to Defend Human Rights," Magdalena Sepúlveda called for more taxation of multinational corporations and the rich as a means to finance policies that are aimed at protecting the most vulnerable from what she calls "the cost of living crisis." In this piece, I would like to respond to Sepúlveda by saying that taxation is theft and any attempt at justifying taxation, especially for charity, will lead to irrational conclusions.
From my understanding of Sepúlveda's piece, it appears that she adopts the philosophy of social democracy. Such a philosophy is a subcategory of socialism and distinguishes itself by advocating for relatively stronger private property rights when compared to Marxism and Leninism, both of which reject private property rights entirely.
Furthermore, social democracy advocates (SDA) believe that some of the income earned from property owners belongs to society, hence their continued calls for either more taxation, a new wealth tax, or any other tax aimed at achieving egalitarian purposes (which include but are not limited to either "reducing inequality" or "more equitable wealth distribution"). Those interested in knowing more on the origins of social democracy can read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book titled Social Democracy. In Sepúlveda's piece, there is one instance where she, in my opinion, displays her affiliations with social democracy. She states, "Pandemics, wars and recessions do not exempt states from meeting their human rights commitments. They must tax multinationals and the richest more to finance targeted policies protecting the most vulnerable against the cost-of-living crisis."
Taxation is theft and SDAs like Sepúlveda face a moral problem when advocating for taxation irrespective of the purposes of the proposed taxation. The reason is derived from the natural law theory of property, which was popularized by Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Hoppe. Natural law provides four simple and logically connected rules for private property:
1.A person is the owner of his/her own body.
2.A person owns every scarce nature-given good that he/she has put to use by means of his/her own body before anyone else. Such is known as the concept of original appropriation.
3.A person owns all new products that he/she has created by means of his/her own originally appropriated goods and his/her own body, provided that the property of others was not damaged during the production process.
4.Ownership of goods that have either been originally appropriated or produced can only be transferred from the previous owner to the later owner by means of a voluntary contractual agreement.
Taxation is theft because it violates the fourth rule which requires that property be transferred by means of a voluntary contractual agreement. Taxation requires no contractual agreement to be in place for the transfer of property from the taxpayer to the state. Effectively, taxation is a claim on citizens' portion of property by the state, and failure by citizens to adhere to such a claim can result in imprisonment, which is a threat of violence. This is no different from being robbed by a thief who uses a gun to elicit cooperation.
The SDAs might rebut by stating that the proceeds obtained by means of taxation are used to fund the justice system and other state functions that are meant to assist with social order and charity, which from here are referred to as "social causes." However, such a rebuttal does not address the violation of natural rights brought on by taxation. If such a rebuttal were to be accepted, then it follows that common thieves, including those who use the threat of violence to coerce cooperation, are justified in forcibly taking property from their victims as long as the proceeds of such a crime are used for social causes.
Given the problem of the "social causes" rebuttal, the SDAs will have to use another argument which is that taxation does not violate natural law because there exist "implicit" or "conceptual" contracts between property owners and the state that account for taxation. Such a rebuttal fails in justifying taxation because these "implicit" or "conceptual" contracts do not exist. For a contract to exist, there must be at least two agreeing parties and, more fundamentally, the parties must be aware of the contract that is being agreed upon.
However, if such contracts do exist then the SDAs will have to also prove how citizens agree to such contracts. In other words, the SDAs will have to show how a citizen agrees to a nonterminable agreement with the state where the state is granted sweeping powers over a citizen's private property. In my opinion, proving that "conceptual" or "implicit" agreements between the citizen and the state exist and that citizens enter into such agreements by means of expressed or tacit consent is an almost impossible task.
Hoppe, in chapter fifteen of his book titled The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, further justifies my point on one entering into such an agreement.
It is inconceivable how anyone could ever agree to a contract that allowed someone else to determine permanently what he may or may not do with his property, for in so doing this person would have effectively rendered himself defenseless vis-à-vis such an ultimate decision maker. Likewise, is it inconceivable that anyone would ever agree to a contract that allowed one's protector to determine unilaterally, without consent of the protected, the sum that the protected must pay for his protection.
Given the above quote and my above objections, arguing that taxation does not violate natural law because of "implicit" or "conceptual" agreements between the state and property owners should be abandoned because property owners' agreeing to such contracts is inconceivable.
With regard to Sepúlveda's article and her call to increase taxation on multinational corporations and the rich, it must be noted that taxation violates natural rights despite the intentions of taxation because it effectively allows for the state to forcibly take a portion of one's property without one's consent. Natural law requires that property be transferred by means of voluntary contractual agreements.
Furthermore, the provided reasons used in an attempt at justifying taxation—whether it be for social causes or that taxation is accounted for in "implicit" or "conceptual" agreements between the state and property owners—should be rejected because the former effectively justifies theft in general while the latter is inconceivable."