![IMAG0008.JPG](https://steemitimages.com/DQmdkiNCzZyttzxQAMS2EhKsaLexzo5crkxFQri8wjdJsWy/IMAG0008.JPG)

A recent post  - When Taxation is Not Theft...

Another post I felt it behooved me to dissect and make clear. 

The 'faded out' excerpts are from @ ekklesiagora  post - And his  arguments on why taxation is not theft.
All credit goes to him for his post
https://steemit.com/taxation/@ekklesiagora/when-taxation-is-not-theft

The 'normal type' are my arguments and perspectives...

(it does get slightly 'sarcy', in part 2 - Not like me I know, but hey....) These false arguments need to be brought to the light of day, and shown for what they are.


Lets get into part 1, shall we...?


>Anarchists and libertarians are fond of asserting that "taxation is theft." However, I am of the conviction that only some forms of taxation constitute theft. 

So, you are asserting that some forms of the forced taking of another mans  labor - by coercion-  _does not constitute theft_. 
Really?



>A person is entitled to the product of their own labor, 

But you just said its fine to forcefully take it of him....mmm?

> Not only are some forms of taxation not theft, but some taxes may be good in themselves.

So you now you are asserting that taking the fruits of another man's labor are actually _commendable_?

>Land Value Taxes
In a state of nature, there are no systems of property.



Blatantly untrue. Two examples..

An animals territory, or hunting area's- are  'property rights' 

An ants nest sees their colony as 'their' own property.

![IMAG0008.JPG](https://steemitimages.com/DQmafJxgHH4FxPjcshL4YHgSaCsf61RVdVaY3XBYFTiApjM/IMAG0008.JPG)


 >There are no monetary systems, nor courts and police to enforce contracts. 

Property rights , (using the above examples) are inherent and without external forces making the decision - deciding - for them.

>With the introduction of government (courts, law-enforcement, monetary systems), we get money and feudalistic/capitalistic property arrangements and we see the opportunity arise for one person to profit off of the labor of another. 

Yes, that's called a free exchange of labor/time, for money. This dynamic has been in operation since we banded together to become tribes.

>In a state of nature, any person can homestead any vacant piece of land, build upon it, plant and harvest crops upon it, and raise livestock thereon. 

If vacant means , 'unowned' then yes, I agree.
 With time he will then acquire property rights over that land he invested his labor into.

>With the emergence of "property rights" (really a set of legal privileges conferred by government), we see that things change significantly. 

Natural privileges given clarity through logic, maps, and contracts - to simply  make arguments about specific areas  less of an argument of opinion, and one based  on facts. 

This is logical, and common sense for all parties involved, if they are honest and respect contract.


>Now, one person has the ability to monopolize land and charge another person for use. 

Yes, that is up to the person who owns the land, to do with it what he see fit. It is no one else's business.


>Previously, land-ownership was basically a matter of fact: I occupy this land and use it. Now, land-ownership is linked to a legal document or "title." 
This allows one person to own land that another person is using.

Legal delineations don't change the fundamental property right principle - it just makes it clearer for everyone.

Before these legalities, people still rented out their properties, for others to utilize, in an voluntary exchange of contract.

> We see the rise of rent, where one person taxes another person for the use of land. 

This is not tax! – tax is coerced extraction of the fruits on one's labor. 
This is a voluntary exchange through contract.

(....to insert the word 'tax' here,is either being  willfully disingenuous, or a misunderstanding of words)

>The proprietor is effectively a little monarch or king. 

No... he doesn't  impose tax's. He collects a mutually agreed sum of money, for the use of his property..


>The little monarchy of the private proprietor is predicated on the bigger monarchy of the king. 

The two paradigms are so far removed from one another as to become an absurd comparison.

>It was the government that created this system of property which allowed the private-owners to monopolize land and tax others for its use.

NO the system of ownership existed millennia before the principles of 'government' interventions and oversight.
Again,  disingenuous to conflate 'tax', to voluntary exchange of contracts. 

An attempt to distract or confuse the reader to lead them to false conclusions, that are in line with your narrative....?
Twisting concepts and words doesn't make it more true. 

>Even if a person did happen to buy the land and thus ownership has some legitimacy, the value of the land, which sets rental price, is never the same as the purchase price. 

![IMAG0008.JPG](https://steemitimages.com/DQmZac2SZPHpUuGywQXcmRfWEdSUfeU5ai4cW8Wb5LsB73E/IMAG0008.JPG)

You can never know this.  Market prices go up and down, that's how markets work.

>In reality, population growth tends to result in an ever-increasing price on land. 

I would broadly concur with you on that. Supply and demand. Another age old -pre government - dynamic.


>If I buy a vacant lot, its value will increase as surrounding land is developed. If a local community develops and builds a road, a school, a grocery store, a hospital, etc., then the value of that lot will go up substantially. 

This little story neither provides context or relevancy to a wider issue concerning principles of theft, and tax.


>It is society that makes land valuable in the monetary sense. Thus arises externalities. The labor of your community—your neighbors and local government—generates value that makes it possible for you to sell your property at a higher price than what you paid for it. 
This is called a positive externality. 

This is called circumstances.

>Under natural law theory, a person is entitled to the product of their own labor. 
This is the theoretical justification for property in the first place. 

Product of their own labor can be received as wages, in mutual exchange - Money for their time.


>However, the system of property allows some people to profit off of other people's labor. 

A voluntary exchange of contracts, yes. 
Nothing to to with taxation.

>At the same time, there can be negative externalities, where the actions of your neighbors or of your government cause the value of your land to decrease in value. 

Yes, these are circumstances again.


>These positive and negative externalities aren't really a thing in a state of nature, where land is not bought or sold. 

Circumstances , both _good and bad_ are very much -_really_ - a thing in nature...

 Property rights in nature do not use a monetary system, but makes them no less legitimate as definitions of 'owning property'.

>These are injustices introduced by what Thomas Hodgskin called the "artificial right of property"—

Intellectualism disappearing  up it own rectum more like.( because the argument has no where else to go.)

>some people are positively or negatively affected by the privileges associated with private-ownership under a system of government with certain artificial rules governing land-ownership. 

For there to even be 'artifical rules', it would also mean there are some 'non' artificial', or natural, rules...and what are these?- Natural property rights, per chance?

>Following a dialectical libertarian approach, I tend to view government interventions as acceptable if they are interventions that right (or lessen the wrongs) caused by government. 

It is acceptable to intervene on an issue, in which they have previously intervened on?


>For instance, if the government grants one company a monopoly on some necessary product,

If a government grants a monopoly....WTF!!? 
Communism/statism/fascism – whatever else you want to call it...
lets continue..

>it is only fair for the government to also set an upper limit on the price that the company can charge. The justification for the secondary intervention (setting a cap on price) being that it is intended to fix some of the harmful effects of the primary intervention (granting of monopoly), thereby making the economy more analogous to free-market conditions than it would be with fewer interventions. 



 SO basically a government controlled society.
----
You will be telling me tax isn't theft, next...ohhhhhhhh
--
and when you just won't pay those taxes...
![IMAG0008.JPG](https://steemitimages.com/DQma9pUkga9e97UuLK5hPBSyvomYa8xRNTFTh5PgN9A5FcC/IMAG0008.JPG)