It's like you completely ignored the post you were responding to.  "Lawful theft" is an oxymoron.   The definition of theft is "the act of stealing or taking something from someone unlawfully."  Since taxes are implemented by enacting laws, taxation cannot be theft.

So slavery, fine!  Holocaust, hey it was THE LAW.

Obviously there is a moral law over and above the written law.  There is also international law, for what that's worth, which was used to punish the perpetrators of the Holocaust and some of the transatlantic slavers. That aside, the "unlawful" part is not critical to the definition.  You could also define theft as "the taking of property without consent," and it can be shown that taxes are not theft because the recognition of property is a social function.  We all have to, or at least most of us have to, agree that that particular plot of land is yours, before it's yours.  If somebody disagrees, and tries to take the land from you, you will need others of us to agree that you should keep it and help you resist the one who disagrees.  Maybe you will call a judge or a posse but either way it's not something you do by yourself.  So as property is inherently social consensus, what is taxation besides another social consensus about what is "ours" rather than "yours"?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation without representation is theft. There's a decent argument to be made that taxation that comes from the federal government is theft. However, that argument becomes less viable as you move to local taxes.

---

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation without representation is theft. There's a decent argument to be made that taxation that comes from the federal government is theft. However, that argument becomes less viable as you move to local taxes.

Make the argument.

---

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation without representation is theft. There's a decent argument to be made that taxation that comes from the federal government is theft. However, that argument becomes less viable as you move to local taxes.

If you're an adult and you don't get a vote on your taxes, that's tyranny or peonage, but not theft.  Tyranny is the use of government power contrary to the interests of the majority of adults, or, without their consent. Taxes easily become tyranny, sadly.

I agree that our federal government is dangerously close to tyranny, because many (perhaps even most) adults don't get a meaningful vote on who will represent them.  And those that do are often in rigged/gerrymandered districts.  The same argument applies to state level taxes in many states.  Thankfully Florida has turned back that trend at the state level, though our current governor is trying to reverse the progress at the federal level.  Undoing and banning gerrymandering, and reducing polarization through ranked-choice voting, are the projects our generation must take up to extend the life of our Republic.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You love to play word games, dude. What makes something tyrannical? It's the use of force or oppression. If conditions are agreed upon, there is no force. This is why representation matters. Someone could literally give all of their money to the government if they wanted to, and there would be no tyranny. Obviously, you aren't going to have everyone in an area agree to the exact same amount of taxes, but giving people the freedom to choose their leaders and have them adequately represent them is the fairest solution.

To Marty's questions, if elections are not transparent, accountable, and readily available, then it becomes hard for the people to be represented. Furthermore, the more things are done at the federal level, the less likely small groups of people can actually represent themselves or have a say in their government.

---

The Boomer's right: Taxation is not theft. It's an extortion, protection and confidence racket. So fraud, not theft.

---

You love to play word games, dude. What makes something tyrannical? It's the use of force or oppression. If conditions are agreed upon, there is no force. This is why representation matters. Someone could literally give all of their money to the government if they wanted to, and there would be no tyranny. Obviously, you aren't going to have everyone in an area agree to the exact same amount of taxes, but giving people the freedom to choose their leaders and have them adequately represent them is the fairest solution.

To Marty's questions, if elections are not transparent, accountable, and readily available, then it becomes hard for the people to be represented. Furthermore, the more things are done at the federal level, the less likely small groups of people can actually represent themselves or have a say in their government.

Force or the threat of force is inherent in all government, good or bad.  
Tyranny is simply bad government over a long time, or very very bad government for a shorter time.  The only difficult part of the definition is how do we define good or bad.  Meaningful voting at least guarantees that the government will basically adhere to what the majority of people see as good government.  Whether it meets a philosophical or religious definition of good is of course not guaranteed.
But we agree about this, that representation and the freedom to choose representatives matters.  What you fail to appreciate is how few people approve of the results of their representation, the acts of Congress.  You seem to know this abstractly as a fact, but you fail to see how dangerous it is, how much it invites a future strongman.  And you fail to see its very simple causes that are relatively simple to solve.  Closed primaries and choose-one voting inventivize candidates to make promises that sound good to 25% of the population of a district, but can never be kept because other elected representatives will not vote for the promises.  Some of our population like me can clearly see a solution that will encourage compromise and consensus, while others of our population like you see the only solution as gerrymandering the opponents into irrelevance.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You love to play word games, dude. What makes something tyrannical? It's the use of force or oppression. If conditions are agreed upon, there is no force. This is why representation matters. Someone could literally give all of their money to the government if they wanted to, and there would be no tyranny. Obviously, you aren't going to have everyone in an area agree to the exact same amount of taxes, but giving people the freedom to choose their leaders and have them adequately represent them is the fairest solution.

To Marty's questions, if elections are not transparent, accountable, and readily available, then it becomes hard for the people to be represented. Furthermore, the more things are done at the federal level, the less likely small groups of people can actually represent themselves or have a say in their government.

Force or the threat of force is inherent in all government, good or bad.  
Tyranny is simply bad government over a long time, or very very bad government for a shorter time.  The only difficult part of the definition is how do we define good or bad.  Meaningful voting at least guarantees that the government will basically adhere to what the majority of people see as good government.  Whether it meets a philosophical or religious definition of good is of course not guaranteed.
But we agree about this, that representation and the freedom to choose representatives matters.  What you fail to appreciate is how few people approve of the results of their representation, the acts of Congress.  You seem to know this abstractly as a fact, but you fail to see how dangerous it is, how much it invites a future strongman.  And you fail to see its very simple causes that are relatively simple to solve.  Closed primaries and choose-one voting inventivize candidates to make promises that sound good to 25% of the population of a district, but can never be kept because other elected representatives will not vote for the promises.  Some of our population like me can clearly see a solution that will encourage compromise and consensus, while others of our population like you see the only solution as gerrymandering the opponents into irrelevance.

To the first bolded part, is there ANY level of expert consensus that supports that [BLEEP] definition you just made up? 

To the second, go [BLEEP] yourself, you [BLEEP]. When have I EVER said that. Stop misrepresenting people to try to get your point across. I get that you think we need voting reform, but that is secondary to getting money out of politics. I would be open to other reform, but it doesn't make a difference if people can spend billions of dollars on politics. The rich will always be represented more than the average person. I am one of the most open minded people on this board. I am open to changing almost anything if it will improve our system. Don't put words in my mouth.

---

Force or the threat of force is inherent in all government, good or bad.  
Tyranny is simply bad government over a long time, or very very bad government for a shorter time.  The only difficult part of the definition is how do we define good or bad.  Meaningful voting at least guarantees that the government will basically adhere to what the majority of people see as good government.  Whether it meets a philosophical or religious definition of good is of course not guaranteed.
But we agree about this, that representation and the freedom to choose representatives matters.  What you fail to appreciate is how few people approve of the results of their representation, the acts of Congress.  You seem to know this abstractly as a fact, but you fail to see how dangerous it is, how much it invites a future strongman.  And you fail to see its very simple causes that are relatively simple to solve.  Closed primaries and choose-one voting inventivize candidates to make promises that sound good to 25% of the population of a district, but can never be kept because other elected representatives will not vote for the promises.  Some of our population like me can clearly see a solution that will encourage compromise and consensus, while others of our population like you see the only solution as gerrymandering the opponents into irrelevance.

To the first bolded part, is there ANY level of expert consensus that supports that [BLEEP] definition you just made up? 

To the second, go [BLEEP] yourself, you [BLEEP]. When have I EVER said that. Stop misrepresenting people to try to get your point across. I get that you think we need voting reform, but that is secondary to getting money out of politics. I would be open to other reform, but it doesn't make a difference if people can spend billions of dollars on politics. The rich will always be represented more than the average person. I am one of the most open minded people on this board. I am open to changing almost anything if it will improve our system. Don't put words in my mouth.

I shouldn't have said you favor gerrymandering.  I'm sorry for that.  I was staying on my topic and my mind got lazy.
But you do look with favor on those who are "just asking questions" about vote totals, though, and that's actually worse.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No. It's not. There is no transparency in our elective process. There needs to be easy ways for people to vote and for other people to verify it. Our current system is broken, and I believe it was broken by people who want to exploit it. I don't have proof (other than numbers that don't add up), but it doesn't matter when you have one side of the aisle that wants anyone to vote (even if they aren't citizens), people underage to vote, no voter id, no voter signature, no showing ID, and ballot harvesting... I mean, c'mon, dude. No one who wants a fair and transparent election is for those things unless they know it creates an advantage for them. That alone is an issue that needs to be addressed, but you don't ever say a WORD about it. But you know what you do talk about? "Racist" voting restrictions championed by the same people who are trying to remove every possible way we can verify voters. It's ridiculous. The vote total in this country is being enlarged by large amounts of illegals gaining access to vote without fear of repercussions, and densely populated, heavily blue areas are outperforming all others. I believe that's because we don't thoroughly regulate those areas, and when we do, it's because we're "racist."

---

No. It's not. There is no transparency in our elective process. There needs to be easy ways for people to vote and for other people to verify it. Our current system is broken, and I believe it was broken by people who want to exploit it. I don't have proof (other than numbers that don't add up), but it doesn't matter when you have one side of the aisle that wants anyone to vote (even if they aren't citizens), people underage to vote, no voter id, no voter signature, no showing ID, and ballot harvesting... I mean, c'mon, dude. No one who wants a fair and transparent election is for those things unless they know it creates an advantage for them. That alone is an issue that needs to be addressed, but you don't ever say a WORD about it. But you know what you do talk about? "Racist" voting restrictions championed by the same people who are trying to remove every possible way we can verify voters. It's ridiculous. The vote total in this country is being enlarged by large amounts of illegals gaining access to vote without fear of repercussions, and densely populated, heavily blue areas are outperforming all others. I believe that's because we don't thoroughly regulate those areas, and when we do, it's because we're "racist."

I have never complained that any attempt to change the voting process was racist.  Don't put words in my mouth now.  I favor things like photo ID being required to vote.  
I have noted that, historically, low income and black neighborhoods have had longer wait times and less convenient polling locations, but that's in the past and also irrelevant with mail in voting being so popular now.  
In fact, I blame the race-baiters among us, the Democrats in Florida, for sinking the top-two primary amendment, when they convinced white liberals that it would hurt Black people.  And of course it won't.  But I digress.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Boomer's right: Taxation is not theft. It's an extortion, protection and confidence racket. So fraud, not theft.

Brilliantly stated!  +1

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

No. It's not. There is no transparency in our elective process. There needs to be easy ways for people to vote and for other people to verify it. Our current system is broken, and I believe it was broken by people who want to exploit it. I don't have proof (other than numbers that don't add up), but it doesn't matter when you have one side of the aisle that wants anyone to vote (even if they aren't citizens), people underage to vote, no voter id, no voter signature, no showing ID, and ballot harvesting... I mean, c'mon, dude. No one who wants a fair and transparent election is for those things unless they know it creates an advantage for them. That alone is an issue that needs to be addressed, but you don't ever say a WORD about it. But you know what you do talk about? "Racist" voting restrictions championed by the same people who are trying to remove every possible way we can verify voters. It's ridiculous. The vote total in this country is being enlarged by large amounts of illegals gaining access to vote without fear of repercussions, and densely populated, heavily blue areas are outperforming all others. I believe that's because we don't thoroughly regulate those areas, and when we do, it's because we're "racist."

I have never complained that any attempt to change the voting process was racist.  Don't put words in my mouth now.  I favor things like photo ID being required to vote.  
I have noted that, historically, low income and black neighborhoods have had longer wait times and less convenient polling locations, but that's in the past and also irrelevant with mail in voting being so popular now.  
In fact, I blame the race-baiters among us, the Democrats in Florida, for sinking the top-two primary amendment, when they convinced white liberals that it would hurt Black people.  And of course it won't.  But I digress.

You most certainly have claimed such a thing.

---

You know, maybe I am putting words in your mouth, though the dots connect themselves. Maybe you said disenfranchised voters, but the people who say that typically are referring to "racist" policies that cause it. I wish I could remember the window to search for that argument, because I know we've had it..

---

I have never complained that any attempt to change the voting process was racist.  Don't put words in my mouth now.  I favor things like photo ID being required to vote.  
I have noted that, historically, low income and black neighborhoods have had longer wait times and less convenient polling locations, but that's in the past and also irrelevant with mail in voting being so popular now.  
In fact, I blame the race-baiters among us, the Democrats in Florida, for sinking the top-two primary amendment, when they convinced white liberals that it would hurt Black people.  And of course it won't.  But I digress.

You most certainly have claimed such a thing.

---

You know, maybe I am putting words in your mouth, though the dots connect themselves. Maybe you said disenfranchised voters, but the people who say that typically are referring to "racist" policies that cause it. I wish I could remember the window to search for that argument, because I know we've had it..

I avoid using the term disenfranchised.  It's overused by disingenuous people.  The turnout rate from black people has been very high lately, and that's a good thing.  Republicans should try to win those votes through persuasion, now that they are out there voting.
However, most Republicans have decided persuasion is for the birds, and they are just going to gerrymander their way into getting what they want.  A photo ID law might dissuade a couple thousand poor people from voting.  Insignificant. A gerrymandered map makes the actual votes of millions of people utterly meaningless.  Significant.  Ignore the one and focus on the other.  This is one area where Trump, maybe in spite of himself, is doing really well for Republicans.  He does a great job, compared to other Republicans,  of reaching out to non white people and winning their votes. And he has never called for gerrymandering.  But as I said before, his call to totally ignore the entire process and replace it with threats of violence nullifies this one good aspect of his.
Anyhow, I really think you have me confused for someone else.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Boomer's right: Taxation is not theft. It's an extortion, protection and confidence racket. So fraud, not theft.

Good point. 

But they're still stealing from us if we don't pay our property tax and they take it from us. That's how I see it anyway. If you take from me without paying me you're stealing from me.

---

Another way to look at it is that you're stealing from the community by not paying your taxes. We use the roads, and police services, and the like. I don't think most of us object to paying for those services. It's when we start spending so much money in such ways that nobody can keep track of it or hold the government accountable. That's where we are in the process. We definitely have rampant fraud.

---