As someone on the for side for BI, I still see "lawful taxation" as an equivalent of armed robbery.

Try to dodge the tax man for enough money there will be gunmen at your door to take you to prison.

> Try to dodge the tax man for enough money there will be gunmen at your door to take you to prison.

Eventually, yes. That's also true if you try to dodge your local restaurant, after availing yourself of their services.

Of course the practical inability to refrain from "using" government is a big difference! But it needs to be included in the analysis - it is not as simple as "if you don't pay, there will eventually be force; ergo it is robbery".

I think you and I are on the same point for this so there isn't much point going further.

Probably not quite the same point - I think there's clearly some difference between paying for my meal and paying taxes, but I also think there's clearly some difference between paying taxes and paying a mugger (especially in a well-functioning society).

I just don't think the first difference is well expressed by pointing out that force is eventually involved.

That would entirely depend on how you feel about taxes and how you're government uses them.

As someone who's experienced both a muggings and police brutality I'm not really going to see much of a difference.

If it's simply a question of feelings, then I agree this isn't likely to wind up anywhere interesting. Best.

Without wishing to take sides on the controversial issue of whether taxation is morally permissable, I would like to add that what I call "lawful taxation" is different from arbitrary confiscation. I call taxation "lawful" if it is collected according to rules that are knowable at the time is incurred.

I think we're both aware, the lawful part wasn't up for debate, we're more discussing whether its moral/ethical than anything else.

I think it is a necessary evil for the most part but I still hold the opinion it isn't something you get a choice in.