My conclusions: a. Humans have evolved into socially needing to exist with each other.
b. In general, the various societies across the world have different styles - democracy, dictatorship, kingdoms, capitalism, socialism,etc.
c. In general, most of us have the choice of leaving a particular social group and then moving away to another social group. Somewhat easy to do within a country if you are a citizen or are authorised to do so. Somewhat difficult in some cases (e.g., you are not permitted to leave the country).
d. If an individual doesn't agree with social norms and "laws", they may most likely still have the option to leave. They will need to relocate to some other place where they are permitted to do (or can get away with doing) what they want to do.
If I live in a country, then my predecessors decided together to create a tax system whereby all residents contribute tax, and in exchange receive certain benefits. To prevent free-loading, tax is made mandatory. To ensure some form of proportionate taxation, there are tax slabs.
If they are not receiving these benefits, then they need correct the situation. If they feel they are being over-taxed, then they need to present the reasons, and hopefully have sufficient auditing and electoral process in place to correct the over-taxation.
If they don't like this and are not effective enough, they (mostly) have the options of reconciling to the situation, or of leaving.
They were your legal guardians and were permitted to do so.
Yes, it happened in the past. But the consent doesn't expire until people change the constitution (anything else is insane, as you could never form a government of any sort).
Until then, those are the rules of the country, and living here means abiding by them.
The argument that "i didn't vote on this personally and therefore i did not consent" is not sane. It may be a sane argument before say, age of majority. Even then you could be emancipated and leave. But once you hit age of majority, you are consenting by staying. Note that in basically every legal system that has ever existed, you are also consenting by exercising any other rights. Like any contract, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you consent too, you can either ratify the document as a whole and adopt the contract or not.
But note: If you don't, this is the same document that enables folks to have the power to make it illegal for people to murder you, and enforce that, so ...
No. There is no consent.
Again, the document you refuse to consent to is literally the only thing granting you the benefit of being here.
You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room. The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group.
I have to use my social/economic power. And yes I am happy to "pay taxes" to them. Because I need them but not to a welfare/UBI-addict who just takes.
And whats up with assumption that everyone will steal from everyone all the time if it were not for Govt ?
Whether or not you personally agree to the social contract, so long as you own property or have personal integrity protected in any way by the functions of a state, you are a beneficiary of the social contract. In its absence, you have rights solely to the extent that the strength of your own limbs can ensure them.
There are societies with neither taxation, or the idea of individual ownership of belongings.
Nothing does. You don't have an objective right to life.
>Everyone has natural rights.
There is no such thing as a natural right.
Natural right implies that it is a objective right, something that can be reasoned to be always true no matter the mindset of those who reason.
Human rights or just about all rights we have are subjective, we made them up.
And yes, that includes all basic human rights. Your right not to be violently murdered is at it's essence a subjective notion that you don't want to be murdered above all.
It's true that some documents have documented these rights, notably the declaration of independence and some other similar. But that doesn't change the subjectivity of these documents either.
>You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room.
Again, this is entirely subjective. The other two people in the room might massively disagree and argue that since their are in the majority, they have every right to do what they want with you and your property.
It entirely depends on the moral and ethical framework used by those in the room.
For some, it might be fully ethical to murder you and practice their cannibalism a bit.
>The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group.
Which is just as subjective.
Most people in the US seem to agree that the moral framework they have constructed is beneficial to them and that a majority rule is sufficiently moral and ethical to ignore the complaints of the few.
You can whine about it all day but it doesn't change that the majority believes that a majority can rule (which is an entirely subjective notion).
You are free, now, presumably as an adult, to revoke your consent and citizenship. We won't stop you.
Until then, those are the rules of the country, and living here means abiding by them.
Again this isn't a compelling argument, or even a point. You might say that about any state - totalitarian or not. I'm struggling not to invoke Godwins law here.
The argument that "i didn't vote on this personally and therefore i did not consent" is not sane. It may be a sane argument before say, age of majority. Even then you could be emancipated and leave. But once you hit age of majority, you are consenting by staying. Note that in basically every legal system that has ever existed, you are also consenting by exercising any other rights. Like any contract, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you consent too, you can either ratify the document as a whole and adopt the contract or not.
Again, this logic leads to some terrifying conclusions. Your argument is that by living in an area under jurisdiction by a given state, you consent to everything the state does to you because you haven't fled. Again - think of all the things states potentially have the power to do, still do to this day, and have done in the past. It follows that everyone on the globe consents to these things unless they bcome refugees.
I've yet to see anyone make a coherent argument for "taxation isn't extortion" which doesn't immediately lead to the authoritarian conclusion that nothing a state does is a crime, and that anyone living in an area controlled by a state consents to whatever the state chooses to do. An argument I can at least respect "taxation is essentially extortion, but I believe the end justifies the means".
You have a say in how taxation works, through the political process. You're part of this system and are fully free to work to end all taxation.
And, you don't need to think that taxation is just, or fair, but it is in fact legal and applies to you until you either work to end it or move somewhere where it doesn't apply.
Theft is the unlawful, extrajudicial taking of something without permission.
Put simply: we all agreed to be taxed (for most of us, our parents agreed on our behalf when we were born), but theft happens without our agreeing to anything.
When you reach the age of majority, you are free to revoke your consent by leaving the area and renouncing your citizenship.
You really don't have to stay if you don't like the laws. You don't even have to move, if you can get enough people on board to changing them.
You have a lot of options, but very few of them make "taxation is theft" into a meaningful sentence.
Can you explain to me how it's not theft? It's money taken from you whether you consent or not under threat of force. I suppose more technically that's extortion, but there mere fact you get some services in return doesn't change the fact it's not voluntary and done under threat of force.