If red is blue, then tax is theft. From a false premise, all conclusions can be drawn.

Theft is not taking involuntarily. Theft is taking illegally which is an important distinction to make. I take your watch. I want to keep it. It's taken from me against my will. That's certainly not theft.

Is law arbitrary? Slavery was legal once. Was slavery OK back then?

From the Hacker News Guidelines:

> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

Well, the original post is still not flagged, and the topic is started there, not by my comment.

> Employing every legal trick to minimize taxes is moral and encouraged.

That's your opinion. Many people disagree that minimizing taxes through tricks and borderline "optimization" is moral (see: tax avoidance [0]).

Not everybody shares the same moral compass, as it is linked to many factors, including your political beliefs, country, education, etc.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Public_opinion

Taxation is not theft in a democracy. If you don't like the taxes, campaign to have them changed. Or move to another country. We as a society agree to the taxes we have through our elected officials who represent us.

Your argument is also applicable to slavery or racial segregation.

No, it isn't, my dude. That comparison is not only ridiculous but offensive.

With slavery, the slaves don't get a voice. They can't choose to not be slaves. With taxation in a democracy you can choose to run for office and change the laws yourself if you really wanted. Or you can just work to get someone else who better represents your views elected.

With racial segregation, again, the victims don't get a voice. They are prevented from voting, they are intimidated and oppressed.

You are not being oppressed because we've chosen to pay taxes to fix the roads and take care of the elderly.

Not if slaves/segregated are minority.

Theft is defined by law so no Tax is not theft. There isn't an objective definition of theft. No one owns anything by any other definition than what society or the strongest define.

A person owns himself or herself. Slavery is immoral and wrong even where it is legal or was legal.

No they dont own themself there is no such thing in nature as owning yourself. It's something we have agreed upon over thousands of years but you don't actually own yourself.

If you are the strongest you can stand for yourself but there is no natural law that prevents someone from making you a slave of them.

No ones saying that in the law of the jungle that isnt the case. It's different rules there for sure. But thats why we have progressed to where we are today.

Since We live in a western democratic civilization, and there are laws against that very thing, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

What I am saying is that the theft discussion is defined by society and the laws of society. So you can't claim that Tax is theft.

Then neither is tax avoidance.

Not naturally no. Only be the law of society just like ownership is given by society and doesn't exist "out there"

I was responding to a claim that tax is theft if theft is defined by involuntarily giving something up.

In th natural/positive law debate, I am strongly on the natural side.

What natural side? Where do you ultimately get the right to ownership from if not purely from your ability to fight for your claim to ownership?

It just doesn't exist "out there"

Some arbitrary atrocities were made legal at some points in history. Were they morally more acceptable after that?

No. But society functioned better after we agreed to personal ownership. To maintain that though there is a price, that price is taxes.

If you want to not pay taxes you either must take the punishment, fight to become the defining power of said society or move to somewhere you don't have to pay taxes.

Some pay taxes voluntarily.

This is called "charity", which is totally fine and also encouraged.

Don't forget to claim the tax deduction though

Happily. Like I said, every little thing helps.

Just like governments have a monopoly on violence, they also (somewhat consequentially) have a monopoly on theft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

basing states' moral rights on the monopoly of violence (instead of secondary concerns like avoiding the tragedy of the commons and establishing a baseline living standard) opens the door to justifying pretty much any violent state action. Governments having a monopoly on violence means they technically have a monopoly on genocide too, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.

And just about any violent state action happens various places and nations get away with that all the time.

A lot of people are confusing what reality is with how we want it to be.