Question

...
DrBill

Assertion: "Taxation is theft". How does the fallacy-free argument address the assertion.

The argument may start from any clear assumption.  An assumption is an axiom imo, and is not itself assailable by logic, though it may not be factual.

I have proposed this elsewhere, and am aware of the usual counterarguments, so am asking here to see how logic/rhetoric interact in a forum dedicated to noting fallacies.

asked on Monday, Feb 24, 2020 05:42:28 PM by DrBill

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Hi DrBill. Can you perhaps rephrase the question or expand on it a bit? I think I understand what you are asking, but rather be more confident before spending 20 minutes answering the wrong question :)

posted on Monday, Feb 24, 2020 06:38:08 PM
...
0
DrBill writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

It was intentionally barren of details or phrasing, so that attack or support would arise from logical analysis of the assertion.  If I say p1...., p2.... and therefore taxation is theft, all I may get is responses to p1 and p2.  I will acknowledge that taxation is necessary for some elements of government and that calling it "theft" is a rhetorical pejorative, but consider it as less pejorative than "robbery" (which substitutes threat of force for subterfuge, though tof is the reality imo).  It is open-ended, but after all, there are questions of God/god on your site.

So I invite analysis to see how the logical responses address the assertion.  I hope it does not immediately devolve into simple Left/Right politics.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 25, 2020 01:37:02 PM
...
0
DrBill writes:
[To DrBill]

Just after I commented, Richard Aberdeen presented an analysis of the type I was hoping for.  

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 25, 2020 01:42:43 PM
...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:

Taxation may be viewed as "theft", but one is left wondering how well a large civilization on earth today would function without any public highways, national parks, schools, emergency, fire or police protection, various food, water and health regulations, air traffic control and, a host of other modern realities currently funded through taxation.

And then again, one is left wondering how well our own modern U.S. society would function without any public hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare and social security.

Just saying. . . 

posted on Tuesday, Feb 25, 2020 01:30:46 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
mike
1

One of the elements necessary for theft would be lack of consent, taxation lacks this element because consent is not required on the part of the taxpayer. I am speaking from the perspective of a Canadian resident, the right to tax is written into our constitution. 

Whether or not it's written into law, one could also claim that it's part of the social contract, while "theft" of ones personal property is generally regarded as a violation of the social contract, ie, I agree to pay the government some of my earnings via tax but I don't agree that others should be allowed to take my property with impunity.

"Taxation is theft" is a weak analogy.

answered on Tuesday, Feb 25, 2020 02:57:49 PM by mike

mike Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
DrBill writes:

Thank you.

posted on Tuesday, Feb 25, 2020 03:18:01 PM
...
0
James writes:

I disagree. The extent to which it is a weak analogy depends on the extent to which it is like theft (or more appropriately, robbery). If a highwayman came to your door demanding money from you at the end of a gun, it would obviously be robbery. The only difference between this and 'taxation' is that in the next scenario, this guy works for 'the man.' The common robber could also come with a jimmied up a document that claims your consent is not required, because you live in his hood. He could even use some of the money toward projects that benefit you in some way. The only difference between this and a "Constitution" is the extent you which you feel loyal to it.

If you subscribe to certain other arguments and assumptions, it may just be a weak analogy--such as the social contract, a sense of duty toward one's fellow citizens, etc--for you. But there is no genuine difference between the two scenarios, only the things that we may subscribe to that make us feel different about the two. 

Point is, weather or not it is seen as a weak analogy depends on one's perspective of it.

posted on Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020 04:09:55 PM
...
0
mike writes:
[To James]

My argument of weak analogy was made in the context of one who recognizes the authority of the state and buys into the theory of the social contract.

In your scenario where one doesn't share that perspective yes the argument of weak analogy breaks down.

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020 06:35:39 PM