Thursday, May 25, 2017

Justification for "taxation"?

Is taxation somehow not theft because "the government owns the land"? Statists have made this assertion, but for me it only brings up more questions.

How did the government get the land? Does it really own it, or did it simply decide it owns it?

Can I form a government today and suddenly own all the land from this moment forward, no matter who has owned it, and no matter how many generations it has been in their family? And then "tax" them based on this presumed ownership?

If not, why not? What's the difference?

Is it the belief that a collective can do things that would be wrong for an individual to do? This is nothing but a superstitious belief.

Theft is still theft. It doesn't matter where it occurs-- either at stealing the land or stealing the money from those on the land.

That statist argument fails-- as do they all.

Uncle Scam is gonna need a bigger hat


This blog, like all of, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.


  1. used to be, "the king" owned the land.

    in time, the Scots fought for "Allodial title". That was basis for western civ...

    until "real estate tax" & "inheritance tax" & "epa" & "watershed" TOOK TITLE OF THE LANDS again. taken at gun point.

    maybe the scots will fight the self-declared king for allodial title again, cause the rest of us just gave it away with barely a whimper

    1. background on "allodial title"

      related, "freehold"

    2. Eminent domain

    3. You and I,
      we are merely tenants.

      the thug king with hired guns owns the land.

    4. In my eyes, you and I own the land, but there's a big gang of thugs who pretends to own it, and it's generally safer and easier to just pay the ransom than to try to kill them all. Thieves don't "own" the things they possess due to theft. But it's suicidal to confront them about it in this case.