Tax is theft and a violation of the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). It is really that simple. In fact, tax is worse than person to person petty theft because of the threat of violence that facilitates it. There is a big difference between someone stealing your wallet when you are not looking and someone pulling out a gun to demand it.

So describing tax as theft is not just an accurate assessment, if anything, it is actually an understatement.
Tax is essentially akin to armed robbery in the sense that you do not have the option of resistance to this form of theft.

Governments rob you and if you resist in anyway, if you even attempt to avoid this theft, you are arrested.
If your resistance persists it will eventually end with you being violently assaulted and even potentially killed.
To say you could be killed may at first seem an exaggeration to some people, but step back and consider the implications of resisting arrest and you will realise that such a potential is very real. In fact it is the only logical resolution to continued resistance.  
It is of course rare for a person to be killed over this, though sadly not unheard of, but the threat is there none the less, regardless of how unlikely it is to come to that extreme.
Usually lethal force is not required, because non lethal force is sufficient to force your compliance, but it is the end result of continued resistance when the police come to arrest you.
The laws of this current system are enforced under a mandated ethos of comply or die. So make no mistake, tax is not simply theft. It is theft facilitated by the threat of force, up to and including death, for those who do not submit.

There is another basic implication behind the tax system that confirms its immorality and its violation of the non aggression principle.
It is evidence of the continuation of slavery. It is a declaration, by the government, that they own you, along with all their citizens.
To claim ownership over your labour is to claim ownership over you and, instead of having rights that are guaranteed to you, all you actually have is whatever temporary privileges the government grants you.

By claiming the right to take a percentage of your income (regardless of the percentage) the government is claiming ownership over you, your labour, your goods, everything you produce and everything you own.
Your take home pay, after government deductions, is just the allowance that they let you have. They have claimed ownership over all of your earning, even if they have only actually taken a certain percentage. The fact that they claim the right to take any percentage is indicative of their claim to all of it.

So the government simply take a percentage (with them deciding how much) of your earnings and leave you with an allowance for you to try and live on, with their numerous motivations for such an arrangement including the illusion of self ownership such an allowance can facilitate.
There is also the economical viability, from their perspective, of having a slave class that takes care of itself.
Such privileges contribute to the illusion of freedom as our self appointed owners realise that free range slaves are a more sustainable commodity than the traditional slaves of old.

For many people, the initial resistance to this simple truth is fuelled by the concern over how society can and will run without “public funding”.
Well, there are two important aspects to understand when dealing with such a question/concern. 

Point 1)
 From a moral perspective it simply does not matter how society can run without tax revenue to fund it. The ends do not justify the means and no matter how well meaning a social program might be, no matter how worthy the cause, and no matter how popular, it does not justify theft. It does not justify initiating force against innocent people.
That basic truth is beyond dispute, tax is theft and has no moral justification on its own. The practicalities do not affect the morality in this sense. Slavery is wrong regardless of whether a viable alternative is presented.

There are many causes worthy of donations but that does not justify robbing people to fund them, especially when such theft is facilitated by such extreme violence that can only come from “the state”.
People can come up with the most heart wrenching examples of how a person may suffer or even die without the assistance of a “publically funded” social program. Just as there are equally heart wrenching examples of the same consequences to currently unfunded, or under funded, programs that are not currently in receipt of “public funds”. But none of these examples justify theft anymore than it would in a situation where a social program was not currently involved.
It may be somewhat more valiant to steal from some people to give to others, but it would still be theft and the innocence of the victims along with the threat of force attached would only add to the criminality.

Of course there would need to be an adherence to the Non Aggression Principle for both sides of the coin when it came to ending state violence and those dependant on public funds or government assistance cannot be simply cut loose without consideration, as that would itself be a violation of the NAP if it resulted in harm.
It is not just a case of taking back everything that has been stolen and ending the theft without consideration for those dependant on the facilitated programs. 
To use this metaphor "If someone was on top of a stolen ladder it would be a violation of the Non Aggression Principle to reclaim that stolen property by pulling it out from under them, especially if the person you harm by doing so had no direct involvment in the original theft of the ladder."
So while it is just for us to end the theft of taxation and the oppression of governments, we must break these chains in a way that does not directlly result in harm to others.

The Non Aggression Agreement (Sanity Agreement) will not allow any action that causes harm or loss, two wrongs do not make a right when it comes to morality and for this reason care must be taken when enacting the revolution proposed by the Nations Of Sanity.
The criminality has to end with out using criminality.

There is a lot of suffering and death that can be prevented without government intervention, arguably with greater efficiency, but it is down to us to voluntarily facilitate such assistance to people, we cannot just force others to pay for the causes we believe in.
By robbing people to pay for poorly run social programs we just sustain the dependence and prevent the solutions and improvements that can bring real tangible help to people.

State run social programs and services are not motivated to be effective or self sustaining in anyway and no real recourse or remedy is available for ineptitude, ineffectiveness and even provable corruption, despite regular demonstrations of all these failings.

It is not the social programs themselves that are inherently wrong, it is the means of funding them. However this criminal element has knock on effects.

Ineffective or even counterproductive wastes of “public” money and resources is so common it has almost become cliché. When playing with stolen money that will keep flowing, there is no incentive for efficiency and while there are countless examples of overstretched and under paid workers in the “public sector”, which alone would suggest money is tight, there is also massive wastes of obscenely large chunks of “public” money and resources that suggests an over abundance of funds available.

Many of the current social programs could be made obsolete by solving the relevant problems, others can simply become self sustaining and no longer require funding. Where funding is required, a population that is no longer being robbed through inflation and taxes is likely to be more inclined to donate voluntarily and the programs themselves will be more inclined to be efficient and effective. Plus the injustices that cause many problems will be cut off at their source.

Though there would be understandable scepticism over the claim that people would voluntarily contribute to such programs such disbelief can be countered with the following.
*The massive funding many charities receive.
*The obvious logic that a person who is not robbed to support causes they disapprove of is likely to be more inclined to support what they do approve of.
*The simple fact that by hook or by crook a large percentage of people already do not contribute to anything.
So the fear that a voluntary society would have large numbers of people who refuse to contribute is not overly rational when you consider that this is already the case in the current system, so would not be a new challenge in that respect. At worst it is a problem that persists unsolved rather than a problem created by the change.

There is also to consider that by simply re assigning the current ill-gotten funds and resources of the government, currently wasted in areas that go against public wishes, we could keep many of the social programs people do care about and sustain them for a considerable amount of time before voluntary funding would even be required. And in such a time it would be a very achievable task to redesign and alter the infrastructure in a way that such programs are able to offer a lot more for a lot less, which would only make them easier to sustain, or better yet make obsolete by solving the problem they address.

There is no reason why we cannot have a national health system that provides free health care for all, but we cannot fund it with stolen money taken from people through force.
In fact a voluntary system would be more accountable and efficiency would be easier to attain.

So if enough people agree that we should provide free health care for the sake of those who cannot otherwise afford it then those people can voluntarily contribute to such a system (and there are numerous innovative ways to do this that are superior to standard donating). But what they cannot do is force others to pay for such things.
Though charities are not above corruption, and many are guilty of deception and even outright fraud, charities do not inherently violate the law of non aggression because they are not funded by the stolen money of tax revenue. Many may be guilty of fraud, which makes them criminal for that reason alone, but a charity by definition does not use force or theft to operate and as such is not inherently immoral.
The massive funding many of these bloated corporation like entities acquire is evidence of the willingness to donate to worthy causes.

The democratic will of the people has motivated sufficient donations to various causes that currently receive no “public funding” and there is no reason why this principle could not, or should not, apply to all services we think the government currently provides. Especially when you consider the potential for an increased generosity and voluntary commitment from people to the programs they choose when they are no longer being robbed to pay for things they do not choose, or in many cases actively oppose.

Of course enough theft has occurred and enough “publically owned” resources and property exists for imbalances to be addressed and corrections to be made before voluntary contributions are even needed to replace tax revenue as a means of sustaining all vital services.
The Non Aggression Principle demands that you let someone climb down from the stolen ladder (to reuse that metaphor) before you take it back, especially when that person had no part in stealing it originally.
Though voluntary funding will be the way forward, what to do with what has already been stolen (minus what either cannot be returned or is gone for good) is a decision that can be made by a truly democratic process.

Imagine, for example, if the tax you were forced to pay was at least sent to a program or cause of your choice. You don't get to choose whether to pay tax, or how much you pay, but you are given choice regarding where your contribution goes.
It would still be theft but at least the destination of this ill-gotten gains will be decided by you.
Alternatively, if you were permitted to vote for where taxes should go then the destination would be democratically decided. Again, it would still be theft, and it would still be wrong. But it would at least be democratic.
Currently, in addition to being robbed, the destination of this stolen money is not even democratically decided, let alone something you as an individual has any say in.

So imagine now that in addition to having full say in where your money goes, you have the right not to contribute at all if you choose. For better or worse such a right is a consequence of freedom.

A strong argument can be made for righting many wrongs and pulling people out of poverty and dependence before they are forced to rely on either themselves or the kindness and charity of others. In fact to a certain extent the Non Aggression Principle demands this. 
The freedom to act against criminality does not allow you to cause harm or loss to innocent people and for this reason the revolution must be handled with care. 

A welfare state has been purposely created to manufacture a dependency on the state so that self interest will motivate a certain loyalty, from parts of the population, to the current system and it would not seem fair to simply change the rules and cut such people adrift with out warning or assistance.
We can't just ignore that the government has created a dependant class through numerous acts of criminality, nor can we just cut such people adrift with out warning or effort to secure an alternative safety net for them, or preferably a path out of dependence where possible.
But that is where the second point comes in.

Point 2) Even though it is vital to understand that a lack of alternative does not justify the theft and violence of taxes and that, regardless of the cause, tax is theft and a clear violation of the Non Aggression Principle, it is also important to understand that there are alternatives and an end to taxes does not mean the death of all public services and social programs. It just means an end to the criminality that funds such programs.
The social programs that exist today can be funded through voluntary means. In fact, even before this is necessary, actions can be taken to designate the pre-stolen public resources to programs that can create a self sufficiency for the welfare class, and indeed all people, which negates the needs for many social programs, while those that are still required can be more easily paid for, even when relying on voluntary funding and support.

Voluntary alternatives to tax and the Regulated Market.

One final point to consider when contemplating a life without tax is that we can retain certain forms of funding without retaining the theft, force and oppression associated with them.
Just as governments can be replaced like for like with a non violent alternative that retains many social programs and much of the infrastructure, the means of funding can be replaced by non violent versions too.
Just as government would likely lose its name as it loses the defining criminality associated with the term government, taxes would also lose their name when the forceful, violent, thieving nature that defines them is removed.

For example, the government has never had any moral right to take income taxes from people and, in addition to the numerous other immoralities associated with such taxes (theft, force, etc.) the claim to income tax represents a claim of ownership over people.

Though also immoral in its current incarnation, because it utilises the governments monopoly over the initiation of force and declares government ownership on all forms of trade, the duty taxes or sales taxes (referred to in the UK as VAT) can be replaced by a regulatory fee applied to willing participants in the regulated market.
The important distinction between this and the current duty taxes that exist is that it will not be deemed to be a criminal offence to trade outside of the regulated market. As such the force would be removed and they would become, in essence voluntary.

The desire to acquire goods and services through a regulated market that will offer certain guarantees will remain the advantage over the black market which will already be massively diminished by the universal legality of so many previously prohibited goods and services, in addition to being heavily purged of many criminal elements that were empowered under the previous (current) regime.
The regulated market will be the one thing that can be democratically owned by the population, just as the governments of today (that pose as democratic) own the current regulated markets.
The difference is that such an entity will no longer have the power to initiate force and as such cannot criminalise unregulated trade.
Alternative regulated markets can be created by disillusioned minorities who are dissatisfied with the regulated market of the democratic majority and, along with the unregulated market, will keep this voluntary alternative to government in check and on its toes regarding efficiency and the duty to take care of and represent the people.

So we could still apply a fee to goods traded in the regulated market, as a regulation fee if you like, which could be implemented much as duty taxes are currently.
The difference would be that by no longer criminalising unregulated trade the fees of the regulated market would become voluntary and lose their connection to criminality, force and state violence.
Yet the decriminalisation of the black market will not make the regulated market obsolete as only through the regulated market will consumers have protection and guarantees and with no exclusive market to command, thanks largely to the removal of all drug prohibitions, the black market will be severley diminished.

People will be free to both buy and sell through the unregulated market. But without regulation they will have no consumer rights or protection.
This may be acceptable for some people when trading in certain items, especially small trades among close communities, but generally people wish to have the guarantees of a regulated market and, combined with the contribution it makes to national services and programs, such differences will be the pivotal motivations for keeping the regulated market as the primary market in society.

We could replace the state with voluntary collectives and non violent democratic bodies that enjoy no more or less power than any free individual. Whether funded through voluntary collectives or through the regulated market, the power of such an organisation would be bound by the same condition that all free individuals are (the Non Aggression Agreement/Sanity Agreement).

Publically owned could be collectively owned (as a form of private ownership) and it would be down to those who own it, part own it, or contributed to it to decide how such programs would function and whether such programs will serve everyone or just those who contribute to it directly.
But if we want a body to represent all citizens equally, regardless of financial power, then we can have that too and that can be funded through the regulated market of any nation, which can serve as the democratic representatives of the citizens of each nation. Or people can cash out their rightful share of a nations wealth and persue a different path to that which is chosen by the democratic majority.

The freedom guaranteed through this will make such organisations truly democratic and while democracy will exist in a pure and true sense, rather than its current illusory state, it will still be bound by the NAP and cannot grant the power to oppress.  
As long as it abides by the NAP and does not initiate force on the unregulated market, competing regulated markets, or any individuals, then there would and could be no cause for complaint from free market idealists who wish to have no part of collective programs or democratic organisations, even those that have abandoned any use of force.

Democratic processes would be needed to delegate the utilisation of current publically owned resources to create ways to set things right but after that it is down to us to create the societies we want.
Socialism will only exist in a voluntary sense (if voluntary socialism is considered a contradiction in terms then an alternative name can be given to such social programs and community driven systems but essentially the programs can remain, the violence and force that facilitates them cannot).
All the virtuous aspects of our social programs will be retained if they are desirable enough and for many people it would be preferable to form giant collectives where the cost of resources can be drastically reduced to the point that not only is it cheaper for them than engaging individually in the capitalist markets but it may be feasible and even desirable to share such resources with those unable to contribute.

The traditionally right wing ethos of the free market can appear cold hearted when considering the people who could potentially suffer in the “dog eat dog” world of free market capitalism, but there really is no reason to assume that just because people are no longer being forced to fund social programs that all virtuous programs and systems will disappear.
It is also worth remembering that much of the harm associated with capitalism today is at the very least enabled by governments and without the immoral power of governments to back them up and with the NAP there to restrict them, corporations will simply not be allowed to cause the harm or loss they are currently guilty of.

Even if you doubt the potential of the voluntary collectives and charity like organisations, the regulated market can provide a safety net. 
Democracy won't die, it will simply just lose its power to oppress and violate, and as such will only serve as a decision making tool.

Also the corruption and greed driven exploitation of capitalism under the current system would be largely nulified by the enforcement of the Non Aggression Principle, which will be established as the new defining rule of law through the Non Aggression Agreement/Sanity Agreement.
Current corruption may be motivated by the inherent greed associated with capitalism but it is facilitated by government power and a complete corruption of law.
Only the Sanity agreement, defined by the NAP, can offer true protection to the poor, and everyone else.

The regulated market can provide the funds, as can various forms of voluntary collectives, for a safety net that serves all citizens equally and represents the people in a democratic manner.
As long as the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) is there to protect people’s rights from the potential oppression of democracy, which so easily descends into a crude example of mob rule or an undemocratic facade that merely pretends to be democratic, then no individual person needs to fear the potential tyranny that democracy can bring.
In addition to the potential funding through voluntary contributions and efforts, along with the alternative funding from the regulation fees that replace duty taxes, there is also the potential to revolutionise the efficiency of the social programs through the newly unleashed technologies that can thrive and proliferate in a free society.
Not only can the virtuous, desireable and essential programs and services be maintained but efficiency of them can soar beyond current standards, just as the need for them can be significantly diminished.

As previously stated, it is not the social programs themselves that are inherently immoral, it is the use of state violence, facilitating theft, that is currently used to fund such programs that is immoral.

So when we remove the theft and the use of state violence we will find that not only can we retain all the virtuous social programs we currently value but such programs will likely be infinitely more effective without the bureaucracy that currently stifles and compromises them, not to mention the ulterior incentives that corrupt them.

For many people it is easier to simply just think of the government as like the mafia. Such a comparison is actually quite appropiate when you consider it.
They shake us down for money to fund themselves and the occasional good deed on their part does not justify the criminal acts that preceded it.
Their racketeering, intimidation, violence and theft is their means of income and, usually for self serving reasons.
They will occasionally put some of their ill-gotten power and wealth into something virtuous (or at least bearing that appearance) but such acts do not actually make them virtuous as an entity.
Even the most morally reprehensible people can commit a virtuous act on occasion, but when funded by criminality they remain morally reprehensible, especially as the virtuous moments usually have self serving agendas driving their motivations.

So to summarise, tax is wrong because it is theft. It is a gross violation of the non aggression principle and a clear criminal act. The state violence that facilitates such theft only makes it more morally repugnant and only heightens the basic criminality involved.

We do not need taxes to fund society, in fact there is good reason to suggest that social programs, and society in general, will flourish more without such an ill-gotten source of funding. But even if you doubt the efficacy of voluntarily funded and supported programs, along with the viability of a non violent regulated market, such doubt does not legitimise the use of state violence.

It is time we stood back and asked what right our government has to claim ownership over us and all we do.
What right do they have to claim a monopoly over the use of force and use such monopolies to steal, assault, kidnap, plunder and even kill innocent people?
The only right they have is the right we collectively grant them, be it with misplaced support or lack of resistance.

It is time we realised that they have not yet confirmed a majority rule, we have just not challenged them and their claims of ownership over us, but if we do unite and rise up together to oppose their tyranny we may be able to create a democratically facilitated revolution and finally put an end to the insanity and the criminal violence that currently enslaves us all.
Together we can move forward when we agree to reject the criminality of the current system.
That means no more theft and no more initiations of force.
Good ideas do not require force, only immorality requires such a tool.

Add comment

Security code

Become A Volunteer

Join the Nations Of Sanity and help us create a real revolution of simple sanity

Join Now


Connect with Us