Ever tell someone that taxation is theft and they roll their eyes at you? I think we’ve all been there. Do you want to show people something that proves without a doubt that taxation is theft? Jeffrey Hann of Journalistic Revolution has provided that service to us with his recent piece called “Taxation is theft, by definition.”
I completely agree with Hann that agreeing on definitions is of huge importance when having a discussion with someone. If you’re don’t agree on definitions, then you might be arguing about two completely different things. That gets both parties nowhere. But how easy would it be to get someone to agree that the definition of taxation includes theft? Instead of using the typical moral arguments, Hann uses root definitions to show the meaning of words.
And it’s very effective.
Here is Hann:
Rhetoric (TLDR): Taxation is theft. A tax was originally an additional charge of handling property (like a service fee) but taxation quickly became obligatory contributions paid to governments and churches, obligatory through force. The difference between the two meanings is voluntary vs obligatory. Free people can voluntarily choose what to do with their product of labor, their property, their capital, while slaves are forced to hand it over to their masters.
Did you know that Taxation Is Theft? It is, by definition. The very first article I ever wrote was a seven-pager on Why Taxation Is Theft. That article focuses more on examples on why Taxation Is Theft, lightly going over the definitions of the words, and options for moving away from taxation. It has been some time since I have addressed Taxation Is Theft and recently it has become a hot topic discussion, so I figured I should once again write about how Taxation Is Theft using the Trivium Method of Critical Thinking: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric in order. If you are unsure what the Trivium is or the concept please go research it, it is a life changer that is no longer taught to society.
Using only modern definitions of words is a subjective process due to everyone wanting to add their own twist. There is a problem with this process though, without objective truths, and the understanding of definitions, communication begins degrade quickly. When someone adds something to a definition of a word that you don’t agree with, how can you reach the same conclusion and rhetoric that they have without agreeing to the definition being used? This is why definitions need to be agreed upon before Logic can be debated.
Like what you’re reading? Let us keep in touch and subscribe to us!