Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that the average person believes taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").

The way I see it, taxes are institutionalized theft. That is, theft that has been made "legitimate." But how does someone take something immoral and convert it into something moral?

I've pose two questions to help sort out the difference between theft performed by an individual and institutionalized theft (that is, theft by a group of individuals, also known as government).

1. If taxation is not theft, what would government have to do in order to commit theft?
2. If taxation is not theft, is over-taxation theft?

For some reason, the first question takes a lot of effort for people to answer. It's a little out of left field, right? The second question sort-of gives an inch to the idea. In fact, it allows the you to answer the first question and open the door to the idea that taxation is actually theft.

If I can get some agreement from above line of questioning, I can bring it home with a soliloquy I call "The Magic Threshold."

The Magic Threshold

Questions:

1. Is it possible for an individual to do the same?
2. Is there a certain level at which taking something that's not yours is also not theft until a certain nominal level, then after that level is crossed, it becomes theft?
3. If so, what was it called before the theft threshold is crossed for that individual?

You might simply reply, "I don't think it applies to the individual. It applies to the collective of society."
To which I reply, "But I assume you are not suggesting that collectives are bound by a different set of moral consideration, right?"