Talk:Taxation as theft

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taxation as theft article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I'm the one that got my material cut for not having citation. I could fill this whole wiki on citations alone. An entire library could be filled wall to wall with books talking about taxation as theft. How much do I need to give? Thanks. Beaon (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have tagged this article with the POV template as it doesn't even pretend to make an attempt to meet the Neutral Point of View standard, completely disregarding this core, non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. The article was already tagged with the debate template, pointing out that it is written in the style of debate rather than in an encyclopedic manner. While this is an accurate description, far more important is the fact that the article clearly chooses one side of that debate over the other. The article's Counter-Arguments section is tagged with a template that warns that the existence of such a section may indicate that the article in not neutral. This is such a major understatement that it is almost amusing. Not only does the main body of the article ignore the NPOV policy, it appears that the sole reason for the inclusion of the Counter-Arguments section is so that each counter-argument can be refuted, as the article devotes more text in that section to explaining why each of the reasons for the opposing viewpoint is wrong than it does actually presenting the counter-arguments.

It will take massive rewriting to clean up this article and bring it in line with the NPOV policy. Currently the article reads as an essay in support of the Taxation As Theft viewpoint rather than an encyclopedia article about that subject.

Cadrac (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Men

The "How Many Men" thought Experiment should be restored since it is the justification of the position. "How Many Men" is also linked here from the "Thought Experiment" page, but the thought experiment is no longer here. (Dude6935 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It just needs proper references as per WP:V to be included. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPS are permissible if they are "used as sources of information about themselves". The article is proof that individualists espouse and defend the "How Many Men?" thought experiment. http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html Dude6935 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would argue that the article itself is not "proof" that someone espouses and defends the thought experiment -- that is, the article itself does not prove that someone other than the Wikipedia editor who inserted the material espouses and defends the experiment -- unless the material is properly sourced. In Wikipedia, we use reliable, previously published third party sources. We can't just insert unsourced material and then say "hey, it's in Wikipedia, so that must prove [fill in the blank]."

However, I would say leave the material in the article and look for better (or more) sourcing. Famspear (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was referring to the article in my link. That is the proof, not the Wikipedia article.Dude6935 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. Famspear (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs a better reference, which is why it is tagged. - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I just showed that SPS are permissible under the verifiability guidelines that Ahunt linked. Specifically WP:ABOUTSELF. Another possible source which is also permissible as about-self is George Ought to Help. Which of these citations should we use?Dude6935 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply in this case - that is for a self-published website or publication that provides information about himself. In this case you are using a self-published website as a source for text on the subject of taxation, not on the subject of the author himself. In the case of someone writing about a subject that is not about themseleves WP:SPS applies "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Please find a better ref for this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using a self-published website as a source for text on the subject of taxation. I am using self-published websites as sources for the espoused opinions of the authors. "How many men?" is an opinion. It is an idea that resides inside the minds of the authors. Their writings are evidence that this idea (which has been transcribed into a Wikipedia article) exists within their own minds. That is obviously about themselves. Dude6935 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if he said "I was born in (city) and live in (city), went to this school, etc" he would be talking about himself. The ref you cited is a merely a self-published piece about taxation and it is not an acceptable ref on Wikipedia. If it was then you could cite any blog that anyone published about any subject as it would be "an idea that resides inside the minds of the authors". Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia, which is why we have rules against using those kinds of sources. - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not a source on taxation. It is a source on a thought experiment. Why would you accept a third party source on the nature of the author's opinions, but not the author's own words? Such a source would not be appropriate to say that "the CIA killed Kennedy", but it would be sufficient to say that "John Doe believes that the CIA killed Kennedy", because he says so himself. Dude6935 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple - the source you are trying to use is "self-published" - we can't use it here on Wikipedia. If this thought experiment has any widespread use or validity then it will be widely quoted in reliable refs and can be sourced to those. If not then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored and rewritten the How Many Men? section based upon a discussion of the concept by former Superior Court Judge and constitutional law Professor Andrew Napolitano in Chapter 13 of his book. ( Napolitano, Andrew B. (October 18, 2011). "Chapter 13 Theft by Any Other name". It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. Thomas Nelson Inc. pp. 221–225. ISBN 978-1-59555-350-8.). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is complete, fixate.

The philosophical debate section is under philosophical debate. Stub is complete article, do not expand, fixate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.203.147 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boehner and Norquist

I removed the following paragraph:

"American Republicans such as Grover Norquist have in recent history been strongly anti-tax, with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner directly expressing the "taxation is theft" idea by saying "how much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government".

Citation: "Boehner Halts Talks on Cuts, and House G.O.P. Cheers". New York Times."

The Boehner quote is indeed in the article, but it is far from clear that that means that he endorses the idea that all taxation is theft. There are several possibile interpretations. He may be speaking rhetorically, and/or he may be consider the tax to be excessive, but not be opposed to taxation to fund things like the military or police. Meanwhile Norquist is clearly anti-tax, but it isn't clear that he considers taxation to be illegitimate. Using the quote in the context of this article gives the impression that Boehner and Norquist endorse the idea that taxation is illegitimate theft (not merely bad policy), and since that is not apparent from the source, it seems like WP:SYNTH. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation is Theft a meme paragraph

I have added references and I hope this is enough. The memes are very viral and this is why I think this information is important. Ronenspierer 15:10, 17 may 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ref. The only reason I took it down before is that it was not referenced and thus had no indication it was notable. It would helpful to add a sourced critique of this meme, since it obviously represents a very wing wing political view. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your approval and for expending the paragraph. The information you added is very important because it shows another side of the issue! Ronenspierer 20:25, 17 may 2016 (UTC)

Glad that you thought that was useful. We try to provide balanced viewpoints here on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuels

If the cited Samuels passage does not explicitly mention taxation, the Samuels material must be removed per WP:OR. — goethean 12:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

How is taxation as theft "radical idea"? The people, philosihpoes, and ideologies mentioned in this article do not waste their time arguing about this fact, seeing as taxation is theft by definition. They're arguing that it's immoral. And even so, that's not a radical idea either. M . M 12:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It radical for two reasons, one because it is an extremely minority viewpoint, not at all mainstream political thought. And, two, because many of the groups and people that espouse this describe themselves as radical, such as the US Radical Libertarian Alliance. See Real World Politics and Radical Libertarianism in which Anthony Gregory describes this position as radical. If you like that ref could be cited for the use of the word. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen a source describing the fact that taxation is theft as "radical". According to Wikipedia, In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Thus, the threat of locking someone in a cage if they don't give you their money is theft by definition. Perhaps you're right that the position that taxation is immoral can be described as radical (seeing as we're in the extreme minority). I'll use your source to re-phrase the lede if that's okay. M . M 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that is fine. I just formatted the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.63.18.21 (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Men - due weight

Is the "thought experiment" mentioned anywhere else apart from Napolitano's book? Is it really WP:DUE here? It's also hardly a real thought experiment proving anything if the starting point of it is already "taxation is theft". BeŻet (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is "undue weight". It is from a WP:RS and provides a useful perspective on the issue overall, regardless of its starting premise. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is someone's thought experiment, so saying it is from an RS doesn't make much sense, given the fact that a primary source is used. What I'm trying to figure out is, is this literally just something taken from one chapter of a book, or something used in a wider manner? Google doesn't show many results, therefore it doesn't seem due. BeŻet (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would classify it more as a philosophical argument, than a thought experiment. The author does not classify it as such in his text, that seems to be an interpretation added by the editor who added this section.- Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a straw man argument than anything else, but I digress - I'm asking once again, does this argument occur outside the context of this book? Is this due or not? If it just appears once in this book, it's definitely not due. BeŻet (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could simply cut it down and not give it its own section, putting it on par with other arguments advanced. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm struggling to find any sources talking about "how many men", let alone sources discussing Napolitano's book in this context. For now I'll blend it in together and mark it needing a secondary source. BeŻet (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me there. Primary sources are acceptable, especially from notable people as in this case, as long as they don't use the primary ref to evaluate the argument, but just to state it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional vs inherent positions on this topic

Hi, I think this topic would better be discussed if it is split into two opinions that play into each other. The notion that taxation if it fails to fulfill a certain condition (the way St. Augustine, Locke and Bastiat conceptualise) and those who think that taxation is inherently theft (the way Individualist anarchists and Anarcho-capitalists conceptualise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanclerz K-Tech (talk • contribs)

It could be re-organized that way. Would you like to do that as a draft here on the talk page for discussion? - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph in History section on Locke.

The scholarly work cited as deriving a "taxation as theft" reading if Locke is a 2013 paper by an arch-libertarian activist. The passage does not establish that Locke's work has been traditionally read this way prior to 2013. The chronology of the section suggests Locke as the intentional progenitor if this belief, or that the belief began as a tradition in the 17th century with Locke's input, but the citation fails to establish this. Locke may have felt this way privately, but a direct quote would support this notion more adequately than the work cited, which appears to be subjectively applying, not documenting, Locke's theories. 68.173.118.225 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources

Not enough information to substantiate the term radical. If no further sources are provided it will be removed. 2601:405:4900:94F0:4075:A76E:24D7:FDDE (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been well debated before. The existing ref cited is reliable. You can't remove sourced text just because you don't like the conclusions it comes to. Furthermore, please lead the article that the term links to: Radical politics, which starts off stating Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform. Clearly this accurately describes this idea and is appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]