Very informative. Thank you, everyone.

At it's core I think it's a great concept. What I don't think is great is when people extend it to taxing because that essentially requires equating taxing with violence, which is just absurd from where I'm sitting. The fact that many people who argue for lower taxes/tax reform cite the NAP actually hurts their stance because once they make that leap it's hard to take them seriously.

The real issue is how the taxes are handled and what accountability there is for mismanagement of tax funds, if there even is any (what a groundbreaking stance amiright). I think it's pretty obvious that politicians are attempting to steer the conversation away from that by making the debate about whether taxes are acceptable or how much taxing is acceptable.

Stealing is a form of aggression, I would argue. And if you consider being taxed equivalent then stealing falls totally in line with the NAP.

Generally yes, but this is far from absolute.

I don't. Equating taxation with theft ignores most of what taxation accomplishes, sort of similar to saying that a cashier robbed you of your money would be leaving out the fact that it was a purchase and you received something in return and it's also another great example of how heightened language doesn't help a stance.

Taxing can be theft when the funds are mismanaged and taxpayers do not receive anything in return, which brings us back to accountability of tax distributors.

I agree that stealing is a form of aggression. It's an active harm, done by one person or entity to another, to the detriment of the party that's stolen from.

Where I lose the thread is how taxation, under our current government, could be considered theft, and therefore an act of aggression. I'm not aware of any definition of theft that comports with a civil society that chooses their representatives, on a regular, repeating basis who then set taxation rates, which pay for a bevy of programs and institutions, some specifically provided for by the Constitution, others implied. Anti-taxers (fittingly, as ill informed as anti-vaxxers) seem to have a problem with civilization as a whole. They'll rail how the implicit threat of force by the state makes 'taxation' not voluntary and therefore an act of violence. There are plenty of uninhabited islands in Micronesia, ripe for anti-state, anti-tax folks to settle down. With all the no roads and lack of hospitals their non-tax dollars (well, I guess shells) to not pay for.

"Taxation without Representation" was the rallying cry of the Founding Fathers. 'Taxation is Theft' is the childish whine of the Sovereign Citizen and the anarchist.

Those videos of sovereign citizens recording themselves being pulled over and acting childishly noncompliant is some of my favourite cringecore material. "The constitution doesn't say that I have to turn down my music."

Would you agree with me that some form of voluntary taxation would work better then? I am not against taxation or government in practice as I understand that voluntary association is highly unlikely to produce the kind of societies we see in the West. But giving people the direct choice of where their tax dollars go to would feel a lot less like theft to me.

Would you agree that moral and ethical discussions should not be based on the system you happen to be born into? The fact that roads, schools and other services were provided by the tax dollars of those who came before me doesn't change the question of whether taxation is actually theft or not.

Had those people not been taxed, maybe we wouldn't have the same level of infrastructure. But what you could not say is that they were potentially stolen from.

It'd be better insofar that it would curb complaints from people who feel overtaxed. As far as working as a tax system, I don't have faith in that bringing in any money, even if the government was run impeccably and responsibly. So I'd call that a bad system because I place facts over feelings :D.

I think the issue could be solved by creating a form of accountability for use of the funds that goes beyond voting for representatives, but I'm not sure what that would look like.

To clarify it would still be a system where you had to pay a certain amount in tax. The word "voluntary" related more to where you choose to send your tax dollars.