Are taxes theft, or are they simply a means to an end?  That is the question that Jay posed today, and also scoffs when questioned regarding what tax rate is too high:

Frequent commenter Sven, in response, rightly calls it a "silly question" and notes that the question is "predicated on the adolescent Randian notion that all taxes are theft." Worse, I think, is that it is a classic "gotcha" question--one designed to stop or derail conversation about important questions and instead put people on the spot so they can be criticized personally. It's a game, and a game that conservatives are particularly good at.

So let's start there.  Is the idea that "taxes are theft" silly?  Let's begin with a fairly basic definition of what theft is shall we?

A criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent.

I'm going to blog about this in a slightly different context later, but I'd like to take a moment to examine the idea of "consent", because that is the core issue here.  That is the difference between something merely being a means to an end, and being theft.  Can I say no?  When it comes to taxes, that answer is no.  You can't say no to taxes.  My property is taken from me, and I have no choice in the matter.  If I refuse, I can go to jail.  If I don't go to jail willingly, then I'll have a gun pointed at my head.  IRS agents are one of the many federal officials who have firearms, and they use them.  Normally if someone demands money at the threat of being shot, they go to jail.  If you happen to have a badge from the IRS though, you are merely collecting the means to an end according to Jay.  Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

But Nick, what about Democracy?  We vote for these people!  That means we consent to these taxes!

Excuse me for a minute while I stop laughing after typing that.  Sometimes I really crack myself up.

Ahhhhh... alright... I'm back.  Now, where was I again?  Right... consent.  When this country began, it was founded on the principle that each person was entitled to "Life, Liberty and Property".  That means that a long time ago, when my ancestral Style Guy pamphleteers would have been writing about the proper color tri-point hats to wear, a person's interaction with government could have been next to nothing as long as they lived a good moral life.  Well, I think we can all agree that those days have long since gone.

A long time ago, it used to be that government was only concerned with those areas of life where people's rights intersected with each other.  Democracy, back then, was understood to mean that when your rights intersect with mine, we should have a majority agreement as to the solution.  Tax dollars were spent only on those areas where rights intersected.  Fine.  But now, government doesn't just control those areas where your rights intersect with mine.  Government now tries to control what I do in my life that affects nobody else.  Democracy should have nothing to do with this.  If it doesn't affect you, then why should anyone, even a majority, have any say over it, let alone take my money away from me in the form of taxes in order to pay for that control I don't want?  I do not consent to the control you place on my life that has nothing to do with you.  Therefore I do not consent to the taxes you steal from me to pay for that control.

And that is what Jay just doesn't get.  Taxes are the price of our Democracy.  However, Democracy is not majority rule over life.  Democracy is majority rule over those things where your interests and mine intersect.  My intent, in saying no to all new taxes is in an effort to starve the beast back into submission, and give me some semblance of control back over my life.