I get into an argument about whether or not taxation is theft on a semi-regular basis.
I believe that when an armed person demands you give them money against your will and makes it clear that they will hurt you or your family if you do not comply, this is theft, it is always theft, I don't even see how this is deniable. However, when I try to explain this to my liberal friends, I get the response that if the person doing the threatening works for the government then it isn't theft because the stolen money will be used to purchase "essential services" (i.e.shit my liberal friends like). I have to always wonder, when did the standard for determining what is and is not theft, become how the money that was stolen is spent? When did the act itself stop being how you determine if it was theft or not?
Not only does this logic seem crazy to me, but I hear it the loudest from people I know are too poor to actually have any serious tax liabilities, so them advocating more taxes to pay for more services they use works out great, they pay nothing and get a lot, this comes across as selfish and evil to me, especially when they are accusing people who pay millions a year in taxes as being “evil” and “greedy”.