Government Services & Benefits: Partial Theft Is Still Theft Part 2

By Steven Clyde

This is part 2 of a 3 part series on the Social Contract, for part 1 click here, for part 3 click here

One must ask themselves this: What do I GET out of the government in return for what is taken from me? For example, let’s say person “A” in a year’s span calls 9-1-1 twice, drives on roads for an average of 15 minutes a day, and utilizes a government granted student loan: how would we properly assess how much they paid in taxes versus how much they took out in the form of services or benefits?. We can’t, which I’ll explain why.

Let’s start with the student loan example. This is a little different than utilizing an ambulance or driving on a government-funded road, in the sense that in this instance the government is transferring money from others (we can call them “Person’s B through Z”) and giving it to person “A”, rather than the government taking from person “A” to expropriate to (B through Z). You then have to pay back interest on your loans after graduation, and in essence the government has found a way to attempt to profit off their theft, though with everybody drowning in student loan debt the taxpayers pay the current bills while we create a new class of taxpayers in the same instance. This is not the same as a person taking their own capital and investing it with evaluated risk; this amounts to robbers seizing funds to re-invest with no concern for risk. They know that as long as they provide loans, students will flock to colleges under the notion that they need college to be successful, and in turn colleges will charge whatever they want. There is no way to measure the actual costs as they are hoped to be paid off in the future, when factors of our economy have changed along with the price of our money.

But what about calling 9-1-1 to report a crime or driving your car to different destinations for a total of 15 minutes a day? There is no realistic theoretical you could come up with that could explain how we could measure how much people should be taxed. How costly is it for an officer to cruise over to your house and write up a police report, versus you yourself driving on a road? In both cases, time is of the most importance and time itself is subjective. E.g. If an officer gets a call for a couple that is verbally arguing, but gets a call simultaneously that there’s a house burglary in progress nearby, the officer will undoubtable value his time more towards the burglary which is a more imminent threat to people’s safety. There can be no objective value put in place for any kind of situation, and therefore it’s impossible to say how much we are to tax citizens for their usage.

The only correct system in which we could even find an answer to this type of question is one where taxes are based on usage or necessary usage rather than being taxed prior to any amount of usage. If, for example, there were 500 people in a small town with one road that took $100,000 to build and we somehow confined these people to their town, and we also knew as a fact that each person drove 10 minutes a day on the road, we could mathematically conclude what would have to happen. If the road sprung up overnight but was to be financed in one year then each person would owe road taxes equal to $200 for the year, or about 55 cents a day. But this is a completely erroneous example because, to even have this example we have to confine people to an area, or in other words use some kind of force to keep people within the circumference of their town. Furthermore, we have to assume they live a particular lifestyle and act in a robotic fashion. In the real world, where people are free to travel as they please, we could never measure the amount of services that a society actually uses; we can only ever look to specific individuals as a source of information regarding these types of issues.

To further illustrate this, imagine person “B” in a year’s span hasn’t personally driven at all, has never called 9-1-1, and never used any reasonable amount of a government service period, but still has paid taxes from working at home. It’s hard to imagine this situation, and you could even pull a fast one and say person “B” is still paying tax on the internet they’re using, the home they’re in, etc (which is correct) but the point is to imagine an instance where a person has utilized next to nothing but has paid in something. Would there be any objection at all that something is wrong with that scenario? Obviously most people probably utilize something, but most utilize way less than they pay in, giving government another false platform to profit off of. And just because it only amounts to partial theft, this doesn’t exclude it from being theft. If a criminal ponders on stealing a car but only chooses to steal a hubcap, are they any less guilty of theft than if they had just stolen the whole car? Maybe they’d be guilty of theft of a lesser value, but by definition theft still has occurred and it still occurs in this country as we speak whether to a greater or lesser value; that we will never truly know.

Leave a Reply