Taxation as theft

The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection.Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, as well as objectivists and most minarchists see taxation as a clear violation of the non-aggression principle.

Murray Rothbard argued in The Ethics of Liberty in 1982 that taxation is theft and that tax resistance is therefore legitimate: "Just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in one's house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns."

Supporters of taxation usually assert that no such violation of rights is taking place. Supporters argue that "theft" must be considered in the context of the system of government in place. One justification of taxation is contained in social contracts. The general view is that taxation is required to fund basic provisions that provide for infrastructure and enhance economic growth (i.e. law and order, transport/telecom/energy services). However, this view has been criticized by Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and political philosopher, who argued in his essay No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract.

No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.

...
Wikipedia