How does taxation differ from common theft?

[Joe S]

Bias/agenda alert: I think that they are much the same. My intention is to influence people reading this question to critically consider the question and the implications of its answers. I hope that others who already agree with my point of view to express their opinions but also expect and welcome people critical of my view.

To anticipate the dissenting views:

1. Taxation pays for necessary services that can not be provided by the market.

I reject this notion. If a service is necessary and important, methods can be found to exert influence on people to pay for it without resorting to the threat of violence.

2. Voluntary markets introduce free-rider problems.

How many people free-ride off of welfare programs for the poor and subsidies for the rich?

3. Society has legitimized taxation. If you don't like it, then leave.

Gaining the consent of many people does not change the nature of a crime. If enough people consent, I can legally rob you!
x2000: Yes, you would have to pay for the services you named. But why must money be stolen in order to pay for these necessary services? A discussion of how voluntary payment systems might function is outside of the question I posed. However, I will just say that by allowing payment collected by threat of violence opens you up to the money so collected not being used for its stated purpose. I think that national defense (sic) is a perfect example.
Perdendosi:

All that you've proven is that mob-rule works. You have done nothing to prove that the nature of taxation is different from theft. If I refuse to pay my tax, people with guns will show up to force me to pay, imprison me or kill me. The only difference with a common thief is that he is up-front. He doesn't try to legitimize his actions. He doesn't go to my neighbors and ask them how much he should take from me or even to offer to share his plunder with my neighbors.

That I can object with a vote does not stop the taxman from showing up with guns. Collective representation is a sham.

The objections in your final paragraph are no more than socialist concepts though I'm sure you would not suggest that description yourself. Businesses and other organizations would have every incentive to pay for road construction and maintenance. You just don't have the imagination to conceive how to maintain the road in front of your home without robbing me.
MrNiceGuy:

Yes, there are social costs to pay to maintain society. I think that we DO have to pay them. It is interesting that you think that we need a gang of goons to collect protection money (taxes) to take care of the poor.

I do have empathy for the meek. I voluntarily donate about 15% of my income to charitable causes. I plan later this week to donate some of my time to help clean up a community ravaged by a recent flood.

Your empathy consists of asking people to rob me to give to the poor. I'm sure that your surprised when your thugs use very little of the money for its stated purpose. I bet you're appalled at all of the war that is fought with your stolen money.

Why would anyone be surprised that thugs and thieves would be less than honest?
Perdendosi:

First, theft is violence aginst my property. But then, supposing that I do not voluntarily give up my property, the government will send men to kidnap (incarcerate) me if they can. If they are unable to do so, there is a real threat that they might kill me.

This is because I would not part with my property. I continue to challenge you. How is this different than common theft?
x2000:

The mechanism of voluntary payment systems is outside of the scope of the current question simply because it is admittedly complex. If you mean that it is a related subject, you are right. If I am unable to demonstrate that voluntary payment systems could not work, then we are left only with involuntary ones.

For the present question, I am focusing on the nature of taxation. Paying for defense with taxation amounts to the government violating my property in order to defend me. What if I want someone to defend me from having my property violated by the government?

Your last sentence is a statement of the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem will exist as long as people desire more benefits for less effort. I continue to ask you to consider the people who free-ride off of the current tax system. I argue that they benefit themselves and (in the case of national defense) do more harm than good with the money they take from me.
Perdendosi:

Who would build a fire department? I work as an actuary for an insurance company. I can tell you that we would build a fire department. In exchange for fire protection, we would collect premiums to pay for the service.

The premium levels would be based upon how many homes in a neighborhood had insurance with us or with another company that agreed to reimburse us in case their insured home catches fire. In this way, you would have incentive to influence your neighbors to have insurance or perhaps to ask a home-owners association to pay for the coverage.

If an uninsured home caught fire, we would put it out so as to avoid damage to insured homes. We would price this in the same way we price uninsured motorist insurance for auto insurance.

You lacked imagination how an entrepeneur (me) would handle this situation. In how many other ways do you lack imagination?