Yes but I don't see it as theft. I see it that without the government, almost all of the money we have "earned" would not be there. I don't agree with your John Stuart Mill -esque idea that everything we "earn" should belong to the person and not the government.
To make this claim, you're saying that value is objective. That is, you're saying that two actors making an exchange cannot determine value for themselves.
I absolutely think that value may be subjective to the person at the time but to realistically measure (inaccurately of course) we have to treat it objectively. As I'm sure you know, in Economics there are endless amounts of ways to determine value. I would argue that human welfare is probably the most important factor and therefore goods classed as merit goods that usually have great benefits are, in my eyes, more valuable. Of course it's next to impossible to attach price to value because of the endless ways to do it. Why is it that many health goods are a low price when buying crack is so damn expensive these days? I personally think that if people bought whatever they thought was the highest value to them subjectively, people would be far worse off. Even greater impulse buying, drug abuse, lack of health goods etc.
If you think that human beings are rational animals then well ... hopefully you realise we aren't.
Over the last 50 years the real wage for the average worker has not increased at all. 25 years ago the top 1% of the USA controlled 12% of the income and 33% of the wealth. Now they control almost a quarter of the income and 40% of the wealth. I can assure you that they haven't been working THAT much harder than those at the bottom of the pile.
No, they have built a system to rip people off. It's called government.
I don't support it.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know US history well at all, but did Reagan not cut income tax for the rich in half in the 80's or something? I'm not sure you can put a 50 year wage freeze for the poor directly on the government. It did end up in the coffers of those with the most money.
I don't mind the idea of socialism, communism, fascism or any ism. They are after all just names. I think that almost every line of thought has some valid points and that no method is perfect.
This is relativism. If no method is perfect, neither is your method of saying no method is perfect.
I'd be careful with this line of thinking. Objective reality exists independent of the observer.
Nothing humans do is completely perfect, that is the nature of us. We are estimators. It would be correct to say nothing we do is perfect. By me saying that "no method is perfect" I am not proposing a method I am proposing a statement that points out that everything that humans do, by our very nature, is not perfect. It has nothing to do with method. You point is quite a childish view.
There is a difference between saying "The hubble constant is 75" and "Many of the estimates of the hubble constant are interesting but we can not be sure which one is correct". We CANNOT because it is impossible. Objectivity when it comes to certain axiums is perfectly acceptable (Hopefully you go around in life thinking that 1=1. If not, God help you).
If you are suggesting that every human action (including affection) is due to selfishness, I disagree.
You're welcome to disagree, but what I have said it relatively uncontroversial in the social sciences. Man acts for his own ends. His ends may be inclusive of others, but they are still his ends. A man who doesn't act in his own interest, is unable to act rationally within his own life.
Oh so you DO think human beings are rational. Oh dear. For someone who preaches his understanding of economics, you missed an important bit.
I also think that government should not be the solution but I DO think it should be a fall-back option.
It's not an option. It's violence and monopoly. It's a bit dissonant to say that you don't think it should be a solution, but you keep it as a fall back option.
If no method is perfect then it's better to have back-up methods which work (subjectively in the eyes of the general population) better than the other options.
You think I'm living in my little Utopian paradise of crowd-following socialists.
No, I think you think like most people, that is, you haven't spent a lot of time thinking. No insult intended, but nothing you have posted has any basis in reason or evidence. They are ad hoc conclusions presumably based on emotional responses.
There is a distinction between reason and emotion.
There is a difference between reason and emotion? Humans are emotional creatures. And reason is subjective (Eat your own comments!). I would argue that I have made several points of reason and even included some data. Your technique seems to have been commenting on my points mainly telling me my lack of economic knowledge and pointing out the faults with my theories while missing out many of your own. I don't confess to be a man with any answers, I do know that I can think of some problems though.
I think you're wanting to live in an unrealistic, nearing absurd vision of your own Utopian paradise.
I don't think you know me, let alone understand what I think, at all.
I'm know I don't. My point was about subjectivity. We are not going to agree, that was my point. We are both as irritated by how "wrong" the other one of us is when in reality, it's far more likely that neither my attempt at a solution or yours would be the "best" (objectively) for the world population. Like I said, I don't think my answers are right but like everyone else, I can still see problems.
There was an interesting point I heard Joseph Stiglitz say not too long ago. He pointed out that the closest a modern country has ever got to the free-market system was Industrial Great Britain. Very little tax, very few government regulations (e.g. health, environmental etc), a booming worldwide market and an extremely small government. And hey, Britain did great. Its economy grew massively. Everyone was having a great time ... oh wait, no. It was the first drop in life expectancy in the UK for a very long time. Many miners were expecting to be dead by their mid 20's. It was a period of disgusting squalor, poverty, sickness and greed. Economic growth did not lead to increased welfare. Hell if you're looking for a low tax rate, try medieval Britain. I hear it was only about 1%.
Correlation is not causation. Hoppe excorciates this particular view of history, because it takes facts, and builds a false narrative that ignores causality.
It's pretty common among left thinkers. Don't get me wrong, right thinkers are barely any better.
Taxes are theft. They have absolutely nothing to do with life expectancy, except lowering it by reducing aggregate prosperity. If you like a powerful, confiscating government, go live in North Korea and let me know how you enjoy it. As a fall back option of course...
Ignore all data, ignore economics. That's all the above says to me. Correlation is not causation but it IS useful. Correlation can help you lead to causation. So you're saying that we should trust your anarcho-capitalist like views and just dive the country straight in without any view of the history? I would rather use empirical evidence even if it is just weak correlation than none at all.
I don't think taxes lower life expectancy. I think that many of the things that the government gives out (Ok USA citizens get a crappy deal and pay high tax for diddly squat. It isnt the same everywhere) help the people tremendously. Have a look at the history of the National Health Service in the UK and the amazing effects on society it had here when it was started.
I don't see taxes as theft. The government provides public goods and education for me, I provide a way to make sure that others can get them too. You may think that everything privatised would work (which it may near you since I imagine you live in an area with much more population than me) but I guarantee it would not work over here.
I am far too drunk to be writing this. Sorry if there are any spelling errors or anything repeated about 100 times.
W, but rights to me are an abstraction, but that doesn't mean the discussion or pursuit of abstractions are worthless. I'm in the boat that believes that technology will 'solve' (in the mathematical sense) the issue of politics. As in, once the lid is off, whole power structures will become instantly obsolete. Like each individual having a nuke in his or hers pocket. Now that woud change how we view each other wouldn't it? 
