Isn’t forced taxation of wealth earned in a free unregulated market for the purposes of redustrubution a form of theft? And isn’t supporting that supporting theft?
1 Like
I see that you have discovered the drawbacks of wealth…. 
AN5.227
There are these five drawbacks of riches.
What five?
Fire, water, kings, thieves, and unloved heirs all take a share .
BTW, this is nothing new… governments have always had their eye on the wealthy!
AN7.7
Then Ugga the government chief minister went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him,“It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing! Migāra of Rohaṇa is so rich, so very wealthy .”
“But Ugga, how rich is he ?”
“He has a hundred thousand gold coins, not to mention the silver coins ! ”
“Well, Ugga, that is wealth, I can’t deny it. But fire, water, rulers, thieves, and unloved heirs all take a share of that we alth.
But do you know how and why governments and taxation came into being?
DN 27
One of those beings was reckless. While guarding their own share they took another’s share without it being given, and ate it. (With ownership and inequality come t heft.)
They grabbed the one who had done this and said,‘You have done a bad thing, good being, in that while guarding your own share you took another’s share without it being given, and ate it. Do not do such a thing a gain.’
‘Yes, worthy sirs,’ replied that being. But for a second time,and a third time they did the same thing, and were told not to continue. (It turns out that moral scolding does not deter wrong-doers.) And then they struck that being, some with fists, others with stones, and still others with rods. From that day on stealing was found, and blame, and lying, and the taking up of rods.
Then those beings gathered together and bemoaned,‘Oh, how wicked things have appeared among beings, in that stealing is found, and blaming and lying and the taking up of rods! Why don’t we elect one being who would rightly accuse those who deserve it, blame those who deserve it, and expel those who de serve it?
We shall pay them with a share of rice.’
How did that justly elected ruler end up becoming a tyrant?
DN 26
He didn’t go to the royal seer and ask about the noble duty of a wheel-turning monarch. He just governed the country according to his own ideas.
Resulting in what we are all bemoaning…
DN26
These things became widespread: lack of due respect for mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, and failure to honor the elders in the family.
And so, mendicants, from not providing money to the penniless, all these things became widespread—poverty, theft, swords, killing, lying, backbiting, sexual misconduct, harsh speech and talking nonsense, desire and ill will, wrong view, illicit desire, immoral greed, and wrong custom, and lack of due respect for mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, and failure to honor the elders in the family.
(Any resemblance to any particular country, their populace or ruler is purely coincidental!)
10 Likes
Unregulated is such a loaded term… So is free.
If we’re being hyperbolic the way you are, any sort of wealth generated is through a form of violence - you’re either stealing resources from the nature / other animals / living beings, inciting violence on nature by destroying trees, ores, natural habitats, killing and enslaving animals…
So, if it doesn’t make sense for a Buddhist to be a socialist, it certainly doesn’t make sense for them to be capitalists either, since harvesting the earth is always a form of violence / theft to begin with.
It’s almost as if the only ethical way to live, according to Dharma… is to be a beggar, and be content with the leftovers. Makes one think, doesn’t it? It’s almost as if that’s the whole purpose of the mendicant sangha. 
11 Likes
Calling taxation a “fee” does not solve the moral problem, it only relabels coercion. A fee is voluntary. Taxes are not. Refuse a fee and you lose the service. Refuse taxes and the state eventually comes for your income, property, or liberty. That is not exchange. It is compulsion. The state is unique because it does not earn revenue through voluntary exchange, but through coercive seizure.
Intent does not change the nature of the act. Saying “taxation is justified because it funds good things” is no different in principle from saying expropriation is acceptable if the outcome is desirable. Good ends do not convert coercion into consent. If theft funds roads, hospitals, or welfare, the moral question remains, by what right does one group seize another’s property without consent? Benefits do not legitimize aggression, just as burglary is not justified because the thief gave the proceeds to charity.
On infrastructure, private firms in a genuinely free market are often more efficient than states, especially where regulation breeds cronyism. And when governments do outperform in visible output, the hidden costs often emerge elsewhere, as seen in China’s overbuilt housing sector and resulting distortions.
Healthcare is similarly misunderstood. Many treat the U.S. system as capitalism, when it is closer to corporatist regulation, insurance, licensing, prescriptions, approvals, and market entry all depend heavily on state control. That is not a free market. If one wants to see less regulated healthcare, Southeast Asia is a better example than the U.S. Meanwhile, systems like the U.K. and Canada may be “free” at the point of use, but often deliver that through rationing and long wait times.
And since this is not merely an economic question, Buddha’s standard is simpler, theft is taking what is not given. Once necessity or desirable outcomes are used to excuse taking, the principle loses all meaning.
1 Like
I am a vegan so i take care of not funding products that harm animals. But i think if we take the concept of animals owning property then it would be impossible to live here.
Yet taxation seems to be accepted in the Suttas. Here is an extract from the Aggañña Sutta, DN 27:
Then those beings gathered together and bemoaned, ‘Oh, how wicked things have appeared among beings, in that stealing is found, and blaming and lying and the taking up of rods! Why don’t we elect one being who would rightly accuse those who deserve it, blame those who deserve it, and expel those who deserve it? We shall pay them with a share of rice.’
10 Likes
I think you are precisely answering your questions, that yes, there’s no “absolutely ethical way” of living, when our entire existence is the cost of opportunity for another sentient being, is dependent on their suffering, on dependent on us “stealing” from nature what is not “given” to us. 
Does a tree bear fruit to protect and nurture its seed, or to feed us?
Hence, Samsara is dukkha; and there’s different shades of abuse that we go through to purify ourselves.
“Free” markets likewise have no checks and balances to prevent monopolies and structured violence they impose.
I find the entire debate pointless from the perspective of Dharma:
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in low talk. This includes such topics as talk about kings, bandits, and ministers; talk about armies, threats, and wars; talk about food, drink, clothes, and beds; talk about garlands and fragrances; talk about family, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and heroes; street talk and well talk; talk about the departed; motley talk; tales of land and sea; and talk about being reborn in this or that place. They refrain from such low talk. This pertains to their ethics.
If we’re being strictly canon centered, then the only governance valued in the suttas in Kingship, which is neither capitalism nor socialism.
I don’t think anyone can likewise justify any form of capitalism as per Dharma in the strictest sense, since state-insured violence is the guarantee of appropiration of natural resources, for example, ores, water sources, and the like.
Is there any other first point of any possession other than “I came here before other humans and I incited violence to stop others”? How is that compatible with the Dharma, exactly?
Red dust of the mundane life is full of suffering. I don’t think Dharma offers or endorses an ideal system like Socialism or Capitalism, but a way to leave it all behind.
3 Likes
I think the question of exploitation of environment comes to the problem of ‘tragedy of commons’. And the best way to solve that problem is through defining property rights clearly.
This would be pointless if I were talking about whom we should elect. But we are talking ethics and what is considered theft. It is well within the topic what would be considered right Buddha
I think the Buddha defined property rights like this:
‘I am the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds. Deeds are my womb, my relative, and my refuge.
But people seem to think they own a lot more than this — weird! 
6 Likes
Thanks. Imo this is such an important point, especially on a Buddhist forum like this one.
The definitions of personal and property rights can be, and has been, endlessly debated. There is some value to this, in conventional terms, of having large numbers of people hopefully! living together peacefully.
In terms of Dhamma practice, the only and best place to look into “ownership” and its cessation is via the N8FP. Not-self is not owning anything, as in AN6.100 and SN22.14, among many other teachings.
5 Likes