>>>No. Attempts to find a difference between taxation and confiscation are the exact definition of "distinction without a difference": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference
>
>I'm not sure that "no confiscation without representation" carries the traditional meaning- but then, I'm not a sophist.
>
>Seems to me that a society that has to rely on confiscation is a very sad society, whereas a society that has to rely on taxation is trying to set predictable costs of participation and tends to be a democracy- and I can think of no democracies whose peaceful running does not rely on predictable taxation rates. Not on confiscation- unless you have an example in mind. Needless to say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.

Despite what you may think I'm not against having governments confiscate some of my assets to help maintain an orderly society.

Euphemisms are the handmaidens of incrementalist organizations seeking to boil frogs. It would not surprise me if some government wonk crunching big data discovers that by calling something a "Patriotic Happiness Contribution", they can raise the rates 0.25% and still get re-elected. You might not like the connotations of fighting that good fight - but I'm not a frog.