| | Robert Davison wrote:
But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in 1962, in response to complaints that "taxes are too high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much. Scott DeSalvo commented:
Rand was mistaken, if she said 80% compulsory taxation was moral. Joe Maurone commented:
Just as Rand believed in a voluntary military, she couldn't have meant that quote literally. If she was against conscription, she had to be against coerced taxation for military defense.
If I recall correctly, Rand's 1962 comment came before she had reached the conclusion that conscription was immoral, in fact probably before she had concluded that taxes were immoral. Prior to her "government financing" essay (in VOS) and her Vietnam essay (in CUI), she most likely held the traditional individualist conservative view of taxes, to wit, "Millions for defense, not a dime for tribute."
As for linking her view on conscription to her view on coerced taxation, Joe is technically, logically correct. However, just as one should be more opposed to unjust capital punishment or incarceration than to unjust fining, or to kidnapping/slavery than to robbery, for the same reason one should be more opposed to conscription than to taxation -- for the simple reason that the former (in each case) is more likely to get one killed, for which there can be no remediation.
Best to all,
REB
|
|
