Taxation (to protect rights) is a contradiction in terms

I posted the following on the News Discussion in the thread "Military advisor: Draft worth considering," which had gotten hijacked to a debate on taxation, which is taking place as well on the thread "Photo - child stalked by vulture" (General Forum). I think the issue of taxation deserves its own thread. So I am reposting the following to bring the debate front and center, so that others, who may not be aware of it, can participate:

The PURPOSE of a government is the protection and defense of individual rights -- the protection and defense of its citizens against the initiation of force and fraud. The government cannot therefore VIOLATE those selfsame rights for the sake of protecting them without contradicting THE VERY REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE!!!

Therefore, robbing people of their money in order to protect and defend their rights isn't simply wrong because it violates rights (although it does that), nor is it wrong simply because it contradicts the purpose for which the taxes are being levied (although it does that); it is wrong for a far more serious and fundamental reason. It is wrong because it betrays the very purpose for the government's existence in the first place! In that respect, it is even worse than the theft from which it claims to offer us protection.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ."

Got it?! Governments are instituted TO SECURE these rights, not to violate them!!!

Therefore, since taxes contradict the purpose for which they are being levied, the burden of proof in this debate is on those who support taxes, not on those who oppose them. That burden can be met only by demonstrating that taxes do not violate individual rights.

On a radio program back in 1969, Rand was asked, "Do you consider the government a thief?", she replied,

"In one sense, yes. To the question, 'Should the government have the power to tax?," I'd answer, 'No, all taxation should be voluntary.'"

- Bill

Post 1

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:27am

"Voluntary taxation" is a contradiction in terms.

Post 2

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:41am

"Voluntary taxation" is a contradiction in terms.

Exactly, that's why it should be called a "contribution."

Post 3

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:40pm

Rick wrote, "'Voluntary taxation' is a contradiction in terms." To which Sam responded, "Exactly, that's why it should be called a 'contribution'."

Of course, but Rand was speaking loosely here. She was answering questions from the audience; nevertheless, her meaning was clear. She meant "voluntary government financing." In fact, in her essay, "Voluntary Government Financing in a Free Society," she wrote, "In a fully free society, taxation -- or, to be exact, payment for governmental services -- would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government -- the police, the armed forces, the law courts -- are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance."

Also, I wouldn't refer to voluntary government financing simply as a "contribution." It could be a contribution, but it needn't be. A "contribution" implies that the payment isn't done for the direct receipt of an exchange value. But one could pay directly in exchange for the protection of one's rights in the same way that one pays for legal services. For example, one could hire private police to protect one's property from thieves and vandals. I wouldn't call such payment a "contribution." It is a fee for service.

Now you might say that private police are not part of the government, but there is a sense in which could be viewed as an arm of the government, insofar as their purpose is to protect their clients' rights by enforcing the law.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 10:18pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 10:19pm)

Post 4

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 10:41am

Here is an example of how private funding for the criminal justice system would work if there were no taxation to support it.

Private Donations are Needed to Build a New Crime Lab
Funds are requested for the design and construction of a Forensic Science Center in Henderson, Nevada.

The City of Henderson does not have public funds for this facility, so other sources must be found quickly for this project to succeed. "Friends of Henderson CSI" recently began a major project to raise the funds.

When completed, the Center will include areas for a Forensic Laboratory, Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Section, and Evidence Vault. Although the facility will be located in Henderson, it will play a critical role in the overall safety and security of the entire Las Vegas valley and southern Nevada. Center resources will be used in every way posssible to help the other law enforcement agencies in the region.

Your cash donations are needed, large and small. We will also institute several types of fundraising programs and we encourage in-kind donations where applicable. Individuals, groups, and businesses are encouraged to contribute financially or in-kind.

Naming Opportunities Available for Many Large Contributions

Provide a well-deserved tribute by naming a specialized room, floor, training area,or wing of the Center for an individual, group, or organization.

Important Notice: The Friends of Henderson CSI DOES NOT solicit contributions over the phone. If you receive any such requests, please DO NOT provide any personal or financial information to the caller.

Please Send Your Tax Deductible
Contributions To:

Friends of Henderson CSI
2505 Anthem Village Drive, Suite E422
Henderson, NV 89052

(This was cross-posted to the "Child - stalked by vulture" thread in the General Forum)

Post 5

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 8:38pm

On the Burden of Taxation

"One contradiction I found particularly enlightening. According to Objectivist precepts, taxation was immoral because it allowed for government appropriation of private property by force. Yet if taxation was wrong, how could you reliably finance the essential functions of government, including the protection of individual's rights through police power? The Randian answer, that those who rationally saw the need for government would contribute voluntarily was inadequate. People have free will; suppose they refused?"

- Alan Greenspan, as quoted by Joe Maurone

Of course, Rand, as I have said before, published a mere five paragraphs on this matter, all of which are quoted in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. She insisted that this was a matter for investigation and future implementation, and only after all other impediments to a free society were removed. I compared this vague statement of principle to Fermat's "Last Theorem" which he asserted in a margin and complained that there was not enough space to provide the actual proof. This analogy was not well received.

Not having listened to the debates of the "Collective" I don't know if Rand or Greenspan expounded further on the matter in private, but were the matter more developed, one would think more would have been written. I find it a bizarre bit of a stretch for Greenspan to cite this as one of his reasons for disavowing Objectivism. I also find Orthodox Objectivist concern with this matter, while it is so obviously premature an issue, weirdly divorced from historical fact or context. I will not print Rand's five paragraphs here. But for those who balked at my earlier assertion of their almost utopian vagueness, they can be found on pp 493-494 of the Lexicon or pp 116 & 118 of the paperback Virtue of Selfishness. I think their tentative and preliminary nature speaks for itself. At the risk of being accused of rudeness or lectured on the burden of proof, I think the matter as it stands under our current culture is purely academic.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/22, 10:46pm)

Post 6

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 11:06pm

I don't remember who brought it up, I think it was Sam, but I don't think bombarding the citizens with pleas for funding of every single thing the government needs to run effectively will work at all.

So many functions of government are interdependent of each other. Police have to show up to court and testify. A judge may order a defendant to wear a tether until trial, which requires police monitoring. In fact, judges make all kinds of rulings that require other branches of government, and civilians, to take some kind of action.

I don't imagine many people will donate much to public defense, which is a right.

Crime isn't a foreseeable kind of occurrence, like building a crime lab. It isn't predictable and controllable that way.

Post 7

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 11:40pm

I also find Orthodox Objectivist concern with this matter, [i.e., voluntary government financing] while it is so obviously premature an issue quite weird. I will not print Rands five paragraphs here. They can be found on pp 493-494 of the Lexicon.
Rand did more than write five paragraphs; she wrote an entire article on the subject.
I think their tentative and preliminary nature speaks for themselves. At the risk of being accused of rudeness or lectured on the Burden of Proof, I think the matter as it stands under our current culture is purely academic.

I've already addressed this objection, Ted. Why do you continue to raise it, while ignoring my rejoinders? It would be nice if you actually read my replies and engaged them in a serious manner. You could start by addressing the initial post on this thread.

But right now, you need go no further than the quotation by Greenspan that you cited in your post. He rejects Objectivism, precisely because he doesn't understand why voluntary government financing is a a requirement of a free society. To defend the principles of Objectivism, one needs to address this issue. One cannot ignore it on the grounds that "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it," because, like Greenspan, people are not going to accept the Objectivist politics as viable unless they understand why taxation is unacceptable. It is obvious that Greenspan never "got it," so perhaps even Rand and her colleagues didn't give it the attention it deserves. Your continuing refrain that the issue is premature and that those who consider it important are "weird" is a confession that you don't get it either.

Greenspan's comment that voluntary government financing is a "contradiction" in Objectivism is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black and is all the more astonishing coming from someone who was as closely associated with Rand as he was. He writes, "According to Objectivist precepts, taxation was immoral because it allowed for government appropriation of private property by force. Yet if taxation was wrong, how could you reliably finance the essential functions of government, including the protection of individual's rights through police power?"

Rand wrote an entire article on the subject during the very period that Greenspan was associated with her. It is inconceivable that he was not aware of it. And speaking of contradictions, if the protection of individual rights is your purpose, then how could you possibly justify taxation? How could you justify violating those selfsame rights for the sake of protecting them? This is so obvious a contradiction that no one with Mr. Greenspan's intelligence and background could honestly plead ignorance of it.

- Bill

Post 8

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 11:41pm

Would that we Could

And even here, Teresa, if we could meet all these needs by lottery, you would not oppose doing so, would you? Of course not. But we are a long, long, long, way off from that. And since the practical and the moral are the same, if it is only practical now to impose minimal taxes in order to fund the police and courts, then the imposition of those minimal taxes, until another means is possible, cannot be immoral. Indeed, in a political context such as ours, it is ethically mandatory.

Ted Keer

Post 9

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 12:41am

And since the practical and the moral are the same,

oh? then a pragmatist - an unprincipled person - is moral, huh....

Post 10

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 6:28am

The practical and the moral do not CONFLICT, Ted.

(Damn, it feels good to get one on him for a change. LOL)

Post 11

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 7:29am

I guess I'll just have to send Alan Greenspan my post #166. If someone had proposed this to him 50 years ago it might have changed history. :-)

Sam

p.s (Dr. Bernanke - nerd banker)

Post 12

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 8:34am

Sam -

That post you linked to was fascinating, and probably theoretically sound, but let me add a little theory of my own to yours:

1) Outcasts from a dominate culture tend to form their own cultures and cluster together. There would be nothing stopping a group of free riders from forming their own little survival system. Nothing can stop like minds from getting together.

2) Not everyone within a voluntary system will be of the same value oriented mindset. Even outcasts can be innovators. If Thomas Edison were alive during such a system, his contribution would have already been made, 1000 fold, via his life extending, life enhancing innovations. I am happy to forgive some "free riders" due to their status as innovative giants. Judgement of innovative worthiness will be as varied as the individuals making them.

3) The idea suggests altruism will just go away, which is fantasy. I think it's here for good. "A lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can tie it's shoes." Mark Twain
Individuals will disagree on who is a free rider, and who is not, for as many reasons as there are minds. Much time will be wasted worrying about who is and who is not contributing. That doesn't sound like a very productive way to live to me. I don't want to worry about what other people are doing or not doing, or why they're doing it.

4) Making some-one's life "public" isn't a set up for discrimination, but of fascism, Sam. You should know this, and I'm surprised at you.

Post 13

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 9:22am

Not quite, Teresa - it is that the moral is the practical, not necessarily the other way... there is short term practical and long term - and what is moral may not at first glance be seen as practical, tho if moral it is....

Post 14

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 10:44am

Huh?

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 11:36am

Teresa: I think that your analysis is just plain wrong. I have no doubt that if government were funded by voluntary donations the vast majority of the contributions would come from corporations and other businesses. Even now we see corporations donating to charities and other good causes to enhance the public's opinion of them (and supposedly increase their profits.) With a voluntarily funded government consumers would, in effect, discriminate against those corporations that didn't pull their weight. How would this be any different than individuals discriminating against other individuals (by not associating with them, etc.) who didn't pull their weight, and favoring those who did?

Free loaders would still exist, I'm sure, but the corporations would have to embed their government donations costs in the price of the goods they sell and the free loaders would still be stuck with the bill � just like a sales tax ... except that everything would be voluntary.

Would you think that it would be fascist to have the corporations' donations open to public scrutiny? Their donations to political parties are, now. How would you justify treating individuals and corporations differently.

Wrt altruism. If we ever got to the stage of evolution of a minarchy it's hard to imagine that altruism would be nearly as big an influence as it is today.

Sam

Post 16

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 12:51pm

Okay, Sam,

I have no doubt that if government were funded by voluntary donations the vast majority of the contributions would come from corporations and other businesses.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Nothing would stop a corporation from withholding a contribution.

Even now we see corporations donating to charities and other good causes to enhance the public's opinion of them (and supposedly increase their profits.)

I think they do this for the tax benefits.
I don't know of anyone who really cares about what corporations donate to causes, except those who work for non-profits.

With a voluntarily funded government consumers would, in effect, discriminate against those corporations that didn't pull their weight.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. You assume consumers will care, I assume they won't. As a consumer, all I care about is getting the value I expect from whatever I'm buying.

You're trying to pull a whole abstract value ideology into stopping at Micky D's for a Coke. Nobody wants to care about that. I'm busy! I just want a friggen Coke!

Don't make me care about what McDonald's and Coke, and the paper companies, and plastic companies, and water companies, and delivery companies, warehouse companies, and banks, and electric companies, and payroll companies, and all the companies that are involved with McDonald's and Coke are doing with their money! I don't want to care about it!

You can care about it if you want too, just don't expect everyone to care about it.

How would this be any different than individuals discriminating against other individuals (by not associating with them, etc.) who didn't pull their weight, and favoring those who did?

It won't make any difference, except, most people just won't give a damn. Consumers will want what they pay for from those corporations, which will continue to produce values that consumers want to buy!

Consumers are interested in accumulating value in their own lives. Consumers won't be willing to go without what they want and need because the producers of those items aren't "pulling their weight" with public donations.   It's just not a realistic vision, Sam.

Free loaders would still exist, I'm sure, but the corporations would have to embed their government donations costs in the price of the goods they sell and the free loaders would still be stuck with the bill � just like a sales tax ... except that everything would be voluntary.

They'd "have to" embed the cost of donations? Who says so? I mean, sure, if they want to fund the government, that's cool and all that, but if they don't, not enough people will boycott them to make any difference.

How would you impart the kind of value you hold for freedom onto everyone else, Sam? How would you make people care enough about all of this?

Would you think that it would be fascist to have the corporations' donations open to public scrutiny? Their donations to political parties are, now. How would you justify treating individuals and corporations differently.

You're mixing the context of why such things would be made public in the first place. The context of such a rule is in place now, in theory (which is mistaken,) to curb corruption, and buying off candidates.

The context of your futuristic, everyone will, and should, care-about-what-everyone-else-is-doing system is to bring to light those who aren't worth the rights they have.
Why not just jail the freeloaders? How can they enjoy the freedom they haven't paid for? Some communities may come to that. It's not a far leap to come to that conclusion.

Short of jail, how about a little non-violent harassment? Then maybe some mildly violent harassment?

Why not just post to the public everything you've made, how much you've spent, and on what, and how much you've contributed in contrast? Everyone should be open to that kind of public pressure, because your life no longer belongs to you.

Post 17

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 2:13pm

Teresa: You're rant just boils down to your opinion that most people don't give a rat's ass about freedom, justice, non-coercion and are just governed by the existing morality. I'm not going to argue whether or not that's true at the present but context matters and the context is that a minarchy already exists. In order for it to exist there must be a total and radical change in the prevailing culture. If you can't extrapolate to that point there's no reason to continue.

Sam

Post 18

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 2:43pm

Did Rand Pay Her Taxes?

I find this issue itself academic in the worst sense of the word. No one who supports mandatory taxation now doesn't think it would be nice, in the future, when everyone is a classical liberal, and war and terrorism and crime and irrationality don't force our hand, to move to a fully voluntary system. Indeed, any reasonable steps we can take now to lower the tax burden and move toward a fee-based system would be entirely unobjectionable.

But the bald assertion that taxes are theft is a non-sequitur based upon an equivocation and a stolen concept. If taxes are used for improper purposes like welfare, then of course they are immoral. But not all taxes are. Some of our tax money is actually used for valid purposes. To call this theft is to pretend that in the state of nature no rights are violated, but when a state arises that does protect one's rights it does so by violating those rights.

Again, the burden of proof lies upon those who think that moving to a voluntary system now is the Objectivist position. It is not. Rand herself said it. I provided the citations - look them up. I am not a big enough altruist to type out her comments here for you. Rand elsewhere advised people to pay their taxes. She herself did so. She actively backed mainstream political candidates with no intentions of repealing the income tax whom she felt were making steps in the right direction. She could have backed libertarians instead. Why didn't she?

===

Enjoy your victories where you can, Teresa!

:)

Ted Keer

Post 19

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 3:16pm