Taxation (to protect rights) is a contradiction in terms

Teresa: Where shall I start? I would disavow any attempt to harass or (gulp) jail freeloaders or corporations* that didn't pull their weight. Not patronizing a business, not associating with people you think don't live up to your standards or not hiring a free-loader is not harassment ... it is making personal choices. There is a great deal of success even nowadays by consumers expressing their convictions. There are "environmental" mutual funds, boycotts of companies that exploit third world workers, and the hybrid automobile industry wouldn't be as viable as it is. Consumers punish those they disagree with and promote those they approve of. (I don't necessarily agree with some of their particular judgments, though.)

Regarding corporations: "They'd "have to" embed the cost of donations? Who says so? "

Well, it's like any additional incurred cost — and it would be just like advertising. If they didn't increase the price of their goods they'd go bankrupt. The free loaders might get away with some of it but they'd still have to participate in the economy, unless they stayed in the fringes, in which case they'd not have much income, anyway. As I say, it'd be like a sales tax.

I know that other people have a bigger problem with privacy than I do. I don't care if anyone knows what my income is as long as they don't use it for advertizing based on demographics. Ask me what my income is and l'll tell you. And disclosing what you donated to the government wouldn't be as intrusive as that. Much of one's personal information is available to the public anyway — whether you own or rent your house, what political party you're registered with, etc.

"Instead of going public with everyone's business, why can't the government just post what's needed, what's been taken in? People are pretty good about filling in the gaps when they know about them."

This sounds as if you're willing to be more generous about human nature than I am. Everything you have said up to here was very cynical about citizens being willing to step up to the plate.

*In a minarchist state there wouldn't be any such thing as a corporation as incorporation is a government regulation primarily for taxation purposes. A business would be able to organize itself anyway it wanted but would, of course, be subject to fraud prosecutions.

“This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Romans 13:6-7

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/23, 4:12pm)

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/23, 6:54pm)

Post 21

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 5:23pm

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

Oh but of course the official Objectivist position of abandoning those very principles when it is considered an "emergency" context is certainly not pragmatist and unprincipled!

Oh the hypocrisy.

Post 22

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 10:13pm

Robert Malcom wrote, "oh? then a pragmatist - an unprincipled person - is moral, huh..." John Armaos replied,

Oh but of course the official Objectivist position of abandoning those very principles when it is considered an "emergency" context is certainly not pragmatist and unprincipled!

Oh the hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy. You're not "abandoning" the principles in an emergency. The principles don't pertain to emergency conditions; they pertain to non-emergency ones.

Initiating force in an emergency in order to save your own life is not analogous to the government's initiating force against its citizens in order to protect them from the initiation of force, which is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

- Bill

Post 23

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 10:42pm

I think what has to be understood is that government today relies on direct unapportioned taxes. That means, it has an nearly unlimited ceiling to do whatever it will with those in power, be it intended for good or bad ends. Greenspan rightly pointed out the what if people decide not to pay the "voluntary tax," but fails to realized this is the kick to the head that governments, and all agencies for that matter, need. Consider if McDonalds forced people to pay it for every burger created on Earth. It would be called the McTax of course, and it would be seen as immoral because McDonalds does not make all the burgers in the world. Other people do, other companies, and so on. McDonalds do not own the right to the property of others just because it makes burgers. Equally, a government has no right to taxiation just because it provides courts and police services. Other agencies can fill the gaps when no one wants such a government to exist in their backyard. The issue, isn't whether government should exist or should be funded, but rather the issue is whether government deserves a pass on everything it does. "It's okay, X, it's just government...blahblahblah..." That doesn't stand well, because everyone else does not get a pass for bad behavior. Government is no different. A "voluntary tax" system would just be another direct pressure valve to deflate the egos of those who become pencil pushers.

-- Brede

Post 24

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 12:46am

If you are so unfortunate as to be a farmer refusing to allow Bill’s private army onto your property to form a defense from invasion, Bill is going to order his squad to shoot you and drag your body off.

However, he would never force you to fund the defense, because there was no emergency. But then there was one.

Got it, Armaos?

Post 25

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 7:39am

Is it any different than a public army that does the same in Baghdad?

-- Brede

Post 26

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 1:14pm

Jon Letendre wrote,

If you are so unfortunate as to be a farmer refusing to allow Bill’s private army onto your property to form a defense from invasion, Bill is going to order his squad to shoot you and drag your body off.

However, he would never force you to fund the defense, because there was no emergency. But then there was one.

Got it, Armaos?

We have to untangle a number of issues here.

Let's say that you are harboring a suspected criminal and refuse to allow the arresting officers onto your property. You then become an accomplice, and the police have every right to force their way onto your property in order to apprehend the suspect. I believe that John Armaos made this point a couple of months ago. And I think it's well taken.

The issue of the farmer's preventing the army from defending itself against an invader is analogous to your protecting a criminal from apprehension by the police. The farmer becomes an accomplice to the invading army. In this case, the police and army are not initiating force; the force they're using is retaliatory. So, this is not the kind of case that I would characterize as an emergency and to which the principle of rights does not apply.

The only time you are justified in initiating force is when doing so is necessary for your own immediate survival, such as stealing food in order to prevent yourself form starving to death. What you don't have the right to do is force people to provide you with food when no such emergency exists, on the premise that since one might exist in the future, you need to be prepared. Nor, by the same token, do you have a right to force others to provide you with the means to your defense on the premise that you may need to defend yourself in the future.

Nor can the government claim the right to expropriate the property of its citizens in order to protect their their property from being expropriated. That is not an example of emergency ethics; it's an example of a self-contradiction.

- Bill

Post 27

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 7:09pm

A few random comments.

Ted suggests that the issue of taxation is premature to discuss. That's debatable to some extent. For instance, Rand discusses college loans/grants and how it can be okay to accept them under our current system. But she also argues that one of the conditions to make it moral is to oppose them in general.

Those arguing that taxation is moral are not following that principle. They're arguing that it actually is moral now, and perhaps later it may become immoral. I wonder how Objectivists back in the old South would handle the issue of slavery. "It's not going to change, so we should just accept it as currently moral. Certainly it would be very inconvenient if we got rid of it. How would we be sure that all those plantation owners would still be able to make a living?".

While Ted argues on one hand that it is an academic question, and asks not to be harassed with statements about burdens of proof, he goes on to argue that "taxes are theft" is "a non-sequitur based upon an equivocation and a stolen concept." Seems he can't keep his story straight. It's an academic argument only when his position is challenged.

Well, for the record, the burden is still on him. His claims that this is a stolen concept actually needs to be proved, not simply asserted. He's never done that. He's simply claimed that theft is not theft, because he happens to agree with it (his words were "Some of our tax money is actually used for valid purposes"), and that in a state of nature, no rights would be protected. As if our options were statism or anarchism.

Robert Malcom, in post 9, disagrees that the practical is the moral. And he brings up pragmatists. Uh...pragmatists are not practical! They sabotage themselves by rejecting principles. If you want to take their view of "practical", of course you could argue Objectivist ethics conflicts with it. But I interpreted Ted to be meaning actually practical, by objective standards and all. Then the only point of contention would be whether all practical choices are moral, or if morality requires a higher degree of selectivity.

Teresa says "Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Nothing would stop a corporation from withholding a contribution.". Again, we have this burden of proof being placed on those arguing against taxation, as if the pro-taxation was unobjectionable. As Bill has pointed out repeatedly, it is a violation of individual rights! And as I have pointed out, the convenience of taxation is not a good argument. All statism can be justified through convenience.

Post 28

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 9:25pm

It's apparent that most posters here are more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of a voluntary government contributions by citizens when their donations would be of public record, as they view that this would be a violation of privacy rights. I get that and appreciate their sensitivity. But before I back-pedal all the way on this, what are your views on the following:

Suppose a minarchy exists and that an entrepreneur has established a registry on the Internet, visible to anyone who accesses the site. Individuals can donate funds to the government by writing a check to the agency (registry) and the agency writes a check to the government for the same amount. The government confirms the transaction to both the agency and the individual. Thus, the agency has absolute proof of the donation and the donor gets moral credit for it. Moreover, the donor knows that there has been no embezzlement along the way.

The motive of donors may be that of social climbing and they might give more than they can afford — or not. The absence of a donation on the registry for anyone doesn't signify that they didn't contribute as they might have donated directly to the government — no one would be able to tell. It is all completely voluntary. No one's privacy is being invaded. What would be your objections, if any?

I'm not back-pedaling on the idea of publicly visible voluntary contributions by corporations.

Sam

Post 29

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 9:57pm

Who Can't Burden the Proof?

Joe, why don't you take the time to type out the five entire paragraphs where Rand addresses taxation in a free society? I have cited them, but no one here wants to acknowledge them. You can goad me all you like, but the fact remains that a free society precedes a tax-free free society, and this is Rand's own doctrine.

Civilization is the process of setting Man free from men. The existence of legitimate states precedes that of states with voluntarily financed states. Has there never yet existed a legitimate state? Has there ever yet existed a voluntarily financed state? Which precedes which, temporally and conceptually? To call proper taxes instituted to protect men's rights theft is indeed a stolen concept.

Legitimate minimal taxes imposed to protect rights, when a system of voluntary taxation is not yet implimentable, are not theft, but politically legitimate and ethically good. No matter how much you find my saying so insulting.

Ted Keer

Post 30

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:15pm

You can't burden the proof.

Ted, I'll see your 5 paragraphs, and raise you the entire article Bill has repeatedly mentioned (and you have repeatedly ignored), and I'll also raise you every article Rand wrote about individual rights. It's not like taxation-is-theft is some crazy idea devoid of context or support from the philosophy. It's a straightforward application of the concept of individual rights.

Nor have you come close to satisfying your burden that because you happen to like taxation, it isn't theft. Certainly the claim that temporally earlier societies must be moral is crazy. Slave owning societies were moral? Really?

Maybe temporally preceding a free society doesn't matter. How about conceptually? If you mean that statism conceptually precedes freedom, again, how is that moral? If primitive people assume violence is the answer, does that really make them right?

Of course, maybe you want to argue that when one actually conceives of a fully free society, then the idea of taxation precedes voluntary funding. But does it? The whole point is that the idea that taxation is okay means you haven't actually conceived of a fully free society yet. You still insist violence is okay as long as its violence that you agree with.

No. This is just another example of the Statist mentality that holds violence is the best way to get the results people want. Like all other Statist premises, it's not moral, just because you can't imagine a free society or don't think it would be convenient enough. It's immoral. It is a violation of rights. The fact that people don't recognize it, or don't want to recognize it, doesn't make it right.

Post 31

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 2:53am

Joe,

My argument is only with projected alternative methods, not that taxation moral.

Post 32

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 3:07am

Sam -

Post 28, five points. I like it.

Post 33

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 9:55am

Just as an FYI - I am being convinced that any forced taxation is immoral. The arguments are stronger. That said, I am still not sure how we get from here to there. I think that by the time we get close as a society, we will be able to do it. The key then is to fight the very, very strong collectivist beliefs I encounter on a regular basis anywhere else I discuss these kinds of issues.

Always the "community" and "duty" or "obligations" being brought up.

Post 34

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 8:43pm

Phil Osborn defending taxation is like Ayn Rand defending Mama Terresa...

So, the foundations of how you run a society without taxation - or a state, for that matter, were laid out rather well by such luminaries as Rothbard - for some time a member of Rand's collective, or at least a frequent attendee - David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, and Morris and Linda Tannehill. I recommend "The Market for Liberty" as the most coherent exposition of the anarcho-capitalist position.

The problem with lotteries to fund public goods is that the payoff is better for lotteries that are simply out to make a profit. Same with all the other solutions short of taxation itself. They penalize those altruistic enough to contribute and reward the free riders.

A society could conceivably fund all the "public goods" via the mechanism of insurance. Assuming - and of course that's a big assumption - that one has a working civil litigation system, likely based on variants of a universal social contract, then you could be sued and have your property liened or the titles transferred for failure to pay premiums, post bonds, or otherwise fund the risks and costs that whatever you do in your life creates for your neighbors.

I've presented this idea more than once, using the example of the basement nuke that some libertarians claim that everyone has a perfect right to possess. And I agree with them. Just so long as you pay the costs of all the risks that you thereby impose on your neighbors, fine. Have ten nukes. Just don't foist the cost of them or anything else you do onto me, or you will be facing a lawsuit.

Within that grassroots-level funding of public goods, such as justice systems or roads, etc., there is the real potential to build and run a free society without taxation or the state. Instead of the state, there would be universal principle, equity, facilitated by a set of universal contracts. No one would be forced to sign the universal basic contract, but then they would find life expensive and risky and be cut off from much or most of society's benefits. And if some people preferred alternative relationships, such as Sharia, then they could sign there own separate binding agreements, so long as they were still signatories to the worldwide contract as well.

Sometimes things happen that are totally unforseen, however. Within the Good and Ancient Common Law, there is a principle that if you rescue someone in an emergency, then you have the right to demand reasonable compensation. This only applies in situations where there is no other way to finance something, and then only when you can demonstrate objectively that the person(s) receiving the help accepted it at the time and that there were no other reasonable or better alternatives.

At worst, such a clause could be written into the social contract. Otherwise, it would be a matter of lawsuit if someone refused to pay for assistance, let's say from a doctor at an accident.

One can imagine scenarios such as the following:

A medical researcher realizes that a plague of some mutated ebola virus is likely and, unable to convince anyone else of his conclusion, pays out of pocket to develope a vaccine and produces it in bulk. The plague is stopped by the vaccine targetted on a small group of early victims. The doctor presents his bill to the world, as their lives were all saved by his timely action. Under this "rescue principle," he could assess the equivalent of a one-time tax to repay him.

Post 35

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 9:41pm

Freeloaders who are capable of paying yet refuse to fund a legitimate government limited to the protection of individual rights with police, courts and military are scumbags. I pay my part for an army that defends the entire continent and they get the benefits for free, by “right”? There is no way to prevent them from benefiting from my payments. It is as though they get a bite of every sandwich I buy—and there’s nothing I can do about it. THAT is theft.

I suggest a modification to Sam’s proposal: Let’s have the government publish a list of the names of people who have NOT paid their taxes. That way, the even worse scumbags of the world will know which addresses’ 911 calls are ignored by the police. I made this suggestion on the other thread and Bill approved, since it would all be voluntary. This is the only way I could accept a right to opt out: Let those who declare themselves outside the enterprise of rights protection be officially declared as such. It would get interesting real fast.

Bill, there are some problems with your comments. From post 26: “The issue of the farmer's preventing the army from defending itself against an invader is analogous to your protecting a criminal from apprehension by the police. The farmer becomes an accomplice to the invading army. In this case, the police and army are not initiating force; the force they're using is retaliatory.”

And from post 22: “Initiating force in an emergency in order to save your own life is not analogous to the government's initiating force against its citizens in order to protect them from the initiation of force, which is hypocritical and self-contradictory.”

The army is not commandeering the farmer’s land “in order to save its own life.” This is not like shooting through a hostage to hit someone shooting at you in order to save your life. They are there commandeering the farmer’s land because THE NATION is threatened. Any individual soldier could save his life by running the other way. The motivation here is to save the citizens of the entire nation by repelling the invasion at the beach. That is the military’s responsibility and justification for breaching the farmer’s property rights. In other words, it is the right of the citizens—all of them—to be protected from invasion that justifies violating the farmer’s property rights.

And the farmer is not an accomplice of the invading army. He is not working with them at all. He wants the invasion to be repelled. It’s just that he wants someone else’s seedlings trampled instead of his. He is refusing entry so that the army might create defensive positions on some other farmer’s land, even if it means a less effective defense with more dead defenders. This way, the enemy will bypass his property, seeing it is bereft of any opposition. Basically, he is a scumbag.

When the army uses force and commandeers his property in order to make the best defense it is indeed, contrary to your post 22, “initiating force against [a citizen] in order to protect them [the other citizens] from the initiation of force.”

Post 36

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 9:21am

Jon Letendre wrote,

Freeloaders who are capable of paying yet refuse to fund a legitimate government limited to the protection of individual rights with police, courts and military are scumbags. I pay my part for an army that defends the entire continent and they get the benefits for free, by “right”?
They get it for free, yes, but not "by right."
There is no way to prevent them from benefiting from my payments.
True.
It is as though they get a bite of every sandwich I buy—and there’s nothing I can do about it. THAT is theft.

Not true. The military benefit that they receive does not detract from the military benefit that you receive, whereas if they took a bite of every sandwich you buy, the benefit that they receive would detract from the benefit that you receive. Suppose that I buy a floodlight to deter potential burglars and that you, who live next door, also benefit, because it illuminates your property as well as mine. I cannot enjoy the benefits of the floodlight without your enjoying the benefits. Yet, you didn't help me pay for the floodlight. Do I have a right to force you to pay part of the bill, because you're receiving part of the benefits? Are you guilty of theft, if you refuse to pay? No. In fact, my forcing you to pay would itself be an act of theft.

I suggest a modification to Sam’s proposal: Let’s have the government publish a list of the names of people who have NOT paid their taxes. That way, the even worse scumbags of the world will know which addresses’ 911 calls are ignored by the police. I made this suggestion on the other thread and Bill approved, since it would all be voluntary. This is the only way I could accept a right to opt out: Let those who declare themselves outside the enterprise of rights protection be officially declared as such. It would get interesting real fast.

This sounds sinister. In what way would it "get interesting real fast"? What are you suggesting would or should happen?

What I think you're overlooking is that the choice is not simply: pay what the government asks or cast yourself as a freeloader whom every patriotic American should despise or worse. The choice is: pay what the government asks if you think it's a fair price for the services you receive, or don't pay it if you don't think it's a fair price for the services you receive. If you elect not to pay, because you think the benefits aren't worth the price, are you a freeloader whom others should despise and treat as a social pariah? No, you're simply a discriminating buyer exercising your right to freedom of choice.

Bill, there are some problems with your comments. From post 26:
“The issue of the farmer's preventing the army from defending itself against an invader is analogous to your protecting a criminal from apprehension by the police. The farmer becomes an accomplice to the invading army. In this case, the police and army are not initiating force; the force they're using is retaliatory.”
And from post 22:
“Initiating force in an emergency in order to save your own life is not analogous to the government's initiating force against its citizens in order to protect them from the initiation of force, which is hypocritical and self-contradictory.”
The army is not commandeering the farmer’s land “in order to save its own life.” This is not like shooting through a hostage to hit someone shooting at you in order to save your life.

I agree. That's exactly the point I was making. I don't think you understood what I was saying. You continue,

They are there commandeering the farmer’s land because THE NATION is threatened.
Right. So?
Any individual soldier could save his life by running the other way. The motivation here is to save the citizens of the entire nation by repelling the invasion at the beach. That is the military’s responsibility and justification for breaching the farmer’s property rights. In other words, it is the right of the citizens—all of them—to be protected from invasion that justifies violating the farmer’s property rights.

But they're not violating the farmer's property rights. What I was saying is that this is not an emergency situation in which they are justified in breaching the farmer's property rights. It's a situation in which the farmer has no right to deny them access to his land, because by doing so he is protecting the invading army. Then you say,

And the farmer is not an accomplice of the invading army. He is not working with them at all. He wants the invasion to be repelled. It’s just that he wants someone else’s seedlings trampled instead of his.

Then he is, in effect, an accomplice. Suppose that one of my tenants is wanted by the police, but that I don't want the police on my property, because it will disturb and frighten the other tenants. So I refuse to allow the police to check his apartment. Do I have the right to do that? No, because by refusing the police access to my property, I become a de facto accomplice of the suspect. I am protecting him from the cops. The same is true of the farmer, who is protecting the invaders from military retaliation.

- Bill

Post 37

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 10:56am

Then you should agree with Rand’s total stance in support of subpoenas—not only with subpoenas for those who refuse to testify against criminals, but also for those who refuse to provide favorable testimony for a victim of breach of contract in civil cases. Just as there is no right to refuse access to one’s land because it amounts to protecting the invaders, just as there is no right to refuse to testify against a criminal because it amounts to protecting the criminal—so there is no right to refuse favorable testimony for a victim of breach of contract because that amounts to protecting the party who breached a contract making he who refuses to testify an accomplice to the breach.

Do you now agree with her stance on subpoenas?

Post 38

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 6:27pm

Jon Letendre wrote,

Then you should agree with Rand’s total stance in support of subpoenas—not only with subpoenas for those who refuse to testify against criminals, but also for those who refuse to provide favorable testimony for a victim of breach of contract in civil cases. Just as there is no right to refuse access to one’s land because it amounts to protecting the invaders, just as there is no right to refuse to testify against a criminal because it amounts to protecting the criminal—so there is no right to refuse favorable testimony for a victim of breach of contract because that amounts to protecting the party who breached a contract making he who refuses to testify an accomplice to the breach.

Do you now agree with her stance on subpoenas?

Yes. Back on August 8th, I conceded this point in a reply to John Armaos. In Post #131 of the thread "Photo - child stalked by vulture," he wrote, "[A]n individual who passively refuses to participate in the discovery process when asked is sanctioning the crime. He is in effect to me now an accomplice to that crime 'after the fact'."

I thought this was a good point, so in Post #135 of the same thread (which I take it you missed) I replied:

"So you're arguing that by refusing to provide needed testimony, a potential witness is defending the criminal from being prosecuted and therefore acting as his accomplice. This argument can also be used to justify invading a landowner who refuses to allow police or soldiers onto his property to defend against an aggressor. The landowner is acting as the aggressor's accomplice by protecting him from retaliatory force. So the force that is used in this case is not the initiation of force, but retaliatory force against someone who has no right to deny the police or military access to his land.

"This is a persuasive argument, and a lot more plausible than simply to argue that an innocent person's life will be jeopardized unless force is initiated to protect him. What you are arguing is that compulsory testimony is not the initiation of force at all, but retaliatory force against someone who, by withholding evidence or otherwise protecting a rights violator, is acting as his accomplice or defender."

So, yes, since John Armaos succeeded in persuading me, I do now agree with Rand on that issue.

- Bill

Post 39

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 8:42pm