Is Taxation an Initiation of Force?

Hi Steve,

Since you state that you believe it can be justifiable to collect taxes, even at gun point, for services that a person did not choose to receive. . .

To clarify, I'm contending that, by sticking around, the person did choose to receive the services, even if he or she didn't want them and never verbally agreed to them.

What is the basis for deciding what level and what form of taxation is wrong, and which is right?

Per the proper level of taxation, a general principle would be that to the extent people avail themselves of the proper services of the jurisdiction, is the extent to which they may be taxed. Per the proper form of taxation, it should be whatever most effectively applies the first principle. I'm not sure if that means income tax, savings tax, sales tax, or whatever.

Hi Bill,

Taking a step back a moment, are you anarchist? I get the impression you're simply questioning the government's authority to act, something I mentioned in post 4. Can the government justifiably subject some people in its jurisdiction to its laws when those people don't want to be subject to those laws and never verbally agreed to them? Why? This is critical.

Meanwhile, you can grow your own food and knit your own clothes, all by yourself, but you cannot, alone, pop out a government.

It's not unjust if I didn't agree to purchase it for an agreed upon price

But you read the magazine. And the price was set. It doesn't matter whether you verbally agreed. Your behavior is as good as acceptance.

That's true only if the beneficiary has the option of accepting or refusing the service and, through his behavior, implies a willingness to accept it.

So they can leave or go Amish. Staying implies acceptance. We' might be about to go in circles.

Jordan

Post 61

Sunday, June 28, 2009 - 12:28pm

Jordan,

You said, "I'm contending that, by sticking around, the person did choose to receive the services, even if he or she didn't want them and never verbally agreed to them."

That can never work as a theory. If the Mafia moves into a neighborhood and goes to different businesses telling them that they have to pay for protection services, that is an identical position. Are you saying that if, out of fear of facing a gun, the store owner makes payments instead of fleeing, that is an implied acceptance? Sorry, but that is absurd.

Post 62

Sunday, June 28, 2009 - 1:44pm

Steve,

It's more like you moving into a new neighborhood that already has services in place, rather than some external entity (the mafia, in your example) moving into your neighborhood and imposing those services, with a demand for payment, on you. It's not as though the government just materialized from the heavens. It's been around. The expectation for people in its jurisdiction to pay up has been around, too.

So let me post the same question to you that I posed to Bill: I know you're not anarchist, but on what basis do you justify a government's authority to act? Can the government justifiably subject some people in its jurisdiction to its laws when those people don't want to be subject to those laws and never verbally agreed to them? Why?

Jordan

Post 63

Sunday, June 28, 2009 - 2:06pm

Jordan asked,

Taking a step back a moment, are you anarchist?

No.

I get the impression you're simply questioning the government's authority to act, something I mentioned in post 4. Can the government justifiably subject some people in its jurisdiction to its laws when those people don't want to be subject to those laws and never verbally agreed to them? Why? This is critical.

I'm not objecting to a government; I'm objecting to a government's initiating force against its citizens. It has a right to make laws that defend people's freedom of choice; it does not have a right to make laws that violate it.

Meanwhile, you can grow your own food and knit your own clothes, all by yourself, but you cannot, alone, pop out a government.

In order to knit my own clothes, I'd have to buy the materials -- the yarn, the cloth, the knitting implements, etc. -- and that depends on the cooperation of others -- on their willingness to sell them to me. And where am I going to grow my own food? Since I don't have any arable land presently available to me, I'd have to buy or rent the land on which to grow it, and I'd have to purchase the seed, the fertilizer, the hoe and whatever other factors or production I'd need to complete the process. And all of that depends on the cooperation of others.

I wrote, "It's not unjust if I didn't agree to purchase [the good or service] for an agreed upon price."

But you read the magazine. And the price was set. It doesn't matter whether you verbally agreed. Your behavior is as good as acceptance.

I don't follow this argument at all. If a publisher enrolls me in a subscription to his magazine without my consent, and sends me the issues, I am under no obligation not to read them. The publisher is already out the issues; whether or not I read them has no bearing on his costs. Nor am I under any obligation to return the issues, since doing so would impose a cost on me that I didn't agree to bear.

But even if I were to accept your argument that I should abstain from reading the issues that he sends unless I agree to pay for them, this example does not address those government services that I have no possibility of refusing, such as police protection or national defense. I am being defended whether I like it or not and whether or not I would agree to contract for the services at the price I am being charged, if only I were given that option.

I wrote, "That's true only if the beneficiary has the option of accepting or refusing the service and, through his behavior, implies a willingness to accept it."

So they can leave or go Amish. Staying implies acceptance.

No, it doesn't! I am not obligated to leave my home and move somewhere else simply because someone bestows a benefit on me which, at the price I am being charged, I had no option of accepting or refusing.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 6/28, 3:05pm)

Post 64

Sunday, June 28, 2009 - 2:37pm

Jordan,

Who was in the neighborhood first is not a valid criteria (It would not be okay to kill someone because they moved into a neighborhood after you did, but not if they moved in before).

Man existed before government, but that has nothing to do with a moral justification of government's enforcing of laws. Some governments will pop up a new, and new people are being born under existing governments - none of this has anything to do with moral justification.
-------------

You asked, "...on what basis do you justify a government's authority to act? Can the government justifiably subject some people in its jurisdiction to its laws when those people don't want to be subject to those laws and never verbally agreed to them? Why?"

The government derives its just powers from the rights of the individuals. When a thug chooses to rob someone, he gives up his rights the instant his choice to rob becomes action. It is his lack of rights that makes it acceptable to jail him. When someone is attacked, they have the right to defend themselves. The state can act on the behalf of those who are attacked - to defend them. The state doesn't magically grow new moral justifications out of thin air. If an individual can't justifiably act in a certain way, because to do so would violate the rights of another, then neither can the government justify that act.

It doesn't matter if this or that person doesn't agree with the state's use of force when that force (the enforcing of a law) is in defense of individual rights. No implied contract is required (nor could one exist and be justified if it included agreement with laws that violated the rights of others) To object to the state defending individual rights would be like objecting to a person defending themselves.

I've said before that I believe it would be no problem at all to have a minarchist government that was fully funded with voluntary payments towards specific services.

But until that time, even though taxes constitute theft, the very minor level of taxation required to support a minarchy means fewer violations of rights than would exist without the minarchy.

Post 65

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 10:07am

Bill,

You did not answer the critical question I posed. I'll rephrase: Why is it okay for a government to impose laws against people in a jurisdiction who don't want those laws? Isn't that an initiation of force, according to you? (Maybe you agree with Steve's answer?)

Anyway, per the food/shelter/government bit, the point is that you can get food and shelter without cooperation (hides and caves), even though it'd be tough. It's not just tough to get government without cooperation. It's impossible. I think we need to toss this line of discussion; it's unhelpful.

Per the magazine analogy, being in the jurisdiction is akin to reading the magazine, not just subscribing to it, but reading it. You're re-framing the analogy as the magazine imposing on you by enrolling you against your will in a subscription. That's not the analogy I'm drawing. I'm framing it as you imposing on the magazine, reading it, thus incurring a debt to pay.

See, it's not like you were just minding you own business in your home when suddenly the magazine popped up and forced you to read it. There was an expectation before you moved in that by moving in, you'd be reading the magazine. (This is a clunky analogy, I know, but I hope you see the point of it.) You are obligated to stop reading the magazine if you don't want to pay for it. By reading -- by staying -- you consent.

(For what it's worth, Hume didn't go for the consent theory of government authority either. He felt you needed more than just staying in the country to qualify as consent. He equated the theory to being dragged onto a ship against your will (born into a country), which is under the authority of the captain (the government), who happily says if you don't like it you can jump ship (leave the country). To Hume, staying on board wasn't consenting to the captain, it was simply avoiding disaster.)

Steve,

Thanks for answering the question. I have questions about your answer, but I'll contain them just to the following.

To object to the state defending individual rights would be like objecting to a person defending themselves.

This goes back to something I said early on. How can a government carry out this mandate without the funds to do it? Tax collection is part of that defense of individual rights. If it's not an initiation of force for a government to defend individual rights, even for those who don't want that defense, then it's not an initiation of force for a government to tax you in order to carry out that defense. This doesn't preclude a "voluntary tax" system. It just doesn't require it.

Jordan

Post 66

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 12:04pm

Jordan,

You may be right when you say, "Tax collection is part of that defense of individual rights. If it's not an initiation of force for a government to defend individual rights, even for those who don't want that defense, then it's not an initiation of force for a government to tax you in order to carry out that defense. This doesn't preclude a 'voluntary tax' system."

That seems reasonable. But it would come with some caveats

The taxes would have to be only for protection of individual rights,
They would need to be reasonable in the their amount and the efficiency of their use, and
A "voluntary tax system" would be required when and where it could be made to work (in place of, or as an adjunct to the normal tax system).

I like that answer because I know that there is no conflict between rights and to declare a very minimal tax needed to defend individual rights as theft seemed to enter the realm of conflicting rights.

(I'm going to reserve my right to change my mind on this... I need to think about it.)
----------------

Your argument that by staying in the country you are giving consent to whatever idiocy the government might be up to and any level of taxes, no matter how high is still full of it (see explanations in previous posts for why :-)

As to the line of argument you made to Bill, that it was possible to acquire food and shelter by yourself, but that government required cooperation. I don't see any importance to that distinction in this context (or even that it is true). You can pick your nose by yourself, you can even perform some forms of medical operations on yourself (difficult but possible) - so what? You can't have a government without others, but you don't need their voluntary cooperation (i.e., tyranny). For the strongest of the cavemen to create government by club over his fellow cave dwellers may be easier for him to do than finding food or shelter. Government only makes sense with more than one person, but so does procreation, or swing dancing - what does that have to do with taxation as an initiation of force?

Post 67

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 12:28pm

I've always considered this to be the most muddled issue when discussing the application of Objectivism. I'd love to see somebody once present a practical, cover-all-the-bases solution for funding government - which is necessary to establish a rule of law, which is necessary to promote free trade.

Explanation of how and WHY it would work absolutely mandatory, because otherwise the sticking points will usually render it invalid.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 6/29, 12:30pm)

Post 68

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 1:09pm

Hi Steve,

Your caveats make good sense. Thanks for posting them. The consent theory I'm defending is tenuous. I'll give you that. I'm afraid it's the best I can muster for an Objectivist argument. I don't think Objectivists would go for the alternative associative or economic theories.

As for the shelter/food/government bit, the importance of it kind of got lost. Not sure it's worth reviving either. Originally (post 52), I was suggesting something like if government is necessarily a part of human life (unlike swing dancing and procreation, which aren't necessary, I'd say), then you are stuck with government and the relationship it entails, as in an implied contract of mutual obligation. (While food and shelter are also necessities, they don't entail a necessary relationship with others.) I'm still thinking we should toss this line of discussion.

Jordan

Post 69

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 1:18pm

Steve:

John said, "Whether people want to call that a "tax" or a "fee for services" is just a semantics issue."

A man is asking for your money, if he is pointing a gun, I'd call him a thief. Just semantics? I don't think so.

Jesus christ Steve I didn't fucking say the government should forcibly collect taxes. Why do you always take anything I say and interpret it in the worst possible sense? And I thought you were ignoring my posts? Ted brings up a good point, if you want to 'register' a name for a trademark, or register a copyright, someone has to do the work to keep the records, store them, and prevent others from using your trademark/copyright/patent. It doesn't have to be a government monopoly that does this that forcibly collects taxes from everyone, but some kind of centralized database would need to be kept, and this requires funding, and the people who want to register something as a trademark then should have to pay for that service. Do you expect people to provide that service for free? I'm only saying if you expect someone to protect your rights, you should compensate for that protection. If however you expect your trademark/copyright/patent to be protected and you don't want to pay for that, your only recourse would be stealing from others to get that protection. And that is undoubtedly theft.
(Edited by John Armaos on 6/29, 1:52pm)

Post 70

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 2:06pm

John,

My next sentence in the post you quoted says, "Government performs many, many services. Unless a service and its payment is voluntary, it would not be wise to call it a fee - it is a tax."

And in the context, which is this thread where we are chewing on the issue of, "Is Taxation an Initiation of Force?", my reply makes perfect sense. No where do I say that people should get something for nothing. I just stayed focused on the issue of taxation being involuntary.

If you have money forcibly taken from you, but some or all of of it goes to protect your rights, should that be called a fee or taxation? Does it make sense to call any tax (involuntary) a fee? Should the protection of your rights ever be optional from the government's point of view? You have a choice about entering a National Park and you pay a fee - that is very close to being like Disneyland where you can choose to enter or not, and if you do go in, it is because you paid a fee. I see that as an important distinction. Taxes aren't involuntary and any moral justification would have to arise from the protection of individual rights.

Post 71

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 2:37pm

Steve:

If you have money forcibly taken from you, but some or all of of it goes to protect your rights, should that be called a fee or taxation?

I think most of us agree including me if it's involuntary it's force, therefore it's theft. I don't care to get into a semantics issue over the meaning of the words "fee" and "tax", but by no means is paying to register a copyright "theft". It is rather a voluntary payment to have intellectual property protected. Just as if you voluntarily paid for a private police force to protect you should someone trespass on your property, that payment wouldn't be theft either.

Post 72

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 3:38pm

Right now every one of us can apply copyright protection to anything we've created - the applicable laws, the courts, the entire structure is there for us. And we could take a violator to court. We can protect our property rights. Just the same as if someone steals our car. We don't have to register it, that is a convenience, an efficiency - all we have to do is be the rightful owner to assert our rights in court.

The real benefits of enforcing individual rights is in the environment that is created.

This copyright protection is provided as a proper government service and it is funded by the taxes we pay. We benefit enormously from that copyright protection even if we never create a single thing that we want to be copyrighted because that protection creates the environment that lets other people create things for our entertainment and enlightenment - things that they wouldn't have created if they couldn't protect their rights.

If you are talking about not expecting to get something for nothing, don't forget to include what we enjoy that is created by others. How many copyrighted articles, books, TV shows, or movies have you enjoyed this year?

Post 73

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 4:18pm

Steve:

Right now every one of us can apply copyright protection to anything we've created - the applicable laws, the courts, the entire structure is there for us. And we could take a violator to court. We can protect our property rights. Just the same as if someone steals our car. We don't have to register it, that is a convenience, an efficiency

It's not just a convenience, it's necessary for the courts to have a record of which party registered a patent so that the courts can determine who has the right to use that intellectual property. If you didn't have a patent office to register patents, you would just have two parties show up at court, both claiming to own the idea to the same invention without a practical means for the court to determine which party owns that intellectual property.

If you are talking about not expecting to get something for nothing, don't forget to include what we enjoy that is created by others. How many copyrighted articles, books, TV shows, or movies have you enjoyed this year?

I have no idea what you're getting at here. I'm not suggesting we don't have intellectual property rights, if that's what you mean by asking this, I'm saying you shouldn't expect an unearned value, that is you shouldn't expect others to protect that intellectual property as a gift to you, you should pay for that service. Because you can't demand others sacrifice their labor and resources to you. Just as you shouldn't expect to walk into a restaurant and demand someone serve you dinner without returning something of value, i.e. payment.

Post 74

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 4:50pm

John, we were talking about copyrights (see your post #71 and my reply in post #72). Copyrights do not have to be registered. Patents are different, but that isn't what were talking about.

I'll go back to ignoring you, John, since when you say I'm expecting others to sacrifice for me, you're living in some kind of fantasy world and not reading what I actually write. Show me one place where I say that someone should pay for my protection.

Post 75

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 7:01pm

Jordan wrote:

You did not answer the critical question I posed. I'll rephrase: Why is it okay for a government to impose laws against people in a jurisdiction who don't want those laws? Isn't that an initiation of force, according to you? (Maybe you agree with Steve's answer?)

It's not okay to impose laws against people who don't want those laws if the laws involve the initiation of force; it is okay to impose laws against people who don't want those laws if the laws don't involve the initiation of force.

Anyway, per the food/shelter/government bit, the point is that you can get food and shelter without cooperation (hides and caves), even though it'd be tough

Tough? It would be virtually impossible. How am I going get hides? I'd have to kill an animal and skin it, and since I don't have a weapon, I'd need the cooperation of others in order to pull it off. And how am I going to get to the cave. I'd have to travel there, and since I don't have a car, I'd have to arrange for someone to provide transportation. If I tried to survive without cooperation from others, I'd soon die of starvation or exposure. There is virtually no human need or value which, in our modern society, can be obtained without the cooperation of others.

It's not just tough to get government without cooperation. It's impossible.

Impossible? Why couldn't you govern me without my cooperation (i.e., through the use of force)? Modern, representative government does, of course, require social cooperation, but so does modern living. Optimal survival is not promoted by living in a cave wearing animal skins and scavenging for food.

In any case, the argument from absolute necessity is beside the point. Human values are not confined to bare necessities. If something is desirable, not just necessary for one's exigent survival, then it is worth acquiring if the benefits exceed the cost, and that includes all the benefits of civilization, including those provided by government. However, just because a value is worth having, whether it be food, clothing, shelter, education, entertainment or physical protection does not mean that people should be forced to buy it. If I can be forced to buy police or military protection at an arbitrary, non-negotiable price, then there's no reason why I can't be forced to do the same for any other worthwhile good or service.

Per the magazine analogy, being in the jurisdiction is akin to reading the magazine, not just subscribing to it, but reading it. You're re-framing the analogy as the magazine imposing on you by enrolling you against your will in a subscription. That's not the analogy I'm drawing. I'm framing it as you imposing on the magazine, reading it, thus incurring a debt to pay.

See, it's not like you were just minding you own business in your home when suddenly the magazine popped up and forced you to read it. There was an expectation before you moved in that by moving in, you'd be reading the magazine. (This is a clunky analogy, I know, but I hope you see the point of it.) You are obligated to stop reading the magazine if you don't want to pay for it. By reading -- by staying -- you consent.

Okay, then I'm not clear on what the analogy is. Could you spell it out in more detail so that I can understand precisely what it is that you're saying? Are you saying that if you enter a store knowing that the owner requires you to buy his magazines if you read them, then you can't justifiably read them without buying them? If that is your analogy, then I would certainly agree that you should not read his magazines if you're not going to buy them. If you do, then you're violating his property rights.

But how does this apply to a government? Are you saying that if you enter or remain in a country voluntarily, that you are consenting to be bound by its laws and therefore to pay whatever taxes it levies? -- just as if you enter the proprietor's store voluntarily, you are consenting to be bound by his stated conditions? If so, then I would simply reassert my old argument. Whereas the proprietor owns the store, the government doesn't own the country.

Also, if by remaining in the country voluntarily, you are implicitly consenting to obey the government's laws requiring you to pay taxes, aren't you also implicitly consenting to be bound by whatever other laws the government passes? Suppose that the government imposes a military draft. Aren't you also implicitly "consenting" to this law as well? This, of course, is the old "love it or leave it" argument that the conservatives are so fond of. Are you seriously suggesting that the government cannot violate your rights by forcing you to join the military if you choose to remain in the country?

- Bill

Post 76

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 7:18pm

Steve:

John, we were talking about copyrights (see your post #71 and my reply in post #72). Copyrights do not have to be registered. Patents are different, but that isn't what were talking about.

Well Ted specifically cited an example of a patent. So why are you limiting this to just copyrights? Regardless, if we were to respect someone's right to hold a patent, you would have to have the government establish a patent office to which you wouldn't have the right to demand a patent office work for you for free if you wanted them to act to protect your right to have ownership over your invention.

Show me one place where I say that someone should pay for my protection.

I don't think I ever said you said that. I'm just wondering how you imagine patents would work and protect people's intellectual property rights in the absence of paying fees to register it with the government.

I'll go back to ignoring you, John

Fine with me.

Post 77

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 2:55pm

Hi Bill,

Are you saying that if you enter a store knowing that the owner requires you to buy his magazines if you read them, then you can't justifiably read them without buying them?

The analogy I'm going for is not to a property owner; it's to a service provider. So the store owner analogy isn't quite right. And the magazine analogy is too clunky, so let's try something else. Let's say you want to buy a home on a block where each home comes with cable. You might not want cable, but the home and the cable are tied. The cable company doesn't own the home. It just provides a service to that home that you expect going in and that you're stuck with once you're in. (This reminds me of covenants that "run with the land.")

Extending the analogy, one might ask how far the cable company can go. Can it take away or add channels (cf. laws) without your consent, charge exorbitant rates, shirk its duties to repair outages, et cetera? Are you obligated to stomach whatever nutty thing it chooses to do? I think we discussed similar issues with the thread, "Owners' obligations to others on their land," and continuing through to the thread, "are all rights inalienable?" I'd rather not rehash here. Suffice it to say that the cable company can't just do whatever it feels like. You don't have to swallow whatever it tries to shove down your throat.

Jordan

Post 78

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:13pm

The fact is that a lot of the stuff that government does has to get done or we don't survive.

Take global warming, for example. Each individual person or company has an interest in making as much profit for themselves as possible, which is good. However, any individual or company can polute to their heart's desire, with the rest of humankind and other life forms that we might want to preserve, paying the cost. Those companies or individuals who opt out and try to be "moral," are simply screwing themselves, as their opting out simply makes room for more polluters.

If we were on a space station, the issue would be very clear. Someone owns the space station and has a proprietary interest in not turning it into a septic nightmare, one would hope. The costs of preventing the environmental degradation are naturally charged as fees to the inhabitants.

Now imagine that you were an asteroid miner and just stumbled upon an abandoned space station that nobody claims. Several of your compadres in the area also notice the hulk and the bunch of you investigate and decide to make it liveable again. It would clearly make good busininess sense to turn it into a local base of operations, and it would attract other businesses, merchandisers, entertainers, etc.

The problem is that nobody and everybody is claiming the absolute right to do whatever they want with the station, including moving it millions of miles in different directions. As a consequence, no one can depend upon being able to do anything, and people are getting angry.

The fair solution is to regard the space station as the "commons," equally owned initially by everyone there. Those people who want to use parts of the station for particular purposes are free to bid for that lease right, with the highest bidder who at least covers the net costs of usage getting the title, and the procedes divided equally among all claimants. Nobody will ever own that station entire (unless everyone else dies or move out), and no lease can bind descendents in perpetuity, but anyone who can come up with the capital is free to bid for the right to do whatever they want, so long as they don't interfere with others' equal right.

Meanwhile, however, there is the issue of general station maintenance. If you crash into an asteroid, the chances are very good that the station will be utterly destroyed, so someone has to take over the helm, man the watch stations etc. The same is true for detecting micrometeorite holes before too much air is lost. Maybe robots or computers running waldos can do these things and others, but there will be essential common goods that have to be preserved, or are vastly desireable, such as sanitation in the commons areas. Someone has to monitor the robots.

So, the logical thing is to then sign a general contract, in which not only are the methods of resolving disputes spelled out, but also the method by which both normal operating standards are maintained, such as a vote for a maintenance company, with perhaps a prior agreement that in the case of an emergency, those people who at their own cost and risk act to solve the problem can claim reimbursement. The funds to pay for routine maintenance and compensation for emergencies normally come out of the funds from the leases, off the top before disbursement, but you might want to include a clause that everyone could be billed in the case of a major emergency that exceded the normal budget limits.

Of course, the thing is, we are on that space station now, attempting to sort this stuff out. Everyone wants to do their own thing, which is desireable and good, but there is no efficient and fair method for assessing the costs so that one person's private good is not someone elses involuntary loss.

Post 79

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:49pm