Is Taxation an Initiation of Force?

Thank you. I'm a sometime fan of Hardin - when he gets it right, anyway. "Spaceship Earth," of course, is Bucky Fuller's contribution, which is a good model in many respects. The old absolutist view of property, inherited from the divine right of kings, is a major problem in dealing with a space station where whatever we do impacts everyone else. This has always been true, of course, but when the present U.S. began emerging historically, there was and continued to be "the frontier," i.e., apparently unclaimed land (forgetting the actual inhabitants for the moment) that anyone could just move onto and farm or mine or whatever. It took a while - often many decades - for the toxic effects of the mining or poorly managed farming (recall the dust bowl of the 1930's) to impact the rest of us, and given the low population densities, the illusion of absolute property could be maintained for a long time.

That time is over, and that delusion is catching up with us bigtime. The problem is that objectivists, conservatives, and most libertarians still cling to that old notion, which is a complete odds with the common law, which many of the above-mentioned give lip service to. The common law property was absolute in the sense that it was clearly defined as a bundle of rights to which the owner was entitled, due to his paying for them. And because these rights came out of and were derived from the law of the commons, they could not and did not completely supercede prior rights and obligations. In an emergency, someone could "violate" your rights, knowing that there was a mechanism within the law of the commons by which you could seek compensation after the emergency ended. I.e., your contract with the commons, which was a part of any property rights you possessed, also contained an implicit agreement to bring unresolved differences before the court, not to simply start a war with your neighbors.

Compare this to the prevalent attitude - among the groups I mentioned - that one has the natural right to shoot trespassers. Or presumably to kill some kid who steals a candy bar. Because the absolutist version of private property has no basis in reality, it is impossible to deal with fundamental issues while treating that veiw as a starting premise. The "non-aggression" principle that is the guiding "axiom" of libertarian thought, for example, presumes that we know who owns what. Otherwise, how do you determine who is the aggressor and who the victim? Yet libertarians, trying to maintain the devine rights position, are utterly unable to draw those lines in any objective fashion.

Want to make a libertarian run screaming from the scene? Ask them to define children's rights.

Post 82

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 12:10pm

Hi Phil,

You won't get much argument from me per the antiquated view of property rights. I probably wouldn't use Hardin's universal ownership rhetoric, but I do accept the implications of the Tragedy of the Commons. That is, rivalrous consumption of an open resource leads to its inefficient use -- a problem usually best remedied by ascription of legal private property rights.

Jordan

Post 83

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 1:09pm

In other news. . . Phil, you compelled me to go back and review Georgism, specifically the idea of a land value tax. While I'm not sold on the rationale behind it, it definitely offers a rather likable tax system, as it is one of the few taxes that (allegedly) doesn't distort (economic) behavior. I kind of want to post a new thread exploring this tax system to see what Objectivists think of it.

Jordan
(Edited by Jordan on 7/02, 10:36pm)

Post 84

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 2:25pm

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99695

Post 85

Friday, July 3, 2009 - 1:27pm

Go for it Jordan...

I believe that the national headquarters of the U.S. Georgist movement used to be here in the L.A. area.

http://www.schalkenbach.org/the-georgist-news/all/GN5/GN5-1.htm

A guy by the name of Harry Pollard was the main man of the organization, as I recall, and took an anarcho-capitalist position along with the Georgist one. Jerry Pournelle and also his co-conspirator, Larry Niven, were both close friends of Harry, I think.

Post 86

Friday, July 3, 2009 - 7:10pm

In Post 77, Jordan wrote,

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.")

Well, this isn't a very good analogy either. Are you saying that if you don't want cable, you can't cancel it? That doesn't sound very realistic to me; it's certainly not something that exists today in the real world.

But let me take this example as it stands, and assume that you're stuck with paying for the cable whether you want it or not and cannot cancel the service short of selling the home, which is the condition under which you agree to purchase it. Fine. Then in buying the home you're also agreeing with the cable company to accept that condition. If you then decide not to pay for the cable, you're breaching your contract with the cable company and violating their property rights.

But again, the government doesn't have property rights over the entire country. So it's the same problem. The analogy breaks down.

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?

That depends on what you agreed to; it depends on the terms of the contract.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/03, 9:45pm)

Post 87

Friday, July 3, 2009 - 9:42pm

In Post 78, Phil wrote,

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.

This view of global warming is fast becoming discredited. The latest evidence suggests that global warming is not caused primarily by carbon dioxide but by solar activity. Granted, global warming and carbon dioxide are correlated, but the causal relation is the opposite of what is alleged by Al Gore in his now famous chart correlating the two phenomena. Rather than an increase in carbon dioxide causing the associated global warming, it is the global warming (caused by an uptick in solar activity) that causes an increase in carbon dioxide by releasing more of it from the ocean.

In fact, Dr. Willie Soon has pointed out that far from being an air pollutant, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today (380 parts per million or about 0.04 percent) is suboptimal for the growth of plants and marine life. What is optimal is a concentration of from 600 to 1500 ppm. Dr. Soon's views should not be dismissed or taken lightly. He is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for New Astronomy and is the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute (based in Washington DC). He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars and the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics.

More importantly, it is not just plants and marine life that depend on carbon dioxide; it is human life itself. As Dr. Keith Lockitch pointed out in a recent lecture, economic growth is closely tied to carbon dioxide emissions. Europe has been keeping emissions data for two decades following the Kyoto Protocol, and what the data suggest is a direct relationship between carbon emissions and economic progress.

Between 1990 and 2005, European countries such as Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal enjoyed strong economic growth. Spain, for example, experienced a growth in GDP of more than 50% over that period. And over the same period, the growth in carbon dioxide emissions in these countries was around 53%. By contrast, other countries in Europe during that period, such as France and England, grew at a much smaller rate, and their carbon emissions reflected it, growing by a modest 4%.

Conversely, from 1991 to 1993, Europe was hit hard by a recession. There was a big economic downturn, and the carbon dioxide data show that during this two-year period, carbon emissions dropped by 4%. Now a 4% decline in the economy is bad enough, but when America went through the Great Depression, it experienced a 30% drop in GDP between 1929 and 1933. And this is often referred to as the worst economic disaster of the 20th Century, which was a period of widespread misery and suffering.

With that in mind, consider that we�re contemplating policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, not by 30% but by 80 to 90%. A corresponding drop in GDP on that scale would be absolutely catastrophic. It would make the Great Depression look like a party. It�s hard to imagine the devastation this would inflict on people�s lives. Industrial scale energy is an indispensable foundation of modern industrial civilization. Policies aimed at cutting off carbon emissions would deal be an absolutely devastating blow to that foundation.

What we should be concerned about is not "man-made global warming," but man-made impoverishment due to a radical reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/03, 9:48pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/03, 11:35pm)

Post 88

Saturday, July 4, 2009 - 6:02am

Bill,

The idea that the phenomena, global warming - or whatever might really be occurring - is the result of only one simple cause, is, I think, a disservice. It is only wishful thinking engaged upon by both sides or the discussion.

The lemming like approach of most 'pseudo environmentalists', decreeing mankind's industries as the sole cause, and proceeding to try tearing down industries is stupid and insane.

The counter-argument that mankind's industries have no affect is similarly stupid and insane.

There is clear evidence that industries do contribute to higher volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that higher concentrations can eventually create a warming trend. There is equally clear evidence that such trends have occurred in cycles in the past, without any contribution by industries. Certainly, as you say, Dr. Soon's views should not be dismissed or taken lightly. However, also, Dr. Soon's views should be scientifically corroborated.

There are two attractions people have to the idea that man is the culprit in what is currently perceived as global warming. The first is that people like to think there is on simple explanation - "my dog ate my homework". The second is assumption that if it is man's mistake, they feel man can fix it - they know mother nature is not so accommodating.

What is needed is caution, and common sense - rare commodities in the current political situation.

jt

Post 89

Saturday, July 4, 2009 - 8:53am

Hi Bill,

The cable company has property rights. The government has jurisdictional control. Aside, what did you think of my suggestion to Steve that taxes are part of self-defense as carried out by government?

It's dubious to emphasize the link between the sun and global warming. From what I've read, your science references are discredited. I could use some brushing up on global warming talk. Something for another thread?

Jordan

Post 90

Saturday, July 4, 2009 - 11:48am

Jay:

The counter-argument that mankind's industries have no affect is similarly stupid and insane.

There is clear evidence that industries do contribute to higher volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that higher concentrations can eventually create a warming trend.

Jay this is where you jump an entire step without first giving evidence of a causal link. To break down your argument:

1) Industries create more CO2

2) This increased level of CO2 contributes to global warming

The problem is you are not following your own advice. The atmosphere is a very complex system with a myriad of inter-related variables, each influencing the other. Sun-spot activity or cloud formations for example can completely cancel out the effects of increased CO2. Additionally the amount of CO2 produced must be looked at and compared to the percentage of all greenhouse gases. The majority of all greenhouse gases is actually water vapor, something like 80 to 90 percent.

How much global warming is occurring is the first question? By any credible estimates it's been a degree or two in the past century for the average global surface temperature. This is hardly anything to be concerned about. Note that this is an average over an entire century for surface temperature, this is a very specific measurement. Some parts of the planet have cooled, while others have warmed. A few decades ago many weather stations were moved into urban concrete jungles which typically reflect higher surface temperatures because cities typically are warmer because of all that concrete and pavement absorbing the heat from the sun. The data then is even questionable.

Next question, is there such thing as an optimal global surface temperature? No. The Earth since it's had an atmosphere has experienced climate change. It makes no sense to strive for some kind of ideal climate. If the Earth's climate did stop changing, it would be unprecedented and certainly not from man-made reasons.

Next question is, should we fear a warming of the climate? No, not at all. It's actually probably better for wildlife and the economy. When the dinosaurs reigned over the Earth, 90% of Earth's land mass was covered in Tropical environments. The highest concentration of biomass today is in Tropical environments. That is, the greatest success for life on this planet is a warm Earth, not a cool one, and were not even experiencing the warmest weather experienced in human history. When Ice-ages occur, they're like mini-mass extinctions.

Finally if it were ever to become a problem, it may conceivably come after only centuries of using fossil fuels. But it would be foolish and insane to think other energy technologies wouldn't be invented by then that renders the whole discussion of C02 emissions moot. A hundred years ago before the invention of automobiles people warned of the environmental catastrophe of horse manure.

The fact is the global warming hysteria is just the current environmental propaganda, tapping into the last remnants of original sin in secularized Americans, i.e. you must feel guilty for your existence, if not because you were born into sin, then because your existence causes suffering to other beings on earth, or, sometimes, not even other beings, but the Earth itself.

Post 91

Saturday, July 4, 2009 - 12:36pm

I'm going to take this debate on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to a separate forum and thread, because I think it deserves it. Look for it in the General Forum under the title "Is Global Warming Man Made?"

- Bill

Post 92

Saturday, July 4, 2009 - 2:43pm

John,

I just related one accepted scientific fact. I did not succumb to making unwarranted conclusions.

jt

Post 93

Sunday, July 5, 2009 - 12:52pm

In Post 89, Jordan wrote,

The cable company has property rights. The government has jurisdictional control.

Yes, the government has jurisdictional control, but that all that means is that it cannot tolerate attempts by a rival body with a different set of laws to pre-empt legislative control. It doesn't mean that it has the right to pass laws that violate people's rights. Jurisdictional control does not, for example, give a government the right to conscript people into government service just just because it needs to staff its operations. Nor does it give the government the right to expropriate its citizens money just because it needs to finance its operations.

Aside, what did you think of my suggestion to Steve that taxes are part of self-defense as carried out by government?

Are you referring to your statement in Post 65? -- viz.:

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.

If so, then your argument is a classic non-sequitur. It's not an initiation of force to defend individual rights -- e.g., to defend you against robbery -- but it is an initiation of force to rob you in order to defend you against robbery -- which is what the government does when it taxes you. It's not an initiation of force to protect your freedom, but it is an initiation of force to enslave you in order to protect your freedom -- which is what the government does when it drafts you.

It's dubious to emphasize the link between the sun and global warming. From what I've read, your science references are discredited. I could use some brushing up on global warming talk. Something for another thread?

See my initial post in the thread "Is Global Warming Man Made"?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/05, 12:53pm)

Post 94

Monday, July 6, 2009 - 11:27am

Hi Bill,

It doesn't mean that it has the right to pass laws that violate people's rights

Sure, I have not suggested otherwise.

. . . . . Nor does it give the government the right to expropriate its citizens money just because it needs to finance its operations.

If the government needs to protect individual rights, then it needs funds to do it. It makes no sense to demand an end but prohibit its means. It's no more "robbery" or "enlavement" for someone to dip into his bank account to buy bars for his windows and locks for his doors than it is for a government to extract the means by which to carry out its mandate to protect your rights.

See my initial post in the thread "Is Global Warming Man Made"?

I hope to chime in soon, time pending.

Jordan

Post 95

Monday, July 6, 2009 - 5:20pm

If the government needs to protect individual rights, then it needs funds to do it. It makes no sense to demand an end but prohibit its means. It's no more "robbery" or "enlavement" for someone to dip into his bank account to buy bars for his windows and locks for his doors than it is for a government to extract the means by which to carry out its mandate to protect your rights.

I can't believe that you don't understand the difference between voluntary support and compulsory support. Apparently, by your theory, since the government needs manpower to protect individual rights, it has the right to draft the necessary workers in order to satisfy that need. By your theory, forced labor is no more be an instance of slavery than forced funding is an instance of robbery. Amazing.

- Bill

Post 96

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 10:12am

Bill,

None of that follows. Yet again, there's a justified expectation, upon entering a jurisdiction, that the jurisdiction will protect and enforce your rights. You incur a debt for that protection. Either pay it or get out. You can't get something for nothing. If it's right for the jurisdiction to protect your individual rights, then it's right for the jurisdiction to secure the means by which to do it. Last time I checked the government could get by perfectly fine without conscription -- that's just a red herring -- but it can't get by without taxes.

And something that you seem to be ignoring is that you can't opt out of a jurisdiction while you're in it, lest you invite anarchism. Optional governance is what anarchism is all about.

Jordan

Post 97

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 11:57am

Jordan wrote,

None of that follows. Yet again, there's a justified expectation, upon entering a jurisdiction, that the jurisdiction will protect and enforce your rights. You incur a debt for that protection. Either pay it or get out.

Suppose there's a justified expectation upon entering a jurisdiction that the jurisdiction will protect and enforce my rights at a price that I consider exorbitant and am not willing to pay. In other words, suppose I wouldn't have chosen the protection at the price I'm being billed for it. Do I still incur a debt for that protection? For example, suppose that a thief steals $10 from me; the police find and capture the thief; then charge me $20 for their services. Do I incur a $20 debt, because I had a justified expectation that they would protect and enforce my rights? Don't I have the right to accept or reject the service based on what I think it's worth?

You can't get something for nothing. If it's right for the jurisdiction to protect your individual rights, then it's right for the jurisdiction to secure the means by which to do it.

Check your premises. It isn't right for the jurisdiction to protect my individual rights and then demand payment of an arbitrary amount without allowing me the option of accepting or rejecting that protection based on what I think it's worth. You can't simply say that a service is intrinsically right irrespective of the manner in which it is provided. Suppose without my knowledge and consent, you patrol my property while I'm on vacation and catch a thief breaking into my house. When I return, you present me with the evidence and charge me $100 for your services. Am I obligated to pay it, lest I get "something for nothing"? Clearly not.

Last time I checked the government could get by perfectly fine without conscription -- that's just a red herring -- but it can't get by without taxes.

Whether the government can or cannot get by without conscription depends on whether or not enough people volunteer to fight its wars. If a war isn't popular, it may just be that there aren't enough volunteers to fight it effectively. Does that mean that the government has a RIGHT to conscript the needed manpower? According to your politics it does, because in that case, it couldn't get by perfectly fine without conscription. By the same token, whether the government can or cannot get by without taxes depends on whether or not enough people volunteer to pay for its services. If people judge its services as worth the price, then it isn't necessary to coerce them into paying it. If the amount of money it's spending on an unpopular war is more than people believe in contributing, then according to you it will be justified in taxing them, just as it is justified in drafting them if not enough people volunteer to serve in the military.

You cannot argue that violating people's rights is justified in order to defend them, yet that in essence is what you are arguing. You are saying that it if push comes to shove and people are not willing to contribute enough money or services to the government, the government has a right to expropriate it. What you don't seem to understand is the nature of a "right." To say that I have a right against being conscripted doesn't simply mean that if the government can acquire enough manpower voluntarily, it has no right to conscript me. It means that even if the government cannot acquire enough manpower voluntarily, it has no right to conscript me. The same goes for taxes.

And something that you seem to be ignoring is that you can't opt out of a jurisdiction while you're in it, lest you invite anarchism. Optional governance is what anarchism is all about.

The only proper "jurisdiction" that a government has over its citizens is the defense of their rights. It cannot claim the right to violate them, which is a contradiction.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/07, 12:14pm)

Post 98

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 1:43pm

I sanctioned Bill's last post for this statement (among many others), "The only proper 'jurisdiction' that a government has over its citizens is the defense of their rights."

We often use "jurisdiction" as if it was synonymous with geographical boundaries of the law. But it is a much broader concept. Within the law it applies to matching the event or situation under consideration with the laws and procedures to find the proper match. Which government (geography), which court (e.g., Juvenile, Appellate, etc.), which body of law (e.g., contracts, criminal, etc.), which person - i.e., who has standing before the court, and so forth. It is a very complex examination of all the parts of a situation of event to orient it properly relative to the law.

Bill points out that one can take a large step back from the law and see the concept of jurisdiction also refers to matching the law to its moral justification. It pays to step back far enough now and then to see the essence of those things that matter to us. Justice requires identifying what is right and properly applying that through the law to the events of the day. Government, as such, only has moral jurisdiction to the extent that it lives within those constraints.

Post 99

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 2:31pm