Is Taxation an Initiation of Force?

Hi Bill,

You're confounding issues now. It's one thing to justify tax collection simpliciter. It's another to justify the particular level and form of taxation.** If tax forms and levels are arbitrary, rather than principled, then sure, that's lousy. You might well be justified in rejecting arbitrary tax levels and forms. But that justification does undermine the justification for tax collection.

If people judge its services as worth the price, then it isn't necessary to coerce them into paying it.

I don't have a problem with this. Like I said to Steve in post 65, my position doesn't preclude "voluntary taxes." It just doesn't require it.

You cannot argue that violating people's rights is justified in order to defend them, yet that in essence is what you are arguing.

Nope. I'm arguing that part of protecting people's rights entails securing the means (i.e., funds) by which to do it. If in the bizarre chance the government must require of its citzens that they serve in the military (or get out) in order to protect people's rights, and if the citizenry understand and expect that their time, as such, is part of the currency by which they must pay down their debt for jurisdictional protection, then that would also be justifiable. Israel is a near example.

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.

And I have put forth nothing to the contrary.

Jordan

**This is not unlike the need to justify having ethics before moving on to justify what kind of ethics and its particulars one ought to have.

(Edited by Jordan on 7/07, 3:11pm)

Post 101

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 4:38pm

Jordan,

It simply isn't possible to justify the draft - selective slavery - in any way. Government can't logically claim that the justification for violating the rights of its citizens lies in the need to defend the rights of its citizens. It wouldn't be morally justifiable for someone to put you in a set of chains and fasten you to the ground next to their front door as a guard - claiming that they needed you as the means of protecting their property rights. And it isn't possible for any aggregate of men, not even if they call themselves a government, to magically acquire moral rights not available to individuals.

Your 'means' and 'ends' argument is specious from the get-go.
------------------

I can say, "Freedom must be protected by free men." It clearly makes no sense to say "Freedom must be protected by enslaved men."

Sometimes a problem in one of your arguments gets disguised when you use different levels of abstraction when discussing the means and the end. Other times you switch between the moral and the functional so as to not be talking about the same thing.

When you say that "protecting people's rights entails securing the means" - well, that is clearly true as a description on the functional level, but you are confounding the moral end with a functional means. what if we say, "protecting people's rights entails violating their rights." - certainly, ripping someone out of their job or studies and forcing them into a two year or more servitude that might result in their being killed or maimed in some foreign land fighting for a cause they may not agree with has to be a violation of their rights. If the end is to be judged on a moral standard, then the means must be subject to moral judgment by the same standard.
--------------

In an earlier post you said, "It's no more 'robbery' or 'enslavement' 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."

But there is a difference between robbery and choice. He chooses to buy bars for his windows instead of keeping his money in the bank or spending it on something else. The taxes come at the end of a gun. Bill's answer in post #95 was very clear on that.
-----------------

You say that "Tax collection is part of that defense of individual rights" but that isn't so. I have maintained all along that voluntary forms of raising revenues would be adequate to meet the minimal financial requirements of a proper minarchist government. That has not been shown to be wrong. And this suggests that a movement towards a proper, moral minarchist government through a reduction in spending on items not related to the defense of individual rights while at the same time reducing taxing and shifting, where possible, from taxes to voluntary fees - a process.

Post 102

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 12:34am

Jordan wrote,

You're confounding issues now. It's one thing to justify tax collection simpliciter. It's another to justify the particular level and form of taxation.** If tax forms and levels are arbitrary, rather than principled, then sure, that's lousy. You might well be justified in rejecting arbitrary tax levels and forms. But that justification does undermine the justification for tax collection.

Jordan, what do you think "arbitrary" means in this context? It means that the government sets a price arbitrarily (i.e., without your consent or agreement) and forces you to pay it. Since "tax collection simpliciter" is coercive, it necessarily involves a level or form of taxation that the taxpayer doesn't consider worth paying -- one in which he doesn't regard the government's services as worth the price. In that respect, to distinguish between taxes simpliciter and a particular level or form of taxation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that insofar as he must be forced to pay what the government demands, he doesn't consider the cost of its services worth the benefit, which means that they are not a value to him.

I wrote, "If people judge its services as worth the price, then it isn't necessary to coerce them into paying it."

I don't have a problem with this. Like I said to Steve in post 65, my position doesn't preclude "voluntary taxes." It just doesn't require it.

If you don't have a problem with it, then you don't have a problem with its logical implication, viz., "If it's necessary to coerce them into paying it, then they don't judge its services as worth the price." -- which is the salient point of my reply!!! In what way do I incur a debt for a service that I don't judge as worth the price?

I wrote, "You cannot argue that violating people's rights is justified in order to defend them, yet that in essence is what you are arguing."

Nope. I'm arguing that part of protecting people's rights entails securing the means (i.e., funds) by which to do it.

And I'm arguing that it DOESN'T entail securing the means by which to do it IF those "means" violate the very rights they're presumed to protect.

Again, suppose that I set myself up as your "protector," and in the process force you to accept the means by which I propose to do it, including the non-negotiable price that I am charging you for my "services." Does it make sense to argue that my actions are justified, because protecting you entails the means by which to do it, even if those means are not the ones that you would choose for the price that I'm charging?

If in the bizarre chance the government must require of its citzens that they serve in the military (or get out) in order to protect people's rights, and if the citizenry understand and expect that their time, as such, is part of the currency by which they must pay down their debt for jurisdictional protection, then that would also be justifiable. Israel is a near example.

Bizarre? The military draft has existed throughout much of modern history. Roosevelt instituted it in 1940, and massive numbers of men were conscripted during World War II. Conscription was reinstated from 1948 until 1973 and was resorted to in peacetime as well as during periods of conflict. Men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means. During the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1969, it is estimated that conscription encompassed fully one-third of all eligible men. The draft was the rule rather than the exception. Without a concept of individual rights, the government could force people to do whatever it pleased. It didn't have to gain their voluntary participation. It is that philosophy of arbitrary government intervention and control that has got us where we are today.

To be sure, if people share your philosophy and volunteer to serve in the military, because they believe (however mistakenly) that they "must pay down their "debt" for jurisdictional protection whenever they are asked, or volunteer to pay whatever taxes the government levies, then there is no coercion. But forcing those who don't agree that the services are worth the price does violate their rights.

Also, by your argument, wouldn't a person who chooses to stay in the country have implicitly consented to whatever laws the government passes, regardless of how draconian they are? Suppose, for example, that there aren't enough people to teach in the public schools, and the government wants you to fill in. Can it legitimately force you to do so, on the condition that if you don't like it, you can leave the country? Couldn't you argue analogously that since an educated citizenry is an important value, the government has a right to employ whatever "means" is necessary to implement it? And why stop there? Why not extend this to cover every other important value, like money for your retirement or your medical care? Since people need medical care, the government has a right to use whatever means are necessary to provide it, including forcing taxpayers to subsidize it. If people don't volunteer, then they need to be forced! It's for their own good, after all.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/08, 12:40am)

Post 103

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 1:12am

Jordan wrote, "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."

Mike Erickson replied, "I sanctioned Jordon for this statement. Rights may as well not exist without the means to protect them."

No one is prohibiting the means to protect them; anyone is free to protect them if he chooses. What is being prohibited is the violation of those rights as a means of protecting them.

If the government "needs" to protect individual rights, it's only because it's wrong to violate them, and if it's wrong to violate them, then it's wrong to violate them in the act of protecting them.

It makes no sense to demand a means to an end which subverts the very end to which it is a means.

- Bill

Post 104

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 7:42am

Bill said:

"If the government "needs" to protect individual rights, it's only because it's wrong to violate them, and if it's wrong to violate them, then it's wrong to violate them in the act of protecting them.

It makes no sense to demand a means to an end which subverts the very end to which it is a means."

This is particularly insightful.

Sam

Post 105

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 7:51am

Mike: "Rights may as well not exist without the means to protect them."

The question is does the protection of rights necessitate some initiation of force? And the answer is NO. Some U.S. organizations already raise billions of dollars a year for services from voluntary payment. A national lottery alone would undoubtedly net tens of billions a year. There are other non-coercive means to do so as well. I do think some forms of taxation (i.e., income taxes) are morally worse than others though.

Frankly, I'm rather stunned by the title of this thread. What's next? A thread titled Is Christianity Really Mysticism?

Post 106

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 10:03am

Bill:

"It makes no sense to demand a means to an end which subverts the very end to which it is a means."

Certainly.

Be sure, however, that your desired end is possible with your chosen means. How will you insure that justice is "blind" for everyone? Not just the rich and the poor but the ignorant as well as educated?

How shall "rights" be enumerated and limited? What would a perfect and incorruptible constitution look like? Would a country founded on this perfect constitution be able to provide the necessary defense for itself in order to survive? Can you write a perfect constitution?

How do we get there from here?

Jon:

"The question is does the protection of rights necessitate some initiation of force? And the answer is NO."

Depends on what you call initiation of force. To an anarchist simply demanding to interview a potential suspect in a crime violates NIOF. Crime is limited by deterrence. It's not whether a crime can be committed but whether it can be gotten away with. If you can't investigate crime, crime will flourish.

I agree that a properly limited government could be funded by voluntary means. Same question: how do we get there from here?

Post 107

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 10:30am

Mike asked, "how do we get there from here?"

One step at a time. Here is my suggestion for the first step:

Leverage the enormous disgust with congress to replace them with fiscally responsible new members in 2010 (and then again, if needed in 2012). Use the crisis to our advantage. Spin things on the spin-masters by telling the truth about what caused our economic problems (blame Bush for his part, but then go to show how Obama made it far, far worse).

When you kill a snake, you cut off its head. The head in this case is money. Stop the almost unlimited ability to tax and spend or to borrow and spend or to print and spend. Fiscal responsibility is the rallying point. This is a cause that will resonate with middle America, nearly all conservatives (except NeoCons), most republicans, most independents and a surprising portion of the democrats. That is the first step. It doesn't have to be done perfectly, and it won't be completed in one go. But it has the added advantage of stopping Obama from doing much damage during the second half of his first term, takes away his ability to claim any victories from his policies when he runs for reelection, and takes away this nutty uber-liberal congress that is a problem in its own right.

The contract with America that Gingrich used to win a Republican majority is the kind of thing that is needed, but for this period in time, it needs to be a contract about specific pledges (Fair Tax or Flat Tax, Eliminate the Fed, Gold Standard and a Balanced Budget) - even getting just one of those would be a massive move in the right direction for our economy. And it needs to be run out of the 'independent conservative' camp... What I mean, is that it has to be a little independent from the Republican party - it needs to be able to blame them for their failings, it has to attract the independents and the moderate to conservative democrats, and it should be free of any of the family values crap or any particular stance on any foreign policy issue.

----- Vote to Save the Economy.... before it's too late------

I've got ideas for what might come next, but whatever it is, it has to arise out of what can energize the electorate, and it needs to be implemented as part of an education package - so that the populace has the philosophical/political/economic understanding needed to defend that re-won freedom after it becomes law.

Post 108

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 11:25am

Mike: "Depends on what you call initiation of force."

Of course. I call "initiation of force" the use of physical compulsion against someone who hasn't been accused, based on some kind of evidence, of doing so first. Someone who refuses to pay for something, no matter what it is, clearly doesn't fit that description. Unless that person had previously agreed to pay for it once rendered and doesn't, which is also force.

Mike: "Same question: how do we get there from here?"

Disseminate the right principles in whatever way open to us. Such sweeping change can't only be done by political means. It would take a big shift in the popular attitude. I think it's wise to focus on people in their teens and twenties, who aren't already wedded to a specific perspective.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 7/08, 11:27am)

Post 109

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 12:23pm

Bill and Steve,

It seems our basic disagreement is whether the coercive nature of taxation violates the NIOF principle. I say it doesn't; you say it does. I agree that, under Objectivism, the means by which to protect rights cannot justifiably subvert that protection. I say taxes aren't subversive like this; you say they are.

Bill, again, the point that wanting or thinking a service is worth it is irrelevant; the relevant question is whether one has assented to the service, thereby incurring a debt for it. Next, you've got it backward, the idea that the government waltzes in on the citizen's domestic tranquility and imposes its protection post hoc. The government protection is part of the requisite foundation upon which the citizen builds that domestic tranquility. Next, you're still confounding the justification for taxes simpliter versus tax levels and forms. Just as its still right to have an ethics even if one adopts a screwy one, it's still right to have taxes even if the government adopts screwy levels and forms of taxation.

And to be sure, of course the government cannot justifiably spend your tax money on whatever it wants, however it wants, nor can it secure taxes from you willy-nilly. That'd all be arbtirary. It needs principled reasoning for determining how to spend taxes and what level and form of taxes you owe. (See my post 60 for a brief discussion of appropriate principles for form and level of taxation, followed by Steve's post 66 with some caveats.) Nor do you assent to any old nutty thing the government wants to do. See parallel reasoning in the threads (mostly at the end of them) that I linked to in post 77.

Steve,

I'm curious - do you think it's unjustifiable for Israel to make serving in the military a requirement for citizenship?

You say that "Tax collection is part of that defense of individual rights" but that isn't so. I have maintained all along that voluntary forms of raising revenues would be adequate to meet the minimal financial requirements of a proper minarchist government.

To be clearer, I should've said "a government's raising of revenue is part of that defense of individual rights" in order to allow for (but not necessarily require) your theory.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/09, 11:20am)

Post 110

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 1:02pm

Jordan wrote:

"It needs principled reasoning for determining how to spend taxes and what level and form of taxes you owe."

How is it supposed to do this? I is blatant collectivism. If the government is acting on behalf of the citizens, and every citizen has different aspirations, fears and needs, it is impossible. Of course, the counter argument is for "the greater good."

Sam

Post 111

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 1:30pm

Jordan:

Bill, again, the point that wanting, or thinking a service is worth it, is irrelevant; the relevant question is whether one has assented to the service, thereby incurring a debt for it.

So how have I assented to the service if I haven't agreed to accept it at the price I am being charged? Once again, the country is not the property of the government, so it can't demand that I abide by its rules if I choose to remain within its borders, in the same way that you can demand that I abide by your rules if I choose to remain on your property.

Next, you've got it backward, the idea that the government waltzes in on the citizen's domestic tranquility and imposes its protection post hoc. The government protection is part of the requisite foundation upon which the citizen builds that domestic tranquility.

What do you mean by "domestic tranquility"? A citizen's freedom from the initiation of force? If so, then the government is imposing on his domestic tranquility if it uses force against him when he has forced no one. If I am minding my own business, and the government demands that I pay it protection money or else it will put me in jail, it is imposing on my domestic tranquility. If I am minding my own business and the government forces me to risk my life in the Iraq war or else it will put me behind bars, it is imposing on my domestic tranquility.

- Bill

Post 112

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 2:39pm

At the risk of having someone step on my tongue, and having only rejoined this thread reading the last few posts, I think that Jordan is trying to make a point about the practicality of running government. Government is created by men to protect men. It protects men by establishing laws - rules - which the men governed all agree to follow. There does have to be a practical consideration about actual governance. The "well, I like that law so I'll follow it, but I find that other one a little inconvenient, so I'll just ignore it" approach is clearly as damaging as the "we're government, so we can shove whatever we like down your throat" approach.

Government is, after all, intended as a cooperation. For government to work, good, intelligent, rational (and irrational) men and women have to simply agree up-front that they are going to cooperate at least with the basic rules of government that are laid out (that they lay out). Otherwise there is simple (or maybe rather complex) anarchy - forget minarchy (whatever that really means).

jt

Post 113

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 2:47pm

Sam,

Read post 60 and post 66. Even under a theory advocating strictly voluntary forms of government raising revenue, we still need principles for how to raise that revenue, then what to spend it on. There's nothing collectivist about it.

Bill,

So how have I assented to the service if I haven't agreed to accept it at the price I am being charged?

The situation is akin to a theory of implied contract. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation based on the amount they lost, not at whatever price they demand, but at an objectively determined price. Similarly, the government is entitled to compensation based on the amount it loses in protecting your rights, not at whatever price it demands, but at an objectively determined price. Neither plaintiff nor government is justified in picking a price out of thin air. The defendant and taxpayer should be considered to have assented to no more than the objectively determined price. (So it's not hard to argue that we are all unjustly being overtaxed.)

. . .so it can't demand that I abide by its rules if I choose to remain within its borders. . .

Here again you're essentially advocating anarchism where abiding by the laws of a jurisdiction is optional.

Per "domestic tranquility," I'm just saying whatever life people build for themselves is done so within the context of a jurisdiction. The (justified) jurisdiction doesn't come to the people and force them to abide. The jurisdiction was already there, so it's the other way around. The people come to the jurisdiction thereby assenting to its authority.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/09, 11:18am)

Post 114

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 2:47pm

Jordan,

If a person is not a citizen of our country, say they live in an entirely different country and they want to become a citizen of our country, then, yes, the government, if it were acceptable to the electorate, could have a policy allowing a foreigner to serve in our military to win citizenship.

France has a policy like that where they allow foreigner to serve in the French Foreign Legion and after 3 years of honorable service they can apply for French citizenship (in less than 3 years if they are wounded in the line of duty - they have spilled blood for France - �Fran�ais par le sang vers�.

Something like that might work for a portion of the illegal aliens, if we had a practical need crying out to be fulfilled (modern warfare at today's technological standards doesn't function with short-term draftees of questionable motivation).

But to require of people who would ordinarily be citizens, like those who are born to parents that already have citizenship in our country, the answer to your question is, "No." I strongly disagree with the policy of Israel and Switzerland in this area. (If a country is truly under attack and its citizens won't defend it, it doesn't deserve to continue. Those countries that are truly free, are never likely to find themselves in that position.)

All that is the United States of America is owned by private individuals or in common by the people of the country. They hold the moral authority that the government is allowed to exercise. They come first. The government cannot claim to come first and say, "You can't be a citizen, even through you were born here, and you were born to parents who are citizens - not until you 'buy' your way in with this or that service."

Post 115

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 2:57pm

Hi Steve,

Interesting. Not sure why you're giving "natural born" citizens a free ride. They "come to" the jurisdiction just as much as undocumented immigrants do. But okay. Thank you for answering my question. It might be worth a thread to discuss qualifications for citizenship and wether they should vary based on an individual's background.

JT, yeah.

Jordan

Post 116

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 3:16pm

Jordan,

I see two issues: The "natural born" is an issue of 'inheritance' - your parents pass on to you, and you get to pass on to your children. I'm implying that when you possess citizenship it applies to your children (if you have any after acquiring citizenship). This is natural as it flows out of our expected life cycle. We mate and we have kids.

The second issue regards who would one contract with - if the country is giving a person citizenship, and this person is giving them the military service - it makes a big difference whether this is a service performed for the existing citizens of the country or for the government of the country. The government doesn't "own" citizenship which it can confer. It, at most, monitors and administers rules on citizenship - like it does with individual rights. It doesn't create rights. Citizenship must be seen from a perspective of a property right. We can own the right to have someone fix our car (service contract). It can only be valid within a specified geographic area. Citizenship is the right to participate in civil rights in the jurisdiction of the American government.

Post 117

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 8:46pm

Many countries in Europe have 'universal' conscription. I am against conscription. However, I am more appalled at 'selective' conscription. As to aliens "earning" citizenship, I think that does occur, perhaps informally, in the US military now.

I have to say that while I don't see creating some special tasks for natural born to earn citizenship, that I do still see citizenship as something requiring an exercise of responsibility, whether one is born in the US or not. Personally, I think anyone wishing to vote should first take the John Galt oath.

jt

Post 118

Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 5:09am

I am rather late to this thread and I apologize. The original line of thought, however, stated that one is free to leave the United States if one doesn't want to pay taxes. This is false. The United States is the sole nation on Earth, which requuires one to pay it tax whether one lives there or not. Further, ask the guy known as the American Taliban if one is able to renounce their US Citizenship. "America: Love it or leave it" is not an option. Force has been the rule here since 1861.

Post 119

Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 5:31am