I realize, of course, the debate this new post from my own blog will likely cause in the comments section -- and I probably won't join in. Also, to the anarchists in our readership: You know I like you and many of your ideas quite a lot. But nonetheless...
Q. You said you believe in minarchism. How do you reply to the claim that taxation is theft? And furthermore, since you believe in a free market, why would the market not be a good way to run things like the legal system and police forces? It works for everything else, what makes law or police any different? — logicallypositive, from tumblr.
A. Well, I’m not fond of taxation. The income tax is certainly abusive and unnecessary. Indeed, I’d prefer to have the government funded in as noncoercive a manner as possible. I kind of like Ron Paul’s idea of a low, uniform import tariff — or, even better, lottery (with private lotteries legalized, of course). That’s basically voluntary taxation, which I find completely acceptable.
That said, I’m not an anarchist and do want a nightwatchman state for the protection of person and property. I’m inclined to think persons smarter than I could figure out a way to fund it without taxation, but, assuming they were fairly applied (not progressive or regressive, for instance) I’m not against the very low taxes which would be required to support such a minimal regime.
Note: Taxation for unjust purposes (aggressive war, corporate or social welfare, etc.) is indeed theft. But I assume we agree on that point.
In answer to the second half of your inquiry, what makes it different is that my right to the nonviolation of my person and property has nothing to do with how much of that property I have.
This isn’t the case with the sorts of things the market handles; I have no right to health care regardless of my wealth, but I do have a right to not be assaulted no matter how poor I am. For instance, just because I can’t afford to hire a judge and lawyer, you still shouldn’t be able beat me up or burn my house down. But the fact that I can’t afford to hire a doctor very much means he’s not obligated to treat me.
Now, given the choice between our current government and the anarcho-capitalism you describe, I’d certainly pick the latter. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s the best option.
If taxation is voluntary, what's to stop society from not paying these taxes, crippling the government, and running it over with private defense agencies? I think coercive taxation is a necessary component of even a nightwatchman state to survive long enough to operate.
I agree. Also, you have to figure that it is unfair for a person to not pay taxes. If one person decides to not pay taxes, does that mean that they won't receive the benefits of the nightwatchmen state? What we need is a single, flat tax rate that all people pay. I believe in a sales tax because all people who are in this country receive government services and therefore should be required to pay for those services.
I think you are conflating rights and entitlement.
If you aren't entitled to the services of a doctor, why are you entitled to national defense or other security services? Having a right to your life and property and being entitled to protection are two different things.
Whenever a "right" requires another person or group of persons to go out of their way to provide that right, it turns into an entitlement.
All entitlements are a kind of slavery, because they force people to provide for someone else.
If I were entitled to health care, others must be forced to either provide the health care (slave doctors) or to pay for its provision (taxpayers). The same logic applies to security services as well.
So, assuming that I rightfully own my money, if I were to be forced to give some of that up, whether it be for national defense, health care, roads, or education, it must be outright robbery. The ends make no difference at all, it is the means—extracting money from persons by the threat of force and violence—that is important.
It would be wrong for me to steal your wallet even if I did it in the name of charity and gave it to a homeless person, or if I did it in the name of "protection" and donated it to some local security agency.
If it is wrong for one person to commit the acts described above, would it not be wrong for two people? And three? And on and on?
And unfortunately this is why pure philosophy doesn't work. Our founders also believed that anarchy could and should be achieved however, they knew that the current world culture would not allow that. That is why they had to give up some liberties in order to protect the liberties of all.
And unfortunately this is why pure philosophy doesn't work. Our founders also believed that anarchy could and should be achieved however, they knew that the current world culture would not allow that. That is why they had to give up some liberties in order to protect the liberties of all.
The main problem is that there isn't a single examle in history of a limited government staying limited.
Is there an example of no government staying no government?
If there are no examples of either maybe we should fight for the more principled and logical anarchist position.
The way to keep a government limited is through political action and the threat of rebellion. That is why you see all the quotes from Thomas Jefferson about the need for multiple revolutions.
"I have no right to health care regardless of my wealth, but I do have a right to not be assaulted no matter how poor I am. For instance, just because I can’t afford to hire a judge and lawyer, you still shouldn’t be able beat me up or burn my house down. "
This is a confusion of rights and power. Just because you can't afford to hire defense doesn't give anybody the right to beat you up, that's true. However, that doesn't mean they do not have the power to do so. However, simply because you are too poor to purchase defense doesn't give you the right to form in a large group and then begin forcing wealthier people to give you protection, no matter how small of a scale it may be on.
All the taxes you mentioned are violent in nature, except for the lottery one. Indeed, that is not violent, and is therefore not a tax. If you raise money through voluntary exchange, no State is ever involved, that is the private market in operation. However, if you were to raise that money voluntarily and then come to the conclusion that every person within a randomly selected area must abide by your rules or else face the consequences, that is aggressive. It is also wrong.
Minarchists really have no philosophical justification for remaining in the realm of desiring a State. They simply haven't given up on the idea due to their years of being indoctrinated. It's close at least. However, consistency is too important. Minarchists simply come up with way too many off the wall justifications for the State, right after they have offered every single argument against it. It really is a confusing state of affairs. However, I can respect the position. I just feel it is a wrong one.
@Bonnie: "Note: Taxation for unjust purposes (aggressive war, corporate or social welfare, etc.) is indeed theft. But I assume we agree on that point."
+
@Andrew: "So, assuming that I rightfully own my money, if I were to be forced to give some of that up, whether it be for national defense, health care, roads, or education, it must be outright robbery."
Since theft is illegal taking, I'm surprised at your revelation that taxation is against the law when you don't happen to like it.
And if you think that taxation against your wishes (toward either moral or immoral causes) is inherently immoral, I'd be really interested to know where such moral judgments come from.
"+" ? As in, you agree? (I'm not being sarcastic, I promise -- I'm just checking to be sure I'm reading that right. All this comments math is new to me and the YAL blog XD)
"+" = "Bonnie & Andrew's comments taken together."
"&" would have been better.
I think it's important to draw a distinction between legislation and natural law. When I use the words "robbery" and "theft" I am not referring to anything specified in any legal code. Rather, I mean the acquisition of property through the threat or initiation of force.
When the state defines what is a crime and what isn't, the state's actions will always be conveniently "just" and "legal". If a law was passed saying I could legally take money from people shorter than me, does that justify me if I do so? Of course not.
Essentially, the argument about taxation is really one about property rights. I consider myself to be the rightful owner of the money I earn. To own something means that nobody has the right to seize it by force, or to threaten me into surrendering it.
If I don't pay taxes, eventually armed men will show up at my door. These men will kidnap me and then lock me up in a cage. If I resist these men, I may be shot. If you consider this a just act, you should ask yourself why only one group of men may do this and not another.
For instance, if the mafia showed up at my door demanding protection money and I refused, they would also kidnap me or shoot me or something. But for some reason, it is unjust for the mafia to do this and just for the state to do what is essentially the same thing.
I'm not saying that taxation is against the "law" when I don't happen to like it. I'm saying that taxation is a violation of my property rights, and yours, too.
For more information, read this quote by Lysander Spooner - http://bit.ly/cuoSCT
I'm sure there are interesting comparisons to be made between how governments evolve and how organized crime asserts outlawed power. But the quote and your characterization are really more for emotional effect than good analogy.
Tax obligations are more like payments on a gym membership. You may only use one of the hundreds of machines they offer, or none at all (you lazy dog :D), but their business model isn't a la carte or based on usage like a wireless phone plan. It might be expensive, it might be a hassle, but you can switch gyms.
Nobody is going to put your head in a vice or cut off your jewels and stuff them in your mouth (or other things if you're a lady) to make you join the club or pay your dues. Through voting you get some measure of control over taxation and legislation, and your citizenship comes with all kinds of handy perks. In protection rackets the benefits are mostly to protect their bats from your head, and Mr. Corleone doesn't seek your feedback.
What property you have acquired in your life has not occurred in social vacuum. It has been acquired as a citizen of a system that creates and maintains an infrastructure helpful in producing and acquiring property. To claim that you have the right to keep all you acquire without paying for that system sounds like freeloading.
It sounds to me like your objection is directed not so much at taxation as being born into a citizenship that obligates you to pay taxes. Maybe for you citizenship needs to be opt-in.
What the USA could offer you in that situation (since you are already within its territory, and removing you might be considered harsh) is a freemium 1 day/week pass to travel along its roads and basic legal rights to any property you acquire during your stay. However, education, police, fire, military, legal, etc. services for you and your children would be pay-per-use until you opt-in and fund the system. Assuming a positive credit score on your part, we could even issue you a credit card to make those transactions as painless and timely as possible. It is understood, of course, that unresolved payment delinquencies could result in a scenario akin to kidnapping and caging with complimentary cable TV. :) Natural Law assumes some kind of enforcement mechanism.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I get where you are coming from. I think the crucial thing here is the issue of whether or not there is a legitimate social contract in the US.
If you come from the perspective that we're all one big family here and have voluntary agreed to everything, then you'll see whatever demands the state makes as just and fair.
If you come from the perspective that there really is no consent, you will see the state as a mere band of criminals—one group of destructive and parasitic people making their living off the rest of the productive, peaceful people. And besides, that's much more dramatic and interesting, right?
This seems really collectivist to me. Let's assume for a moment that without the state I really would not be able to work and trade peacefully as I do now. Just because the state makes this possible, does that mean I owe it whatever sum it demands from me? No; only if I actually engage in trade with the state.
For instance, let's say that I shine your shoes without your consent and you get a raise on account of your looking very professional with your shined shoes. I could claim that I really was partially responsible for your raise—that your raise "hadn't occurred in a social vacuum"—and thus you owed me some obtuse percentage of your personal income or the value of your home. Could I rightfully demand payment, and accuse you of "freeloading" if you didn't pay? Of course not. There was never a trade agreement.
If you did actually ask me to shine your shoes, and we agreed on a price, you really do owe me money, not because you got a raise, but because you agreed to pay.
You may bring up that police and national defense services are very different than, and more important than shined shoes. But I don't see how substituting security for shined shoes changes the scenario in principle. If someone "protects" me without my consent, can they still demand payment for the "services" rendered when the services weren't even asked for in the first place?
Ah, but I'm an active participant, you say. I purposively drive on their roads, don't I? I actively buy food inspected by the FDA, don't I? When I board a plane I make use of their security services. But do I really have a choice? If I'm trapped, how can my use of these services be construed as proof of consent?
I know it may seem repetitive to bring up Spooner again, but his piece No Treason really shatters—to me at least—the claim that the US operates by social contract.
More good stuff to read is Rothbard's Anatomy of the State.
+1 for approaching the libertarian abyss.
@Skyler: The lottery is voluntary, in that you choose to play it. That's the only thing I designated voluntary.
@Andrew: The chain of reasoning goes: I have a right to my own person and property. I have a right to defend them. I have a right to agree to enter into what is commonly known as the social contract to let the government defend it for me and my neighbors as an impartial arbitor (in cases of crime) and much larger, more effective entity (in cases of invasion). There's no entitlement, and, as long as the government isn't forcing people to live or not live in our country (or subscribe to its protection, if it's nonterritorial), there's no coercion either.
@both chris p and anon: No to both, at least not that I'm aware of. But surely we're not all pragmatists here?
@J: First, the wealthier people don't have to be under the same government as the poorer people if they are not so inclined. I refer you to the concept of social contract mentioned above. Second, still referring to social contract, is a tax violent if you've (and I do mean you personally, not your parents or your representative) agreed to pay it? Also, I noted that voluntary funding of government would be preferable, and could probably be managed. Third, such in-the-box thinking! Who ever said government had to be territorial? And who ever said anything about requiring people to be in or out of this hypothetical society? And fourth, poisoning the well of minarchists' arguments ("years of being indoctrinated")? Hello, logical fallacy. I'd expect more originality and reason from an anarchist :P
Thanks for your response, Bonnie. If your idea of a minarchist state is more along the lines of something like a home owner's association (which all parties involved explicitly agree to), I see nothing unjust about it.
I would contest that there is no legitimate social contract within the US (although that may or may not be your position). I heartily recommend Lysander Spooner's No Treason. It's long, but it's good.
Legitimate social contract in our current system? HA! I mean, uhh...no, of course not.
But yeah, I am indeed calling for the most minimal state possible. Also, I would argue that it would be in the interest of everyone, either rich or poor, to enter the social contract. But now I need to get ready for work, so I can't do that here XD
Bonnie
While I think a small state is better than a big state, and that your views on the matter are much more ideal than most people's, a low uniform tariff is just means you compromise on the principle of non-aggression. A social contract based on tacit consent is, like Adam Kokesh said in one of his popular speeches, like a bad relationship. It's not based on consent if the geographic area it represents is monopolized.
Sure, like many other people you can tell someone to move from the geographical area if they don't enjoy the existence of this marginal coercion but you must admit that it is kind of handy to live within a language community, amongst friends and family, with people and places you have grown to love. There is a massive opportunity cost to be rid of social contract through migration. People will choose to live with friends and family under great tyranny rather than being separated.. simply because it is possible to move doesn't justify this coercion.
That being said I would be happy with a low uniform tariff rather than what we have now.
I was wondering when you were going to break out the social contract. Nice move
I don't really see how a voluntary social contract agreed upon by individual man is any different than voluntaryism. I have heard the same idea called "modified-voluntaryism", but I don't really think it is modified at all. I think if you follow voluntaryism to it's logical end that such contracts would not be inexistent in a voluntaryist society. I don't think that any free market anarchists oppose voluntary contracts.
Post new comment