From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:20:11 GMT

In article <B9c=j#+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <m2c=rCC@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>>I have no double standard.  Any money anyone takes from me without my
>>>consent is money stolen from me.  Whether that money be for police to
>>>protect weaklings, or welfare to protect incompetents is moot.  How
>>>can you separate the two?
>>
>>i can't. and i don't have any problem with your position.
>>
>Here is my point.  You said earlier that taxation for the purpose of 
>paying welfare was immoral -- you did not think it was necessary, and
>so forcing you to pay was a violation of your property rights and
>thus equivalent to theft.  You had no such qualms about taxation to
>support the justice system.

correct. because i feel that maintenance of a justice system is an
appropriate function for a government. and i feel that maintaining 
a welfare system is not. one is necessary for maintaining individual
rights to life and freedom. the other is not.

>But "I" don't want to pay for your justice system.  I don't think it's
>necessary.  You say that you have no problem with my position.  "My"
>position is that all taxation is theft.

i didn't say i had no problem with your position, if i recall. i said
i was willing to listen to your ideas. if i implied otherwise i apologize.

the use of the word "theft" is tied to whether you feel that
the use of the funds expropriated is justified or not. when i
say "theft" it is because i believe the government had no right
to take those particular funds.

if you believe that all taxation is theft, then you believe that the
appropriate role of government is none at all. that is not my
position. in fact, that would make you an anarchist, would it not?
are you one?

>So, do you believe that all taxation is theft?  

no.

>If so, saying that "taxation _for welfare_ is theft" is a misleading 
>statement (implying that there is some valid form of taxation).  Your 
>agreement to allow the government to collect taxes for the justice
>system is an endorsement of theft.

see above. i don't consider valid taxation for valid services to be
theft. of course this raises the valid question of what is "valid". but
right now we only seem to be considering if the ideal size of
government is zero. i don't believe the ideal size of government is zero.

>If you do not believe that all taxation is theft, then you have not
>set out clearly enough what the conditions are that make taxation
>valid.  Protection of rights is not sufficient, since "I" am quite
>certain of "my" ability to protect my rights without taxation.  You
>are asking -- nay telling -- me to provide you and your kind with
>a police force, with an army.

you have a very good argument here. let me address it.

you are taking individual freedom to an extreme beyond where i would
take them. in your mind, individual freedom dominates totally unchecked
by the need for any government. (correct me if i'm wrong, please,
we've only exchanged a couple of posts). but there is a problem with this.
in order for there to be a society, there are rules which must be
followed. these rules embody the individual rights which each member
of that society has, such as the right to life and liberty.
i believe it is important to have a central body which,
at least theoretically, enforces those rules.

without such a body, society degenerates into gang warfare. disputes
are settled by whoever has the biggest gun. anatagonists who can't
think straight take the law into their own hands (have you seen what
even people who *love* each other do to each other?) 

so i feel that there is some role for government in our lives. if you
don't, then you are an anarchist. i am not promoting anarchy; if you
want to continue the discussion as anarchism vs. objectivism, fine.
but objectivists believe in the existence of law, which protects 
individual rights based on an objective set of moral, consistent
principles, chief among these the principle of non-violation.
rights do limit freedoms. and the law is intended to enforce
those freedom limitations in a fair way.

in fact, your philosophy leads to far more subjugation of the weak
to the strong than does objectivism. because your laws are subjective,
and open to interpretation. there is no protection of the minority,
and no enforcement of what the concept of individual rights are.
there is nothing to stop anyone from taking away your rights.
and if your answer is that each person must defend his own
rights individually, then you are supporting a society which is
not based on guaranteed rights of life and freedom. i am.

>And here your argument falters.  It is immoral for the government to
>force you to pay for food and shelter for people, since you are not
>obliged to provide them with the necessaries for them to enjoy their
>right to life.  Their rights are merely the things that prevent others
>from doing unto them, not things that in any way force us to do _for_
>them.  Yet it is somehow not immoral for the government to force me 
>to pay for police and judges, even though these are merely the 
>necessaries for people to enjoy their rights to property and freedom.

see above. taxation is not theft if it is used to support valid 
services which guarantee the fundamental life and liberty rights 
of individuals. baking bread and building houses don't fall into
that category.

>You are forcing me to do _for_ you.

i see your point but i disagree. what i am doing is ensuring
a society based upon the principle of non-violation.
a society with no government at all is not consistent with a society
which respects individual rights; because individual interpretation
of objective law leads to subjective law. non-violation is the
principle behind the right to life and liberty. and the "right
to basic needs" is not consistent with the principle of non-violation.

>>>Fire protection is easily provided by the free market system.  You
>>>simply enroll in one of the Fire Protection companies that operate
>>>in your area.  If your house catches fire, they'll come and put it
>>>out.  If you pay for deluxe service, they'll come when your neighbour's
>>>place catches fire and keep it from spreading to your place.  For
>>>people who don't want to get fire protection, there'll be freelancers
>>>around most places -- people who'll bring the trucks to your fire and
>>>dicker with you over the price to put it out.
>>
>>doesn't sound particularly practical to me. in which case the
>>right to life *would* be threatened. 
>>
>And forcing impoverished people to rely on the kindness of strangers
>does not?  Remember, I am in no way forced to provide for others
>the necessaries for them to enjoy their rights (be it food or fire
>protection).  If some charity wants to provide fire protection for
>poor people, more power to them.

i am not talking about protecting the poor people. i am 
talking about the fact that when it becomes known to all who would
not pay that if they choose not to everyone else will cover their
you-know-whats because they can't risk having it spread to *their*
property, they will opt out because they have no incentive not to. this
*is* the proper analogy to the "choosing not to work because welfare
is available" situation. in this case charity does NOT work. and my
rights (and yours) ARE threatened. or at least our rights to property
and hence rights to freedom.

>>i realize you're likely only setting me up to try to show
>>a contradiction in my position, so why not just go ahead and do it?
>
>I hope my comments above make it clear where I think the contradiction
>lies.

fine; i hope i have addressed it appropriately.
but i still don't know if you really are an anarchist or
if this is all some attempted straw man from hell... 
care to explain yourself?

--
charles