From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:48:11 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <m2c=rCC@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>Mark Young wrote:
>>Say I am a Feudalist.  I happen to believe that I am perfectly capable of
>>protecting my property by the power of my own arm and my ability to pay
>>people to help me.
>>
>>Now you come and tell me that I have to pay taxes so you and your weak
>>neighbours can pay for police and courts and things that I think are
>>unnecessary.  As far as I can see, that's as much theft as it is if they
>>come and tell me that I need to pay taxes so that some incompetents can
>>be given welfare.
>>
>>[...]
>>Why is forcing me to pay for welfare any more theft than forcing me to
>>pay for police?  I will cheerfully waive my "rights" to welfare and
>>police protection, so why can't I get out of paying for them?
>
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>the simple answer is: in *theory* i would support your right to opt out of
>>any system where you wanted to take your chances without paying for
>>the service, as long is it did not violate my right to life or freedom.
>>BUT, you would then be responsible for *all* consequences.
>>theoretically, i would have no problem with you opting out of 
>>police services, but what would happen if someone broke into your house?
>>would i then be within my rights to say "tough do-dos, he didn't
>>pay up?" if so, then by all means opt out. but don't call up and 
>>say "help". even the CAA doesn't come unless you pay *first* :^)
>>
>A fat lot of good your *theory* does me when your *government* keeps
>coming after me for more money for weaklings.

(wow -- what an interesting perspective for me: "your" government. :^)

>I already said I don't
>need you or your police to protect me, so you needn't worry about me
>calling them.

fine. then i have no problem with your opting out. i didn't say
otherwise. re-read my post.

>How is someone breaking into _my_ house going to endanger (let alone
>"violate") your right to life or freedom?  It can't. And yet you still
>want me to pay for police and you still insist that it's not at all
>like paying taxes for welfare.  I still don't see the distinction.

whoa! hold on there!
perhaps i was unclear. i only meant to say that i have no problem
with your system, *as long as* the stuff i caveated does not happen.
that's all.

>>the double standard is what i have a problem with. 
>[story of people getting bailed out by gov'ment deleted]
>
>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.

>I've said I'm willing to live with the consequences of my actions.
>I won't be asking your government for any money -- besides, if my
>plan is implemented, there won't be any government any more:  there
>will only be private businesses providing services for their paying 
>customers, and charities providing support out of funds collected 
>through voluntary donations.

what about the judicial system?

>Think of it, an entire country run without any government theft.

i like it. won't happen, of course.
but i'd settle for a 95% reduction from the current morass.

>>even given this, there are some cases where individual opting out
>>would be impossible because doing so would threaten the rights of
>>others. the military is one case; how can the army defend my house
>>but not yours, which is next door to it? same with the fire department.
>
>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. 

the system also degenerates if you allow opting-out, if others
must take up the slack in case their properties catch fire. a better
counter-argument would be that those in attached buildings must deal
with their common problem, and that those in detached houses can deal
with things individually.

>No theft there.

if you can work out a system that works, more power to you.

>Police services can be done similarly.  The difference being that you
>would go to the freelancers (private investigators) instead of them
>coming to you.

i don't really think that this would work.
the enforcement of rights (which is what a police force is) should
be done by a neutral government-run service.
otherwise you are just left with armed gangs.

>Military is a bit more complicated, but can still be done.  I can 
>afford to arm myself and some retainers enough to protect me from
>small threats.  For larger threats I can band together with people 
>across the country to buy more expensive equipment that will be
>available to members of the corporation as required.

then what is to protect me from your band if i choose not to join?

>Our companies can then offer protection to individuals.  If a
>foreign army enters your area, we'll come and get you out and pay
>to set you back up again when the fighting's over (not great, but
>better than death).  If 40% or more of your community signs up to
>our protection plan, you get community rates.  We'll come out and
>protect your whole community from the foreign invaders (tho' only
>members get recompense for damages).  
>
>Of course, some people would rely on their neighbours' protection 
>to protect themselves; but then, under your welfare system, some 
>people would rely on their neighbours' charity to keep the poor 
>people from rioting.

good analogy.

>All in all, my system for protecting people
>is no worse than yours for feeding people

and in fact it could be argued that a person has as much a duty to
defend his own body as he does to feed himself. good point.

>and my system has the
>added benefit that no one has to give any money for _any_ service
>they don't want.

i am willing to discuss your system. i am not convinced that it works,
but if you're waiting for a generic "but that's different" argument, you
won't get it from me. at least not on a philosophical basis.
practicalities are another matter. because there is a difference between
an ideal system, a goal, and the realities of society, as i must admit.

>So why am I still paying taxes?

because most people disagree with you, and don't care about your rights.

>Why do you continue to endorse
>theft?

i don't. 

i don't blindly accept all the doctrines of formal objectivism. that
would make me a faith-follower, something some others have tried to
accuse me of. i believe in the fundamental concepts of objectivism,
and if your system can work, and it is more consistent with reason
than formal objectivism, i am willing to listen. 


***

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?
if not, then congratulations on some interesting thoughts...
most refreshing.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics