From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:03:10 GMT

In article <Z8b=L6+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy writes:
>>Why do you consider taxation by the state (via courts and police)
>>legitimate and not theft when it is for the purpose of protecting
>>every individual's right to property, but you consider it theft when
>>the state taxes minimally for the purpose of protecting every
>>individual's right to vote?
>
>Charles M Kozierok responds:
>>i have already explained *many* times the difference between protecting
>>the right to something and forcing others to provide you with it.
>>you may not like it, but there is a difference. i'm not going to
>>keep repeating my arguments over and over.
>
>I think you've missed Gerald's point.  Perhaps I can put it in a way that
>brings the point home.

i'll address your argument below. but the argument between Gerald and
myself had (note past tense) to do more with his obtuse claims about
objectivism being "fundamentalist" (in the negative sense) and "anti-
democratic" (which is ludicrous), and his ridiculous notions about
rights and how their conflicts are resolved.

>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.
>
>Just as you think welfare is better done through individual charity, I
>think that protection of property is best done through individual arming.
>
>You are forcing me to provide you with police protection.
>
>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?

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* :^)

the double standard is what i have a problem with. many people 
live in beautiful homes on the coast. they get to enjoy the beauty of
living on the beach. most of the time they are the envy of their
inland neighbours. but there is danger living next to the sea as well.
and they know this (or at least they should). still, many of them don't
buy disaster insurance. a disaster strikes, and then the government
bails out those without insurance. and what do they do with the money?
of course, they rebuild another house on the same site. so why spend
money on insurance? let the gov take care of it! as long as your
opting out of police services does not become this, it is not a problem
for me. i think it *would* be appropriate for the government to have
a special disaster tax to pay for those who live in high risk areas,
if they insist on bailing them out. of course it would be more reasonable
just to let them take care of themselves, but the mommy-and-daddyists
would never let anything that "unfair" happen.

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.
you might ask why i am willing to allow this.
really, this prioritizes by saying that the
right to life is at the top of the hierarchy, something i don't
think (m)any would disagree with.

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