From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:24:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.072011.16803@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <B9c=j#+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>>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.
>

Aye, and there's the rub...by what principle(s) is this central body
structured, organized, and paid for...

...the least offensive principle is that of popular sovereignty which
require a guarenteed right of EVERY individual to a vote free of
physical or mental distress.

>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?) 
>

Which makes that right of EVERY individual to a vote free of physical
and mental duress an awfully important right.

>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.
>

But Objectivists never answer the question about how to construct
a legitimate government...I would argue a reasonable examination
of Objectivism suggests that the government would be of the propertied
class, for the propertied class, and by the propertied class.
I would argue that a reasonable analyis of Objectivism suggests
that result of Objectivism would be voting weighted by the amount
of property, and not voting weighted by the equality of individuals.

>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.

Notice the Objectivist redefinition of liberty as a more limited
principle of non-violation...i.e. liberty is protected property
and not much more, and certainly not the right of every individual
to a right to vote in the formation of the government, the only
body empowered to tax and to use force.

>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.
>

A society where an individual does not have an equal vote in the
formation of the government is not at all consistent with a society
that respects individual rights...because objective law becomes
the subjective law of the propertied class.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada