"Stop thief! Help, help! I've just been robbed!" If you were to hear someone say this and you ran to find out what had happened and they told you that an organized group of thugs had stolen a large portion of their hard earned income, you would certainly be sympathetic, wouldn't you? Of course you would, until they explained that it was the government in the form of an agency called the IRS that had committed the thievery. Upon hearing this you would probably laugh or call the person insane or a nut or something. But why would you react in such a manner? Here is one definition of theft:
In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, mugging, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.
Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief.
I like that last sentence in particular. It means everyone who works for the IRS and almost all of those holding elected public office is a thief. Beyond that it's important not to be confused. If something is wrong or immoral, it doesn't matter who does it. Just because something is "legal" by the laws of a country means nothing. If you believe theft is wrong when an individual or private criminal organization engages in it, then you have to be consistent and oppose it when government does it, otherwise you have no real standard of morality that can be called objective, but a sort of divine command theory with government as God deciding what is right or wrong and granting to itself the right to violate the rights of everyone else in the society.
I was originally inspired to write this by an atheist who had written against conservatives and libertarians who want lower taxes or the income tax eliminated. This atheist thought this was immoral, as to oppose taxes is to take money from programs that help the poor, etc. This same atheist also is against the Iraq war! Why the exclamation point? Because your taxes, idiot, also support the war and the US occupation of Iraq. You are funding the killing of thousands of innocents with your tax dollars. Fool! Be consistent, you politically correct jerk. Massive taxation means a huge federal government, and only a massive tax base can support our current evil interventionist foreign policy.
And whoever came up with the notion that wages equal income? Most of us that pay the income tax do so on the remuneration we receive for our labor, not from interest or dividend income. If I trade 40 hours of my time and labor for a weekly paycheck, I have gained nothing. It no more can be called income than if I trade you a bag of apples for an equally valued bag of oranges. Should I be taxed on such an exchange? What if I had to give the government 30% of the oranges I got from you? I'd actually be behind on the exchange, wouldn't I? But that is what is actually happening when I pay tax on the wages I've earned by the sweat of my brow. Think about it. Not only am I a victim of theft, but I'm now also a part time government slave, being forced to work for my master, Big Brother.
I was listening to some stupid talking airhead news anchor on one of the cable networks regarding the rebate most tax payers will start receiving beginning in May. The airhead asked what people are going to do with that "free" money. That would be like a burglar stealing things from my house for years and then giving back a TV set and then having someone ask me "What are you going to do with that free TV?".
16 comments:
Your argument does not follow.
If you pay tax to get goverment benefits and then gorverment uses that tax to wage war instead, it means that the tax is being misapropriated and the goverment needs to be blamed and changed. It does not follow that tax, by itself, if wrong.
You pay a percentage of your wage in order to gain services from the goverment that cannot be dealt through the free market without leading to monopolies. Stuff like public transportation and free education for example.
You also play to raise the level of the social net of the society around you so that other people, less fortunate than you, can have the same oppoprtunities.
db0, thanks for the comment. Unfortunately your argument that my argument does not follow, does not itself follow. You do not even address my argument. I brought up a moral point regarding theft, this you did not answer. Do you think stealing is wrong or do you not? If something is immoral it is immoral for everyone and a special class called government is not exempt. Elections do not provide any legitimacy either, for suppose that an election were held tomorrow and the majority of the public voted to have all blue-eyed people executed. That would not make it okay, would it?
You assert that I am wrong because if taxes are used for war they are being "misappropriated," this is incorrect, misappropriation applies to taxes that are not being used for the specified purpose and that is not the case with funding the US military and our occupation of Iraq. The congress has repeatedly voted to fund the war so this does not qualify as case of misappropriation but instead is to be expected when you have a powerful central government.
You state that wages are taxed to provide services only government can give us but you offer not real argument but only assert that some things cannot be offered by the free market. You give two examples of such "services", transportation and "free" (I suppose you've never heard of the adage "There is no such thing as a free lunch"?) education, both of which can be supplied by the market place. Have you never heard of private schools or home schooling? As far as other people go, the "less fortunate" are not my responsibility, myself and my family are my responsibility and if you want to give freely of your income to charity and churches, etc., to help the poor, then by all means do so. To take by threat of force money from my pocket that I worked hard for and then give it to another private individual is not only stealing, but it also turns me into a slave, working for others against my will. This moral argument you did not addressed and it does not surprise me that a statist such as yourself did not do so, as you can't provide any rational basis for your absurd position. And besides, freedom provides the best opportunity for lifting people out of poverty and giving them hope of a better life, not government.
It appears that you are also an atheist, if this is so (and forgive me if you are not) it only proves what I've said before, that some atheists still need a God to worship and they replace a supernatural creator with the almighty state!
I brought up a moral point regarding theft, this you did not answer. Do you think stealing is wrong or do you not?
Like most moral choices, this depends on the circumstances.
Elections do not provide any legitimacy either, for suppose that an election were held tomorrow and the majority of the public voted to have all blue-eyed people executed. That would not make it okay, would it?
Strawman.
You're talking about the tyranny of the majority which is not what is happening here.
Taxes are not supposed to be about taking the rights away from minorities but rather to make life better for everyone in a society.
You assert that I am wrong because if taxes are used for war they are being "misappropriated," this is incorrect,
I will refer you to my actual phrase
If you pay tax to get government benefits and then government uses that tax to wage war instead[...]
When you pay for one thing in good faith for a purpose and the government using that money in order to do something else, I consider it misappropriation.
Keep in mind that I do not consider a Representative Democracy to be a perfect system as it is prone to corruption which leads to such actions.
The congress has repeatedly voted to fund the war so this does not qualify as case of misappropriation but instead is to be expected when you have a powerful central government.
Only if that government is corrupt. As I said before, I consider representative democracy prone to corruption. However with another system where corruption is reduced (or even with a non-corrupted representative democracy), social benefits, which the taxes are supposed to be about, work.
both of which can be supplied by the market place.
Not without leading to monopolies as is the case where such services work without goverment intervention in the world.
Have you never heard of private schools or home schooling?
Homeschooling is a dismal failure most of the time and private schools are only for the privileged.
To take by threat of force money from my pocket that I worked hard for and then give it to another private individual is not only stealing, but it also turns me into a slave, working for others against my will.
Not so. Done right, you benefit from the social net as well. You get preserved roads, free education for your children and generally all the things that taxes are supposed to be used for.
You may say that you do not want to participate in that, but you are a member of a society. You have already benefited by growing up in it and now it's your turn to give a little back to a) make up for it. b) give others the same opportunities you had.
You may not care about people less fortunate than you but that only makes you cruel. If anything, I'm glad you do not have a choice in the matter for the world would be a worse place.
Of course, you are always free to move to private location with your family, outside of any other contact with your current society.
This moral argument you did not addressed and it does not surprise me that a statist such as yourself did not do so, as you can't provide any rational basis for your absurd position.
I did not attempt to refute everything you might take off the Objectivist handbook in two sentences. I deal with your arguments as they come and I have now answered.
And besides, freedom provides the best opportunity for lifting people out of poverty and giving them hope of a better life, not government.
There are two kinds of freedom. Positive and Negative.
Negative freedom, which is the one that you espouse, claims that everyone should be allowed to do anything they want (with the usual limits of other's freedom). However this does not take into consideration people who never get the opportunities to do what they want because of money and situations.
Face it, a poor person born in any (Capitalist of course) African 3rd world country will not have the same options you do except in exceptional circumstances.
Positive freedom, which is what I espouse, claims is that everyone should be able to do anything they want (with the usual caveats). This can only be achieved if everyone is able to start from an equal footing.
it only proves what I've said before, that some atheists still need a God to worship and they replace a supernatural creator with the almighty state!
Ad hominem.
Also, I do not worship the state so you are obviously wrong.
Tax Is Theft
Can the use of force (murder, theft) be good and in what circumstances? This question goes to the root of the dichotomy between relativism and universal morality. All forms of collectivism support the doctrine of relativism: that moral principles can change depending on the time and place, generally at the whim of people in position of authority.-Francois Tremblay
Db0: Like most moral choices, this depends on the circumstances.
SE: So, Db0 is a relativist and a collectivist. He thinks it is sometimes okay to use force to take something that belongs to someone else. There is nothing "libertarian" about his leftism.
Db0: Homeschooling is a dismal failure most of the time.
SE: This is a lie, but what else can one expect from a commie.
In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile.
This was confirmed in another study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760 homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic achievement.
More to come!
SE: So, Db0 is a relativist and a collectivist. He thinks it is sometimes okay to use force to take something that belongs to someone else. There is nothing "libertarian" about his leftism.
What, you wait 1 year to reply and then present strawmen to your invisible audience?
Taxation is theft
What, you wait 1 year to reply and then present strawmen to your invisible audience?
Who said I was replying to you, asshole? It happens to be tax time in the US (April 15) so I thought I'd add a little more to the comments for those who randomly drop by.
You have no reply because you admit
stealing is okay if the taxman does it (there is no "straw man" here).
Invisible audience? Oh, that hurt! I think I'm gonna cry. Now, go back to your fantasy world of communism, you intellectually dishonest fool.
You have no reply because you admit
stealing is okay if the taxman does it (there is no "straw man" here).
Of course there is a strawman, since this is not what I admit.
Of course there is a strawman, since this is not what I admit.
Okay, fair enough. You don't consider taxation theft, yeah, I get that already. That's the whole point.
The Moral Argument, or, as I call it, the Moral Razor, is a tool developed by Stefan Molyneux in order to apply a simple but decisive test on proposed moral principles. The Razor is a major deconstruction tool, as well as a major deconverting tool as well. What is this miracle blade? Simply this:
A moral principle or system (or, by extension, a political principle or system) is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application, e.g. to locations, times or persons.
This Razor uses the concept of universality, i.e. that to be valid a moral principle must apply to all equally. If you state that something is moral or immoral, then your statement must apply to everyone, at all times and places, otherwise you are merely expressing a belief.
For example, you may like strawberry ice cream very much, but that is a personal taste. It does not apply to everyone else. It would be quite absurd for me to state that everyone should eat strawberry ice cream. On the other hand, I can say that everyone should be rational, because reason is our only means to acquire accurate moral knowledge. Given this fact, it is obvious that the principle applies to everyone. We do not all have the same tastes, but we do all have the same need for rationality, whether we like it or not.
How does the Moral Razor help deconstruct collectivist discourse? By making us analyze the universality of a proposed rule or system, and making us judge the latter accordingly. It points out the contradiction in what collectivists say. If a principle which requires universal justification is applied to one person but not to another, this is a contradiction. Some examples may make this clearer. Since the Razor’s original application was to politics, let me start with a couple of political examples.
Taxation. Suppose that a statist claims that taxation is necessary for the maintenance of society. What is taxation? A process by which an armed gang demands that you give them money without prior contract or agreement of any kind, and threatens you with coercion if you refuse, ostensibly in the name of the “common good”.
Now transpose this to a scenario not involving the state. Ask the statist if it would be okay if you came to his home with a gun and demanded that he give you a hundred dollars so you can give it to some vagrants you met. The answer will inevitably “no”. Hence the killer contradiction: if it’s moral for a politician to get armed thugs to extort your money, why it is not moral for you? After all, all of us have an interest in living in a more prosperous and secure society. So how can it be moral for one and not for another?
You can see that the Razor shows you where the contradictions lie in your opponent’s position. Given that it is a moral argument, it is also a tool of deconversion. It helps people to break free from the Special Pleading that they have been brainwashed into, and makes them realize the true nature of what is praised as the “common good” and “democracy”.
-Francois Tremblay
The state is also incompatible with basic moral principles. For instance, it is morally wrong to initiate violence against another person. Yet this is all the State can ever do, using “the strong arm of the law”. Taxation is a perfect example, since a government couldn’t exist without it. Taxes are not voluntary, they must be enforced with coercion. Government can only tax you because it has the overwhelming power to force you to pay. If it didn’t have so much power, you could try to defend yourself. However, most people choose to pay because of this threat of violence (which, in any other scenario, would be recognized as extortion or robbery). If you don’t pay, and insist on not paying, you will eventually be staring down the barrel of a government gun. After your non-compliance with their written requests, they will initiate violence against you by arresting you and putting you in jail (otherwise known as kidnapping). If you resist their efforts and attempt to defend yourself, you will be shot (murdered). Notice that the government is the aggressor—it initiates the violence. The person who refuses to pay does no more than defend himself from their attacks.-Libertarian Anarchy
SE,
I realize I'm a bit late to the game here, but you're making a number of errors.
You wrote, "What is taxation? A process by which an armed gang demands that you give them money without prior contract or agreement of any kind...". Incorrect.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." U.S. Const., amend. XVI. See also your state laws on taxation, which will vary by jurisdiction.
This is a valid law, passed by representatives of the people, and upheld by the Supreme Court. The rest of your example is a strawman.
Also, your "Moral Razor" is a ridiculous, easily-manipulated tool:
"We do not all have the same tastes, but we do all have the same need for rationality, whether we like it or not."
"We do not all have the same tastes, but we do all have the same need for taxation, whether we like it or not."
See what I did there? How about this: if taxation really bothers you so very, very much, go off the grid entirely. That's right, go mountain man! They'll never find you in a number of large parks and the like. Just please avoid using roads while you're there. Or any police/fire protection/emergency medical services, either, because those are supported by taxes, and you're not paying. Or, for that matter, don't use the park, because it's supported by taxes.
So, let's presume (to beg the question, as you've been throughout your post and subsequent discussion) that taxation is immoral. It is immoral to directly benefit from something that is immoral. You benefit from taxes. Thus, you are engaging in immorality. So either shut up about "immorality" or stop suckling at the government teat. Your choice, I'll wait.
As a parting note:
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Sorry, Nick, but you're nothing but a fool, and a dishonest one at that.
Db0 now agrees with me on the income tax (and I am likewise now more in agreement with his libertarian socialist views):
SE: db0, nothing follows in your world. But, if it’s Block’s view that the secretary can just leave if she doesn’t like sexual harassment, and it’s your view that I can just leave society if I don’t like the income tax…
db0: and it’s your view that I can just leave society if I don’t like the income tax…
Actually it isn’t, or at least not anymore. However if your view is one of voluntarism, then you must both accept Block’s view of this and also the argument that if you don’t like the society your only option is to “opt-out”. This is not according to my worldview mind-you, but according to the “Anarcho”-Capitalist one which says that if one accepts a situation “voluntarily” it must be because they want to. Therefore since you “volunteer” to live in this society…
SE:Hi Db0.
Well, I’m happy to hear that is not your view.
As for myself, I really have moved away from a pure anarcho-capitalist view. Perhaps my experience as a wage slave has partly led to this. Posts at my blog may not always seem to reflect this, but I’m still in transition and want to be inclusive of many libertarian viewpoints. I certainly started out as an anarcho-capitalist when the blog began.
As I said in a previous comment here on Franc’s blog, I’ve warmed up to his point of view. Maybe I’m even farther along now.
I now call myself a libertarian and an anarchist, but no longer a voluntaryist, and, maybe soon, not any kind of “capitalist” either.
db0:I think when we clashed we were much more at our respective polar ends as I was myself a Libertarian Socialist who still considered the state as necessary to provide public functions. I’ve since moved away from that position towards the more accurate LibSoc position that the state is absolutely unnecessary.
I’m glad to see you’ve followed a similar left-ish path (albeit starting from the opposite diretion).
The above exchange took place here.
See also db0's post The political path of a freethinker.
I'm one of the "invisible audience" I suppose, since I only now saw this thread... But that's not what I came to say. I came to say that the IRS WOULD consider your trading activity a "taxable event". I paint houses now say I need some dental work, I agree to paint my dentist's home. This exchange even though not monetary is a "taxable event" and thus I owe taxes which I must pay in cash to the IRS and so does my dentist!
Now, how is that NOT stealing?
I think it's clear to see the author is speaking truth!
Post a Comment