Why everybody should be a Libertarian

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Mark,

The LP does not view "national defense" quite the way it is now. IIRC they will mount only a defense with no projection. Cost for such a system would probably be a fraction of what it is today. Except for complex weapon systems, there could be a "citizen's army" at the ready.

That would not prevent like-minded individuals from taking arms against foreign enemies, however. IIRC, Harry Browne stated that he would put a $1 billion contract on UBL. Private concerns could then go after him. All volunteers and no whiners. Mercenaries would do the dirty work.

Like the Revolutionary War, I am sure groups in this country would also have larger weapons that could be used in times of need. Hard to fathom in this day and age when all we get to play with are rifles and handguns, but self-propelled artillery would be a hoot!

LP projections show that the entire federal government would run on excise taxes and tarriffs.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Either all taxation is theft or none of it is. You're just picking and choosing among the programs you like. That's fine, and you can make an argument as to why government should concentrate in one area at the expense of another. But there is no essential difference between taxing for military spending and taxing for welfare spending, or medical research, or the health department, or the myriad other things that the government does. It's all done for the common good, just like the military.

The only difference you've managed to point out is the fact that welfare constitutes the government taking money and giving it to someone else. Well, yes, that's how welfare usually works. But they could just as easily give it to a local health clinic, or a school, or the EPA. It's all for the general welfare.

So argue that is doesn't work, or it's counterproductive, or the market can do it better, or the government just shouldn't be involved in it in principle, but don't call it theft just because you don't like it and then make exceptions for other programs that catch your eye.

 

[Mark Tyson]

7.62FullMetalJacket:

"LP projections show that the entire federal government would run on excise taxes and tarriffs."

Well, maybe if you limited the government to only doing things that the LP wants done. But that's just a disagreement in the philosophy of what government should do.

 

[Oleg Volk]

excise taxes and tarriffs

And then there's the issue of morality of taxes designed to modify behavior...

 

[orangeninja]

"ny particular reason you need to keep repeating the same tired line? We all know you're the Republican Party's biggest fan, does it serve any purpose to keep reminding everyone?"

Republican? More like conservative. Besides...I don't remember posting pro Republican here before.

 

[Chris Rhines]

But if everyone could just opt out of paying taxes on some moral grounds there wouldn't be any taxpayers left.

Almost, but not quite. If government programs were dependant on donation or payment-for-service, then they would be subject to market forces. Unpopular programs would wither away, while popular and useful ones would find many people willing to pay for them. As an added bonus, government programs would have to be more efficient to maintain solvency.

What if someone decides they don't "need" the military to protect them? Can they stop paying an appropriate proportion of their taxes then?

Practical answer - No, the government will imprison or kill you if you try. Ethical answer - Yes, but of course that person would not be entitled to protection that he's not paying for. Not a big problem, these days, as the military doesn't really exist to protect the citizenry in general.

Taxes are theft, I don't think that one can rationally argue otherwise. That's sufficent moral reason for taxation to be abolished. The practical reasons are icing on the cake.

- Chris

 

[mountainclmbr]

The Constitution limits the power and functions of federal government. Socialism is not mentioned in the constitution. I don't ever recall voting for federal government with the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS.

 

[dischord]

Either all taxation is theft or none of it is.

Either some sex is rape or none of it is. Either some killing is murder or none of it is. Either some business practices are immoral or none of them are.

Sorry, the absolutisms of both sides -- "all tax is theft" and "no tax is theft" -- do not wash.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Heard anybody say "alms for the poor" lately?




Go to da welfare office on momma's day.

I am not anti-welfare, just anti-lazy

 

[Mark Tyson]

It's only theft when you disagree with it, discord. There's plenty of government programs that I don't like, but I don't get all indignant and call it thievery.

 

[dischord]

Mark,

If you are correct that no tax is theft, then it would not be theft for a military junta to seize power, raise the tax rate to 100% and use the extra money temporarily generated to buy personal mansions, yachts, etc. and then emigrate overseas as the economy collapses.

It's only theft when you disagree with it, discord.

No. Taxation in and of itself is not theft. But when taxation is used to do something that by definition is theft, the taxation becomes theft. Taxation is simply the mechanism, the tool. The theft derives from how/why the tax is collected.

A military junta taking the money of people for personal gain is theft. Their using the tax system to collect the money doesn't stop it from being theft.

The government taking money from one citizen and giving it to another is theft. Using the tax system to collect the money doesn't stop it from being theft.

 

[Mark Tyson]

I never said there was no such thing as excessive and fraudulent taxation. I just don't buy this idea that any taxation for welfare is b yits very nature theft.

when taxation is used to do something that by definition is theft, the taxation becomes theft.

Whose definition of theft is that? Yours, or the libertarian party's?

A hippie-pacifist type could be opposed to military spending in principle. To him military spending is unnecessary and illegitimate. He defines defense-related taxation as theft. Would his objection then make defense related taxation theft?

Why don't you just say that you oppose the welfare system in principle, or because charities could do it all, or because lower taxes and market forces could eliminate the need for it, or whatever. I think you're espousing the first school of thought. You say it's wrong for the government to take money from the rich to help the poor, it's just not an area that government should get involved in. That is a philosophical disagreement and that's fine, but it's dishonest to label your opponents as supporters of theft because they have a different idea of the proper role of government.

 

[dischord]

I never said there was no such thing as excessive and fraudulent taxation.

Why do you believe it is not theft for a military junta to seize power, raise the tax rate to 100% and export the money overseas to buy personal property there? I know you think such action is excessive or fraudulent. But why do you believe it is not theft? (edited out double negative)

The tax system is not some money laundering scheme that somehow renders theft into non-theft simply because the money passes through the tax collector’s hands

Why don't you just say that you oppose the welfare system in principle, or because charities could do it all.

I have. I oppose the welfare system on principle -- the principle that theft is wrong. Therefore, I oppose taxation for welfare.

A hippie-pacifist type could be opposed to military spending in principle. To him military spending is unnecessary and illegitimate. He defines defense-related taxation as theft. Would his objection then make defense related taxation theft?

Red herring. Maybe it would be and maybe not. Neither answer changes the fact that welfare is theft.

There's plenty of government programs that I don't like, but I don't get all indignant and call it thievery.

Me too. There are plenty of government programs that I disagree with, but I don't get all indignant and call them thievery. I am calling welfare and other state-enforced charities "theft," not all government programs I disagree with.

That is a philosophical disagreement and that's fine, but it's dishonest to label your opponents as supporters of theft because they have a different idea of the proper role of government.

No, it is dishonest to pretend that taking money from one citizen and giving it to another is not theft simply because it is done via a government program and the money passes through the money launderer’s … er .. tax man’s hands.

At least Robin Hood admitted he was a thief.

 

[romulus]

I never said there was no such thing as excessive and fraudulent taxation. I just don't buy this idea that any taxation for welfare is b yits very nature theft.

It's easy to be misunderstood...I actually like dischord's syllogysms. I'm beginning to think there's a problem with customary definitions here.

Taxation: is it theft (or robbery?) Some kinds are, I think the tax on income is a kind of theft. Taxes on consumption on the other hand aren't necessarily theft, unless you tax necessities like food and clothing. I can choose what I get taxed on by accepting or refusing to buy what's taxed and at what rate. Your choice. Property taxes are probably the most insidious of all.

Welfare: is any and all public assistance welfare? Is there no difference between helping say residents of an orphanage and residents of a drug halfway house? or paying the rent for a family headed by able-bodied males?

I get the sense that the sticly is in the method of exacting money more than the actual allocation. In that case, I agree that it's wrong. But hey I'm a socialist so what can I say

 

[dischord]

Taxation: is it theft (or robbery?) Some kinds are, I think the tax on income is a kind of theft. Taxes on consumption on the other hand aren't necessarily theft, unless you tax necessities like food and clothing.

Romulus, I'm happy to see that we're coming to some agreement, especially given our earlier exchange .

"Optional" taxes on luxury items, I agree, do not seem as odious a means as income taxes to pay for state charity. But the question remains about whether charity is the proper role of the government.

Welfare: is any and all public assistance welfare?

I've been using welfare as a generic term to describe any state-sponsored charity.

Is there no difference between helping say residents of an orphanage and residents of a drug halfway house? or paying the rent for a family headed by able-bodied males?

Well, the orphans certainly have more legitimate need. But the orphan's legitimate need does not render our current Robin Hood system ethical.

 

[Cactus]

Almost, but not quite. If government programs were dependant on donation or payment-for-service, then they would be subject to market forces. Unpopular programs would wither away, while popular and useful ones would find many people willing to pay for them.

Chris, would you advocate that the military be funded by voluntery contribution? If not, why not?

If you are correct that no tax is theft, then it would not be theft for a military junta to seize power, raise the tax rate to 100% and use the extra money temporarily generated to buy personal mansions, yachts, etc.

That would be theft, as the taxation was not instituted by elected representatives. The current welfare system was instituted by democratically elected representatives working under their interpretation of what the Constitution says. This is how our government was set up. It is then up to the people to elect representatives that will mold the policies of our government to their liking, or their interpretation of the Constitution, within the framework of said Constitution. If people can't even agree with the meaning of the words IS and ALONE, what chance is there that 200 million people will agree on what the Constitution says?

Libertarians might find it easier to make converts if they turned down the rhetoric of calling people who disagrees with them "socialists", "thieves", "tyrants" or "anti-constitutional". Honorable people can have sincere differences in interpreting the laws and Constitution. To resort to name calling does nothing to further the discussion, but simply shuts it down. And it turns many more people away from their positions than it attracts to them!

 

[artherd]

Cool, looks like I'm a Libertarian.

I always just thought I was part of the "Hands off my ???? and I'll stay off yours" party.

Or, my personal favrouite, the "Let's" Party.


Get it?

 

[twoblink]

If I give money to the poor, or buy food and give it to the poor...

100% of my money goes to the poor.

Now I'll go ahead and contrast that with Social Security:

The government STEALS my money, wastes 95% of it, and gives 5% to the lazy..

Wow... why am I not a socialist again??

 

[Mark Tyson]

The tax system is not some money laundering scheme that somehow renders theft into non-theft simply because the money passes through the tax collector’s hands

We're going around in circles here. The only thing that makes welfare theft is your definition of it as theft, nothing more.

 

[dischord]

The current welfare system was instituted by democratically elected representatives working under their interpretation of what the Constitution says.

So was the current gun control system, but that doesn't make it correct or just, and it certainly doesn't make it above criticism. Welfare is theft. Unjust laws are not rendered just simply because their architects won elections. Theft is not rendered non-theft because it is enacted by elected officials.

Honorable people can have sincere differences in interpreting the laws and Constitution. To resort to name calling does nothing to further the discussion, but simply shuts it down.

No one called anyone names. I said welfare is theft. That is not name calling.

When an anti defends a gun control law, we say "That law violates our rights." That is not name calling. Similarly, when someone defends welfare, we say, "That law steals our money." That is not name calling.

 

[dischord]

The only thing that makes welfare theft is your definition of it as theft, nothing more.

It's not my definition. It is the standard definition -- the taking of money without permission from one person for the financial benefit of another person. That's what welfare does.

 

[Mark Tyson]

for the financial benefit of another person.

ALL government programs benefit someone else. Defense programs benefit defense contractors. If your particular home isn't in danger of attack, then that money being taken from you is going to benefit other people rather than yourself. At least Chris Rhines is consistent.

If tax money goes to pay for someone's groceries and doctor bills, what the heck is wrong with that? I don't see what's so evil about helping out someone who's lost his job or become disabled or something like that.

 

[dischord]

ALL government programs benefit someone else ... At least Chris Rhines is consistent.

Maybe all programs are theft and maybe they are not. Maybe Chris is correct and maybe he isn't. Neither point changes the fact that welfare meets the definition of theft.

 

[Mark Tyson]

If welfare is "theft" because it benefits someone else then Chris Rhines is right and all tax supported government programs are theft, because they all benefit someone else in the short term.

the taking of money without permission from one person for the financial benefit of another person

"For the financial benefit of others" - well, if you call paying for basic medical treatment, housing or food "financial benefit", then I guess it is theft ... but it's by your definition, not Noah Webster's. You and the LP can call it theft; most other people I know seem to call it a social safety net and happen to agree with some form of it.

And unemployment benefits are available to you as well if you lose your job, so it's not just benefitting some unknown others.

 

[Sean Smith]

Well, it's good to see that the dialogue here refutes the notion that libertarians are a bunch of cranks who call everyone a "robber" who doesn't meet their idea of ideological purity.