Aren't Taxes Necessary Even for a Minimalist Government?

[Nerd_00]

Hello all,

 

I have a few questions that I need answered regarding the nature of limited government and taxation in a free society.

 

So, I've heard Stef say that government taxation is by definition theft. It's hard to argue with him, but I do have a few criticisms that I'd like addressed by someone with a better grasp of political philosophy than I.

 

If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form. Ergo, taxation of some kind is still necessary to fund them.

 

You might be tempted to claim that these services could be privatized in some form. For example, you could have a pay-per-use system for the police whenever they're called. However, in any pay-per-use system, there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service. In short, if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

[Andrew79]

If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form.

I don't.And the name of the forum you're posting in is "General Anarchism and Economics" - Freedomain Radio's political philosophy is zero government. Voluntarism rather than violence. 

In short, if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

"Roles of government"? These roles were around before government."Their neutrality"? There is no neutrality. Government services are biased in favour of the government. And because there's only one provider, if you have a problem with them - tough luck.A service is a service is a service. And free markets will always provide a service better than a government can. There are no magic exceptions to basic economics.

[dsayers]

I have a few questions that I need answered regarding the nature of limited government and taxation in a free society.

 

Could a society with limited legitimized coercion be described as free? Could a society with theft as a feature be described as free?

 

If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts

 

I reject this position, but would like to point out that your claim is still false. In the US, government operations ran without income or property taxes originally.

 

You might be tempted to claim that these services could be privatized in some form.

 

I feel this is manipulative language. There's nothing that violence can do that voluntary interaction cannot, except for theft, assault, rape, and murder. To claim the services you're referring to could be privated is not a temptation. It is an accurate description of the real world. Forms of them exist even amid the statist paradigm.

 

there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service

 

This isn't true. Before a service is nationalized, providers of services have historically offered discounted and free services to those in need.

 

if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

 

This is the opposite of true. With a government, services are extremely biased towards those who exist at the expense of those yet to be born. With a government, services are extremely biased towards those who help keep politicians in power and grow their power. With a government, services are extremely biased towards people who can afford to bribe.

 

You mention police, but with a government, police don't have to provide any service at all. You mention armed forces, but with a government, armed forces are amassed and employed for offensive purposes, at significant expense and damage to the environment, massively endebting the unborn. You mention courts, but with a government, courts can do whatever they want, regardless of the law, precedent, or even the facts.

 

You cannot achieve neutrality while claiming that humans that are fundamentally not different exist in two or more fundamentally different classifications. Whether that's the rulers and the ruled or the dependent/worker/enforcer/ruler categorization.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why should police services be neutral? 

[cobra2411]

This is something that I had trouble with at first - after all, who would ignore the potholes littering the roads. /sarc

 

Ultimately all taxation leads down the road to the definition of theft. I used to think that only businesses could/would pay taxes and thus the people would be free. However, most businesses simply pass on the cost of the tax to their customers to pay. 

 

I think a combination of the DRO model and the kickstarter model is where things should be. Most people would want to affiliate themselves with a DRO and those DRO's that specialize in the working class people would likely have very low rates so it would be easy for most people to have a DRO account. You can choose who manages your account and if you even want one. I can see a model where you don't want to join any DRO and those people who you deal with for goods and services simply charge a higher rate to cover the cost of their DRO keeping tabs on you. It won't be perfect and I suspect only the most hard core anarchists would want to deal with the restrictions, but I can see something working to provide the basics. So DRO's cover your court/legal system. 

 

Now onto a kickstarter model. This could be used for capital improvements. I'm still kicking this one around in my head because I still have to remind myself that there is no public property. However, If I own a stretch of road and let people drive over it should I be the only one who bears the cost of repairing it? If so then I'm not going to let anyone use it. So if the road falls into disrepair I'll start a kickstarter campaign and advertise on the road for people to chip in for repairs. 

[abcqwerty123]

Hello all,

 

I have a few questions that I need answered regarding the nature of limited government and taxation in a free society.

 

So, I've heard Stef say that government taxation is by definition theft. It's hard to argue with him, but I do have a few criticisms that I'd like addressed by someone with a better grasp of political philosophy than I.

 

If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form. Ergo, taxation of some kind is still necessary to fund them.

 

You might be tempted to claim that these services could be privatized in some form. For example, you could have a pay-per-use system for the police whenever they're called. However, in any pay-per-use system, there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service. In short, if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

 

Welcome to the forums. 

 

You can't have limited government or taxation in a free society. You are either a society with slaves and masters or a free society, not both.

 

There are no proper roles in government. The police catch mostly non-violent/innocent people and force them into court who sends them to a box with bars to be raped, beaten and possibly killed, while the military steals, tortures and kills from everyone else. However, I agree that we do need a military force in a world where we would be free while other lands would still have governments who would be looking to acquire our land through force, but not like a government military. We need a military force that is privately owned and defends us and does not destroy other countries for their masters. There are many ways to pay for this military without taxation. One of the ways to pay would be through donations. I am sure there would be many people who wouldn't want to donate, but there would be many people who would in order to protect themselves. There are many ways and even more ways can be thought up by people more qualified them I am through the free market. This military would be privately owned, so it would be better equipped with higher technology then lands with government since the free market will always out-engineer government. Now, how do you keep this privately owned military in line so they don't try attacking their people a new government? When this military decides to do things that the people decide are out of line, people stop funding them and they will probably change, and if they choose not too, then another company will rise up and take their employees and do an even better job. That is a problem with taxation, aside from the obvious immorality of it, is that we are forced to give them money so they don't have to listen to us because whether we like it or not, they will always be paid.

 

What needs to be done isn't punishing people for their crimes, but preventing people from being raised into criminals all together. The idea that this can't be done is ridiculous when the people who say it can't be done are the people spanking, yelling, beating, traumatizing and so much more to their own kids. Imagine a society, of a single generation, all raising their kids with respect and teaching them through proper education and asking them what they can do better as a parent. Just imagine the kind of world those kids would grow up to create. Nothing like we have ever seen before, that is for sure.

[LovePrevails]

If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form. Ergo, taxation of some kind is still necessary to fund them.

 

 

Those are the last things I would put something as dangerous as a state in charge of.

[GRosado]

Hello all,I have a few questions that I need answered regarding the nature of limited government and taxation in a free society.So, I've heard Stef say that government taxation is by definition theft. It's hard to argue with him, but I do have a few criticisms that I'd like addressed by someone with a better grasp of political philosophy than I.If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form. Ergo, taxation of some kind is still necessary to fund them.

The general consensus on these forums is Anarcho-Capitalism so I don't think people here would be willing too give any credence to limited government.The only taxes that could exist if you operate under the constitution would be tariffs on imports & exports, sales taxes, excise taxes & licenses/occupational taxes. Those could fund the essential functions of the state.However I don't think any of those escape the realm of theft. So Anarcho-Capitalism is the way to go.

[Daniel Unplugged]

If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form. Ergo, taxation of some kind is still necessary to fund them. 

Correct. This is why anarcho capitalists, such as myself, reject the notion of government in its entirety. Any theft is immoral, therefore any government at all is immoral. It is simply the position we must take in order to uphold our moral principles. Once theft is ruled out as a means to solve complex problems, other morally sound (and I would argue more effective) solutions become apparent. Yes, we are aiming very high, but we all know what happened to the US experiment of the smallest possible government. The cancer must be removed in its entirety, otherwise it will grow back."There is one thing those in power always seek, more power."

[Mike Fleming]

 However, in any pay-per-use system, there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service. 

 

You say this like it is a bad thing.  But what this says is that the customer (the party paying) gets the benefit.  Any service is compelled by free market forces to best service it's customers.  Which is how it should be.

[endostate]

You might be tempted to claim that these services could be privatized in some form. For example, you could have a pay-per-use system for the police whenever they're called. However, in any pay-per-use system, there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service. In short, if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

 

How does government prevent 'neutrality' from being compromised?  Isn't there a serious and innate bias towards the winning voters?

[masterlock]

I wonder whether a "national" voluntary sales "tax", not collected by a government but instead something imposed freely by businesses and managed by some 3rd party, could be used to fund such things.

Correct. This is why anarcho capitalists, such as myself, reject the notion of government in its entirety. Any theft is immoral, therefore any government at all is immoral. It is simply the position we must take in order to uphold our moral principles. Once theft is ruled out as a means to solve complex problems, other morally sound (and I would argue more effective) solutions become apparent. Yes, we are aiming very high, but we all know what happened to the US experiment of the smallest possible government. The cancer must be removed in its entirety, otherwise it will grow back."There is one thing those in power always seek, more power."

 

It's not as if the American constitution was so perfectly designed that we can say "Well, this is conclusive evidence that minimal government is simply impossible." Remember there was a great philosophical rift between the federalists and anti-federalists. I can imagine a constituion that would be so simple in its founding priciples as to preclude he possiblity of an expanding government. Also, a kickstarter type approach could be used to fund such a government rather than coercive taxation.

[dsayers]

Government isn't only immoral because it taxes. It is also immoral because it violates property rights by not securing consent. It is inherent; You cannot escape the immorality of government. It is not a neutral tool that has potentially beneficial applications. The moment it is voluntary, you're not describing government.

[GRosado]

Government isn't only immoral because it taxes. It is also immoral because it violates property rights by not securing consent. It is inherent; You cannot escape the immorality of government. It is not a neutral tool that has potentially beneficial applications. The moment it is voluntary, you're not describing government.

Question, what if a person moves to a country & signs a sort of contact where he agrees to pay taxes in return for citizenship & other public goods the government provides. That would fit under the voluntary umbrella wouldn't it?

[Magnus]

Question, what if a person moves to a country & signs a sort of contact where he agrees to pay taxes in return for citizenship & other public goods the government provides. That would fit under the voluntary umbrella wouldn't it?

 

I would call that "buying things," not a State. 

 

Why would you lock yourself into buying a whole class of goods from one monopolistic source, anyway?  Wouldn't you expect to get better goods and services at better prices if you could comparison shop? 

[GRosado]

I would call that "buying things," not a State. Why would you lock yourself into buying a whole class of goods from one monopolistic source, anyway? Wouldn't you expect to get better goods and services at better prices if you could comparison shop?

It seems like your not trying to understand my question & answer it, just providing input.A business can sell citizenship & public goods??? Wow that's strange considering business is private & they sell private goods.There could be many reasons I am simply asking a question. Also you can comparison shop between private sellers true but could you not do that between country's. For instance Chile is selling certain public goods at a lower tax rate than Zimbabwe so I decide to move to Chile instead of Zimbabwe & I voluntarily sign a contact that says I will get these public goods in return for me paying the tax.Wouldn't that be a form of voluntary government?

[Magnus]

It seems like your not trying to understand my question & answer it, just providing input.A business can sell citizenship & public goods??? Wow that's strange considering business is private & they sell private goods.There could be many reasons I am simply asking a question. Also you can comparison shop between private sellers true but could you not do that between country's. For instance Chile is selling certain public goods at a lower tax rate than Zimbabwe so I decide to move to Chile instead of Zimbabwe & I voluntarily sign a contact that says I will get these public goods in return for me paying the tax.Wouldn't that be a form of voluntary government?

 

1. There are no public goods.  The concept was invented, as an artificial means of justifying the involuntary extraction of payment for them.  States take over industries, then force everyone to pay for them, all on the proposition that the good is somehow in a special category ("public"), in a similar linguistic trick to the way the State pretends that taxes aren't just systematic armed robbery. 

 

2. It's only voluntary if you're not attacked (or threatened) if you decline the deal.  No nation-state on earth does that, as far as I know.  Because States do not own all of the territory they claim to be the "country," they cannot legitimately kick people off of their own land, or incarcerate them, or deny them the freedom to travel, merely because they refuse the "contract."  That Voluntary State situation exists nowhere.  But, hypothetically, if one could opt out of the "goods" that States offer, and NOT BE ATTACKED for merely refusing to enter into a contract with them, then it would be voluntary, I suppose. 

[GRosado]

1. There are no public goods. The concept was invented, as an artificial means of justifying the involuntary extraction of payment for them. States take over industries, then force everyone to pay for them, all on the proposition that the good is somehow in a special category ("public"), in a similar linguistic trick to the way the State pretends that taxes aren't just systematic armed robbery. 2. It's only voluntary if you're not attacked (or threatened) if you decline the deal. No nation-state on earth does that, as far as I know. Because States do not own all of the territory they claim to be the "country," they cannot legitimately kick people off of their own land, or incarcerate them, or deny them the freedom to travel, merely because they refuse the "contract." That Voluntary State situation exists nowhere. But, hypothetically, if one could opt out of the "goods" that States offer, and NOT BE ATTACKED for merely refusing to enter into a contract with them, then it would be voluntary, I suppose.

No public goods is used to define a good that is not rivalrous or excludable. You can't just erase a word from existence even if it is artificial or whatever you were saying it was.Yes I know no country in the world currently does that but that's why I was asking if it is possible for there to be a voluntary form of government, sort of based off the social contract theory of Rousseau & Locke. What your saying is if your able to opt out but what I'm asking is if you voluntarily opt in to live in a country that is essentially a voluntary government cause your signing a contract to pay a certain amount of taxes for certain goods, whether the goods are Public or Club goods.

[travioli]

The moment it is voluntary, you're not describing government.

Exactly. By the by, this was the oddity that I saw in the Objectivist argument for "voluntary taxation", which if logically applied is more like a DRO system than a state. Any taxation cannot be justified from it's effects--even if we did accept that the state was "legitimate" in having the police, law courts, and military, we could not then justify taxation from that.

[AccuTron]

... There are many ways to pay for this military without taxation. One of the ways to pay would be through donations. I am sure there would be many people who wouldn't want to donate, but there would be many people who would in order to protect themselves. ...

Wait, you mean the donators pay protection for someone else?  Don't see that happening.  Especially as human nature would drift into fewer donators and more free riders.  Seems like that would functionally devolve (in a good use of word) into what we now call paid private security service.

[RyanT]

 However, in any pay-per-use system, there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service. In short, if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

 

Well it's like Stefan often says you’re talking as if this is some sort of new ‘free market problem’,

totally alien to the current statist system..

 

Yet over here in the UK its just coming to light scores of establishment figures were raping kids for decades,

with complete immunity from prosecution.

 

While since 1998, 333 people have died in police custody, 16 as a proven result of being restrained,

yet in all those cases not a single officer has ever been found guilty of any wrongdoing. 

 

Indeed it's hard to see how a voluntary system could be less neutral if it tried.   

[abcqwerty123]

Wait, you mean the donators pay protection for someone else?  Don't see that happening.  Especially as human nature would drift into fewer donators and more free riders.  Seems like that would functionally devolve (in a good use of word) into what we now call paid private security service.

 

I see people donating every single day to help someone else? I see people donating to charities world wide to cure disease, feed the hungry, clothe the hungry and more. Then, imagine having a large piece of land that we currently call the "United States" with 3+ million people who have much better jobs and are much better off because the lack of government, and donating will be far larger then it currently is. Also, that was one way. There are thousands of ways to earn money to protect people.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I don't think there can be such a thing as a limited government. Government is a collection of persons who govern, and to govern means to have control of the people. The lives of the general mass are directed by the governing class who make any manner of laws they wish.

 

If by limited government we mean that such a "government" is only permitted to raise taxes for and to control the police, military and courts but not control the people, then I say such an organisation is not a government. There are organisations like this, the mafia offer these kinds of "protection" services (minus courts?), and they are still a contradiction in terms. Some places also have local war lords who will protect the area and will attempt to pursued or compel the locals to pay for their protection activities. Again I would not say these organisations are a government. Such organisations have no intention of telling people what to do with their lives, they just wish to fund their protection service.

[square4]

If by limited government we mean that such a "government" is only permitted to raise taxes for and to control the police, military and courts but not control the people, then I say such an organisation is not a government. There are organisations like this, the mafia offer these kinds of "protection" services (minus courts?), and they are still a contradiction in terms. Some places also have local war lords who will protect the area and will attempt to pursued or compel the locals to pay for their protection activities. Again I would not say these organisations are a government. Such organisations have no intention of telling people what to do with their lives, they just wish to fund their protection service.

 

If an organization collects money, not through voluntary contracts, but through threats or violence, then such an organization is actually telling us what to with our life to some degree, because how we spend our money is a part of our life. I considers it very important to be free not to fund such violent organizations. They might call what they do "protection service", but I would not call it a "service", because it is not what I have asked for. I would not call it "protection" either, because when they threaten people, this is the opposite of protection. Whether or not such an organization would be called a government, it behaves strikingly similar.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 Whether or not such an organization would be called a government, it behaves strikingly similar.

 

A pitch fork and a tuning fork are similar, you may even be able to strike a note on a pitch fork, but it won't help you tune your piano. The details are important.Of course any "protection" service based on violent coercion and theft is a contradiction. But I think you must agree that government is much more than just a protection service. Government agents have claimed a right to tell people who they can or cannot sleep with, how they can have sex, what we can drink or ingest. These are powers the mafia have never claimed. Government agents believe they actually have a duty to perform these kinds of oppressive control.I stand by my prior claims. 

[dsayers]

If by limited government we mean that such a "government" is only permitted to raise taxes for and to control the police, military and courts but not control the people

 

How do you control anybody and not control anybody simultaneously? Police, military, and courts are not creatures that we need to tame. They are people. People that control other people through coercion.