Let's say a statist (for example a minarchist) who thinks government should exist and provide certain services is not satisfied with his tax money going to a particular service he thinks government should not provide, like education. Is there a robbery taking place now or is the consent to government in general absolves the IRS people and policemen from liability?
I'm not sure, but I guess it has something to do with what kind of "social contract" he/she has accepted. If someone accepts something I like to call "democratic social contract", then he/she accepts all kinds of taxation the state wants to impose on he/she under the condition that the taxation has been imposed thorugh democratically elected government.
But they didn't sign any contract. You can't simply imply that, even for statists.
If it's all voluntary, that's a private business arrangement. What makes it a state is you HAVE to pay.
It probably feels easier to think of it as voluntary, but the IRS is one of many armed federal agencies/bureaucracies standing ready to disabuse you of that belief if you fail to "volunteer" their expected tribute.
I am of the opinion that taxing statists is pointless. Merely an accounting trick. As for statists having an opinion about where the money is spent. If they are in charge of spending an allocated budget then they have a say. If they don't have that power then their opinion on where or on what the government spends tax money is as irrelevant as it is for a non statist.
The government is not dependent on consent.
If we must have the state then I would prefer that the state employees were not taxed and that they just had a reduced pay instead. This would remove the argument that statists often use, when they say that they also pay tax. Which is realy nonsensical because they are contributing towards their own salary, from their own salary. It would also create a different perspective amongst the tax payers, they would then know that the state employees are getting paid from their taxation and might create an attitude where tax payers expect better value for money for their taxation.
Eugene, I never said anyone signed a contract. I don't think signing is really the only way to subject yourself under a social contract. There are other ways. E.g. you can just say "Hey, I believe in social contract, and it contains x, y and z." and therefore you have accepted that particular social contract. Or you can just think that there is this thing called "social contract" and it contains x, y and z. To give you a concrete example, I would refer to one of Plato's Socratic Dialogues, Crito. In Crito, Socrates, it could be said, imposes the social contract on himself. To give you another example, if someone believes that democracy is the ultimate virtue and that he/she already lives in a state of perfect democracy, then he/she would not have legitimate claim against taxation.
I would call that user fees, and I see no problem with user fees assuming that: 1) there is no monopoly status given to the service provider 2)It is in no way funded by those who do not use the service The problem is how can you believe government will keep promise #2? If people were given a choice in Social Security to opt out and keep their money, or to keep paying as they are now with no charge to those that opt out. When the system goes broke they'll just inflate the money supply to fund it charging those that opted out through inflation.
I would call that user fees, and I see no problem with user fees assuming that:
1) there is no monopoly status given to the service provider
2)It is in no way funded by those who do not use the service
The problem is how can you believe government will keep promise #2? If people were given a choice in Social Security to opt out and keep their money, or to keep paying as they are now with no charge to those that opt out. When the system goes broke they'll just inflate the money supply to fund it charging those that opted out through inflation.
Sorry, good god I really need to pay more attention to what I'm reading, my above post is a total non-sequitor to your question. My only defense is that I was in a hurry.
I'm having a hard time with your actual question (as opposed to my misreading of it). Another post here recently reminded me of Ayn Rands position on taking Social Security, that it's improper to take it if you are in favor of its existence, but proper if you're accepting it just to get your money back from an illegitimate system. In a similar way I lean towards thinking the wrongness of taxing one for programs they disapprove of is relative to the degree of their statist beliefs.
Yes there is robbery taking place. If the minarchist in question tried to withold that part of the taxes that go toward education from the tax people they would send the police against him.
people in a state agree that decisions will be made without a unanimous consent towards that particular decision, business run the same way. i have not seen a business that requires unanimous consent of all shareholders before making a decision on each item line of a budget. if people agree that 60% or so vote wins, then they deal with it whether they are on the winning or losing side of the vote.
when i buy from a store such as dairy queen, i do not get to decide exactly where each penny goes.
There's an easy way to find out: make taxes voluntary and see how many statists still pay them.
Clayton -
how is voluntary payment a test for whether something is robbery?
if mcdonalds won't give me free food, it is robbing me?
how is spending money on something i dont like robbery?
if mcdonalds uses the money i spend to serve beef and i don't like beef served, is mcdonalds robbing me?
i think i would call it robbery only if i thought the state should not exist and i did not want to do any business with the state. if the state if giving me some services that i am willing to pay for, then calling it robbery if they do something with that money that i am not willing to pay for seems wrong.
I would say a more fitting hypothetical would be:
If I go to McDonalds and order a burger for $3.00, and then they give me a burger and 100 pounds of salad that I despise and charge me $500 for it and tell me that if I don't pay I'm going to jail, is that robbery?"
If you voluntarily pay for something - ceteris paribus - it's clearly not a robbery. Robbery is, by definition, involuntary payment (payment on threat of injury, harm, death, kidnapping, imprisonment, etc.)
So, if statists continue to pay their taxes even without threat of imprisonment for not paying them, that proves that the threat of imprisonment is merely formal and superfluous and that they, at least, are not being robbed.