So I was thinking about taxation and all the attempts to justify it when I came up with my own little justification. It still needs some elaboration, but I will let you guys look at it. By the way, I am not saying I agree with what I am about to say, or that it has never been said before.
I should start off by saying that this assumes that property is not a natural right, and that objective ethics do not exist. Under a system of private property, taxation is justifiable because those who are successful in acquiring wealth depend upon the existence of a social construct (private property) for their success. Since these people depend upon private property for their success, it is not unfair to tax some of their wealth in order to help those who were unable to benefit as much from the social construct, or to help society at large. It is even conceivable that some people would be better off if a different form of property were to be adopted. Since some people owe almost all of their success to the existence of private property, what is so wrong with having them give up some of their wealth in favor of those who aren't helped as much by this very same social construct?
For example, a person who inherits a fortune has clearly benefited from the existence of private property. Why is it unfair to tax this person in order to help build a school for homeless children, some of whom would have been better off under a different system of property?
Now we would also have to take the economic effects of this redistribution into account, but a fairly low rate of taxation obviously isn't going to destroy the economy. As I said, I haven't really elaborated on this much, and it seems like you can use the same reasoning to justify absurd things such as forcing pretty girls to compensate ugly girls.
This argument is inherently contradictory. The ethical basis for the taxation rests on the idea that private property is unfair. But if you are basing ethics on fairness, then you shouldn't have the private property rights in the first place. If you accept private property as ethical, then you accept as ethical that some situations will be unfair. You cannot then say it is unethical for there to be unfairness, because it would then be both ethical and unethical - which is a contradiction.
There may be arguments for taxation of private property, but fairness cannot validly be one of them.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Eric: So I was thinking about taxation and all the attempts to justify it when I came up with my own little justification. It still needs some elaboration, but I will let you guys look at it. By the way, I am not saying I agree with what I am about to say, or that it has never been said before. I should start off by saying that this assumes that property is not a natural right, and that objective ethics do not exist. Under a system of private property, taxation is justifiable because those who are successful in acquiring wealth depend upon the existence of a social construct (private property) for their success. Since these people depend upon private property for their success, it is not unfair to tax some of their wealth in order to help those who were unable to benefit as much from the social construct, or to help society at large. It is even conceivable that some people would be better off if a different form of property were to be adopted. Since some people owe almost all of their success to the existence of private property, what is so wrong with having them give up some of their wealth in favor of those who aren't helped as much by this very same social construct? For example, a person who inherits a fortune has clearly benefited from the existence of private property. Why is it unfair to tax this person in order to help build a school for homeless children, some of whom would have been better off under a different system of property? Now we would also have to take the economic effects of this redistribution into account, but a fairly low rate of taxation obviously isn't going to destroy the economy. As I said, I haven't really elaborated on this much, and it seems like you can use the same reasoning to justify absurd things such as forcing pretty girls to compensate ugly girls.
I'm not sure you can justify "X" by ignoring that which makes "X" unjustifiable. Of course, this is just me trying to fill my post quota here
There is no moral or ethical justification for taxation. The power of the army is the power to tax. He who owns/controls the army has the power to tax. It's not about justice or injustice though.
All this nonsense about social justice and the necessity of redistribution are clever cover-ups and rationalizations for the obvious truth that if you've got the power of the military, both foreign and domestic, you can do pretty much whatever you want.
Unless you incite a revolution, in which case, someone else takes over the military and the police and starts the cycle over.
Aster_Lacnala: This argument is inherently contradictory. The ethical basis for the taxation rests on the idea that private property is unfair. But if you are basing ethics on fairness, then you shouldn't have the private property rights in the first place. If you accept private property as ethical, then you accept as ethical that some situations will be unfair. You cannot then say it is unethical for there to be unfairness, because it would then be both ethical and unethical - which is a contradiction. There may be arguments for taxation of private property, but fairness cannot validly be one of them.
Good point. However, whether or not there is a contradiction depends on your justification for private property. As you said, one can support private property for reasons besides it being fair. For example, I support private property because it allows for the expansion of the division of labor and a civilized society. Since there are obvious economic reasons for adopting private property, this is exactly what we should do. I accept that in many cases private property will seem unfair, which is why it is reasonable to favor some form of redistribution. I do not see the contradiction. I am not basing my ethics soley on fairness either (even though that is a factor). All I am doing is taking economic and social effects into account.
bloomj31: There is no moral or ethical justification for taxation. The power of the army is the power to tax. He who owns/controls the army has the power to tax. It's not about justice or injustice though. All this nonsense about social justice and the necessity of redistribution are clever cover-ups and rationalizations for the obvious truth that if you've got the power of the military, both foreign and domestic, you can do pretty much whatever you want. Unless you incite a revolution, in which case, someone else takes over the military and the police and starts the cycle over.
Is the fact that the army has the power to tax somehow supposed to prove that there is no moral or ethical justification for taxation?
Eric: Is the fact that the army has the power to tax somehow supposed to prove that there is no moral or ethical justification for taxation?
Well yeah I think it exists outside the realm of ethics and morality. It's simply a consequence of power. If you've got power, you can tax. If you don't have power, you can't tax.
This is a bunch of gobbledy-gook. You have no theory of property. You presuppose collective security and law. None of your justifications for taxation are novel.
Clayton -
bloomj31:Well yeah I think it exists outside the realm of ethics and morality. It's simply a consequence of power. If you've got power, you can tax. If you don't have power, you can't tax.
I am not sure how the idea of taxation or redistribution exists outside the realm of ethics or morality. I obviously agree that if you have the power, you can tax. But that is not the point. One can attempt to justify taxation using utilitarian or consequentialist ethics for example.
ClaytonB: This is a bunch of gobbledy-gook. You have no theory of property. You presuppose collective security and law. None of your justifications for taxation are novel. Clayton -
I don't accept the claim that homesteading land automatically gives you exclusive control over that land. I also don't accept argumentation ethics. I already said that the arguments I made may have been put forth before.
Eric: I am not sure how the idea of taxation or redistribution exists outside the realm of ethics or morality. I obviously agree that if you have the power, you can tax. But that is not the point. One can attempt to justify taxation using utilitarian or consequentialist ethics for example.
You're right, I suppose they could be justified on...really any terms. But to me, the justifications are erroneous, if you haven't the power to enforce your ethics and/or morality, they're meaningless.
In fact, it's probably meaningful to note that it seems right now that utilitarian ethical explanations are in fact given as justifications for taxation. What I'm saying is that they're clever diversions meant to distract people from the reality that you don't have to justify power in any meaningful way. If people will buy the explanation, then much better for the person exercising power. But power alone would be and is sufficient to make possible taxation.
"And of all things a prince must guard against, the most important are being despicable or hated." Perhaps utilitarian ethics or whatever other ethics can accomplish this goal.
bloomj31:There is no moral or ethical justification for taxation.
Wtf? Almost all political philosopher from Aristotle and Hobbes to Locke and Nozick did offer just that.
scineram: bloomj31:There is no moral or ethical justification for taxation. Wtf? Almost all political philosopher from Aristotle and Hobbes to Locke and Nozick did offer just that.
I should have said "I don't accept moral or ethical justifications for taxation." My fault.
Ok. Someone could say: I don't accept moral or ethical justifications for not paying taxes.
scineram: Ok. Someone could say: I don't accept moral or ethical justifications for not paying taxes.
They sure could. For that reason, I rarely try to appeal to morality or ethics when talking about taxes.
"Never appeal to a man's better nature, he may not have one. Invoking his self interest gives you more leverage." - Robert Heinlein
Eric: ClaytonB: This is a bunch of gobbledy-gook. You have no theory of property. You presuppose collective security and law. None of your justifications for taxation are novel. Clayton - I don't accept the claim that homesteading land automatically gives you exclusive control over that land.
I don't accept the claim that homesteading land automatically gives you exclusive control over that land.
The theory of original appropriation is a lot more than just "homesteading land" - the term "homesteading" is used in an analogical sense. The first person to use a physical resource in an "embordering way with publicly visible boundaries", in the words of Stephen Kinsella, owns it. The reason for this has nothing to do with natural rights, in my view (Kinsella, Hoppe, et. al. approach homesteading from the PoV of natural rights which I find dissatisfying). The reason is that if a conflict arises over who owns the physical resource, the natural question to ask in such a case is "who had it first?" The answer to this question will almost always settle the matter of who owns the physical resource. This is the "rule of first use", it is so basic that even children use it.
I also don't accept argumentation ethics.
Neither do I.
scineram:Wtf? Almost all political philosopher from Aristotle and Hobbes to Locke and Nozick did offer just that.
If taxation wasn't extracted forcefully it wouldn't be taxation. It would be donation. Hence there is no way to get around the ethical dilemma of taxation, the equivalence of theft.
Eric:I should start off by saying that this assumes that property is not a natural right, and that objective ethics do not exist. Under a system of private property, taxation is justifiable because those who are successful in acquiring wealth depend upon the existence of a social construct (private property) for their success. Since these people depend upon private property for their success, it is not unfair to tax some of their wealth in order to help those who were unable to benefit as much from the social construct, or to help society at large. It is even conceivable that some people would be better off if a different form of property were to be adopted. Since some people owe almost all of their success to the existence of private property, what is so wrong with having them give up some of their wealth in favor of those who aren't helped as much by this very same social construct?
This is rather contradictory. A is fabulously successful and B is just as fabulously not. Accepting your premise that property rights are derived from social construct, then A and B receive exactly the same benefits from said construct, namely, the respect for their private property. The difference between them, then, is their abilities and choices in how these benefits are used. Your justification of taxation, then, says that B, in addition to all of the benefits bestowed on him by this social construct, is entitled to ignore the construct when dealing with A.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler:This is rather contradictory. A is fabulously successful and B is just as fabulously not. Accepting your premise that property rights are derived from social construct, then A and B receive exactly the same benefits from said construct, namely, the respect for their private property. The difference between them, then, is their abilities and choices in how these benefits are used. Your justification of taxation, then, says that B, in addition to all of the benefits bestowed on him by this social construct, is entitled to ignore the construct when dealing with A.
Good point. I can't believe I didn't think of that on my own.
filc: If taxation wasn't extracted forcefully it wouldn't be taxation. It would be donation. Hence there is no way to get around the ethical dilemma of taxation, the equivalence of theft.
scineram:Is rent collection theft to?
you are kidding right?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
scineram:Now this really begs the question. Is rent collection theft to?
It does?
Be carful not to get into semantics. If I choose not to pay my rent it is me aggressing against the landlord, not the other way around. I am effectively stealing from him.
Why did you respond with this?
But then forceful extraction is no problem for taxation anymore than it is for rent collection. You have to agrue why that force is unjust.
ok, how about this, if rent is due to the owner its just. if its not due its unjust.
taxation is never due to the state. they claim it is, but they are lying
nirgrahamUK: ok, how about this, if rent is due to the owner its just. if its not due its unjust. taxation is never due to the state. they claim it is, but they are lying
What do you need to have to make a claim just or legitimate?
scineram: But then forceful extraction is no problem for taxation anymore than it is for rent collection. You have to agrue why that force is unjust.
Seems off topic doesn't it?
Forceful extraction is one way. One person steals from another.
So what you seem to be implying is that the state owns a monopoly over a geographical region and we are paying rent on that land? Is that what your insinuating? If so then we'd be begging the question that the state actually owns a monopoly over an entire geographical region, and that land owners are not land owners but serfs paying rent to their lord.
All I see are your assertions. It is undue, if someone says otherwise he is lying (rather than being wrong). Why is it never due?
filc:If taxation wasn't extracted forcefully it wouldn't be taxation. It would be donation. Hence there is no way to get around the ethical dilemma of taxation, the equivalence of theft.
scineram:Now this really begs the question.
bloomj31:What do you need to have to make a claim just or legitimate?
for example you initiate aggression against those that you coerce rent from that are not your tenants. illegitimate
you, do not initiate aggression against those that you coerce rent from that are your tenants, who must pay you rent to earn your consent to dwell there for the next period. legitimate.
scineram:All I see are your assertions. It is undue, if someone says otherwise he is lying (rather than being wrong). Why is it never due?
its never due, since they never demonstrate that they own anything that you owe them for the use of.
nirgrahamUK: bloomj31:What do you need to have to make a claim just or legitimate? the requirement is purely negative. claim what you want as long as you dont initiate aggression. for example you initiate aggression against those that you coerce rent from that are not your tenants. illegitimate you, do not initiate aggression against those that you coerce rent from that are your tenants, who must pay you rent to earn your consent to dwell there for the next period. legitimate.
But law is an extension of force. If you cannot back up your assertion either way, it's irrelevant. Right?
We establish the precedent of just cause in legal systems, which is good, you have to prove your claim. But ultimately, you have to have the power to back up your claim. That's why the courts have the power of the police behind them. So people will obey the rulings.
I mean you could say the government's power to tax is gained through force but that's how all powers are gained.
That's why I said taxation has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's just a consequence of power.
In the same way, if a person rents out an apartment to me but they have no way of collecting, I owe them nothing.
Like, for instance, I could claim right now that you owe me money. I could even produce documents that say you do. But if I had absolutely no way of enforcing said claim and no one who could enforce it for me, it's an erroneous claim.
No it's not. It's just temporarily not enforceable, not erroneous.
bloomj31:That's why I said taxation has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's just a consequence of power.
Does theft have nothing to do with morals or ethics?
its naive to separate the ability to apply force from the ability persuade others to cooperate with you in ventures like, teaming up with you to apply force. things like the war of American independence involved people adopting force to reject the forces already in place and coercing them. Do you think that spot of history would have worked out the same way with no mention of moral terms like injustice, i.e. the injustice of tyranny, etc. ? the belief in the moral goodness of liberty? (at least for whites )
Knight_of_BAAWA: No it's not. It's just temporarily not enforceable, not erroneous.
Ok fine. But doesn't that highlight how important enforcement is? I mean basically...anyone can make a claim against anyone if they have the force to back it up. And a false claim can only be falsified by someone who has the power to protect the wrongly accused.
The government's claim isn't just. But it is backed up by force. Unless we can take that power away from them or match their power with a greater one of our own, they're going to keep sending us a bill and we're going to keep paying it.
It's not right but it happens anyways.
filc: Does theft have nothing to do with morals or ethics?
Not to me. If I can't protect my stuff, it's not going to be mine for long. That's why I have the police. They help protect me.
Interestingly enough, I found this to be the central theme of the movie Avatar. It's the reason I didn't find the movie to be leftist at all. I thought it was an allegory of the American Revolution.
nirgrahamUK: its naive to separate the ability to apply force from the ability persuade others to cooperate with you in ventures like, teaming up with you to apply force. things like the war of American independence involved people adopting force to reject the forces already in place and coercing them. Do you think that spot of history would have worked out the same way with no mention of moral terms like injustice, i.e. the injustice of tyranny, etc. ? the belief in the moral goodness of liberty? (at least for whites )
Well...that's all rhetoric though. In the end, we had the power to beat the British. They lost their claim on us as a result. Motivating the troops and the public at large is certainly important and I think that's where talk of morals and ethics comes into play.
bloomj31:Well...that's all rhetoric though. In the end, we had the power to beat the British. They lost their claim on us as a result. Motivating the troops and the public at large is certainly important and I think that's where talk of morals and ethics comes into play.
you are trying to have it both ways. morals and ethics are 'irrelevant' and 'important to motivate people'.
bloomj31:They help protect me.
bloomj31:Not to me. If I can't protect my stuff, it's not going to be mine for long. That's why I have the police. They help protect me.
Might makes right?