Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why is taxation wrong?

Rate this topic


Focus

Recommended Posts

Being eaten would be a violation of one's natural rights, under anyone's definition, and therefore forbidden. :)

The problem is that when you said "natural rights", you defined exactly what it means, so the "under anyone's definiton" is not needed:

My natural rights are the rights I would enjoy, if not bothered by society(let's say on a desert island) : I would own property, work for my own survival and happiness, go fishing, and watch a lot of football on TV :) .

Under most people's definition, including yours, it seems to me, I am in fact not enjoying such rights: I am being robbed of my property, my right to walk around with a pound of pot-strictly for non-medicinal purposes btw., etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but you cannot dismiss my natural rights and go on to discussing "relevant" concepts such as political pluralism and evolving rights. Both these concepts have one striking feature: they are used to take away my natural rights.

Was it not for these concepts being forced on me today, I would have the rights I was born with, as long as I avoided "giving them away" by using public property.(which I would most happily do, to keep my money and smoke some weed on my lawn-only on rare occasions of course, when all my work is done). Since when one can give away his rights, even explicitly (let alone implicitly, as your "social contract theorist" implied :) -see what I did there?), in return for anything, is of course beyond me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is false. Let me quote the essentials of the OP: "Then my opponent responds that taxes are not voluntary because I can just leave if I do not like taxes. I then state that the choice itself is coercive, but they say that I voluntarily accepted to pay taxes when I bought property in this country. So then they compare the voluntary exchanges between a business and consumer to a citizen and government and say that they are the same. How exactly are they different?". There is absolutely no question whether taxes are wrong, and we know why they are wrong. The only question is how to rebut the contention that buying property constitutes consent to being taxed. Stop trying to sidetrack the discussion with this crap about social contracts.

Such is the nature of reality, that you need property to survive (only through work-which is payment for a property, say bread- that you buy, can you survive) , hence deciding to buy property is sinonimous with deciding to survive: no one has the right to make you choose between survival and slavery, and that is not something businessmen do (you don't need to trade with a specific businessman to survive)

That is one difference, I don't think we need any others though I'm sure there are plenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no question whether taxes are wrong

Hmm, what is this thread about? Let me just take a look at the TITLE OF THE THREAD. Oh, and throw in post #6 (was that you?)

Oh well, never mind. David told me in an IM that he wants me to shut up now.

No more fun talk about social contracts and political pluralism I guess. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, what is this thread about? Let me just take a look at the TITLE OF THE THREAD. Oh, and throw in post #6 (was that you?)

Oh well, never mind. David told me in an IM that he wants me to shut up now.

No more fun talk about social contracts and political pluralism I guess. <_<

What is it that you wanted to say about social contracts?

Why on earth would a contract that you are never asked to sign count as a contract? If we consider something a human being and an individual, shouldn't that thing have the right to decide whether he wants to agree to a contract or not? What on earth could you possibly have to say to defend forcing human beings into arrangements they not only didn't agree to, but unless they went to a liberal college, never even heard of?

Is that what you wanted to say? That a contract most americans never heard of, let alone agreed to is real, and perfectly justified?

And political pluralism doesn't really have a meaning. It's just a vague term people use to justify things they cannot justify oherwise. If one party wants the jews dead, and another the blacks, applying the principle of "political pluralism" justifies killing half of both. Before you say I am exagerating, I am not: that is how it works-you can put anything into those two slots: pluralism literally means "several things", political means everything connected to human interaction.

So you want to talk about two things:

1. a "social contract" that doesn't exist in any american law, nor has ever been explicitely mentioned by any american leader, ever , yet you claim is alegitimate contract to be acted upon.

2. "different stuff" that relate to human interactions.

Boo-hoo, the "man" is stopping you from having a constructive conversation on his own forum. Oh the humanity...

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you advocate for anarchy, a state is essential to at the very least protect the rights of its citizens. So the continuity of a state is in everybody's interest.
Is the continuity of a state in everybody's interests even if that state violates natural rights?

If that which constitutes natural rights is not subject to change, then advocating the continuity of a state that violated natural rights invalidates social contract theory.

An individual is part of a society and therefore there is a balance struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community... This balance is dictated by individuals using their right to change the government as they see fit.
Hmm. I determine what constitutes natural rights based on the needs of the individual; the needs of the community and the needs of the individual are one and the same as far as I'm concerned.

Are nonliberal social contract theorists of the opinion that the eventual outcomes of a society create a dichotomy between the needs of the individual and the needs of a well ordered society?

A social contract theorist would say the agreement is implicit by enjoying the stability and infrastructure government provides (using government roads, public education for your children, air traffic control system, monetary system, police, courts, public parks, sidewalks, etc.) as an adult.
I think this has been refuted pretty throroughly. Any implicit agreement that violates ones (natural) rights is void in social contract theory, no?

If you don't think forced taxation violates ones natural rights, then how do you and social contract theorists determine the needs of the individual?

There is absolutely no question whether taxes are wrong... The only question is how to rebut the contention that buying property constitutes consent to being taxed.
That is false. The thread's title is ... "Why is taxation wrong." OP's opponent's premise is that forced taxes (perhaps because they are "consentual") are not wrong. Publius's social contract premise is that forced taxes (because either they don't violate rights or it's necessary to violate that right) are not wrong.

'Course, if the thread's only question has been answered, a moderator could close the thread, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread's title is ... "Why is taxation wrong."
Did you read the first post? That's how you figure out the topic of a thread -- not by looking at the title. The topic of the thread is not "anything and everything mentioned in the original question". Out of curiosity, can you paraphrase his question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, what is this thread about? Let me just take a look at the TITLE OF THE THREAD. Oh, and throw in post #6 (was that you?)

Oh well, never mind. David told me in an IM that he wants me to shut up now.

No more fun talk about social contracts and political pluralism I guess. <_<

Why don't you formulate a proposition in support of social contract theory and start a thread in the debate forum? That is what the forum is designed for specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think most people have a problem with the idea of abolishing taxation because they immediately leap to the (wrong) conclusion that one is advocating anarchy. One is not.

The purpose of government is to protect individual rights against the initiation of force. There is no justification for the government to then become an initiator of force. When it does so, it is abusing its mandate as the legal use of retaliatory force. When it abridges citizens' rights (even in order to obtain funds to pay for its proper functions), it destroys the meaning of rights, justice and rational government.

While many people proclaim themselves "willing" to pay taxes to achieve X or Y objective, their willingness is irrelevant. Were each person's consent required for each and every amount paid toward proper government services, we would not even need to call it "tax."

"Tax" should not be confused with "Costs." The proper costs of a rational government can be raised voluntarily by citizens in their individual capacity and in their capacities on behalf of corporate entities. In fact, Ayn Rand's idea about contract insurance is one I would like to see numbers and figures developed for - as in, how much money would be raised when corporations are routinely insuring the many contracts they enter into on a daily, weekly, monthly basis? How close would it be to covering every proper cost? Based on the ability of insurance companies in general to earn vast sums, my sense is that contract insurance would create surpluses in government coffers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that social contract theory is never mentioned on this forum. It is the defining philosophy of government in the West and has been since representative government came into being. It is the social contract which Objectivism seeks to replace...

Not replace - restore. The original social contract was made among all rational men, to refrain from initiating force and to put the means of providing for individual self-defense into the care of the objective collective, by means of having men and women who would act as impartial judges according to rational rules of engagement.

That contract was broken a long time ago because it seems the vast majority of people hold themselves in such low self-esteem that they don't believe themselves capable of providing for their own lives and happiness, so they grabbed hold of the gun to hold hostage the relative few who do consider themselves capable and get on with the business of living.

The truth is, the "good life" of a rational human being is available to everyone who makes the decision to live like a human being.

The theory says that the people, by being free to choose the form of government they want by way of voting, are endorsing the social contract.

Actually, that's true. Given the nature of the "social contract" as written, I'm now not surprised that people were continuing to vote Republican or Democrat even though it's long been known that there's not really a fundamental difference between them. it has been shown that Americans have reached a new level of apathy when it comes to politics. When it makes no difference which one is chosen, the country steadily slides towards an abyss that is becoming increasingly inevitable.

This is how screwed up things are. People would rather endure another Great Depression, where they can all have permission to be victims and hard done by, rather than choose to be responsible for themselves and making their lives enjoyable and prosperous for themselves.

The contract can be violated if the government does not work towards the general interest of the people

Hmm and I think we've stumbled across the hole in the chain-link fence. What is "work towards the general interest of the people"? That doesn't sound like "concerned with protecting individual rights against the initiation of force," now, does it? This vague bit of sloppy language upon which the busybody characteristic of the nanny welfare state has been built ought to be excised entirely. What is meant by "the general interest" of the people? Hasn't that been taken to mean just about everything a person could want in the course of his lifetime? The government isn't supposed to be working towards our general interest, it is charged with the task of protecting our right to work towards our own specific interest, providing we do not initiate the use of force.

...or violates certain natural rights of the citizens. When failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature.

The controversy is the whole natural rights thing. There is disagreement over what constitutes natural rights, rights that can't be ceded to the state voluntarily or involuntarily. Objectivists believe taxation constitutes confiscation of property, property being a natural right, and thus is a violation of their natural rights. Such a liberal view of natural rights is not widely held among political philosophers.

Actually, now the thought occurs that the whole debate about what are natural rights is to distract from the true intent of smuggling in the sloppy language about "working toward the general interest of the people," which as we can now see means setting up nanny welfare states intent upon dictating to each member of the group what his or her tasks shall be (as if we were insects in a hive.)

I would have that that the meaning of rights was perfectly plain and by consequence that the true purpose and raison d'etre for government was to be the means of self-defense, each individual foregoing taking matters into his own hands in most situations and relying instead on an impartial government to hear the facts of the alleged instance of the initiation of force and decide who is telling the truth about what happened.

(I say most instances, because if someone barges into your home, chances are there won't be time to call for assistance and one may have to take immediate action.)

The point of government is to protect our rights to our lives and the product of our effort to earn and make our living. Property rights are part and parcel of the right to life, for they are the right to earn and keep the means to sustain our own lives, which effort each of us must expend in order to actually achieve remaining alive on a day to day basis.

Taxation IS confiscation of the means of individuals to support themselves by their own effort. It IS theft - no doubt about it. Paying for government services must be on the same basis as any other transaction between two or more individuals - exchange of value for value.

I would say it isn't so much a matter of understanding, its a matter of opinion about what the eventual outcomes will be. Can we say definitively that an Objectivist society, although just in the sense of preserving natural rights of property, would not be more chaotic and disorderly? No, I don't think you can know that.

An Objectivist society would be more vibrant, more alive, more full of choices and options. It might seem more chaotic and disorderly to someone who doesn't know how to evaluate the options and consult their own preferences, desires and interests and select accordingly.

There is a lot more for each person to concern themselves with. There's a lot more living to do. It might be too hectic for some, and they are free to do less with their lives. They just aren't permitted to prevent others from doing more with theirs.

So, on one hand, one might say it is rational to have a system of government that doesn't initiate force on its citizens. On the other hand, one might say it would be rational to cede some rights to the state in return for a more ordered and stable society. Proponents of the latter might say it would be decidedly irrational to advocate for a societal structure that is fundamentally unsustainable.

One doesn't need to cede rights; it's more of assigning them. Rather than behave as judge, jury & executioner, in a proper society that does protect rights to life & property & pursuit of happiness - it is in all our interests NOT to take the law into our own hands.

However, when government is used to abridge our rights as a matter of routine, it cannot be trusted to protect our rights when another individual decides to abridge our rights as well.

The gradual intervention by government into our lives is killing the fabric of civilized society. It's not the disintegration or rather, the change of the nuclear family. It is the disintegration of the principles of justice and the perversion of the role of government that is sapping our so-called civilized world of its essence.

Food for thought anyway.

Helpful comments in their way. Thanks.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you say I am exagerating, I am not: that is how it works-you can put anything into those two slots: pluralism literally means "several things", political means everything connected to human interaction.

On this basis, I offer the following essentialist definition of politics:

Poly = many

Tics = blood sucking parasites

Cheers,

aj

Tim Calhoun for President 2012 (Objectivist Contract Party)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lately I have been getting into debates with people on why taxes are wrong. I use the basic arguments such as taxes being coercive force, etc, etc. Then my opponent responds that taxes are not voluntary because I can just leave if I do not like taxes.

Your opponent has just ceded the argument to you. Being forced to leave if you don't like something is a direct consequence of the fact that taxes are coercive. My response would have been: "Thanks, I'm glad that you agree."

I then state that the choice itself is coercive, but they say that I voluntarily accepted to pay taxes when I bought property in this country.

"Voluntarily accepting" is not a refutation of the fact that taxes are coercive. By that argument, if someone points a gun at you and asks for your wallet, you would be "voluntarily" giving it to them. The government offers a clear "choice": pay taxes or go to prison ("your money or your life"). That's the definition of coercion.

So then they compare the voluntary exchanges between a business and consumer to a citizen and government and say that they are the same. How exactly are they different? I am using the services of the government when I live in the country, aren't I?

Just because you're using government services doesn't mean that you agreed to pay for them, or even that you should pay for them. If someone stole your wallet and then shined your shoes, that doesn't change the fact that he stole from you.

The thing is, if I buy property that I know will allow the government to tax me, isn't it just as voluntary as a transaction between a business man and the consumer?

If you were a shopkeeper and you knew that the mob was going to charge you "protection" on every dollar you earn, but you continue to earn anyway, are you implicitly agreeing with the mob that it's OK? No, of course not. You are doing what you have to do, under threat of force if you act otherwise.

Edited by LovesLife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He thinks we have a choice to pay taxes because if you buy property on "government soil" then you have agreed to pay taxes. He basically says we put ourselves in the situation to pay taxes. He compares it to buying into a housing development with rules and regulations such as not buying pets and stuff like that. How is this different?

Your friend must come from the Harry Reid school of thinking on taxes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...