Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is taxation moral?

Rate this topic


Lakeside
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's the opposite of what "voluntary" means.

Do you believe that both of us, deep down, have the inescapable tendency towards monstrosity?

 

1. Right. That was my point. You pay for insurance or your don't get protection. I'm not sure why I need to keep repeating this, or why we are talking about insurance.

 

2. We have volition, and a variety of "tendencies", but no, I certainly wouldn't agree with that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Right. That was my point. You pay for insurance or your don't get protection. I'm not sure why I need to keep repeating this, or why we are talking about insurance.

 

2. We have volition, and a variety of "tendencies", but no, I certainly wouldn't agree with that statement.

 

Crow:

 

Suppose on Jan 1st Anarchists (who adhere to non initiation of aggression but reject all forms of government) and Objecitivists live in the same geography in which there is an Objectivist government (the ideal minimal govt we al know - police. justice, military).

 

Should the Objectivists:

 

1. Forcibly export all the Anarchists against their will, out of the "geographical area"?  (recall it would not be a nationalistic nation-state with public property or a single creed race tribe or culture) 

2. Provide government services to them but forcibly take Anarchists resources or incarcerate them if they do not comply (taxation)

3. Leave the Anarchists alone (in accord with Laissez Faire) and to the extent possible provide no government services to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow:

 

Suppose on Jan 1st Anarchists (who adhere to non initiation of aggression but reject all forms of government) and Objecitivists live in the same geography in which there is an Objectivist government (the ideal minimal govt we al know - police. justice, military).

 

Should the Objectivists:

 

1. Forcibly export all the Anarchists against their will, out of the "geographical area"?  (recall it would not be a nationalistic nation-state with public property or a single creed race tribe or culture) 

2. Provide government services to them but forcibly take Anarchists resources or incarcerate them if they do not comply (taxation)

3. Leave the Anarchists alone (in accord with Laissez Faire) and to the extent possible provide no government services to them. 

 

I don't know. Who owned the land first? Are the Objectivists here the elected leaders of said government? Did the anarchists previously enjoy services provided by (others) without paying? What taxation are you talking about? Does it correspond to government services used?

 

Or to put it another way, your example here needs a ton more context in order to make it answerable.

 

I suspect once you provide that context, and then abstract it, you'll be left with two fundamental approaches:

 

1. Withhold government services from non-payers (which can mean lack of police protection; lack of recourse to courts; lack of voting rights; expulsion from the country; etc.).

 

2. Force non-payers to pay (e.g. taxes).

 

But that's only my guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is false that capitalism requires a stable government to provide security because government is the antithesis of capitalism, then you are clearly promoting the view of an anarchist, correct?

Yes, despite Rand's opposing views about it, I am.

We have volition, and a variety of "tendencies", but no, I certainly wouldn't agree with that statement.

So where in my extrapolation is the error?

Do some of us not have any power to initiate violence, does said power not corrupt in direct proportion or are we all in fact corrupt?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to figure out what you wrote. I don't understand your question.

It's complicated. In  retrospect, reading what I wrote, looks contradictory. Building a system of fees into a system to remove it from the reaches of those who seek power over men than over nature, on it's face looks almost absurd to me. I don't know if that helps clarify my question or not, but I'll toss it out there for whatever it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to catch up over the past half a week and this diversions, so let me just ask to see if I have the two major opposing points in this thread down:

 

1. It has never been done so there is no evidence to suggest that a voluntary tax system will work.  The closest examples still needed taxation to avoid collapse.  

2. Mankind, or at least a significant enough portion of it to matter, are scoundrels that will make a voluntary tax system inoperable as they will either freeload through the system at best or cause it to collapse at worse due to lack of funding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to catch up over the past half a week and this diversions, so let me just ask to see if I have the two major opposing points in this thread down:

1. It has never been done so there is no evidence to suggest that a voluntary tax system will work. The closest examples still needed taxation to avoid collapse.

2. Mankind, or at least a significant enough portion of it to matter, are scoundrels that will make a voluntary tax system inoperable as they will either freeload through the system at best or cause it to collapse at worse due to lack of funding.

In a nutshell. The first point isn't worth bothering with, though, because it's only a screen to defend the second.

DA has been sincere enough to admit what the second point means, in his own way.

Crow has yet to say a single straightforward thing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to catch up over the past half a week and this diversions, so let me just ask to see if I have the two major opposing points in this thread down:

 

1. It has never been done so there is no evidence to suggest that a voluntary tax system will work.  The closest examples still needed taxation to avoid collapse.  

2. Mankind, or at least a significant enough portion of it to matter, are scoundrels that will make a voluntary tax system inoperable as they will either freeload through the system at best or cause it to collapse at worse due to lack of funding.  

 

1. I'm not sure those points are "opposing" as I agree with both, roughly speaking.

 

2. I wouldn't call a freeloader a "scoundrel" even if they are not exactly a hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I'm not sure those points are "opposing" as I agree with both, roughly speaking.

 

2. I wouldn't call a freeloader a "scoundrel" even if they are not exactly a hero.

 

They are in opposition to Objectivism's requirement of "voluntary funding" of government

 

 

Here is a reminder about what a certain very thoughtful someone thought of this issue:

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are in opposition to Objectivism's requirement of "voluntary funding" of government

 

 

Here is a reminder about what a certain very thoughtful someone thought of this issue:

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

 

From the linked article:

 

"In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance."

 

This statement is consistent with the first option I've talked about here: that non-payers should be excluded from all government protection (which in practicality means even geographic protection from the military).

 

The alternative to this structure is plain old taxes.

 

There is no "third option" (we've beaten that to death here).

 

So in other words, if you don't pay your share of the military's costs, you either: 1) have bits of your property confiscated to pay for it; or B) you are deported. Our current system in the USA does the former. The latter, in all practicality, would amount to the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the linked article:

"In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance."

This statement is consistent with the first option I've talked about here: that non-payers should be excluded from all government protection (which in practicality means even geographic protection from the military).

Consistent, but not implied by; your point does not follow from hers. More evidence is required to show how and why that would be required for a proper Objectivist government and, as you noted, much of this evidence has already been beaten to death.

The reason for that is that there is something more fundamental to this, which you seem adamant on refusing to address (nor even acknowledge).

Answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I'm not sure those points are "opposing" as I agree with both, roughly speaking.

 

2. I wouldn't call a freeloader a "scoundrel" even if they are not exactly a hero.

 

I don't consider them opposing, just the tow main arguments.  I thought I ready you scoundrel, but that might have been another point.  But basically people are bad in that as best they will not participate and at worst we will need a system to protect us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there such a thing as a non-coercive tax?  What form would that take if any?

 

It would not be a tax by definition.

 

It would anything from Use Fee (currently done with gas or parks), "Contract Fee" (as floated by the courts idea), or even the much maligned lottery (which despite being disparaged got things built in the time of the Founding Fathers).

 

Or it could imply be a fund raiser.  Imagine Memorial Day having a telethon like Labor Day but for the military.    People could donate through the year, companies would have donation jars, events, and everything the do for Jerry's kids.  Toss in celebrities lined up to show their patriotism, a few sad stories of soldiers injured who need out help, etc. etc. etc. and you have a winner. Obviously it wouldn't be enough but if there is no income tax, capital gains tax, ghoul tax, etc. combined with the national pride that gets veterans out booing Jane Fonda to this day and it would do surprisingly well.  

 

Basically, you have to think outside the box.  Certainly not the one we are handed.  

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...