Accepting Government Funds

[Eric Mathis]

Yes, the unemployment tax is ultimately a wealth redistribution scheme.  However, it is also different from general taxation in that it is essentially an insurance premium (or a user fee) paid to participate in the unemployment insurance system.  Is it taken at the point of a gun?  Sure it is.  However, one pays the premium to receive a specific benefit in the event of a specific occurrence (the loss of employment).  If you don’t work and pay a dedicated tax that funds the unemployment insurance system, you can’t collect unemployment benefits.  Also, if you’re self-employed, you still pay income tax but likely do not pay the unemployment tax.  In that case you can’t receive unemployment benefits.  We’re talking about a specific system set up for employed persons who pay a specific tax to support certain benefits, not a general tax being used for whatever the politicians choose.

But if the “premiums” for the unemployment fund are coerced, then it does not matter whether we call it “insurance” or “looters’ plunder.” As long as there is one person who does not wish to pay the FUTA tax, then anyone who receives pay-outs from the fund is a recipient of stolen funds. The fact that recipients are far more likely to be chronically less employable than non-recipients simply underlines the basic injustice of the transfer.

Nevertheless, I suppose that in some ways taking these benefits is only different from looting the general tax fund (through NEA grants and Stadium Subsidies) by a matter of degree and not principal.  However, the issue of the degree of evil is important here.  This gets back to a point I made earlier, which is that with the size and scope of our current government, one could hardly step outside and drive down the street without being the beneficiary of a government wealth distribution scheme.

Except that land owners and their guests have “right of way” access to their property, and that in virtually every present case they have no power to choose an avenue to their land except by roads paved by the government. Thus government-maintained roads are an unavoidable “public good,” no different than the classical music that drifts into my home from a "free" concert in a city park.

Are we all tainted by the current system of taxation and wealth redistribution?  Hell yes, it’s impossible to not be tainted.

But what conclusion do we draw from this? If we are all tainted, isn’t it legitimate for the ball club owner to get a tax-subsidized stadium?

Again I come back to the fact that we’re all tainted by the current system, so it really does become something of a matter of degree.  In the case of unemployment, I’m taking money from a system that is admittedly redistributionist, however, I also paid directly for those benefits.  By my calculations, the NEA receives approximately .005% of the total amount of the current $2.7 trillion federal budget.  Therefore, an artist paying $50,000 per year (which would be a lot for an artist) in Federal Income Tax would have paid all of about $2.50 toward the NEA’s budget.  If the artist pays taxes for the next 10,000 years, he’ll have contributed enough into the system to take out a $25,000 NEA grant.

Of what significance is this? The argument we have been examining on this thread is that one is morally entitled to get back what has been coerced from him. Why should it matter what percentage of total revenues collected ends up as subsidies to artists? If an artist has contributed $100,000 in taxes over the past ten years, should he have to file for a farm subsidy since the Department of Agriculture consumes a bigger slice of the budget than the NEA?

[gags]

But if the “premiums” for the unemployment fund are coerced, then it does not matter whether we call it “insurance” or “looters’ plunder.” As long as there is one person who does not wish to pay the FUTA tax, then anyone who receives pay-outs from the fund is a recipient of stolen funds.  The fact that recipients are far more likely to be chronically less employable than non-recipients simply underlines the basic injustice of the transfer. 

I don't argue that the unemployment tax is a just tax or that it doesn't redistribute income. However, it seems to be slightly more just than many of the other taxes we are forced to pay. At least this tax is put into a special fund that pays benefits only to those who have actually paid for unemployment insurance.

Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds? If that's the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn't an innocent person in America.

Except that land owners and their guests have “right of way” access to their property, and that in virtually every present case they have no power to choose an avenue to their land except by roads paved by the government.  Thus government-maintained roads are an unavoidable “public good,” no different than the classical music that drifts into my home from a "free" concert in a city park.

But what conclusion do we draw from this?  If we are all tainted, isn’t it legitimate for the ball club owner to get a tax-subsidized stadium?

Forget the road and sidewalk example. If you go to the grocery store and buy milk, you're the beneficiary of a government subsidy provided through the use of coerced funds. If you use a cell phone, you are the beneficiary of technology originally developed by the government using coerced funds. The examples are almost endless. Again, I see it as a matter of degree. We're all made guilty by this welfare state, some of us more than others.

Of what significance is this?  The argument we have been examining on this thread is that one is morally entitled to get back what has been coerced from him.  Why should it matter what percentage of total revenues collected ends up as subsidies to artists?  If an artist has contributed $100,000 in taxes over the past ten years, should he have to file for a farm subsidy since the Department of Agriculture consumes a bigger slice of the budget than the NEA?

I was simply pointing out that the artist who has paid taxes for years and uses this as justification for obtaining a grant, has actually paid very little toward funding the NEA.

[Hal]

If it were possible for me to fraudulently claim welfare without a significant chance of being caught then I would do so with no hesitation, so no, I dont have a problem with people claiming it legitamately so long as they dont use it in order to live unproductive lives.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

I gather from this that you regard receiving welfare as a legitimate way of getting back money taken from you through taxation.  If so, would it also be legitimate for a businessman to get money back by receiving a government subsidy in the form of a tax-supported stadium?  How about a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts?

I dont think that you can fault people for accepting these under the present circumstances, although there are reasons for not doing so (eg the knowledge that you probably only succeded as a result of the grant, and the fact that you have got an 'unfair' advantage over your competitors may lead you to bitterness and jealousy of them, especially if they are 'beating' you). Whether or not I would accept/apply for one personally would be highly context-dependent.

It's an interesting question though, I hadnt thought about it in those terms before.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

Actually now I think about it, doesnt accepting most subsidies create obligations towards the state? If someone accepts welfare then thats pretty much it - they take the cheque and go spend it. But if you were to accept a grant, doesnt that give the state some 'control' over your business that they wouldnt otherwise have had? Similarly for the artist - dont grants only get given to artists who are prepared to do certain types of work?

If so, then this would be a very significant difference between the two cases.

[softwareNerd]

... Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds?  If that's the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn't an innocent person in America.

... Again, I see it as a matter of degree. 

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this...

There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc. but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

I'm using the NEA example merely to indicate how to judge the people morally. I do not imply that this particular concrete (i.e. taking money from the NEA) is a moral one. In this particular case, my understanding is that artists have a lot of opportunities outside the framework of the NEA; also, in this case, one good artist using the NEA might be supporting its cause more than hurting it. On the other hand, if the context was one in which the NEA controlled most art then the situation would be like that of a scientist in a particular field who finds that all the labs in that field are government funded.

Now, reconsider the unemployment compensation case. One person pays 15% of his income in tax, another pays 20%. One person gets money back from the government because it deems he earned too little in that year. One person gets a credit because he has a child. Now, suppose someone were to get a credit from being unemployed -- it is no different from the other cases. The unfairness is inherent in the system. It cannot be fair. Part of the benefit to the statists is that we all feel like undeserving bums.

In summary, the fact that a person claims unemployment from the government is insufficient information to make a moral judgement about that person. I would have to know more to figure if this is a moral man or an undeserving bum.

[Eric Mathis]

I don't argue that the unemployment tax is a just tax or that it doesn't redistribute income.  However, it seems to be slightly more just than many of the other taxes we are forced to pay.  At least this tax is put into a special fund that pays benefits only to those who have actually paid for unemployment insurance.

It doesn’t follow from the fact that the government declares something to be “insurance” that receiving benefits from the fund is moral. We could call food stamps a form of insurance; but naming it such does not legitimize it.

Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds?  If that's the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn't an innocent person in America.

There are those who are net tax producers and those that are net tax consumers. I regard the latter class as recipients of stolen funds.

Forget the road and sidewalk example.  If you go to the grocery store and buy milk, you're the beneficiary of a government subsidy provided through the use of coerced funds.  If you use a cell phone, you are the beneficiary of technology originally developed by the government using coerced funds.  The examples are almost endless.  Again, I see it as a matter of degree.  We're all made guilty by this welfare state, some of us more than others.

I agree that it is unfair for me to benefit from cheap milk that I have subsidized through taxation. I will make it a point to put back into my pocket any savings I have realized through my involuntary support of farm subsidies. If cell phones have been created through government technology, I will seek out any cell phone manufacturer who evades paying patent royalties. I’ll try to pick up one on my next trip to Hong Kong.

I was simply pointing out that the artist who has paid taxes for years and uses this as justification for obtaining a grant, has actually paid very little toward funding the NEA.

If the NEA collected its own taxes separate from the rest of the federal apparatus, this might be a valid point. However, since the NEA is financed from one big pile of tax loot, collected mostly by IRS brigands, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that if one is taking from the NEA, one is ultimately taking from the big pile of loot that one’s income tax went into.

[gags]

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this...

There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc.  but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

I agree that in terms of morality, the difference you point out is important.

[gags]

It doesn’t follow from the fact that the government declares something to be “insurance” that receiving benefits from the fund is moral.  We could call food stamps a form of insurance; but naming it such does not legitimize it.

You don't pay a food stamp tax, but you do pay an unemployment tax for that specific benefit.

There are those who are net tax producers and those that are net tax consumers.  I regard the latter class as recipients of stolen funds.

Given that the top 10% of wage earners pay about 65% of all Federal Income Taxes, then the vast majority of Americans are recipients of stolen funds. The politicians want it that way.

I agree that it is unfair for me to benefit from cheap milk that I have subsidized through taxation.  I will make it a point to put back into my pocket any savings I have realized through my involuntary support of farm subsidies.  If cell phones have been created through government technology, I will seek out any cell phone manufacturer who evades paying patent royalties.  I’ll try to pick up one on my next trip to Hong Kong. 

You can just send the money directly to me. I'll make sure it gets to the correct parties.

If the NEA collected its own taxes separate from the rest of the federal apparatus, this might be a valid point. However, since the NEA is financed from one big pile of tax loot, collected mostly by IRS brigands, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that if one is taking from the NEA, one is ultimately taking from the big pile of loot that one’s income tax went into.

Perhaps, but if one is taking from the NEA or getting a stadium subsidy, one is also giving the thieving politicians an excuse to perpetuate their game. They can point to all of the money given away in the form of NEA grants and stadium subsidies and say "See how we fullfilled the tremendous need for NEA grants and stadium subsidies." "There is such a strong demand for these programs, they must be continued and even expanded." "Of course we'll need to raise taxes to pay for these very important programs........"

[Eric Mathis]

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this...

There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc.  but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

So what makes NEA Recipient Y morally different from NEA Recipient X is that Y

1) "does not want the funds to be government-dispersed" and

2) "tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc."

Regarding 1), we can only guess what a person really wants. As to 2), just what constitutes trying to get the NEA scrapped? What does Y have to do in order to be morally qualified to accept NEA funds? Does he have to organize a national campaign? Visit lawmakers in DC? Write a letter to the NY Times? Or just mention his outrage to friends and relatives?

[Oakes]

Two points:

(1) I would question whether Eric thinks that it would be immoral for those in socialist societies, where private property is completely abolished, to accept whatever rations are due to them. The tragic part of socialism and welfare statism is that people are forced to cannibalistically feed off of each other. The key word there is "forced"; accepting a welfare check isn't theft any more than it would be murder for a death camp inmate to kill a fellow inmate under the orders of the camp guards. They need to feed off of each other as a matter of survival.

(2) Even if you managed to get back all the money you payed in taxes, you wouldn't truly be making up for the wealth the government stole from you. There is an uncalculable mountain of wealth that disappears as a result of government regulation and the perversions of supply and demand resulting from subsidies and price controls, not to mention the destruction of the most precious resource of all: the human mind, which is systematically dumbed-down by progressive education in public schools. A check for a million dollars per person couldn't make up for this crime.

In sum, it is moral to accept government handouts, under the two conditions explained above: (1) You must truly need the handouts as a matter of survival (corporate welfare is ruled out here because companies don't need it), and (2) your need must be the result of the government (which is possible even if you don't pay any taxes, but may not be the case if you are just lazy). If the first condition isn't met, the government didn't "force" you to accept the handout because you didn't need it; if the second condition isn't met, it wasn't the government that made you need the handout, it was your own laziness.

[Eric Mathis]

Two points:

(1) I would question whether Eric thinks that it would be immoral for those in socialist societies, where private property is completely abolished, to accept whatever rations are due to them. The tragic part of socialism and welfare statism is that people are forced to cannibalistically feed off of each other. The key word there is "forced"; accepting a welfare check isn't theft any more than it would be murder for a death camp inmate to kill a fellow inmate under the orders of the camp guards. They need to feed off of each other as a matter of survival.

In this thread we’ve been dealing specifically with the idea of whether it is moral to take back what one has been forced to put in. Please note that I’ve never taken the position that it is always immoral to accept a benefit from the government. My goal has been to clarify under what circumstances one may morally accept a government benefit.

(2) Even if you managed to get back all the money you payed in taxes, you wouldn't truly be making up for the wealth the government stole from you. There is an uncalculable mountain of wealth that disappears as a result of government regulation and the perversions of supply and demand resulting from subsidies and price controls, not to mention the destruction of the most precious resource of all: the human mind, which is systematically dumbed-down by progressive education in public schools. A check for a million dollars per person couldn't make up for this crime.

So do we conclude from this that each person who has been victimized by government theft may take more than the precise dollar amount that has been seized from him? If so, what extra percentage am I entitled to?

In sum, it is moral to accept government handouts, under the two conditions explained above: (1) You must truly need the handouts as a matter of survival (corporate welfare is ruled out here because companies don't need it), and (2) your need must be the result of the government (which is possible even if you don't pay any taxes, but may not be the case if you are just lazy). If the first condition isn't met, the government didn't "force" you to accept the handout because you didn't need it; if the second condition isn't met, it wasn't the government that made you need the handout, it was your own laziness.

Therefore, those who truly need food stamps (as, say, a result of the government interfering in the economy and preventing us from enjoying rapidly expanding productivity) are entitled to food stamps (as long the recipient is not lazy).

If both conditions are met, does it mean that Objectivists are in favor of food stamps? Would Objectivists have a preference on who should finance these food stamps?

[Oakes]

Please note that I’ve never taken the position that it is always immoral to accept a benefit from the government. My goal has been to clarify under what circumstances one may morally accept a government benefit.

What are those circumstances, in your view?

So do we conclude from this that each person who has been victimized by government theft may take more than the precise dollar amount that has been seized from him? If so, what extra percentage am I entitled to?

<snip>

Therefore, those who truly need food stamps (as, say, a result of the government interfering in the economy and preventing us from enjoying rapidly expanding productivity) are entitled to food stamps (as long the recipient is not lazy).

If both conditions are met, does it mean that Objectivists are in favor of food stamps? Would Objectivists have a preference on who should finance these food stamps?

My bold. I never said you are entitled to government money - only that it would be moral to accept it when the government forces circumstances where life is impossible without accepting it.

Edited May 21, 2005 by Oakes

[Brule]

In sum, it is moral to accept government handouts, under the two conditions explained above: (1) You must truly need the handouts as a matter of survival (corporate welfare is ruled out here because companies don't need it)

I don't see how need can be a condition, at least in the way you put it in (1). Those who have had the most stolen from them would likely not need a handout for survival. There's also a case which could be made for a company to accept government money. The most successful companies are often the ones most leeched off of. (unless their success is the result of coercion) If a government steals a company's property (Brazil and health care for example) and income (through taxation) should that company refuse a tax break for building a new factory in a certain area?

One more question concerning the idea of taking back what's rightfully yours. What about future earnings and future government theft? If a 19 year old accepts government funds for school they will not have lost as much as a similar 45 year old. (taxed for years) Yet isn't it likely that they will be looted in the future and they may not have another chance to retrieve their funds? There are exceptions of course, but what about a person living morally with no reason to think that will change?

[Eric Mathis]

What are those circumstances, in your view?

That is what I’m trying to find out. Earlier in the thread someone made the claim that it is moral for one to take out what he has put in. Ever since that claim was made, I’ve been attempting to concretize just what benefits one could legitimately accept from the government.

My bold. I never said you are entitled to government money - only that it would be moral to accept it when the government forces circumstances where life is impossible without accepting it.

“Entitle” means to furnish with a right or title to something. Why should we say that a person may take something that he has no right to? Or to put it another way, if someone is not entitled to something, why should he be allowed to keep it?

[Oakes]

If a government steals a company's property (Brazil and health care for example) and income (through taxation) should that company refuse a tax break for building a new factory in a certain area?

I may not have properly defined "survival." By that word I don't just mean meager existence, but survival as a human being. Of course, this is not quantifiable in any way, which may upset Eric It is a case-by-case judgement.

What about future earnings and future government theft? If a 19 year old accepts government funds for school they will not have lost as much as a similar 45 year old. (taxed for years) Yet isn't it likely that they will be looted in the future and they may not have another chance to retrieve their funds? There are exceptions of course, but what about a person living morally with no reason to think that will change?

I have no problem with this - assuming the 19-year-old needed the funds to go through college, and that need was through no fault of his own (you said he was living morally). I can see a problem with trying to judge whether your need was caused by the government, which is another reason why the judgement has to be on a case-by-case basis.

“Entitle” means to furnish with a right or title to something.  Why should we say that a person may take something that he has no right to?  Or to put it another way, if someone is not entitled to something, why should he be allowed to keep it?

Are you suggesting that by accepting medicare I am implying that I have a "right" to it? It would follow then, that all willing recipients of handouts are welfare-statists. I don't think I would be implying that at all, because it isn't a matter of choice; either I accept it or I suffer (assuming, again, the two prerequisites I've already given). When a death camp prisoner is forced to kill a fellow inmate, he doesn't imply that he has a right to do it, because it wasn't his choice.

[Eric Mathis]

Are you suggesting that by accepting medicare I am implying that I have a "right" to it? It would follow then, that all willing recipients of handouts are welfare-statists. I don't think I would be implying that at all, because it isn't a matter of choice; either I accept it or I suffer (assuming, again, the two prerequisites I've already given). When a death camp prisoner is forced to kill a fellow inmate, he doesn't imply that he has a right to do it, because it wasn't his choice.

In post #38 you wrote, "I never said you are entitled to government money - only that it would be moral to accept it when the government forces circumstances where life is impossible without accepting it."

Now how can it be moral to take something that you have no right to? Your statement sets up a dichotomy between rights and morals, as if one could morally take possession of a good that one has no right to. But if it is moral for someone to take something, why doesn’t he have a right to it?

Ayn Rand said that “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Thus, if an individual is acting morally, he must also acting rightfully.

[Capitalism Forever]

This issue is very simple.

A person who initiates the use of force forfeits his rights. A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.

[Eric Mathis]

This issue is very simple.

A person who initiates the use of force forfeits his rights. A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.

Fine. Now exactly what constitutes “supporting taxation”? George W. Bush clearly supports some level of taxation. My neighbor Charlie twice voted for Bush. Does that mean Charlie supports taxation? If so, has Charlie forfeited his right to property? Suppose Charlie voted for Bush not as the lesser of two evils but because he enthusiastically endorsed Bush’s platform and record in office, including the current tax structure. I have never supported taxation. Does that mean that I, as an innocent person, can take all of Charlie’s money -- or at least take his riding lawnmower?

[Capitalism Forever]

Does that mean that I, as an innocent person, can take all of Charlie’s money

You? Innocent? I wouldn't bet on that.

But to answer the question: Yes, Charlie is a thief, and thieves have no moral right to their property.

[Eric Mathis]

You? Innocent? I wouldn't bet on that.

But to answer the question: Yes, Charlie is a thief, and thieves have no moral right to their property.

Just to be clear, is it your position that Objectivists (or anyone who does not support taxation) may steal from those citizens who do support taxation? Are the following moral actions?

1. An Objectivist working in the ticket booth of a movie theater embezzles cash from the theater’s owner who supports taxation.

2. An Objectivist uses a .38 Special to take the wallet of a citizen who supports taxation.

3. An Objectivist steals a Mercedes belonging to someone who voted for a local tax increase.

4. An Objectivist sells phony bonds to an investor who voted for a politician who supports taxes.

5. An Objectivist smashes the window of a jewelry story and steals diamonds belonging to a merchant who supports the existing tax system.

I'm curious why Ayn Rand never recommended that adherents of her philosophy engage in this form of enterprise.

[gags]

But to answer the question: Yes, Charlie is a thief, and thieves have no moral right to their property.

Are you making a distinction between a moral right and a legal right?

[softwareNerd]

An earlier thread (link) discussed the rule of law.

[Capitalism Forever]

Just to be clear, is it your position that Objectivists (or anyone who does not support taxation) may steal from those citizens who do support taxation?

A technical correction: Since the person has forfeited his right to his property, taking it does not qualify as stealing.

Are the following moral actions?

You seem to be quite unfamiliar with Objectivism! "Rightful" is not the same as "moral." I only said you had a moral right to take Charlie's money, not that it would be moral for you to do so.

You have a moral right to consume cocaine, but that does not mean it would be moral for you to consume cocaine.

[Capitalism Forever]

Are you making a distinction between a moral right and a legal right?

Yes.

Taking things from a thief is still a form of force, although not an initiation of force. It is retaliatory force. Everyone has a moral right to use retaliatory force, but in a free nation, that right should only be exercised through the government.