Gradual Displacement of Taxes

[aleph_0]

The main, and I take it resoundingly successful, argument for capitalism is that it is unjust to initiate force against an innocent human being. At the same time, I have seen on some topics that many people favor a gradual elimination of forced taxes. My question, then, is: Suppose you were a government employee or official during this gradual elimination. At some point, early in the gradual phasing out, you must still collect some taxes forcibly. Would you be able to morally justify using force against an individual who refused to relinquish his property for this tax? If he refused, would you take him to jail? If he refused to go to jail, would you use lethal force against him?

[Spano]

...you must still collect some taxes forcibly.

I don't understand your premise here. Why the 'must'?

[aleph_0]

It's an assumption of the premise that you gradually fade out forced taxes, a point of view I have heard from some members here. If you believe that all forced taxes should be repealed in one fell swoop, then you needn't bother with the question.

[John McVey]

Suppose you were a government employee or official during this gradual elimination. At some point, early in the gradual phasing out, you must still collect some taxes forcibly.

Firstly, if we were able to form a government and change things the way they ought be, then we'd have a mandate to make BIG cuts in spending in many areas right off the bat. For example, eliminating all the nonsense that keeps businesses from expanding and preventing people from getting jobs that businesses would then create. That would take a lot of pressure from welfare spending even if that itself weren't cut directly. It goes on. The first stages would not at all be quietly gradual, but tumultuous and explosive.

Nevertheless, although total taxes would be massively reduced within weeks of the first term of office, there would still be some remaining taxation that would last a considerable longer period of time, so your question remains valid to that extent. What I did point out indicates, though, that while the principle is untouched at least the extent of the theft is greatly reduced, which would of itself reduce some of the unease that a rational public servant in favour of our programs would feel. Again, though, that leaves this remainder you ask about, as the principle stands.

Would you be able to morally justify using force against an individual who refused to relinquish his property for this tax?

At the most broad, there will be two types of voters: those in favour of the idea of taxation as such, and those against.

Those who are in favour of taxation as such, and previously voted for politicians on that basis, are as guilty as sin on the matter of taxation. So, if you like, the remaining taxation would be a form of restitution, a kind of retaliatory force rather than initiatory, and if anything these pro-tax types would whine mostly about not enough taxation being levied, plus some variant of the despicable 'tax HIM but not ME!' attitude. I'd tax these people under our administration's transitory system and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

Those against would be divided into ourselves and those who dislike our particular means of eliminating taxation. Those in favour of our system would understand the rationale behind it being a gradual phase out, and there would be no issue of forcing them at all.

That leaves those who share our end but disagree with our methods (eg the anarchists and libertarians et al). In morality, here your question is dead on, and just because we thoroughly dislike them that doesn't give us license to ignore the issue. In practicality, it would be no small issue, either, as I dare say that our administration would take office in part as a result of those people grudgingly voting for our candidates through theirs losing in primaries and run-offs, and hence would be a sizeable bloc of the voting public. It is very likely that many of their numbers will organise to deliberately violate our tax law with intent to force a showdown. We will most definitely need a moral foundation for our response to that.

At present, the only thing I can think of is realpolitik and invocation of something similar to ethics of emergencies (and, the principles behind The Question of Scholarship also occur to me as somewhat relevant). There are things that MUST be kept up and paid for (military etc), and some systems that while being phased out cannot in justice be shutdown overnight (eg retirement pensions etc). These would still be so large that I think it likely that it would be way too much to cover with borrowing, especially not when a country already has such a massive debt overhang. Unless the money is received from somewhere, there will be great civil unrest and total inability to deal with both it and opportunistic aggressors from outside the country. The dissenter, by promulgating his ideas and getting a sufficient majority to take office, would be partly responsible for generating a clear and present danger to the rights and well-being of others. In short, the only thing I can say is "Look, it's either this or the pro-tax goons use the misery resulting from your ideas to swing voter opinion their way, which NEITHER of us want. We don't have the time to debate it ad nauseam, and we have the mandate, so our transitory program is what we're going to do." Hardly inspiring I know, but that's all I have at present so long as I continue to believe that voluntary taxation cannot be implemented as soon as the legislature begins session and passes up the necessary bills to the executive.

If he refused, would you take him to jail?

As part of the reform system, one thing I'd do straight off the bat is to decriminalise tax evasion entirely. I'd reduce it from a felony way down to some kind of civil infraction that doesn't even generate a criminal record. Thus there would be no issue of going to jail for refusal to pay. Instead, there is just confiscation of property to pay the debt, declaring bankruptcy if necessary, with the morality of that as above.

The taking to jail would only be an issue if he defended the property with force. At that point it is a matter of respect for the principle of rule of law, irrespective of what particular law is at issue. So, for both the pro-tax goon and the wild-eyed anarchist, absolutely. As to other dissenters, a decent libertarian, although feeling seriously agrieved, wouldn't be that stupid (or gets lumped with the anarchist if he is).

If he refused to go to jail, would you use lethal force against him?

Again, the goon, yes if need be. To some extent one can say 'what goes around comes back around.'

Here it gets even easier for dealing with the dissenter. A dissenter who'd be so irrational as to push things THAT far, even knowing full well that in due time there'd be no taxation, is threatening the respect for rule of law in a major way and hence courting great disaster. Such a person would then be no mere dissenter but little more than a dangerous animal. As such I would not have a problem with using lethal force if the fool left us with no option.

JJM

Edited June 10, 2007 by John McVey

[aleph_0]

Those who are in favour of taxation as such, and previously voted for politicians on that basis, are as guilty as sin on the matter of taxation. So, if you like, the remaining taxation would be a form of restitution, a kind of retaliatory force rather than initiatory, and if anything these pro-tax types would whine mostly about not enough taxation being levied, plus some variant of the despicable 'tax HIM but not ME!' attitude. I'd tax these people under our administration's transitory system and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

Wait. They may be morally guilty, but they will have operated within a system of laws. To issue special punishment against them for how they voted is against every principle of democracy. Moreover, how can we know who voted for higher or lower taxes, when people vote for candidates? Suppose I vote for Obama because he supports gay marriage and protecting abortion, even though he has openly avowed to raise taxes?

I can't say that I agree with this policy at all.

At present, the only thing I can think of is realpolitik and invocation of something similar to ethics of emergencies (and, the principles behind The Question of Scholarship also occur to me as somewhat relevant). There are things that MUST be kept up and paid for (military etc), and some systems that while being phased out cannot in justice be shutdown overnight (eg retirement pensions etc).

This seems to me like a very apt observation. It makes good sense to me to see it this way: We have been forced into an emergency situation, and while we did not create it, in this hypothetical we will have to deal with it. Tragic as it may be, in order to protect the unity of our nation and the greater rights of human life and basic liberty, we must be prepared to issue lethal force against a dissenter. I'll go with that, so long as the administration issuing this state of emergency clearly defines what the emergency is, what would constitute its resolution, and a timetable for ending the emergency.

However, we should never hold against any human being that he tries to promulgate his ideas. Freedom of speech is the nearest thing I hold to be an inviolable religious principle.

And I will express some discomfort with the whole line of thinking, as it is exactly the same line of thinking that led Northern states to ratify a Constitution for the United States which implicitly permitted slavery.

The taking to jail would only be an issue if he defended the property with force. At that point it is a matter of respect for the principle of rule of law, irrespective of what particular law is at issue.

While I agree with the outcome, I've never believed that such a situation would be justly considered a matter of rule of law. If the man is being robbed, and it is unjust, he has the right to defend his property--and clearly, in this situation, the government is not going to protect his property for him.

The way I see the issue, in light of what was written above, is simply that it is a state of emergency and the emergency must be resolved with the least loss of life, liberty, and property. That may involve the uncomfortable and displeasing use of violence.

Thank you for the very intelligent and well-considered information and argument.

[khaight]

If the man is being robbed, and it is unjust, he has the right to defend his property--and clearly, in this situation, the government is not going to protect his property for him.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly if the government is committing an injustice through error that does not give the victim the right to take independent action to enforce justice himself. If it did then every time a guilty man was found innocent by the courts, vigilante justice would be warranted, and that would spell the death of the rule of law. The wrinkle in this case is that the law the government is enforcing is itself unjust. But I don't think you can get away with rejecting the government's authority in piecemeal instances -- you either accept the principle of the rule of law and work within the system to get the unjust law repealed, or you declare yourself in rebellion and work to overthrow the government with force and replace it with something better.

In that light, the question becomes "when is violent rebellion against the government justified?" IIRC, Rand's essential answer is that rebellion is justified when political freedom of speech is gone, i.e. when it is no longer possible to use reason to persuade men to take a better course. In the original scenario as presented, this condition does not hold and rebellion would be unjustified.

[aleph_0]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly if the government is committing an injustice through error that does not give the victim the right to take independent action to enforce justice himself. If it did then every time a guilty man was found innocent by the courts, vigilante justice would be warranted, and that would spell the death of the rule of law.

I believe that such vigilante justice would, under exactly that stipulation, preserve men's rights. The only problem is ensuring that the vigilantes have sufficient evidence that the person in question is guilty, so it's a matter of certainty. However, when you are certain, I believe it is perfectly just to exceed the boundaries of the law. It simply might not be moral. For instance, if a man today were to refuse to pay his taxes and fight off with physical force any attempt to take his property, I believe he would be a just man, but an immoral man because he will be throwing his life away in an impossible battle.

you either accept the principle of the rule of law and work within the system to get the unjust law repealed, or you declare yourself in rebellion and work to overthrow the government with force and replace it with something better.

I'm not sure why, if a mixture of cooperation and rebellion is a more effective strategy.

[khaight]

I believe that such vigilante justice would, under exactly that stipulation, preserve men's rights. The only problem is ensuring that the vigilantes have sufficient evidence that the person in question is guilty, so it's a matter of certainty. However, when you are certain, I believe it is perfectly just to exceed the boundaries of the law.

I flatly disagree (and for the record, so does Leonard Peikoff. He addressed essentially this question in one of the Q&A sessions of Understanding Objectivism, and came down on the side of the rule of law.)

Here's the problem in a nutshell. Suppose that my wife is killed. A suspect is caught and brought to trial. I, to the best of my judgment based on the evidence presented in court, conclude that the suspect is guilty. The jury, however, finds him innocent. I proceed to kill the suspect myself after he is released. Should I be convicted of murder or not? If I am convicted of murder, on your premise, then the government is punishing me for protecting rights -- because I was certain the suspect was guilty and acted accordingly. But if I am not convicted, then by declining to protect the life of a man the government considered innocent the government has rendered its own judgment of the suspect utterly nugatory. The use of retaliatory force would no longer be under objective control; it would lie in the hands of any individual who considered themselves certain about another man's guilt or innocence. This is, as I said before, the total breakdown of the rule of law.

I'm not sure why, if a mixture of cooperation and rebellion is a more effective strategy.

I don't think such a mixed strategy can be concretized. If you resist the government by force, they will treat you as a criminal or a rebel. Saying "I'm just resisting the income tax laws, but cooperating with the laws against murder" is not going to prevent the government from putting you in jail or killing you. Using force against the government should only be done when one concludes that reason can no longer be used to change government policy, and when that happens one should rebel.

[aleph_0]

I flatly disagree (and for the record, so does Leonard Peikoff. He addressed essentially this question in one of the Q&A sessions of Understanding Objectivism, and came down on the side of the rule of law.)

Here's the problem in a nutshell. Suppose that my wife is killed. A suspect is caught and brought to trial. I, to the best of my judgment based on the evidence presented in court, conclude that the suspect is guilty. The jury, however, finds him innocent. I proceed to kill the suspect myself after he is released. Should I be convicted of murder or not?

This is a slightly different topic because we're now considering many different epistemic positions, while before I was just considering the individual who has certainty of the criminal's guilt. By the position of the jury that tries the vigilante, the individual has exceeded the law and should be convicted of murder. This is the very reason why I mentioned the distinction between a moral action and a just action. In such a case, while the vigilante has enforced justice, he possibly been immoral because he has risked getting caught and convicted himself while he pursued justice. Sometimes the rule of law is more valuable than justice, and one must weigh consequences.

I don't think such a mixed strategy can be concretized.

The Americans before the Revolution practiced a mixed strategy for decades until the British brought intolerable new laws upon them. Just because you rebel doesn't mean you must be perfectly open in your rebellion. You could be entirely anonymous if you were to effectively evade taxes, or you could be partially anonymous like Ragnar. Ragnar lived in America at least part of the time and no doubt functioned in its society--and then, at other times, actively and violently opposed America. He did not, for instance, raise an army (and navy) to create a clear war front. Basically, he was a terrorist--in the best possible way.

[khaight]

In such a case, while the vigilante has enforced justice, he possibly been immoral because he has risked getting caught and convicted himself while he pursued justice. Sometimes the rule of law is more valuable than justice, and one must weigh consequences.

Something about this strikes me as wrong, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on it. I think part of the problem is that in the end, with respect to any given action, you must answer the question "Does this action, once all of its ramifications are taken into account, serve to benefit or harm my life over the long term?" If the answer is that it is beneficial, then the action is moral and should be taken. If the answer is that it is harmful, then the action is immoral and should not be taken. In this case, we have two principles seemingly in conflict. Justice says kill the suspect; the rule of law says don't kill the suspect, so you need to choose. But proper principles, properly understood, should not conflict. So there's a problem here.

Let's take a step back. Justice, according to Objectivism, is rationality in the evaluation of men. We look at what a person has done, draw inferences about his character, decide what he deserves on that basis, and then render rewards or punishments appropriately. The key question here, I think, is "what does the suspect deserve?" Perhaps the answer is not "death", but rather "a fair trial under objective law." In that case, both principles would be satisfied even if the outcome of the trial were in error.

I think the case where a trial reaches the wrong conclusion due to error is analogous to the case where an individual tells an untruth because he is misinformed. Such a person did not speak the truth, but is not dishonest because he did not evade. Similarly, a trial which follows proper epistemological procedures but reaches the wrong verdict through error has rendered an inappropriate judgment but has not acted unjustly. (Given the state of the culture today, I'm not sure how often this actually happens. My own experience serving on a jury suggests that people often are not basing their judgments on sound methodology.)

The Americans before the Revolution practiced a mixed strategy for decades until the British brought intolerable new laws upon them.

Again, I disagree. In the run-up to the Revolution, the American colonists tried to work inside the British system of government to obtain changes in the laws they found offensive. They advanced arguments appealing to the "rights of Englishmen", they sought to sway public opinion in their favor, they petitioned the King, etc. Even though they resisted laws through non-compliance, they by and large did not engage in the use of force against the British as a key element of their strategy. They considered themselves to be loyal subjects of the British Empire, who were being mistreated by their sovereign. This changed in the early 1770's, and it is exactly that change that marked the point of revolution.

My point is that you either accept the fundamental legitimacy of the government, or you do not. If you do, then the proper strategy to resist bad policies is to use reason. Using force as a deliberate and systematic policy is a repudiation of the legitimacy of the government, i.e. it is to enter a state of rebellion.

I think it might be fruitful to draw a distinction between non-violent non-compliance with a law and the actual use of physical force against government. There are innumerable people who non-violently fail to comply with various laws. Speed limits are an obvious example. There are a large number of home renovations done without permits. Etc. But for the most part, the people who do these things are simply hoping to fall through the cracks. If the government happens to catch them, they simply toss up their hands and pay the penalty. It's the point where you say "the government has no authority to enforce this law, and I am going to act consistently in accordance with that judgment" that you are in rebellion, because that consistent action will eventually require you to use force against government agents seeking to enforce the law against you.

Just because you rebel doesn't mean you must be perfectly open in your rebellion. You could be entirely anonymous if you were to effectively evade taxes, or you could be partially anonymous like Ragnar.

This is a separate question -- once you are in a state of rebellion, what specific strategy should you follow in applying force against the government? That issue only comes up once you have decided on the fundamental illegitimacy of the government, and rebelled. Ragnar himself says that "when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman's duty becomes, not the protection, but the plunder of property -- then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman." In other words, he is operating in a context when the government's basic function is the violation of rights, not their protection.

[softwareNerd]

My point is that you either accept the fundamental legitimacy of the government, or you do not. If you do, then the proper strategy to resist bad policies is to use reason. Using force as a deliberate and systematic policy is a repudiation of the legitimacy of the government, i.e. it is to enter a state of rebellion.

I'd frame this more narrowly: if one accepts the particular legitimacy of the government to do a particular thing, and if one accepts the particular legitimacy of a particular government process, then one must support and obey those particulars. Even if one thinks that the system has made some type of weird mistake, if one has decided -- in principle -- to follow the law in a particular arena for good reason, one should follow it.

[aleph_0]

Justice says kill the suspect; the rule of law says don't kill the suspect, so you need to choose. But proper principles, properly understood, should not conflict. So there's a problem here.

I don't think principles are conflicting here any more than they do when you want both pie and cake, but only have enough money for one. Now that is more a matter of taste than the issue of justice and rule of law, but the analogy holds in this sense: There is no contradiction, but merely the need for a contextual judgement. In a particular case, if you believe that you will not get caught having exceeded the law, and you do not believe that exceeding the law will lead to any negative consequences (such as doing it again in the future, under more difficult conditions, or some such thing), and you believe that it is worth your efforts, then you should exceed the law. If your context or judgement is otherwise, you should rely upon the rule of law.

Similarly, a trial which follows proper epistemological procedures but reaches the wrong verdict through error has rendered an inappropriate judgment but has not acted unjustly.

Nobody is accusing the courts of committing injustice.

Again, I disagree. In the run-up to the Revolution, the American colonists tried to work inside the British system of government to obtain changes in the laws they found offensive.

This is a broad claim that does not apply to everybody at the time. Well before the revolution, people avoided taxes and even violently attacked tax-collectors. And they did so anonymously. These people mixed rebellion with rule of law. Other people, on the other hand, staid largely within the confines of the law.

This changed in the early 1770's, and it is exactly that change that marked the point of revolution.

I don't think a single historian in the world dates the American Revolution before 1773. Not until 1775 did it become common to believe that America (or, at least, the rebel army) would officially cut ties to the monarchy.

My point is that you either accept the fundamental legitimacy of the government, or you do not.

I'm not sure I agree. If I know beyond reasonable doubt that a man is the killer, and he is found innocent, and I have the opportunity to punish him without retribution against myself, why should I not punish him? It will better my life and not harm it. I don't mind a mixture of rebellion and compliance. I rebel in certain contexts and comply in others. Why must I choose one for all possible contexts?

That issue only comes up once you have decided on the fundamental illegitimacy of the government, and rebelled. Ragnar himself says that "when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman's duty becomes, not the protection, but the plunder of property -- then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman." In other words, he is operating in a context when the government's basic function is the violation of rights, not their protection.

True, but my point about Ragnar is that you need not draw battle lines in order to rebel. You may still operate in society, in certain contexts, even when you rebel in others.

[John McVey]

Wait. They may be morally guilty, but they will have operated within a system of laws. To issue special punishment against them for how they voted is against every principle of democracy.

You're asking how to morally justify levying taxation upon people who WANT to have tax levied upon them?? If they both want taxation and pick taxing candidates then they are physically guilty as well as morally. They haven't just promoted ideas, they've actually and willingly played their part in inflicting them upon us. The only guilt they don't possess is in the strict legal sense. I still see no moral problem whatever in taxing people who advocate taxing people, especially not ones who'd go much much further than we ever would. Nor could a massive lowering of the tax burden even upon these guilty people, combined with total decriminalisation of evasion, be logically considered a special punishment! I said a 'form of', not actual, restitution.

Suppose I vote for Obama because he supports gay marriage and protecting abortion, even though he has openly avowed to raise taxes?

The context of the thread is in the case of Objectivism taking sufficient hold in the culture so as to lead to people voting for a sufficient number of proper laissez-faire office-holders to form government, and the (utterly) hypothetical IRS auditor now having to justify acquiescing in our administration's plan. Presumably you wouldn't vote for Obama et al in this circumstance.

Nevertheless, if you're the one opposed to taxation and just voted to pick the lesser of evils as you judge appropriate, then that paragraph I wrote doesn't even apply to you. The relevant one to you will be that on those who recognise the need for the non-instantaneity of abolition of tax and agree that temporary continuing existence of some taxation is a necessity.

However, we should never hold against any human being that he tries to promulgate his ideas. Freedom of speech is the nearest thing I hold to be an inviolable religious principle.

Promulgation alone is not and never was stated to be something that ought be forbidden. All we're doing here is levying tax, and at far lower rates than those promulgators themselves would do.

And I will express some discomfort with the whole line of thinking, as it is exactly the same line of thinking that led Northern states to ratify a Constitution for the United States which implicitly permitted slavery.

I am not happy with it either, as I said. I will drop it in a heartbeat if I thought that the exclusively practical need for a defined transition period were not in fact required.

I don't agree with the parallel, though, as (IIRC) the matter was left in the air unresolved because they felt they didn't have time to debate. We, OTOH, have plenty of time to debate before we take office, and are doing so. I too would therefore NOT vote for a candidate who did not have a defined plan and timetable I'd agree with, even if I agree 100% with everything else that candidate has to say. Since we have (unfortunately) plenty of time to nut things out it's a case of do it properly or not at all when the time comes.

JJM

[Inspector]

My question, then, is: Suppose you were a government employee or official during this gradual elimination. At some point, early in the gradual phasing out, you must still collect some taxes forcibly. Would you be able to morally justify using force against an individual who refused to relinquish his property for this tax? If he refused, would you take him to jail? If he refused to go to jail, would you use lethal force against him?

I don't understand your question. No Objectivist would or should be a member of a tax-collection arm of the government. Ayn Rand addressed this specifically in The Question of Scholarships.

[John McVey]

I don't understand your question. No Objectivist would or should be a member of a tax-collection arm of the government. Ayn Rand addressed this specifically in The Question of Scholarships.

The context was Objectivists taking government for the first time and taking the first steps in setting things right. During that time there would still be taxation and other programs which would be phased out over the course of time. Whatever length that time may be, it is long enough to warrant Aleph's question.

That being the case, then what? Are we to be dependent upon the workings of an organisation whose members are vehemently hostile to our plans, without any oversight whatever besides our Treasury Secretary? Or do we get administrators right in the heart of that pesthole and who will keep the mongrels on the straight and narrow while we implement our major changes and ultimately dismantle their meal tickets?

I'm tending towards the latter view, as I don't think it would be wise to count on IRS agents' professionalism. Even if we could trust them to be professional, how in a practical sense are they to implement the plan according to what we'd properly expect them to do? Precisely because if your advice were to be followed there'd be no Objectivists in the IRS, those existing agents would be unable to formulate the right technical detail and make all the little decisions that cannot be included in the plan itself. That means we have to get Objectivists in there as administrators - and any suggestion of just putting those administrators on another department's payroll is avoiding the true substance of the matter. In any event, whether there were Objectivist administrators or not, Aleph's question would still apply at the very least to both our President and Treasury Secretary. Thus Aleph's questions must be addressed.

Ditto all the above to central banking, btw. To avoid a repeat of The Fall of Greenspan, we'd need quite a few people in there, backing each othe up and being sounding boards for each little proposal and technical matter, and watching out for people who probably never really were Objectivists but outwardly appeared to be. We'd have to send a whole troop or two into these organisations, not just one or two individuals.

Of course, all this is premised on the need for a transition period of any notable length - which Miss Rand also stated was in fact necessary. Her words in QoS's were set in the context of jobs in bad government departments taken as a matter of course and not during the transition period Aleph is asking about.

JJM

[Inspector]

The context was Objectivists taking government for the first time and taking the first steps in setting things right. During that time there would still be taxation and other programs which would be phased out over the course of time. Whatever length that time may be, it is long enough to warrant Aleph's question.

As I understand it, the proper order is to eliminate spending first, then dismantle the IRS. If I were the head of the IRS during this period, I would not prosecute a single person. I do believe it would be immoral to do so.

[aleph_0]

You're asking how to morally justify levying taxation upon people who WANT to have tax levied upon them?? If they both want taxation and pick taxing candidates then they are physically guilty as well as morally. They haven't just promoted ideas, they've actually and willingly played their part in inflicting them upon us. The only guilt they don't possess is in the strict legal sense.

Since we're talking about official policy, I think the strict legal sense is the important one.

One should never use force against another for his ideas, no matter what they are. Even if a person believes in communism, that does not justify censoring him or taking away his property. Likewise, if a person believes that taxes should be mandatory and yet refuses to pay taxes--emergency situations exempted--he should not be forced to pay.

The context of the thread is in the case of Objectivism taking sufficient hold in the culture

Say I vote for Obama in this election, but in fifty years I vote for a pure capitalist candidate. Should I be punished? Suppose there is a near-capitalist candidate, but one who is pro-life, and so I vote Obama. Should I be punished? Suppose I vote for Obama because he's black. Should I be punished?

Promulgation alone is not and never was stated to be something that ought be forbidden. All we're doing here is levying tax, and at far lower rates than those promulgators themselves would do.

Fine enough, but it should never be because the person voted one way or another. One should never, in any way, shape, or form, ever be singled out and treated differently by the government based on how he has voted.

I don't agree with the parallel, though, as (IIRC) the matter was left in the air unresolved because they felt they didn't have time to debate.

What do you mean? The Northern states didn't have time to debate? What was there to debate? They all knew that slavery was a violation of human rights. There was no question of it. Even Southern states admitted to it (at least, until about the 1820s or so), they just wanted to protect their interests. The facts were bare, it was just a question of what to do about them.

I too would therefore NOT vote for a candidate who did not have a defined plan and timetable I'd agree with, even if I agree 100% with everything else that candidate has to say.

So you are not voting in this coming election?

[John McVey]

Since we're talking about official policy, I think the strict legal sense is the important one.

I think you're still not getting it. Someone is saying "Tax people!", so the moral IRS agent can tax that someone with a clean conscience. The agent is giving them what they asked for, and what they deserve.

Say I vote for Obama in this election, but in fifty years I vote for a pure capitalist candidate. Should I be punished?

Again, you're not getting it. If you vote for a pure capitalist candidate who has a plan to phase out spending and taxation and you agree with that plan and the need for it being drawn out, how exactly are you being punished when you agree with it!? You're even way overstressing the punishment aspect for someone who doesn't want taxation eliminated.

Fine enough, but it should never be because the person voted one way or another. One should never, in any way, shape, or form, ever be singled out and treated differently by the government based on how he has voted.

They're not being singled out, it's just a case of covering one's bases in consideration of all those whom the agent might have to audit. The agent would not need any information about the auditee's voting preferences, just a knowledge of various possibilities for that agent's own moral needs. In practice qua IRS agent he should be entire impartial and go strictly by the financial facts of the case.

What do you mean? The Northern states...

I should have qualified all that, big time, or more likely perhaps not written at all. I am Australian, not American. From what I recall, there was the constant threat of the British coming back again through Canada, the old Articles of Confederation had collapsed in a heap, and so there was an urge to get a decent federal system up and running. I'll leave it alone, now.

So you are not voting in this coming election?

Not yours, no.

I've realised I was not fully clear there. I don't have a problem choosing what is genuinely the lesser of two evils when clearly identified and there's no issue of being taken to actively endorse whom I vote for. What I wont vote for is someone claiming to be pro-capitalist and wanting to implement laissez-faire, but would in a totally wrong-headed manner, eg Libertarians.

As it happens, federal elections are this year in Australia too. My choice is clearer than your Republican vs Democrat dilemma. There's plenty that may make me want to throw things at the TV on all sides, but there's really no question.

JJM

Edited June 17, 2007 by John McVey

[John McVey]

As I understand it, the proper order is to eliminate spending first, then dismantle the IRS. If I were the head of the IRS during this period, I would not prosecute a single person. I do believe it would be immoral to do so.

I did say way up on post #4 that decriminalisation of tax evasion should be done immediately, so there would be no prosecutions ever again.

Nevertheless, there would still need to be collections taken with the threat of force to back them up for a while. If you had your stint as the head of the IRS and actively prevented collection activities, relying on voluntarily compliance, there'd be widespread non-payment. Even justifiably ignoring the old free-rider non-problem, there would be many who'd say "to hell with the retirees" etc and voluntarily pay only what they judge as enough to cover their share of funding legitimate government functions. The result would be truly stark poverty and civil unrest sufficient to cause a loss not just of the next election but of a whole generation at least and a lingering hatred of us and what we have to say.

I said in #4 that, while we can agree that retirees should be paying their own way eventually, in morality and practicality existing retirees et al living under Social Security need to be grandfathered. In the meantime therefore there's still going to be substantial spending requirements (though much less than now), which means subtantial collection requirements, which means a need to retain the IRS temporarily, which means a need to keep the agents on a tight leash during that period, which means putting Objectivists as administrators into the belly of the beast, which means needing to provide a means of letting these Objectivists know they are still moral people while they administer the remaining operation and the orderly dismantling of the IRS and similar alphabet agencies.

JJM

[aleph_0]

I think you're still not getting it. Someone is saying "Tax people!", so the moral IRS agent can tax that someone with a clean conscience. The agent is giving them what they asked for, and what they deserve.

I get it, I just don't agree. The IRS agent cannot tax that person with a clean conscience because he wants taxes--but only because they are in an emergency situation which is phasing out taxation. When the emergency is over, there is no longer a way to tax that person while keeping a clean conscience, whether he wants taxes or not.

Again, you're not getting it.

This is very disrespectful.

If you vote for a pure capitalist candidate who has a plan to phase out spending and taxation and you agree with that plan and the need for it being drawn out, how exactly are you being punished when you agree with it!?

Maybe you voted for him for some other reason than his politics. Happens all the time. A vote is not a contract.

You're even way overstressing the punishment aspect for someone who doesn't want taxation eliminated.

You are talking about initiating physical force against a person because of the way he has voted. (For, indeed, if he resists the taxation, you'll have to use physical force.) Now if you use force because of an emergency, that's fine. But it's not fine if you take a person's voting history as a justification for using force.

Not yours, no.

How about yours?

I've realised I was not fully clear there. I don't have a problem choosing what is genuinely the lesser of two evils when clearly identified and there's no issue of being taken to actively endorse whom I vote for. What I wont vote for is someone claiming to be pro-capitalist and wanting to implement laissez-faire, but would in a totally wrong-headed manner, eg Libertarians.

Agreed.

[Clawg]

My question, then, is: Suppose you were a government employee or official during this gradual elimination. At some point, early in the gradual phasing out, you must still collect some taxes forcibly. Would you be able to morally justify using force against an individual who refused to relinquish his property for this tax? If he refused, would you take him to jail? If he refused to go to jail, would you use lethal force against him?

I favor gradual elimination of forced taxes because there is no other alternative.

IF there was an option to stop all taxation (and most of the spending) in one stroke, yes, I would propose or vote for it. But that option only arises when the majority already agrees to do it. That doesn't happen overnight but instead gradually. And if we reach the point where the majority agrees to remove all taxes then we wouldn't have much taxes left anyways because they would have been already voted down by a gradual increase of votes for a 'lower-taxes-party'.

Majority vote can only be voted down by the majority. And if you are not part of a majority you have no say. So the most effective way is therefor to make a compromise and support and vote for that candidate who has the best chances of winning (i.e. your vote is counted) and supports at least a small (permanent) tax decrease.

[John McVey]

I'm starting to wonder more about the mechanics. A lot will depend on the state of government finances beforehand, though. For example, a large part of the problem will revolve around government debt. Official US federal debt is enormous, and the unfunded welfare liabilities are even worse. Australia has the reverse situation: no debt and a large rapidly growing fund of real assets expressly set aside to mitigate our government's unfunded welfare liablities. In Australia, keep that up and after a while within even our lifetimes and the welfare liabilities could be settled and taken right off government ledgers in a big hit that wont even affect the economy.

The context was Objectivists taking sufficient control of the culture to have a proper laissez-faire capitalist administration take government. What else is going to happen in society and the economy as that context builds up over time? The answer is that the need for personal responsibility will have been well known for a long long time by the time we got even just a minority in government office holding safe seats. That knowledge exists even now among the savvy, and politicians have already felt the need to try to address those people's concerns. Large numbers know SS is a mess, and are preparing to fund their own retirement. It's going to grow over time, and this attitude will influence voter behaviour and hence politicians' behaviour. Continue in this vein even without our being culturally visible and what you get in the US is what actually has been happening in Australia over the course of the last 25 years. None of this so far has been influenced by Objectivism, just plain old-fashioned common sense and a measure of rationality in economic matters. Notice that it wasn't the right wing in Australian politics that got the ball rolling towards privatisation of retirement, it was the centre-left ALP that started it in express recognition of how disastrous government dependency would be.

When we do start becoming visible, some politicians and their sycophants will scream bloody murder but others in what will increasingly become marginal seats will want to try to appease us and those who would be sympathetic to our platform. They will feel pressure to want to try to real reform of not just the social security system but the whole of government finances. There wont be the token talk as currently takes place. Under these circumstances, politicians in Australia will merely expand the scope of programs that already exist here and now, while politicians in places such as the US will increasingly want to learn from the Australian experience and then try to take a leadership role by promoting their own programs. They will be falling over themselves to promote a measure of sanity precisely so people wont vote for Objectivism-influenced candidates!

By the time we have our administration in government, a large proportion of the legwork will already be done, people will know full well what we want and prepare for it, and systems we'd largely approve of will be in place and our work would consist of just tweaking things and then the process of dismantlement. The transition period with us at the helm of government will be swift and economically painless, and the goons in the alphabet agencies will already have been whipped into a semblance of shape. I am beginning to wonder, even, how long it would actually be before voluntary funding of government would be viable - maybe just one term or two in office, and that's it?

Admittedly this is all pragmatic, and avoids Aleph's question by dumping a great amount of the moral responsibility of continued taxation during transition onto others' shoulders, but it is nevertheless how I foresee things will actually happen. Further, Australian experience also shows that things can happen quicker and more painlessly than a pessimist might think.

How about yours?

On all the exclusively cultural aspects of government policy, such as gun control etc, one side is often as sucky as the other. The biggie for the US is religion. Thankfully, religion doesn't play much role at all in Australian politics any more. The Duke of Edinborough once said there were two parties in Australia - the Protestant and the Catholic. This is no longer valid. There was a brief controversy over a pentecostal mob called Hillsong last year, but they're not exactly the Religious Right and politicians from both sides have flirted with the Hillies a little.

The present government is also unimpressed with various moslem clerics, whereas the opposition is huggy-touchy-feely multiculturally stupid. Our deputy-PM has categorically said that Sharia was unwelcome, and that people not willing to learn our ways should just not come here. There are pushes for citizenship testing on that basis. Opposition supporters went apoplectic, not on civil liberties grounds but rabid multiculturalism, accusing the government of being anti-islam.

On things like foreign policy, the present federal government politicians are not so much motivated by altruism as fairly decent Australian-interest reasons. For example, we do our bit in the Middle East because they're a large proportion of our customers for our exports as well as sources of fuel imports, its good military training under real conditions, and it helps cement our relationships with our allies. In contrast, the opposition has vocal contingents of anti-trade and anti-US f-wits who will need appeasing if the opposition is to have a functional government. Hence, I do not want them having government!

Then there is all the above on welfare. It was indeed the opposition who got the ball rolling by turning superannuation from an obscure perk of high income earners into something that everyone got, but the type of people who began that are no longer at the helm in the opposition. One of the main architects of that superannuation change in the 80's has gone public attacking the present leadership. Even so, when they were in government they chalked up a large federal debt that pundits thought would take generations to clear. When the present government took over they immediately started taking steps to eliminate that debt. They have since done so (it took 9 years), and have now gone on to create that massive fund with very substantial targets still to be met. The present opposition wants to raid that fund and spend the money on more welfare projects. That alone makes my voting choice a no-brainer.

JJM