Critique of voluntary taxation

I am not proud of it, but in that hackneyed case sounding like those Objectivists who can only implicitly quote Miss Rand would be necessary. All the arguments I am going to be refuting are highly similar to those of the average anti-capitalist:

Who are you quoting? It looks like you’re talking to yourself and it belongs on another thread.

Yes, I object to protection rackets. Can’t you see the economic motive here to stage fake crimes in order to raise money? This already happens with the drug war, both with property forfeitures and arrest quotas.

I’m all for levying fines against perpetrators, but charging fees to victims doesn’t sound right. There’s a conflict of interest problem, and it goes against Rand’s characterization of paying for police and national defense for the same reason you pay for insurance. If you get robbed or raped, if anything you ought to be expecting compensation from the police for not having protected you. For being negligent in their work.

Who are you quoting? It looks like you’re talking to yourself and it belongs on another thread.

Besides the second paragraph which provides the general overview of the issue, it is based on arguments you and Grames (from the other thread, though I have not read it all) made the way I remember them. I could just make a comparison, but let’s make it simpler: With which of the above statements do you disagree? Furthermore, is there any argument for taxes that did not appear in my reply?

Besides the second paragraph which provides the general overview of the issue, it is based on arguments you and Grames (from the other thread, though I have not read it all) made the way I remember them.

The way you remember them? You have this wonderful technology in front of you, which makes it so convenient to quote the person you want to reply to, and you’re just making shit up, having a dialogue with yourself. Start your own thread, call it Tomer vs. strawmen (so there’s truth in advertising), and I’ll ignore it in the order presented.

As far as your rebuttal of the historical examples, well now you’re changing the terms of the argument. All I was saying here is that there are historical examples of voluntary government financing, which you asked. I make no claim about their applicability to modern America.

You complain that I want to know more about the historical examples of voluntary taxation that you cite “off the top of your head”? If you know that your examples are irrelevant or don’t stand up to scrutiny, why offer them? Here’s a good counter example I’ll accept without evidence: there were hunter gatherer tribes on the plains of Africa 100,000 years ago that had no system of taxation, voluntary or compulsory, whatsoever. No doubt true, so what?

Now, Iceland. I checked Wikipedia, and it says “The followers of the goðar [the chieftan] owed them military service” and “At first the chieftains relied primarily on peasant levies”. Sounds like there wasn’t a central government imposing taxes, but military service coupled with “levies” paid to a local strongman doesn’t sound like a voluntary government financing system to me.

From what I gather about Hamburg, you were obliged to pay ¼ of your assets (!) annually to the state, and payment was on a kind of honor system, so you drop an envelope into a chest, and your name is crossed off a list. What happened to the people who didn’t have their names crossed off? Not clear. This does seem like the best counter example to my claim that no voluntary system has ever been instituted, though it lacks the key feature Rand calls for: “tying government revenues directly to the government services rendered.” FWIW, I think this example speaks volumes to the German cultural values of honor and oath keeping*, coupled with aversion to the intrusive means of tax collection then used elsewhere in Europe. Obviously it didn’t last, at least not past Bismarck. I can’t find info on how long it lasted or what brought it to an end. I’d like to know more about it, and am a bit suspicious since I’m having to learn of it from an American theologian whose bio states that he lived briefly in Bremen, not Hamburg.

* One of the features of German culture William Shirer cited critically in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; this cuts both ways.

While I’m thinking of it, there was a case in British history, I think it was in the mid 1700’s, when an income tax was instituted to finance a war. After the war, the tax was repealed and Parliament ordered all the records burned. Ah, the good ole days.

Here’s a good new piece on credit reporting from the Mises Institute, it ties in well with points I made earlier, in other posts on this thread.

http://mises.org/dai…f-Credit-Checks

Before anyway skewers me for problems with the following, let me acknowledge that this is just the product of a Sunday morning reverie fueled by Dunkin’ Donuts coffee and Bach’s BWV 169 Cantata.

So now how about this, combine Rand’s lottery idea with the Hamburg honor system. You pay in your share anonymously, calculated I’m not sure how (note that Hamburg’s 25% of property is a very high figure, particularly for an investor). You get a numbered ticket, like a raffle ticket, so it’s anonymous until you come forward. There’s a drawing, and some number of people get their taxes refunded double and maybe a few hit the jackpot (pick a figure in excess of a large number). Then, in order to collect, you have to substantiate the amount of tax you paid.

Later on a cynical mood will strike me, and I’ll come back and scoff at this. But it looks like it’s worth the old college try.

Shifting gears a bit:

Since a portion of the income tax pays for legitimate as well as illigitimate functions, could it be said that witholding payment violates rights (are not the police, soldiers, judges and elected officials entitled by contract to their pay and benefits?)

Shifting gears a bit:

Since a portion of the income tax pays for legitimate as well as illigitimate functions, could it be said that witholding payment violates rights (are not the police, soldiers, judges and elected officials entitled by contract to their pay and benefits?)

Any anarcho-capitalist or social contract critic worth his salt is going to immediately ask: contract with whom? Where’s my signature on this contract? Then the more Objectivist flavored reply comes: what gives you the right to initiate force against me?

I don’t see this line of thinking going anywhere. Government establishes and maintains itself by coercive means, yet is necessary for the protection of rights. That’s the paradox.

I don’t see this line of thinking going anywhere. Government establishes and maintains itself by coercive means, yet is necessary for the protection of rights. That’s the paradox.

Is it actually true in every case that a Government establishes itself by coercive means? Was this actually the case with the newly established American government? What form did this coercion take and who were the victims?

Is it actually true in every case that a Government establishes itself by coercive means? Was this actually the case with the newly established American government? What form did this coercion take and who were the victims?

There were royalists, some went into exile. I like to think the founding of the US comes close to being an exception, but you can’t claim it had universal consent (which I acknowledge is an impossible standard, there’s the rub).

[M]y claim [is] that no voluntary system has ever been instituted [. . .]

Ohhhh, so that’s your claim, right? Pretty much begging the question, I’d say.

Government establishes and maintains itself by coercive means, yet is necessary for the protection of rights. That’s the paradox.

No, it isn’t; it is a contradiction. It is a contradiction in your view that violating individual rights is legitimate if done to protect them. The non-contradictory alternative is that you should not force the protection of individual right upon people, and, at the same time, the fact they cannot or do not want to afford for any reason doesn’t mean they have no rights.

But hey, don’t attack me. It’s not me, it’s my “straw-man.” He has really no self-control.

Ohhhh, so that’s your claim, right? Pretty much begging the question, I’d say.

Begging what question?

No, it isn’t; it is a contradiction. It is a contradiction in your view that violating individual rights is legitimate if done to protect them. The non-contradictory alternative is that you should not force the protection of individual right upon people, and, at the same time, the fact they cannot or do not want to afford for any reason doesn’t mean they have no rights.

The grammar of your third sentence is nonsensical. As to your objection to my use of the word paradox: “A paradox is a seemingly true statement or group of statements that lead to a contradiction or a situation which seems to defy logic or intuition.“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

All you have to do is consult a dictionary.

But hey, don’t attack me. It’s not me, it’s my “straw-man.” He has really no self-control.

Oh brother.

Can anyone recommend a book that discusses the pros/cons of voluntary taxation.. in detail? I’ve been reading articles about it here and there but would like to read something more comprehensive, if it exists.

Can anyone recommend a book that discusses the pros/cons of voluntary taxation.. in detail? I’ve been reading articles about it here and there but would like to read something more comprehensive, if it exists.

I have no idea, but one could track down the references listed on the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_taxation

1 Like

If government cannot “compete” over time with third party private alternatives to deliver any particular service… then is not the path to minimal government made crystal clear?

 

One could transition government services by simply opening up the service (no more government monopoly) to others and the option for the taxpayer to stay with the government provided services or not. The “transition” could involve only the effects of an initial opt out which would depend on the service and how important it is to the taxpayer and how efficiently and well it is delivered. 

 

As for the immediate effects, if you were given the option (voluntary taxation) to pay the government to receive a particular service at the same rate you do now for the same services… would it not stand to reason you would continue to do so until an alternative (cheaper, better) were established?  Of course once a large number of people leave the service the specific “government” department offering the services would have to actually become “competitive”.  The result would be efficiency and free market justice.  For services that are unneeded or unwanted they will meet a just fate.

You complain that I want to know more about the historical examples of voluntary taxation that you cite “off the top of your head”? If you know that your examples are irrelevant or don’t stand up to scrutiny, why offer them? Here’s a good counter example I’ll accept without evidence: there were hunter gatherer tribes on the plains of Africa 100,000 years ago that had no system of taxation, voluntary or compulsory, whatsoever. No doubt true, so what?

Now, Iceland. I checked Wikipedia, and it says “The followers of the goðar [the chieftan] owed them military service” and “At first the chieftains relied primarily on peasant levies”. Sounds like there wasn’t a central government imposing taxes, but military service coupled with “levies” paid to a local strongman doesn’t sound like a voluntary government financing system to me…

 

You are context-dropping. 

 

Under an objectivist government, the trend in society must be objectivist for it to work. If it isn’t, then the government won’t be objective, it will reflect the majority view of the people. When the government engages in activities outside of its proper role, that is when funding will be an issue. That is because it will be engaging in activities outside the self-interest of individual man, and instead, in favor of a special group. Voluntary taxation can only happen when all of the donated money is going to man’s self-interest.

 

In a society where the trend and dominant viewpoint is capitalist (morally and politically), donations will not be an issue. There are no historical examples because there was no such society has ever existed. But, if you listen to Objectivist viewpoint: Government is good and in man’s self-interest, then it won’t be hard to see why funding will be there.

By the way, your argument parallels the argument for the draft. But you are missing the point: when a country is free, no draft is necessary.

If government cannot “compete” over time with third party private alternatives to deliver any particular service… then is not the path to minimal government made crystal clear?

If by “cannot compete” you mean that it’s gonna lose, that’s not true. If the government gets to compete, it’s gonna win. Every time. 

 

A fair competition implies rules that are being followed by two or more sides, and enforced by an impartial third party, in which the best competitor wins. Like a football game, with referees calling the results of plays, any penalties for breaking the rules, etc., and in the end the best team wins. Trust me, if the referee gets to play, he’s gonna win.

 

In a free market, the government is supposed to be the referee, not a competitor. That’s what makes the market free.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels

Protective force voluntarily funded.

I agree that governmentally provided legal services can’t compete, if shackled to enforcement costs. But must they be?

Firstly, I don’t see why a rational person wouldn’t pay for the time, effort and bullets spent to protect them. Look at all of the charities and nonprofits devoted to nothing but helping soldiers and policemen; why wouldn’t the same motivation extend to voluntary taxation?

Secondly, I see no reason why criminals shouldn’t be forced to pay for their own fees- and nothing else.

There are specific costs incurred by crime, including apprehending, charging, confining and feeding the criminal. Logically those costs should be paid by the guilty party ala le miserables.

And if conflicting interests are an issue then why not ensure that the criminals don’t pay for anything more than themselves? Keep careful records of each “debt to society” and release them once it’s repaid.

Even those murderers who deserve death could be dismantled and sold for spare organs.