Is taxation moral?

Political Philosophy
21

Ask for it - like war bonds, except what you get back in return is not extra money, but your own safety.

That makes long term planning of the size and pace of operations of the military impossible as funding will fluctuate as defeats and victories occur and could dry up at any time. Unwillingness to sponsor losers would cause there to be the least funding when it was most needed. The Union would not have won the American Civil War under this financing regime. There is also the phenomenon of the big donors who think they have a right to dictate operations, select favorite generals, specify certain purchases etc. as a condition or right due to their donation, and the bigger the donation the bigger their own consideration should be (the corruption issue again).

22

That makes long term planning of the size and pace of operations of the military impossible as funding will fluctuate as defeats and victories occur and could dry up at any time. Unwillingness to sponsor losers would cause there to be the least funding when it was most needed. The Union would not have won the American Civil War under this financing regime.

Again, if people are unwilling to aid to their own security, they will face the consequences of their action. The fact that the Union winning the war is a better result than the Union losing the war is not a justification for coerced taxation.

There is also the phenomenon of the big donors who think they have a right to dictate operations, select favorite generals, specify certain purchases etc. as a condition or right due to their donation, and the bigger the donation the bigger their own consideration should be (the corruption issue again).

And how does forced taxation solve this problem, and justify the violation of individual rights? Corruption by the rich is a possibility under any system. A rational form of government is not automatic, and requires continual action to maintain.

23

But how do you defend that when we know that 5% is arbitrary?

As Rand was already quoted (& I am now paraphrasing)- once the government is allowed to use force to take 5% or 15% or 20% you can not stop it from taking 50% or 100%.

No cleverly designed Constitution can guarantee Utopia. There is no system of government which cannot be corrupted by a corrupt citizenry. A free society requires a virtuous citizenry. If that doesn’t stop the government from taking 100% then nothing can.

24

No cleverly designed Constitution can guarantee Utopia. There is no system of government which cannot be corrupted by a corrupt citizenry. A free society requires a virtuous citizenry. If that doesn’t stop the government from taking 100% then nothing can.

Utopia isn’t the end being sought, a ban on all rights violating activity is. A 5% tax is a rights violation as far as I can tell. Am I to understand that this violation of rights is necessary?

25

No cleverly designed Constitution can guarantee Utopia. There is no system of government which cannot be corrupted by a corrupt citizenry. A free society requires a virtuous citizenry. If that doesn’t stop the government from taking 100% then nothing can.

So using your own logic- the virtue by which you would like to see a taxation although a small and “reasonable” amount for only specific things remain small and reasonable is the same virtue that those who argue for voluntary taxation are counting on.

You count on virtue to keep the government from taking too much.

I count on virtue to convince the free populace to give enough.

26

I think getting rid of that last 5% of taxation will be impossible regardless of how rational America becomes so long as there are large collectivist countries to defend against.

]I think that if a country ever reaches the stage where they have extremely low taxes, they will surely hit a situation where they will not have enough money and people will rue this in retrospect. Apart from the civil war, one see the various times during the Revolutionary War when money was extremely short.

However, that does not imply taxation is required. All it means is that people will have to come up with some other solution. I don;t know what that solution would be, but I think there will be enough good and bad ideas when the time comes. For instance, one might have a system of callable pledges, so that a government going to war does not have to rely solely on new funds, but can also rely on being able to call upon certain pledges, if the conditions for such call are met.

Of course, for my lifetime and that of my child, if we ever get the government’s share of GDP down below 10% INCLUDING any residual “transfer-payments”, I’ll be extremely shocked and happy.

27

Again, if people are unwilling to aid to their own security, they will face the consequences of their action. The fact that the Union winning the war is a better result than the Union losing the war is not a justification for coerced taxation.

I think Union victory was a justification for both coerced taxation and conscription. The South already had slavery so it was natural for them to resort to conscription first. The Union needed to respond with their own conscription law to win. The Union had the commercial, industrial and manpower basis to win the war because it was morally superior to the Confederacy, but those things do not cause victory automatically without being put to use by taxes, government debt and conscription.

And how does forced taxation solve this problem, and justify the violation of individual rights? Corruption by the rich is a possibility under any system. A rational form of government is not automatic, and requires continual action to maintain.

Some systems are inherently corrupt by design. A system where the rich pay for their judges and armies directly is corrupt by design, not by an individual act.

28

So using your own logic- the virtue by which you would like to see a taxation although a small and “reasonable” amount for only specific things remain small and reasonable is the same virtue that those who argue for voluntary taxation are counting on.

You count on virtue to keep the government from taking too much.

I count on virtue to convince the free populace to give enough.

Yes. But my virtue is not the same as your virtue. Taxation has the advantage of objectivity; everyone knows how much to pay and the government knows how much it will receive. That allows serious war finance to proceed. People will limit what they will give when there is no expectation of return, but guarantee a man a couple of points of interest over the market rate he will subscribe with all the money he can raise and then raise more. The introduction of numbers to virtue is a powerful advantage.

29

I think Union victory was a justification for both coerced taxation and conscription.

How does one decide when one violation of rights is justified to stop another?

A system where the rich pay for their judges and armies directly is corrupt by design, not by an individual act.

Such a system would exist under anarchy, not an objective government. Under an objective government, the government serves everyone, not just the people who pay them. If members of a previously-objective government decide to only help the ones who pay them the most, then that would no longer be an objective government. As I said, a rational government requires continual action to maintain, and does not come automatically.

30

Taxation can be greatly reduced by limiting government to its proper functions. I think getting rid of that last 5% of taxation will be impossible regardless of how rational America becomes so long as there are large collectivist countries to defend against. This is a measure required to defend individual rights and the individuals being defended ought to consent to it as the rational and moral course.

What is the moral thing to do to the individual who does not consent? Your argument is similar to the justification for a draft.

I agree that the number *required* for the proper functions of government would likely be at about 5% of what it is now. Why would this rational society knowingly leave such a crack in their foundational principle and allow that 5% to become 5.3% taken, and of course, so on?

I still don’t see your concrete moral justification for the use of uninitiated force to take the product of individual labor (“without consent” being the crucial point here). And, by the way, are you arguing for a progressive tax here too? Flat? How then do you reconcile (morally) that a highly productive member of the society be forced to PAY more for being in this country than someone who may choose to live off the bare minimum of productive work?

I think we’re too far off from this ideal to project accurately of the practicalities and difficulties that may arise in a voluntarily funded government. I don’t doubt that there would be much to figure out. I just don’t jump to the conclusion that only government force can be the solution.

If I were alive 250 years ago, “Impossible” might have been a word I’d use to describe man’s chances of ever walking on the moon, but not for a tax free society.

I cannot imagine that. If Home Depot sells something to the government that is corruption. If Lowes wins a court case that is corruption.

The only way I can track your logic there is if I assume you envisioned a society where only these two companies were responsible for the funding of the government. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

The most wealthy and productive individuals in society are always going to be the ones who generate the lion share of funds which their government operates on (whether those funds are taken or given). The moral scenario is for them to be provided voluntarily.

31

How does one decide when one violation of rights is justified to stop another?

If it is a war measure it is a mistake to classify it as a violation of rights. Justified wars by proper governments are not initiations of force but responses to initiations of force.

Such a system would exist under anarchy, not an objective government. Under an objective government, the government serves everyone, not just the people who pay them. If members of a previously-objective government decide to only help the ones who pay them the most, then that would no longer be an objective government. As I said, a rational government requires continual action to maintain, and does not come automatically.

It is also non-objective if a government renders services to everyone but favors its sponsors or benefactors. Can you imagine courthouses being named after their sponsors like sports stadiums are today? For instance, would a theoretical Oracle vs. Microsoft patent dispute be sent to trial at the Microsoft Palace of Justice? That wouldn’t be right, and it is not just Oracle that should have a problem with that.

Government funds collected by tax into a single fungible account “launders” the money of any association with particular donors. That will at least prevent the funding source from breaching the objectivity of government in practice.

32

Government funds collected by tax into a single fungible account “launders” the money of any association with particular donors. That will at least prevent the funding source from breaching the objectivity of government in practice.

Do you suggest this is impossible to do with voluntary contributions to 3 fungible accounts? (Law / Police / Defense )

Are humans forever unable (in your estimation) to work this out without having to resort to forced taxation?

33

Ask for it - like war bonds, except what you get back in return is not extra money, but your own safety.

Or military service eligibility fees - In order to be eligible for payment, should you ever serve, you have to pay a fee as soon as you become an adult. If you don’t pay, and you want to join the military, you don’t get a paid (and on top of that, you’ll still have to pay the MSEFs).

34

Do you suggest this is impossible to do with voluntary contributions to 3 fungible accounts? (Law / Police / Defense )

Are humans forever unable (in your estimation) to work this out without having to resort to forced taxation?

I think that if your contribution is entirely up to you there is a powerful incentive to want to negotiate over it, to get something for the money, to control it or at least not let it sanction evil or incompetence. Any feature or incident concerning the government which is a cause for unhappiness can become an excuse to withhold funds by somebody. This is basically the Federalist critique of the government of the Articles of Confederation, which also had no taxing power.

35

I think that if your contribution is entirely up to you there is a powerful incentive to want to negotiate over it, to get something for the money, to control it or at least not let it sanction evil or incompetence. Any feature or incident concerning the government which is a cause for unhappiness can become an excuse to withhold funds by somebody.

So far so good.thumbsup.gif

This is basically the Federalist critique of the government of the Articles of Confederation, which also had no taxing power.

Of course. The issue of actual slavery was the moral issue of substance that would come next. A society free of any type of economic “slavery” was not possible at the time to realistically address.

And it still isn’t now. But we’re speaking in the realm of political philosophy and whether or not taxation is moral. I haven’t seen an argument for forced taxation being moral yet. The closest justification I’ve seen is essentially, [paraphrasing] 'Well, I can’t think of a way to make it work with out it, so things would be bad."

The essential hurdle in making voluntary financing of a free society is first that philosophical change mentioned above. The political and structural hurdles to make it a reality are premature to establish because they will necessarily rely on what is realistic at the time it is to be instituted.

So speaking of specific methods becomes very problematic. There are too many assumptions that cannot be realistically estimated correctly. When enough people in a given society hold to the principle that the nature of government is its monopoly on retaliatory force and, as a corollary to that, understand that the fundamental function of protecting the rights of the individual are limited to the force related functions of: Defense, Objective Law and Law Enforcement,-- Then, the landscape of that society will be open an array of creative financing options which will seem “impossible” to us now.

The way I imagine the actual structure is where people pay directly for all private and government services they receive (and would never expect not to). When they don’t, they don’t receive those services. There will be indirect benefits to those of lower economic positions (for instance, the amount they pay towards police protection while still being protected), this is the logical consequence of a free society. (Not every customer at Starbucks has contributed equally to the free wi-fi, have they?) In fact, the indirect benefits for all the members in that society woulld be impossible to quantify.

*I should note that a first step towards REAL private property ownership is very likely a moral issue that comes before complete voluntary financing. This is definitely an area where objective law is more easily able to be seen as… objective.

“Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society—the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.”

–

“Government Financing in a Free Society,”

[

The Virtue of Selfishness

](http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR09B)

36

And it still isn’t now. But we’re speaking in the realm of political philosophy and whether or not taxation is moral. I haven’t seen an argument for forced taxation being moral yet. The closest justification I’ve seen is essentially, [paraphrasing] 'Well, I can’t think of a way to make it work with out it, so things would be bad."

I agree with your post except for this. “Things would be bad” is so a type of moral argument. I understand that it is not what you are looking for, but morality is about achieving values and avoiding disvalues not obeying argued conclusions. If “taxation is bad” and “unilateral disarmament is bad” are contradictory, then I say the “taxation is bad” argument is the more abstract conclusion and is potentially qualified with exceptions.

37

So Grames is your position that:

  • there is a dichotomy between the moral and the practical

or

  • it is moral for the government to use force against its citizens

or

  • while taxation is immoral, ending it can only be achieved as one of the final steps toward a completely free Capitalist country
38

I’ve always thought that this turns government into a sort of enlarged private protection/safety/standards company. Is that correct? I mean you pay for a guard if you have something valuable, now you help pay for an army. You did before but that was different as you never really had that money at all. Now you voluntarily give that money for your protection. It seems unstable. What happens when a threshold is crossed and there is not enough funds to adequately protect? Besides the national deficit, which I assume does not exist in this scenario.

39

The closest justification I’ve seen is essentially, [paraphrasing] 'Well, I can’t think of a way to make it work with out it, so things would be bad."

I agree with your post except for this. “Things would be bad” is so a type of moral argument. I understand that it is not what you are looking for, but morality is about achieving values and avoiding disvalues not obeying argued conclusions. If “taxation is bad” and “unilateral disarmament is bad” are contradictory, then I say the “taxation is bad” argument is the more abstract conclusion and is potentially qualified with exceptions.

You may have misread, or I was unclear. I was not granting the truth of “things would be bad”. I was only pointing out the lack of a substantial argument for the morality of taxation. I want to convince first that, on principle, “(forced) taxation is bad”. With political agreement there, I would argue that things would not be bad.

But I think we have identified our distinctions. Understanding your position, I would wonder how you would state the fundamental principle to underly your defense of taxation argument. Whereas I would say, “initiation of force is wrong, therefore forced taxation is wrong”, how would you state your operating principle?

40

If you can’t convince me to voluntarily fund a war, what makes you think you can convince me you have the right to force me to fund said war?