What does objectivism have to say about these ideas on taxation?

Ethics
1

Taxation is wrong according to the objectivist standpoint.

This is because objectivists do not recognize the right to take money from another, government allowance or not, because they recognize it as the same thing as stealing.

Okay.

But how do you know if the government won’t fall apart if there is no taxes?

I mean, wasn’t a no-taxation system tried near the start of this country and no one was paying for the government and since the government needed funds we implemented taxes?

No government can lead to things which are not pleasnant, one including being overrun by an invading country.

Furthermore, the government takes money from citizens who are already here, and who are here by choice. I mean, they can leave if they want to, but while they are here and are getting the benefit of not having an invader come and destroy them (which takes a lot of money) is it completely well that these people do not pay a part in something like that, even if it is by force (which they have the option to walk out on if they want).

So, if there is a fire on the city block, all of whose houses do not pay taxes, and then I pay taxes, and basically the only way for the fire department to stop the fire would be to put out the fire on the neighboring houses, that really isn’t all that great for me because I am the one paying for the fire

department and they aren’t. Would I truly have the right to later take them to court and be reinbursed? Maybe, but what if the fire was not caused by them at all, but by lightening and they had nothing to do with it?

Wouldn’t the price of healthcare literally be through the roof? You would have poor people or people who are doing alright financially not be able to get treatment because of pricing. Would it really be right to let people go without this so someone can keep a small percentage of what they make, or so that a rich person can buy a toilet encrusted with diamonds? Even if it is wrong to tax, perhaps it would not be so wrong as letting many, many people be diseased and die horrible deaths because of outrageous hospital bills.

In any case, if the service REALLY IS FOR THE COMMON GOOD, and everyone REALLY WOULD be benefitting from it, then why not tax since you are going to be benefitting anyway? (For example, military)

2

You are wrong to say, “Taxation is wrong according to the objectivist standpoint” in a very general sense.

Let me explain.

Objectivists reject force being used in human relationships and favor voluntary agreements instead. This may includes all kinds of structures which may end up very similar to the kinds we have now. You may, for instance, agree along with a number of your neighbors to fund a fire department with the understanding that if you do not pay, the fire department will not help you. You may also live in a “planned community” (again, completely privately planned and agreed upon by all perspective inhabitants) where there are police and fire services and their payment is part of your agreement. This would probably look a lot like a town (and in fact, many large planned communities operate almost exactly like a “public” town).

Finally, Ayn Rand herself talked (in very general terms) of things like “transaction fees” and “usage taxes”. The principle being that if you benefit from something you ought to pay for it.

Here’s a good thread on this topic:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23366

3

CrowEpistemologist,

Thank you for your answer.

You mentioned the idea of a planned community. Why is America not a planned community? You are free to leave if you want, you are aware of the policy of contribution (taxation), and you are here by choice.

4

Why is America not a planned community? You are free to leave if you want, you are aware of the policy of contribution (taxation), and you are here by choice.

One cannot think of a country and its government this way. Consider this: 100 people live somewhere, 90 of them decide they will form a government that will expropriate a bit of the wealth of the other 10 each year. it is not legitimate for the 90 to say to the 10: “You are free to leave”. What gives the majority the right to present a minority with this type of option? Nothing.

If you are born in some place (like the U.S.) you clearly have a right to be there. If you remain, your neighbors may force you to do certain things. However, this does not make it right. Nor are you consenting by remaining. You might well remain if this is the least bad option available to you.

2 Likes
5

This is the Objectivist view on taxation (from The Virtue of Selfishness). It’s very clear, I don’t think there’s any need for further explanation.

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

As for the OP’s questions, the answer is “No” to all of the ones which are factual claims disguised as questions. No, a no-taxation system wasn’t tried and failed at the start of this country, no, health-care prices wouldn’t go through the roof in a capitalist system, no, everybody doesn’t benefit from forced taxation, etc.

6

I find it utterly inconceivable that a company such as Exxon wouldn’t want to contribute generously to a properly limited government in the absence of taxation.

Presumably, it wants the police and army to defend its assets.

7

SoftwareNerd,

We have ALWAYS been a tax run society since the beginning, so I don’t see how your model would still apply of the 100 people starting out, THEN they decide to do a tax system.

What if a baby was born in a planned community, in this case a town? Regardless of if he is born there, is it his right to remain there without following the guidelines of the community? That doesn’t sound like truth to me… and it looks like America is just a larger version of this.

Nicky,

Could you explain how my questions get ‘no’ answers (apart from the taxation system at th begininning of the country question), or point me to a source which explains it? (Preferably answering on here)

Tito,

Good point.

8

What if a baby was born in a planned community, in this case a town? Regardless of if he is born there, is it his right to remain there without following the guidelines of the community? That doesn’t sound like truth to me… and it looks like America is just a larger version of this.

America is not just a larger example of this. That’s why I said that one cannot think of countries this way. Men must have a right to the pursuit of their happiness in the way they deem fit. No system that denies that is legitimate. You cannot buy up all the land around me and say I have no right to get out.

9

SoftwareNerd,

Lets say hypothetically that all the land that existed on this earth is very small: 30 acres. It is an island amidst the rest of the planet is an ocean and only the island is inhabitable. At this point, there are 30 people who live on the island, and each person, it is decided, gets an acre and is free to do with it what they want as long as they do not effect the other islanders. So far so good, things are peaceful. But as the years pass, the islanders reproduce and have children, then the islanders children have children, and so on. In the end, if you are still alive, do you still have a right to your land or not?The population will have drastically increased. The island will have to be further divided to create room for the new islanders, and your land or someone else’s would be compromised. But don’t YOU have the rights to your acre? If you deny the original 30 their land, then don’t you deny property rights according to objectivist theory, and if no one recants on their property, then the new islanders recant on their right to life.

So who wins out here?

This is near the principle: Do the natives have a right to their land?

As far as I can see there is not an easy, black and white, obvious answer.

It seems that the objectivist standpoint of having an intact right to life and life to property be able to coexist, isn’t consistent in this example, and this example is based on the same idea of one of the ideas of what we are talking about (a native having a right to their land)

The borders of the US are set and belong to us (not going into the idea if it does based on taking it from the Native Americans), but the land of the US is governed by the US people right now, and is it REALLY your right to say that they cannot tax? It has been the land of the Americans for centuries and has always been based off of taxes. Are you saying that the US government doesn’t have a right to govern the land, and tax is people like it has been doing for the previous centuries? How is America NOT a a planned society (or house that you were born into which you now live in) on a bigger scale? You ARE free to leave here if you want to.

10

First of all, welcome to the forum!

Question One: The People can do any number of things, for example it can instill user fees for legitimate services (like civil courts for example) to fund it. Contractual fees from wealthy corporations protecting contracts alone would help fund criminal courts. Also, if a community wants to form a township then it is also motivated to provide funding appropriately and voluntary. A tiny community only needs a voluntary sheriff or fire service and could be funded through agreements, fund raisers, etc, that are easy to accomplish if people will simply be involved instead of forcing others to pay for it. Larger towns would build upon the model from there. States become an interesting process but there are threads here to cover it as well. Personally, I like the lottery system to fund it but many people are not fond of that idea. I don’t buy lottery tickets but I would buy a $2 ticket when I get gas if it paid for the police’s health care. The point is be creative and ask how you would do it if free and voluntary association is your standard of value.

Question Two: Being born someplace does not make you subservient to the Government or the local population. That is the theory of social contract, as in you are born into the system and therefore you owe it obligations for its protection. That is so generic that ethically you could make that argument for being born into ANY system of Government, from capitalism to communism. You should be born free, not obligated under some duty to a State System. That idea lost every major war in the last century.

Question Three: Assuming your community is using a fee based system to buy into the fire department (which your forced taxation method implies) then the fire department would only come to protect your house, not your neighbors. But I don’t buy that since there are more creative ways to fund a fire department.

Also, this question bothers me on an ethical level. It implies people would just stand around and watch a neighbor’s house burn down without helping. If my neighbor’s house was burning I would try to help them get out or use available resources to the best of my ability (up until the point it would threaten my life since I have no proper training of course). Sorry, but I reject the “People are zombies and can’t help unless the Government creates a program to force them to do it” line of thought.

Question Three: Your healthcare question implies the collectivist theory of costs being distributed amongst people since we have a duty to provide healthcare to people and pay for it. “Poor people” can buy the healthcare they want. “Wealthy people” can buy the health care they want. If a doctor or hospital wants to make money in the very simple manner that ever other business has to in the real world, it can find a way to compete, reduce costs, and target more people. If your premise was right then grocery stores would be out of control high-priced markets and people would be starving to death since they do not have access to food. The opposite is true and we could only wish that health care was operating under such a free and beneficial system instead of the hyper-regulated and statist model forced on people today (and that was before Obamacare).

Final Point: There is no “common good” since there is no collectivist pool of people who are individuals and not individuals assumed into the metaphorical blob of the public (somehow magically at the same time). There is only what is good for you the individual. And what is good for you is to be free to act without compulsion so you can live in the proper sense of the word.

11

Lets say hypothetically that all the land that existed on this earth is very small: 30 acres.

It is really important to understand that Objectivism applies to the world as it is, not to some extremely-altered hypothetical. Since your example is so extremely different from the real world, one might definitely need some rules in the area of property which are different from those that ought to apply in the real world.

12

Question 1 : Interesting points. Thank you for sharing.

Question 2 : Well, you are free to leave here. They are not forcing you to stay, right? I still don’t see a reason why America shouldn’t be viewed as a larger planned community where you happened to be born. I see a potential reason why it is not this way: what if every place was owned by someone else? Where do their right to choose how they run their land end though and you being able to live without someone telling you what to do begin?

Question 3 : Can you give examples of ways to fund a fire department? BTW, I wasn’t saying at all that we SHOULD let our neighbor’s house burn down, nor did I ever say that people were zombies. But it can come down to this: you have so many calls for the fire department, your neighbors house is burning down, it will jepordize your house if the fire builds to a certain extent, so the fire department takes care of your neighbors house, and you use up one of your calls, and since you are poor, that can screw you because the following week your house is burning down and you are out of calls.

Question 4 : Don’t we see that though in 3rd world countries? We see children who are forced to work to survive for horrible pay in harsh conditions and end up not even having enough for shoes. This my not happen every time capitalism is tried, but it does happen. Would you want to subject many people perhaps of this country to that, including possibly your children or your children’s children if they don’t do that great? So basically, would choosing to tax (and I mean really, taxation is generally not going to be a huge amount) be the lesser of two horrible situations?

Final Point : Among a country who is trying to survive, I believe that there is roughly a common good. I mean, for example, if the country is defended then it has served everyone (on a personal level, if you are trying to survive, it has served you). If you have police in every city, as long as they are good, then everyone is served apart from those who are ending up in jail. (Like I said, roughly the common good, but maybe at those times it is for those people’s goods anyway…) You know what I am trying to say, anyway.

SoftwareNerd,

No need to deal with example, but I basically used it to try to illustrate the idea of this: since the government and America has been founded on using the tax system SINCE ITS BIRTH, AND you are free to go, then what principle defines your right to stay here and still feel wronged according to the government asking you to make a contribution? That was basically the idea that I was getting at. Even if every country in the world was doing taxes and you had no where to go, while that may be unpleasant, if the United States DOES do taxes and that is their way and they own this land, then do they not have a right to continue doing it? If you had a right against that, then does that negate their right to their property (this land and how it is run?).

13

… if the United States DOES do taxes and that is their way and they own this land, then do they not have a right to continue doing it? If you had a right against that, then does that negate their right to their property (this land and how it is run?).

No, even if all but one person in the U.S. agreed that the last dissenter must (say) go to church or leave the country, they have no right to do so. Where could such a right come from? Property is not the starting point.Ask why people should have a right to property? What is its basis? The real, underlying right is the right to the actions that we call life. One cannot take such actions except through the material world, and almost always with material things. That is the only justification for a right to property. this right does not give you the right to tell another person how he should act or how he should use his property. By asking him to do so, the majority would be denying their own rights to property, in principle.

14

SoftwareNerd,

I get what you are saying: The idea of taxation is wrong on principle, so the government shouldn’t have the right to order you to engage in it.

2 Things:

  1. I am personally not sure about the idea that the country would not fall to bits if we weren’t taxed. Taxation is likely the lesser of two circumstances which are not favorable, taxation being the more favorable one. Could you (or anyone) provide more details on this idea?(specifics)

  2. And I still don’t see how it is a definite thing that America is not just a larger version of a planned society. Born in my house: You don’t make the rules. Born in a planned city: you don’t make the rules. But then when it is a COUNTRY using the same policies (taxes, or manditory contribution), now they aren’t allowed. This idea I don’t see adequately refuted.

15

Question 2: To be blunt, I plan my own life. I don’t need others to do it for me. Maybe I’m old fashion but I can’t fathom why anyone would want someone else to plan their home, life, or anything for them. As a complete aside, I find the idea of planned communities very unlikely in a free society. In order for a group to have authority over an area of property they would have to own it. If you own it then it’s unlikely you will sell someone a house and still be able to set the terms of ownership since you no longer own it. Perhaps on a land contract scale but that would only work until payment is made in full and ownership fully transferred. I could be wrong since I have no experience with such groups. I simply wouldn’t move to a community that wanted to plan my lawn and house for me like the nosy neighbor from Bewitched.

At any rate, you plan your life and your property. Governments have legal jurisdiction over a number of properties since those property owners give that Government the power to act as a third party with the power of force to protect their rights and settle disputes. That is why you would form a government in the first place. Forming a government because you need someone to plan your life or tell you how to manage it is a pretty poor reason to form one.

Question 3: Just in case I said it wrong, I didn’t mean to imply you thought that people would stand around while a house burned. I was referring to people who make the argument generically as a standalone question (versus the full question on ideas you are doing).

If I owned a firehouse and suddenly I had to fund it through voluntary association instead of coercive taxes, I could do a lot of things based on the size of the town and the temperament of the community within the area. Assuming an average sized town with multiple communities I’d likely set up a town hall meeting and get feedback from the community. Do people want a full service Fire Service? Then we’d likely recommend an annual festival or potluck to raise money so it can be planned. Full transparency, etc. If not, or instead of so I could make money on it, I’d first go to the local businesses and contract them for the service since no business owner would leave his livelihood open to random destruction that was so preventable. I’d toss in additional services like fire escape training, free updated fire extinguishers, and even emergency care training for the larger businesses safety departments. Since I would need the water system from whoever runs the local water company, I’d offer to protect their outfit for free for access to their water. I’d also try to get contracts on doing the pipe checks and maintenance for him. I could likely cover s lot of overhead with that one. Now that I had the heavy hitters deferring the large costs I would offer “Fire Insurance” to homeowners. To support Spiral Architects’ Fire House Inc. and promote buying my service I’d also do fund raisers locally to promote the business. Run a pool for the kids if you own Fire Insurance, exclusive pool side dinners for businesses, and hell even an annual Ms. Fire House bikini calendar shoot. Hire me to come to your school for wet and wild play day for the kids? Hire my equipment for community events so you don’t have to buy and pay the upkeep on commercial grade trucks? Fie House BBQ Grill behind the station?

You just need to be creative and ask yourself how you would do it. Once you start you’ll find you could come up with tons of great ideas that don’t require forced confiscation of wealth. The ideas I listed are very raw but already they sound way better than some goof who is not you trying to plan your “community” for you.

Have fun with it!

16

SoftwareNerd, I get what you are saying: The idea of taxation is wrong on principle, so the government shouldn’t have the right to order you to engage in it.

Yes, but I was not talking specifically about taxation. That is just one specific.

  1. I am personally not sure about the idea that the country would not fall to bits if we weren’t taxed. Taxation is likely the lesser of two circumstances which are not favorable, taxation being the more favorable one. Could you (or anyone) provide more details on this idea?(specifics)

I really cannot tell you anything specific about how a system of voluntary contributions would work; but, here is how look at this issue:

The question of the role of government is far more fundamental than its funding. Today, the majority of government expenditure goes to transfer-payments (Social-security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and to education. Add in the money spent on all sorts of agencies that regulate our lives, and add in some excessive military expenditures, and you end up with a huge proportion of the government spending. The general public-attitude (i.e. the prevailing political philosophy) consists of some people who think the government should do a little more, and those who think the government should do a little less. If voters in general change their ideas and want a society where government restricts itself to core functions, but think these should be funded by taxation… .. it would surpass my most optimistic dreams.

History does have examples of voluntary contributions supporting government and other non-profit activity. It also has examples of the types of problems that arise. Some libertarian-leaning economists have ideas on making more services fee-based, on having systems of trusts that the government can draw upon (so that there is a stability to inflows), etc. Personally, I don’t see a huge problem. After all, if we are going to use such a system, we can only do so in a context where a majority of voters have decided they want limited government and want government-funding to be voluntary. So, the commitment is assumed, even if there is a minority that will be “free-riders”.

Over time, let’s say we get to limited government, still funded by taxes. Then, let’s say we convert some types of services so that the funding comes from fees. Then, let’s say we reduce taxes further by getting commitments from various citizens that they will provide a certain level of on-going contributions toward specific government tasks. Now, at this point, let us assume that we hit some block that we cannot foresee today. It is a hypothetical, but suppose it is true: suppose we find that a certain percentage of government has to be funded by taxes, and that that part is essential enough that the whole idea of government, and society, and the protection of rights depends on it. Well, what of it? If it is true, it is true. It’ll be infinitely better than today… and I know we’re not getting there in any of our lifetimes anyway. If it means that one derivative principle of Objectivism has to be discarded, or that it has to be re-written… I wouldn’t shed a tear… the truth is the truth.

In reality, when humanity gets there, they will probably roll back taxes step by step, learning lessons along the way. The ideas from various libertarian economists will be like the plans for Mars trips: ideas that have some little core, but may not be recognized in their final evolved form.

17

Question 4: Don’t we see that though in 3rd world countries? We see children who are forced to work to survive for horrible pay in harsh conditions and end up not even having enough for shoes.

Are these countries closer or further to Laissez-faire Capitalism than the rich western countries?

18
  1. And I still don’t see how it is a definite thing that America is not just a larger version of a planned society. Born in my house: You don’t make the rules. Born in a planned city: you don’t make the rules. But then when it is a COUNTRY using the same policies (taxes, or manditory contribution), now they aren’t allowed. This idea I don’t see adequately refuted.

They are hugely different. Houses and cities should be 100% privatised, the rules come from whoever owns the land.

Ideally, the “City of New york” would be owned by some private entity (let’s call it the “Corporation of New York”) - this entity gets to set the rules.

If you want to buy the city and change the rules, you are free to do so. The corporation can do anything it likes with the city, because it *owns* the city, or at least it has contractual authority over it. Nothing can happen without the consent of the person that owns the property.

When the government passes a law, it is passing the law over property that it absolutely does not own. You have no opportunity to “buy the country” and change the way it is run, because the state doesn’t actually own any of the land you are talking about.

That’s not to say you can do anything you want with your private property. A city couldn’t, for example, decide to amputate the arms of its residents. The state’s role is to ensure that private entities are dealing with each other properly, which means in a manner consistent with individual rights.

19

Quick note: I haven’t gotten to the most recent responses yet and I am going to be away from this forum for possibly a few days just so you are all aware, and thank you for answering my questions so far.

20

The opposite is true and we could only wish that health care was operating under such a free and beneficial system instead of the hyper-regulated and statist model forced on people today (and that was before Obamacare).

The food system is only free in comparison, not in general. You need government permission to change the label on your product from “prunes” to “dried plums”. It’s illegal to slaughter livestock in a non-government-approved slaughterhouse, and the number of rules they have about what must be present in that slaughterhouse is absurd. The food market is enormously distorted by grain subsidies, which in turn is ruining a lot of people’s health because they can’t tolerate grain but this is the food that is cheap and readily available.

Not to mention that diet and health are closely tied together. What are the big pharmaceutical moneymakers? Not cancer drugs or flu shots. It’s medication for high cholesterol and diabetes–conditions that are caused largely by a diet based on cheap sugar and grains. If you consider high cholesterol a “condition”, for most people it’s totally harmless and low cholesterol will ramp up their likelihood of developing cancer, not to mention the fact that statins have RUINOUS side effects that are worse than the problem they purport to solve.