the munchkin wrangler.

When we have a right to our property, it means we have complete ownership and control over that property. We decide how it will be used. The corresponding duty we have is to not bother the property of others.
At some time, we may give consent through out elected representatives to charge an agreed upon amount for a certain service - county sheriff to enforce the laws, courts, etc.
This is proper only when we have given our consent, directly or through our elected representatives.
Unfortunately, in a straight-up democracy, like in small towns, the two wolves can vote to eat the lamb.

So I am of the opinion that taxation has its place. But that place is very limited.

No taxation without representation!

Interesting. I certainly don't agree, but a good read none the less.

Marko, what's your take on the "fair" tax? Al T.

Al,

the term "fair tax" is an oxymoron.

The only truly fair tax is one where you knock on my door and say, "Hi, I'm starting up a fire department, and I was wondering whether you would like to purchase fire protection?", and where I face no ill consequences of any kind for saying, "No, thank you."

But in saying no to starting the fire dept, are you still entitled to the services of it?

I'll admit it's hard to break out of the mindset, "But that's not fair!" It's drilled into us constantly by the media.

I can see where this leads to but what if certain services, i.e national defense, are poorly funded because people don't want to pay for whatever reasons.

This could only work if taxes were non existent and people had complete control over their money. I agree completely with this concept, however to get there would require serious de-legislation, or a revolution.

Of course I'm not entitled to the protection of the fire department if I decline to help fund it. (And if my house burns down, I am not entitled to any damages from that fire department.)

The point is that it's not a compulsory tax, and that I have full control over what kind of services I choose to purchase. It's only "fair" if it's uncoerced and voluntary.

Excellent argument, Marko. You have a gift for the well-crafted simile.

I have a couple of minor disagreements, however.

First, how do you propose we keep those who have declined to voluntarily contribute money for the provision of social services, infrastructure, etc, from availing themselves of those things? How do we keep them from driving on the roads everyone else paid for, for example?

Second, how do you provide adequate staffing and readiness for those labor intensive public safety services (fire, police, ambulance)? By definition, these services need be available 24/7. If say, only 10% of a given population voluntarily contributed funds for the provision of said services, the service still needs to be staffed 24/7 to provide adequate service to the paying customers. Even considering that we'd provide service to only that paying 10%, the cost per payor would still be astronomically high.

Higher than, say, 80%+ of your income for the rest of your productive life? ;)

(That's what "public services" cost each and every one of us, AD. Imagine the kind of service you could buy on the free market if you could get everything at a 80% discount.)

Still, my argument wouldn't change if those services would indeed be "astronomical in cost" to those who choose to subscribe to it. It wouldn't change because the only alternative to it would be coercive redistribution of income, which I cannot support due to its violation of the NAP...upon which all my philosophy rests.

In other words, my argument doesn't rest on utility or "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". It rests on my absolute opposition of coercion by force. Even if you could come up with a system where a 1% compulsory tax would buy defense and health care and education for the entire population without fail, I'd still oppose it on the grounds that it involves guys with guns and badges who will come and shoot you if you don't pay that 1%.

Will that kind of philosophy ever carry the vote? Hell, no. I'm not trying to get into public office, anyway. It's just a logically consistent extension of the NAP, that's all.

Dead on.

Have you been reading Tolstoy?

"...and where I face no ill consequences of any kind for saying, "No, thank you."

Except that they allow your house to burn to the ground if it ever catches fire.

(FWIW, I pretty much agree with you, though.)

"In other words, my argument doesn't rest on utility or "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". It rests on my absolute opposition of coercion by force. Even if you could come up with a system where a 1% compulsory tax would buy defense and health care and education for the entire population without fail, I'd still oppose it on the grounds that it involves guys with guns and badges who will come and shoot you if you don't pay that 1%."

Oh, I agree with your argument. No, I don't expect the cost of ambulance services, for example, would amount to 80% of the lifetime income of the payors.

But I doubt the rest of society will play as nice as you will. They'd reject road taxes...until they need to use the roads. They'd reject school taxes...until they discover that Johnny can't read. They'd reject fire department taxes...until the flames are licking at their property.

Then of course, they'd be bitchin' loud enough for Washington to hear.

Which, no doubt, is how this flawed system came to be in the first place.

Your philosophy definitely won't get you elected in the U.S., but I like it. Is buying an island and starting our own country still an option?

I can see something like this working locally IE the above fire department example. But how would you fund stuff like the military? For obvious reasons the military can't chose to defend one house and not the house next to it, or even take the time in an emergency to figure out who paid and who did not.

I agree with your sentiment, but some of this stuff seems to be of the "looks good on paper but doest work in real life" school of thought. However I am most willing to be proven wrong.

Sure it's theft, but the only alternative is anarchy.

Governments can tax us, because they are able to. Might makes right.

We don't pay taxes to the British Crown any more, because we had the power and desire to stop it.
As long as the consensus among the population is that they are going to pay their taxes, however reluctantly, and are going to make everyone else pay theirs, you're out of luck.

You can't run a government with no money. The money has to come from somewhere. As the government exists for the benefit of the people, it seems logical that they should foot the bill for the organization they enjoy.

Don't like it? Elect someone who has a better idea.

Not quite sure what the fuss is about...

"...government exists for the benefit of the people..."

Good one. I got a chuckle out of it.

There is, of course, the dreadful possibility that your statement is meant to be serious.

"You can't run a government with no money. The money has to come from somewhere."

Only if you believe government has to come from somewhere.

I agree with your initial premise, and I even have a solution to most of the "how do we keep people from mooching" questions. Roads: turnpikes. Fire department: let them contract for service in advance, or let them pay for it afterward (this could be covered as an insurable loss under a homeowner's policy). Schools: same as private schools.

My exception, though, is defense. Everything else mentioned is a service rendered to individuals; military defense is rendered to groups. Seriously: when the Canuckians invade, how do you tell them that it's OK for them to invade 1319 12th St, but not 1321? I posit that national defense is a legitimate function of government.

However, if we pared our government down to just that service (heck, if we limited ourselves to everything in the Constitution, but nothing else), we could probably fund it just fine by import tariffs, with which I have no ethical problem--sellers are free to find other markets if they so desire. It's not an insurmountable problem, just one that The People don't want to solve.

Have you ever considered that any nation whose people wouldn't want to chip in for their defense voluntarily (either with money or service) is not worth defending?

I know keeping any invaders at bay would be worth a voluntary obulus to me, and probably some service as well. I'm pretty sure that even in the absence of compulsory taxation, there'd be two or three or a million of my fellow countrymen and -women who would do the same.

Has anyone considered that a country without a gov't wouldn't have to defend itself from anyone?

>Has anyone considered that a country without a gov't wouldn't have to defend itself from anyone?

My mind has just been blown. Seriously. I'm going to have to think about that for a few months...

...at least we're not getting all the government we're paying for.

"Has anyone considered that a country without a gov't wouldn't have to defend itself from anyone?"

To me a country without a government sounds like easy pickings.

"Have you ever considered that any nation whose people wouldn't want to chip in for their defense voluntarily (either with money or service) is not worth defending?"

I believe that the vast majority of Americans would not be willing to pay for this, at least not until the country had been invaded. At that point if the invade had even an ounce of competence then it would be too late. In a way you have just said that America as it stands is not worth defending, and I am inclined to agree with that.

Wow, Marko. You've definitely got some folks by the shorthairs on this one.

Bottom line, I'm pretty sure, is not a matter of want or need. It's not about who's gonna pay for what and/or how. It's about Opposition Of Force. Like you said, when does it become okay to take most of my income at gunpoint? Nicely written, sir.

Keith? Ouch. "...America as it stands is not worth defending, and I am inclined to agree with that." Where exactly will you be when (insert really really bad guys here) breach the shores? Standing by saying, "Take it! It's not worth defending!" While I disagree with the 'if you don't like it leave' position, bear this in mind, sir: it is here (that's not worth defending) that you are allowed to say stuff like that.

If you're just biding your time here until someone invades, then I'll be more than happy to use the tax dollars that Big Brother pilfered from your pocket to return fire.



tweaker

It's not that the concept of America is not worth defending, but the US as it is currently constructed. Between the fact that our politicians have lost any sense of their true purpose and that most Americans care more about American Idol than their country I have really lost faith in the US as a whole.

I think that this country, should it be subjected to Markos test, would fail. It pains me greatly to see some of our best and brightest citizens fight and die while most of the rest of the country is in condition brown.

"To me a country without a government sounds like easy pickings."

Just like Iraq has been a "cakewalk"? For every fainting soccer mom there's a Tam waiting to set an IED. ;-)

Just extrapolating the concept.

The notion that "The Government Exists to Defend the People"... hum. Really? "I'm from the Government - I'm here to help you". So let's just drop that notion for a moment.

Governments mean Armies, in a fair old way I guess - but let's lose the Federal Government part, or at least shrink it so that it doesn't have billions to spend on B2s and mighty fancy state-of-the-art tanks. As cool as high-end hardware is, there aren't *too* many people in the world to use it against right now.

So let's say someone invades the US in Marko's illustration. There's no man in a blue or green suit to run to, but there is a rifle - at the very least - in the hands of the majority of men and women of adult age, and a similar proportion of kids of the age of 16 would at lest be able to load a magazine, or put down a tolerable grouping.

Also, they would be raised without the reliance on higher authority that seems to be the current fad in raising the young.

Doesn't sound like a whole bundle of fun for the invaders to me. My reading of history's spottier than it should be, but "a rifle behind every blade of grass" sounds familiar. Nobody, but nobody, fights like they do when they're defending their homes.

Admittedly, I'm armchair philosophising.

To start with, taking another's property is not always immoral, nor is it always theft. To pick an example inspired by recent local events, suppose it's a hot day. A man has locked HIS infant in HIS car, and lost the keys. The child is gasping, suffering, in obvious distress as it roasts. The man says he has called a locksmith who will be here when he finishes his current job.

Standing there is a carpenter with a tool belt on.

Is it theft, or immoral, to take the carpenter's hammer and smash the window to protect the child? Even against the resistance of both property owners? Of course it's not immoral, and it certainly isn't theft legally.

Even the most libertarian among us recognises that in extreme cases- like the boiling baby- causing harm to others is necessary. Sometimes deadly harm, in self defence or defence of others.

Living in a civilisation is a cooperative enterprise. We define all sorts of things as "harm to others" , specific acts of individual liberty that that we won't tolerate. Those acts, we call them crimes, are those which harm others.

We have decided, as a group, that we won't tolerate murder. There's no fully libertarian answer to that event, no "private" solution. Once there are public or group solutions, there are public costs.

We have also decided to do lots of other things. I think plenty of them are stupid, some are wrong, and most all are inefficiently provided. Our tax structure is poorly designed and should be recrafted to make much better connection between the paying for and receiving of government services.

But we have also decided that a free ride on the benefits of our civilisation is stealing. If you're going to get the benefits, there are costs.

One can opt out of many of the benefits, and out of nearly all the taxes too. But just being here absorbs a certain amount of "social capital" which is provided by our neighbours. Even if one withdraws to the farm and raises his own food, he gets benefits. A secure land title, law enforcement if his bigger, stronger neighbour decides to steal his crop, agricultural inspection at the borders to contain foreign pests, defence from foreign invasion, etc. Those things are common needs we all share, and there is no way to provide them on an as needed, pay as you go basis. They will be provided whether one wants them or not. We have decided that taking those things without paying is theft, too.

Don't get me wrong- I'm extremely libertarian, and it is NO part of government's business to do charity or subsidy. But having a government to provide for the COMMON defense and secure the GENERAL welfare is something we all decided to do, and decide to continue to do, every day.

''My mind has just been blown. Seriously. I'm going to have to think about that for a few months...''

National defense only means something if "national" does. Otherwise, it's just defense.

Conquering a nation is easy; you just have to defeat and take over the government. Conquering 300 million individuals is a very different question.

A reading of Niven's _Footfall_ and the puzzlement of the invaders over human action can be inserted here.

I believe the following still fits the non-aggression theory:

As far as Federal taxes, go- you are right- you are charged those taxes merely because you were born here.

In the case of local taxes, which pay for fire departments, police, etc., you CHOOSE to buy property in that community. That community offers those services, and by choosing to buy property there, you have made the choice to live by the (tax) laws of that city.

Don't like it? Buy property in an unincorporated area, and pay no taxes, get no fire or police services.

Roads? Fund with a fuel and automobile tax.

Military? Other federal laws? Import/Export tax. You don't HAVE to pay those, as long as you buy domestic goods. Of course, that won't fund the nanny state, which is just fine by me.

That is how the founding fathers set it up.

Divemedic

"Just like Iraq has been a "cakewalk"? For every fainting soccer mom there's a Tam waiting to set an IED. ;-)"

We COULD end the war in Iraq reasonable quickly if we wanted to but most Americans would not find the solutions acceptable.

So I read a good portion of the comments, but I'm seeing the same things said in different ways. I just wanted to add my $ .02:

The tax on gas covers road repair. We all pay for gas, that means we all want to drive, and if we all want to drive, I assume we all want good roads. If you don't want to pay the tax, you can choose to live somewhere where walking or riding a bike would be manageable. Sure, it sounds simplistic, but stranger things have happened.

The corporate income tax is apparently the same amount that is used to support the military. Wow, what a coincidence.

I just noticed that someone pretty much just covered this, so I'll stop with the "hey guys, that stuff's already covered without violating our rights" talk.

As far as the "we neeeeeeeed taxes to pay for people who can't help themselves!", I give you this: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. They accept any patient under the age of 18 and pay all costs for treatment. How? Charity. If they can take in so many kids per year pro bono on the kindness of strangers (while conducting research without the aid of patient payment or government assistance), and they're only the THIRD-largest medical facility to do so? Uh, I think we can cover the less-fortunate using the kindness of strangers. Sorry, but I don't want to pay for some stranger's methadone. I have enough trouble paying my own medical bills, kthx.

In other exciting news, a judge somewhere in this fair country is calling into question the ratification of the 16th Amendment (which was supposed to not impose new taxes, but everyone says it did, which got us into this mess to begin with)! YAY! There's no official news on it yet, but I heard this from a very good source, and it makes me happy. I just hope it goes somewhere.

Blahblahblah too many words. Well-said in your entry, though. I couldn't have said it better.

While I disagree with the premise as stated here, I do respect the thought that went into writing it in such a concise way. I am a firm believer that individuals who purchase property (real or chattels), obtain a driver's license, and in general utilize the infrastructure paid for by our tax dollars have consistently and continually given their consent to be taxed to pay for these services. I agree that the tax system is not set up in a manner even close to optimal, and there is no doubt that the government does not manage the funds in the most efficient manner possible. However, I cannot agree with the Tax as Theft theory.
With the utmost respect,
Sarah

Marko,

My basic question is: what is your point? What is your plan?

We know your philosophy, but how does it address living in reality? There is reality, and then there is theory. We live in reality. Academics also love to live in theory, but the rest of us live in the real world.

If you wanted to live by your principles and address the current reality, you could just refuse any and all government services.

If your house catches on fire, don't call the fire dept.

If you house is burglarized, don't call the police.

Don't drive on public roads or highways.

Don't go to the library.

jonathan,

I'll stop using all these services the very second I am no longer required to pay for them, and I'll be more than happy to seek out private alternatives.

Whoops. Private alternatives to the fire department don't exist, you say?

Well, what's a guy to do when the government not only forces you to pay for its service, but also makes sure it has a monopoly in those areas of service?

I don't have a "plan". I'm not trying to wave a flag and rally the liberty-minded around me, so that we may topple the government and establish a libertarian society. I have no intention of being some sort of libertarian activist for folks to rally behind. You cannot un-chain people who insist they need their chains, that those chains are comfortable, or that they're not really chains at all.

With two centuries of progressively more pervasive conditioning, there are far more people asking for government than there are people asking for government to leave them the hell alone. I won't see a society that holds itself to the NAP consistently, not in my lifetime.

That doesn't mean I can't maintain my own philosophy and try to live it consistently, does it?

Where do you guys live that the fire department is Government run? Here in much of Arizona the fire depts. are either all volunteer (rural areas) or PRIVATE. In all fairness though the private companies are run more like a protection racket than anything else, i.e. pay your voluntary fire dept subscription or we'll tell your insurance company you don't have fire dept. coverage.

Sorry to necropost here, but I've got a question. What do you use to buy the goods and services that you *do* want? You're talking about spending "dollars" (or any currency really) on something, but that same currency is only worth something because the government says it is. It doesn't even represent gold/silver (those standards are long gone). So you don't want to pay for the government that backs the very currency that you'd use to pay someone else to do only what you want?

"Fire and police protection" is an excellent aspect to discuss the NAP. It forces us to enter into a more pragmatic discussion rather than just tossing around platitudes.
And Marko, I agree with you that money from taxation is mostly wasted and for all intents and purposes 'stolen' from citizens.
But look at fire protection: let's say it is privatized altogether. You can say you will deny fire protection for yourself, but what happens to your neighbor's house that catches on fire because your home is free burning next door. True, he can sue you later for damages but that doesn't mean jack to him when his daughter is hanging out the second story window by a bed sheet. Do you think the fire department should stand by and watch unpaid residences burn. This happened in the old days when fire departments were in fact,private. There were fights over hydrants as fire companies vied to get the first water on the fire (and thus get paid by the insurance co).
Natural monoplies do exist and there is not, at this time, a practical means for a private social service, like the fire department to provide equal protection to all residents and collect fees for the same. Simply being a resident in a town in proximity to others means that you will receive some of those services. Paying for them prior to needing them or afterwards in one lump sum is simply impractical: Would you like to cut a 15,000 dollar check to the police department to cover expenses incurred investigating the robbery of your home?
I am all for getting an alternative to direct taxation. But I have yet to hear of a practical one.
Chet