Just my opinion- part 3

[Derek McGowan]

In my first “opinion” topic, I wrote about the need to deemphasize certain parts of everyday conservative economic speech, at that time it was the notion that “government is inefficient” which makes it bad, this time I want to deemphasize something else.

During my second reading of Atlas Shrugged and during conversation here on the forum I noticed the phrase “at the point of a gun,” used very often when describing the reason why taxes are bad. At first I thought nothing of it because it is of course true that the government has strict repercussions for those not paying taxes, but more, more as I rethought it I began to feel that the specific phrase “at the point of a gun” should not be emphasized when describing why governments and tax laws are bad.

The reason why I say this is because the “at the point of a gun” notion is really just a colorful way of describing physical enforcement. Why am I now saying that that physical enforcement should be deemphasized? Because all laws and rules have to be enforced and when it comes down to dealing with humans it basically comes down, at the bottom, to some form of physical force. If you punish a child and tell them to go to their room, that order is backed up with a threat of physical force. You can’t just throw out some statement and expect the logical/factual power of that statement to cause the child to automatically follow your instructions If I had a contract with another business, supply them with my product they ordered, and they don’t pay, when I take them to court, the court has a threat of physical force in order to recover my compensation. The “physical” force may not have to exactly mean jail time but it does mean that the agent enforcing the law/rules has the ability to take things away from the accused or move the accused to places by force against their will. If Midas Mulligan made a bad call and brought a nonbeliever to Galt’s Gulch and said person broke the oath, etc. then Midas and the rest of the gang would have physically thrown said person out, against their will, i.e. “at the point of a gun.”

Therefore it is not the enforcement that is what is wrong with tax laws, it is the fact that tax laws are involuntary. Every rule has its enforcement; some rules are good some rules are bad. It’s the validity of those rules themselves that should be emphasized and not the enforcement of them.

On the other hand you could say that no, it is the enforcement of the rule that you have a problem with, but then that would mean that you don’t have a problem with taxes per se. So perhaps you would be okay if instead of jail time, the government could instead put you on a sanctions list (this would still involve a force against others to prevent them from doing business with you) but it was seen that any sort of punishment still comes down to some form of physical force.

[Peter]

Derek wrote:

On the other hand you could say that no, it is the enforcement of the rule that you have a problem with, but then that would mean that you don’t have a problem with taxes per se. So perhaps you would be okay if instead of jail time, the government could instead put you on a sanctions list (this would still involve a force against others to prevent them from doing business with you) but it was seen that any sort of punishment still comes down to some form of physical force.

end quote

Your sanctions list is reminiscent of Rand’s idea of “paying for services.” James (Jimbo) Wales wrote when he was the moderator of Atlantis and before he created Wikipedia:

Objectivist government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force, i.e., the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct, in a geographical area. It has this power as a matter of right, and is not subject to dismissal by any particular landowner or other person within the territory. It does not permit competing agencies within its territory. It has a constitution, it has courts, judges, legislators, an executive, police, a military, etc. (It may subcontract out some of those functions, but the key point is that it has final say over those things.)

end quote

As with Derek’s previous idea of not using money, (and I presume bitcoins) I find the idea that taxes are involuntary and therefore immoral, quite problematic. An Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force *conferred upon it by the consent of the governed.* It permits various jurisdictional agencies within its territory, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. It does not permit agencies within its territory that are at variance with any provisions of the Constitution.

For instance, Judge Wopner, interpreting State Government or the Constitution on TV is upholding the highest laws of the land, though he usually deals with miniscule or microcosmic sections of the law. He has his jurisdiction, and the Federal and State Courts have theirs. However, what if Judge Wopner said this:

“I am taking my court outside the legal and moral authority of the Constitution. I hereby declare this section of the country as Wopner’s Bitcoin States of America. We uphold much of the Constitution of the United States, except we deem it right that people may use bitcoins in place of U.S. currency. U.S. currency is hereby abolished.

This is the point where the idea of “not enforcing the laws” fails. If a Government legally constituted on individual rights, within a geographical area, for all time, sees the establishment of a “competing set of rules,” that infringe upon rights, then it has an obligation to protect its citizens within that area. And furthermore, if any individual, or group simply declares, they are no longer bound by the laws of the constitution in some subsection of the larger area, even if this entity declares it DUPLICATES the laws of the original government, it is an infringement upon the rights of all the citizens and the Government should use “retaliatory force,” to dissuade the secessionists.

This is true, because the final authority to make laws must be in the hands of the Federal Government. If allowed continued existence, the competing governments may then create laws that are contrary to the constitution of the land. So, it is a principle of self defense to squelch the law writers who could become lawbreakers.

I do have my doubts about an Objectivist Government. My doubt is that it IS Idealism, or even Utopian. However, I think our exceptional system of government is the best we are going to get until another Reagan comes along. Here is an interesting poser. Locke used the term “Life, Liberty, and Property,” and Jefferson changed that to “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.” Obviously, something has been lost in translation. We need to put property back into the constitution and veto all these horrible intrusions into our lives that have occurred since The Federalist Paper’s time.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand-Objectivism makes the same mistake that set up this country with top-down governance. "That to secure these rights . . . ." Establishing a government doesn't secure anything. Politicians shitting in their pants at the mere idea of violating rights does. A government just provides a consistent, logical and rational structure for everyone to operate with apropos all the subsequent relationships, vitiating the need for torches and pitchforks and taking that musket down off the fireplace.

--Brant

government--the "necessary evil"--must and will violate rights to some extent or cease to exist, but that will help innoculate one and sundry against the imposition of outright tyranny: small tyrannies and large tyrannies and the Big Kahuna

[Francisco Ferrer]

In my first “opinion” topic, I wrote about the need to deemphasize certain parts of everyday conservative economic speech, at that time it was the notion that “government is inefficient” which makes it bad, this time I want to deemphasize something else.

During my second reading of Atlas Shrugged and during conversation here on the forum I noticed the phrase “at the point of a gun,” used very often when describing the reason why taxes are bad. At first I thought nothing of it because it is of course true that the government has strict repercussions for those not paying taxes, but more, more as I rethought it I began to feel that the specific phrase “at the point of a gun” should not be emphasized when describing why governments and tax laws are bad.

The reason why I say this is because the “at the point of a gun” notion is really just a colorful way of describing physical enforcement. Why am I now saying that that physical enforcement should be deemphasized? Because all laws and rules have to be enforced and when it comes down to dealing with humans it basically comes down, at the bottom, to some form of physical force. If you punish a child and tell them to go to their room, that order is backed up with a threat of physical force. You can’t just throw out some statement and expect the logical/factual power of that statement to cause the child to automatically follow your instructions If I had a contract with another business, supply them with my product they ordered, and they don’t pay, when I take them to court, the court has a threat of physical force in order to recover my compensation. The “physical” force may not have to exactly mean jail time but it does mean that the agent enforcing the law/rules has the ability to take things away from the accused or move the accused to places by force against their will. If Midas Mulligan made a bad call and brought a nonbeliever to Galt’s Gulch and said person broke the oath, etc. then Midas and the rest of the gang would have physically thrown said person out, against their will, i.e. “at the point of a gun.”

Therefore it is not the enforcement that is what is wrong with tax laws, it is the fact that tax laws are involuntary.

If the state did not enforce its demand that I pay it a portion of my income, I would ignore it and go on with my life in peace. It is the state's enforcers, its gang of armed thugs throwing peaceful citizens in jail, that motivates me and many others to seek removal of the parasites from power.

The state cannot be compared to a family or a business because those relationships allow for discontented parties to withdraw in peace. The state, on the other hand, imposes and enforces a livelong obligation on each of its subjects to submit, obey and pay until the last breath is expelled from the body.

Every rule has its enforcement; some rules are good some rules are bad. It’s the validity of those rules themselves that should be emphasized and not the enforcement of them.

On the other hand you could say that no, it is the enforcement of the rule that you have a problem with, but then that would mean that you don’t have a problem with taxes per se. So perhaps you would be okay if instead of jail time, the government could instead put you on a sanctions list (this would still involve a force against others to prevent them from doing business with you) but it was seen that any sort of punishment still comes down to some form of physical force.

I have a problem with taxes per se because their very nature is involuntary.

tax (taks) noun: tax; plural noun: taxes 1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions

[emphasis added]

[Derek McGowan]

So Francisco, even though you quoted me, it appears you haven't quite followed what is said.

I said that taxes are wrong because they are involuntary. I'm saying that that fact should be emphasized and not the enforcement of it.

I'm saying that you may not have followed me because you put a definition in your response which doesn't change or even illuminate my statement because I already Said it.

And yes I do believe I can compare state enforcement of rules (in this case taxes) with business relations (contracts). If the other party breaks contract which bankrupts me , such as if I used all my savings to create a product to sell through Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart takes the product and doesn't pay me, then no I won't and can't peacefully back away. Contracts have to be enforced in order for economic environments to work. And they will be enforced by force period.

Now you may say that I COULD take my loss from the Wal-Mart deal and try my best to survive (only to have the next deal fall apart the same way). But if I could do that then you can also not pay taxes simply by not taking a job that reports, or you could live in the woods, or move to island. These are all options, but if you expect certain things, like to be able to live under your parents roof, then you either follow their rules, or get them to change the rules. Convince them that the rules are wrong, immoral, etc OR prepare for the consequences.

[Francisco Ferrer]

So Francisco, even though you quoted me, it appears you haven't quite followed what is said.

I said that taxes are wrong because they are involuntary. I'm saying that that fact should be emphasized and not the enforcement of it.

Nothing is truly involuntary unless there is force or the serious threat of force employed. Contrary to what you said in your first post, all laws and rules do not have to be enforced.

For example, in my state all gambling (except for the state monopoly lottery) is illegal. Yet I am certain that there are thousands of amateur poker players here who bet money weekly or perhaps more frequently, and I cannot think of the last time anyone was arrested for it.

No one doubts that the anti-gambling law is on the books, but it is not enforced (and is virtually unenforceable).

The point here is that no poker player bothers speaking out against the law. It is not the law but the enforcement that they would find objectionable.

And yes I do believe I can compare state enforcement of rules (in this case taxes) with business relations (contracts). If the other party breaks contract which bankrupts me , such as if I used all my savings to create a product to sell through Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart takes the product and doesn't pay me, then no I won't and can't peacefully back away. Contracts have to be enforced in order for economic environments to work. And they will be enforced by force period.

Now you may say that I COULD take my loss from the Wal-Mart deal and try my best to survive (only to have the next deal fall apart the same way). But if I could do that then you can also not pay taxes simply by not taking a job that reports, or you could live in the woods, or move to island. These are all options, but if you expect certain things, like to be able to live under your parents roof, then you either follow their rules, or get them to change the rules. Convince them that the rules are wrong, immoral, etc OR prepare for the consequences.

The vital difference is that the relationship a citizen has with Wal-Mart comes as a result of the citizen's choice, his voluntary action in entering its store or website and selecting a product to buy, or entering Wal-Mart's national office and making a deal to manufacture widgets.

There is nothing like that in the citizen's relationship with government. The government imposes payment obligations on a citizen completely without regard to the citizen's choices, preferences or actions.

There is no contract, period: not written, not verbal.

In sum, it is the difference between a free society and collectivism.

Now if the state would treat non-payment of taxes the same way it treats private poker games, those who love freedom and loathe to surrender their property to a government thief could live without complaint.

It is the enforcement that matters.

[Derek McGowan]

Francisco, the same way that enforcement many times doesn't occur when any number of laws are broken, from marijuana to jaywalking, is the same way that many times tax avoidance is not enforced. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. When the law is enforced it comes down to force. Yes , you can choose to shop at Wal-Mart, if it was involuntary then it would be wrong, same as taxes, but my Wal-Mart example was about a contract two parties voluntarily joined and one broke contract. In that case the contract will be satisfied in one way or another by a court and the way they will satisfy it is by force. Is the enforcement wrong if some one kills someone and the police show up in force and take the guy to jail? No, that is the consequences of the law. Is the law moral and just? Yes laws banning murder are just. Is the involuntary nature of tax laws good? No. Is the enforcement of this bad law wrong on its own basis? No. If so then that means that the physical enforcement of the ban on murder is wrong as well. The difference is that murder ban is a just law, involuntary tax law is not. The law is the problem and what needs to be changed not the enforcement.

Okay, in order to focus on the enforcement itself and how, as you say, it is the problem. Tell me how, keeping the involuntary tax law itself, tell me what type if enforcement you would be happy with. If you cannot and you keep mentioning the involuntary nature of the law then it is clear that it is the LAW that is the problem

[Derek McGowan]

Also, I'm glad you used the phrase "government thief" because it will further clarify my point. There are many forms of thievery. It is the lost of property that is the problem, not whether the thievery was armed robbery or car theft while you slept, or identity thief over the internet

[Derek McGowan]

Maybe what you are saying is that it is the decision TO enforce that is the problem. I can fully understand that, but that's not what I was talking about. Sorry if you misunderstood

[Francisco Ferrer]

Is the involuntary nature of tax laws good? No. Is the enforcement of this bad law wrong on its own basis? No. If so then that means that the physical enforcement of the ban on murder is wrong as well. The difference is that murder ban is a just law, involuntary tax law is not. The law is the problem and what needs to be changed not the enforcement.

The enforcement of a bad law is very much a wrong on its own. If an organization agrees to engage in the practice of stealing from others and hires a group of men to use force to grab this money, both the planners of the crime and the actual perpetrators of the crime are committing a rights violation.

But if the enforcers choose not to carry out their orders, they should be commended for resisting a command to deny others what is rightfully theirs. By failing to enforce, they have prevented an injustice.

Whether tax robbery is ever repealed from the books, we must encourage the least degree of enforcement, for upholding a bad law can only make the assault on liberty worse.

Elected Republicans can demonstrate their commitment to private property by radically reducing the IRS budget each year until it reaches zero. When it is completely toothless, the income tax will be truly voluntary and not a "tax" at all.

Okay, in order to focus on the enforcement itself and how, as you say, it is the problem. Tell me how, keeping the involuntary tax law itself, tell me what type if enforcement you would be happy with. If you cannot and you keep mentioning the involuntary nature of the law then it is clear that it is the LAW that is the problem

No law is a problem if no one loses his rights as a result of it. For example, in many states laws against miscegenation remained on the books long after law enforcement agencies stopped paying attention to them. Alabama did not repeal its law until 2001.

I want the repeal of all rights-violating laws, and in the interim favor the enforcement of none.