Critique of voluntary taxation

[9thdoctor]

I just posted this on OO, it turned out longer than I expected when I started on it, so after all this effort I'm curious to read comments from OLers too.

http://forum.objecti...=0

A month ago on the “closed system” thread, faced with the claim that Objectivism is “a system of interconnected principles which are immutable, which cannot tolerate any contradiction, otherwise the whole system is collapsed”, I countered with two points that I thought amounted to reductio ad absurdum. The first concerned Rand’s definition of Art, and perhaps we can have another thread for that. The second concerned voluntary taxation, I wrote:

Just what does “collapse the system” mean, anyway? Reason and Egoism are toast if it turns out that Government can’t be financed by voluntary means?

To my surprise, the only reply I got embraced the absurdum with both arms.

And yes, if government cannot be financed voluntarily, if some initiation of the use of force by the government is required for its existence, then yes, Reason and Egoism are toast and Objectivism fails as a philosophy, as a system of system of interconnected, immutable, non-contradictory principles.

All I could say was “Wow”. Then today I was looking through the “Why eliminate controls gradually” thread and find the tenor of the discussion hovers on the premise that taxation could end if enough people just agreed to eliminate it.

A bit about me, I’m a CPA, and I have a Master’s degree in Taxation. I remember mentioning this to Andrew Bernstein once, and he sort of squinted at me suspiciously, until I said “if I told you I was studying psychology would you assume I was in favor of mental illness?” Study of tax policy and its history plays a fairly minimal role in earning such a degree (one course, in my case), instead you learn about legal research and procedure, and then there are courses on each of the main branches of tax: corporate, estate, partnership and so on. How taxation worked in the Roman Empire or feudal Europe is barely touched on, but after an independent study of history I feel confident about making general statements on the matter.

Following are some passages from Rand’s article, Government Financing in a Free Society, in The Virtue of Selfishness:

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.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable.

Please note the last sentence, she is claiming that voluntary government financing is practicable, and implies that she will show that it is. One might go so far as to say she hasn’t grounded her theory of Government until she has. But does she do this? I say no, and I’m going to critique each of the specific “suggestions” she offers.

But first, a general observation: compulsory taxation has been a feature of every Government in recorded history. If you know of a contrary example, please share. The most enlightened rulers in history have lowered taxes, or reformed the means and bases of taxation, however, over thousands of years of recorded history no system of voluntary taxation has yet been invented. Is this for lack of will? Taxation has always been one of the principle causes of political unrest, wouldn’t the ruler with a truly innovative, henceforth pain-free way of financing the functions of Government be swept into office or onto the throne?

I don’t think I’m engaging in hyperbole when I say, pardon some cribbin’ from Edward Gibbon, the invention of such a system would be a “singular event in the history of the human mind”. I’m of the view that it can’t be done, and if this makes me the last devotee of Ptolemy before the Copernican revolution, I’ll be happy to wear posterity’s dunce cap.

The closest example I know of is the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Pre-Constitution, the federal government didn’t have the power to impose taxes, and following the Revolution the soldiers went unpaid. Robert Morris, who had fronted their pay out of his own pocket, expected to be paid back. Requests were made to the states, and the money didn’t materialize. The unrest this caused, possibly orchestrated by him, was a factor leading to the replacement of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution, under which the federal government does have the power to tax. We easily could have had a second revolution instead.

Back to Rand:

The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a

fully

free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

There’s a glaring chicken vs. egg paradox (contradiction?) here, how can the society be fully free if compulsory taxation is still in place? What’s worse, she doesn’t indicate why the implementation of a new form of Government financing must come so much later.

From there she moves on to her three “illustrations”, a lottery, a stamp tax, and insurance on credit transactions. The problem with a lottery is obvious, how would the Government’s lottery compete with private gambling? Is there any reason to think Government sponsored gambling will have a competitive advantage? Granted some people voluntarily accept a lower return on war bonds, but how many gaming tickets will patriotism sell in peacetime? One may as well suggest the Government engage in any other kind of business, say, pornography or prostitution or raising chickens. Rather than belaboring the point (by all means, it can be discussed further), I conclude that without a ban on private gaming, this idea is a nonstarter.

Next, the stamp tax. She doesn’t call it that of course, but she describes a system where contracts have to registered (including a fee) with the state in order to be later enforced by the courts. She allows that this registration is optional. I don’t believe it takes much imagination to visualize a system similar to our current credit rating bureaus (or Dun & Bradstreet or even the Better Business Bureau) that could compete with the Government in providing private arbitration. The Government’s advantage is the ability to initiate force, but a bad mark with D&B could easily put your opponent out of business without the Sheriff coming to padlock the door. It’s all a matter of cost, if a private system is more economical, naturally the Government’s fee revenue is going to dry up.

Finally, there’s insurance on credit transactions. The argument against the stamp tax applies here mutatis mutandis, and is even easier to visualize since the system is already in place. It’s rare for credit card companies to sue for nonpayment, since borrowers can avail themselves of bankruptcy and the cost of litigation is typically more than is worth the lender’s while to pursue. So, deadbeats get bad credit records, then no one will extend them credit; that’s the way the system works, and Government’s role nowadays is mostly to hamper this system (see Fair Credit Reporting Act etc.). In her presentation of this idea, Rand adds the (chilling?) observation that the current system amounts to a “subsidy” from the Government; given that the banks involved pay taxes under the present system (corporate tax, etc.), one wonders why she put in this hint that something unfair is currently going on.

Is there a fundamental reason why voluntary taxation can’t work? I see a common problem running through each of Rand’s illustrations. I’m happy to concede, for the sake of argument, that the legal system can be self supporting. The trouble is that police and especially armed forces can’t be. This means that under a voluntary model tied to services whatever income is produced from the legal system side has to cover the cost of the other two functions. Therefore, the prices that must be charged for the voluntary services can’t, in principle, compete with free market alternatives.

Wrapping up, here’s Rand again:

In order fully to translate into practice the American concept of the government as a

servant

of the citizens, one has to regard the government as a

paid servant

.

And to add my own view: one must recognize (and reconcile?) the paradox that even “good” government sustains itself by coercive means, and these means have to be maintained under carefully defined controls and limitations. “Eternal vigilance”, “a republic if you can keep it”, etc.

[Xray]

Is there a fundamental reason why voluntary taxation can’t work?

I would apply the "Keep it Simple" principle here and answer with "Yes, of course there is fundamental reason: selfishness."

For frankly, who would pay taxes if it were voluntary?

[anthony]

Is there a fundamental reason why voluntary taxation can’t work?

I would apply the "Keep it Simple" principle here and answer with "Yes, of course there is fundamental reason: selfishness." For frankly, who would pay taxes if it were voluntary?

Xray,

By whose definition of selfishness?

'KISS' is OK in general, as a tooI, I guess, but it can lead to over-reductionism - even the simple can be complex - so I prefer "back to basics".

The best way for me to conceive of voluntary taxation is to imagine moving to a town in a strange country where nothing is taxed.

Now, every night I put out my garbage on the street, and every morning it has 'magically' disappeared.

This goes on for months, and never is there a bill sent to me.

One kind of person may well just accept this as the norm - maybe, it is 'magic'! maybe somebody is doing this from the kindness of their heart. Why bother to question it? just accept it as your right, and "somebody's" obligation to you.

Another type asks himself why? Why should he be getting this service for free? Obviously it is provided by real, though anonomous, people. Their motivation is unknown - but they are obviously putting expense, planning and labour into this service.

What about the service suddenly ending, because they run out of funding? Which would mean him being forced to rent a truck and deliver his own garbage to the dump, or else suffer the consequences of rotting rubbish, rats, etc.

This guy will not just take anything for nothing - the same way he will not work for nothing. He sees it as cheating reality, as unconscious, irrational whimsy, and also as offending his pride. Even more, because he understands that the moral is also the practical, he wants the garbage service to continue, so he estimates the value it has to him - and every week thereafter leaves an envelope containing x dollars for the mysterious garbage collector.

If one takes this "mystery garbage collector" principle to the level of national security, Law and policing - it remains applicable, I think. It all rests on "selfishness", rational selfishness.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

But first, a general observation: compulsory taxation has been a feature of every Government in recorded history. If you know of a contrary example, please share.....

I'm a little confused about what you mean by "taxation." Historians generally agree that taxation did not become a permanent feature of European governments until the 14th century. Of course, this doesn't mean that taxes were somehow "voluntary." Rather, the feudal system relied on a system known as "payment in kind."

I have a bunch of old notes, written 20 years ago or more, on the history of taxation. Rather than attempt to rewrite this material, I will simply post a brief excerpt and let you comment on it.

The Hundred Years War is a turning point in the development of permanent taxation. There was a deeply rooted tradition, still dominant at the beginning of the fourteenth century, that the king should "live of his own" i.e., on the products of his domain and on other revenue stemming from his rights as a feudal magnate.

Kings found these revenues woefully inanequate in times of war, so they levied taxes ("extraordinary revenue,") on vassals and subjects in place of military service. "In this indirect way, the idea of taxation, unknown to the medieval world, was enabled, though not without opposition, to reappear in the political theory of the State." (Perroy, 46)

These new taxes were met with bitter opposition. The reaction of this Frenchman in 1385 is typical: "dirt, dirt, filth of a king; our only king is God; do you think they got honestly what they have? They tax me, and tax me again -- a poor man with a wife and four children to care for...." (Duby, 168) In 1435, as France groaned under the ravages of war and famine, another Frenchman complained of rapacious tax-collectors:

[T]hose trusted to administer [taxes] were lazy folk who, having no wherewithal, taxed everything so hard that goods ceased to come to Paris....Everything was then so expensive that people in Paris complained at great length....And on the dunghills of Paris, in 1429, you could have found ten, twenty, or thirty children, boys and girls alike, dying there of hunger and cold, and no heart could be so hard as to hear their cries at night -- `Ah! I die of hunger' --without pitying them; but the poor administrators were not able to help them, for they had no bread, nor wheat, nor fuel. (Duby, 171)

Throught the early modern period, "taxation was the outstanding instigator of rebellions." (Ardant, 167)

Ghs

Addendum: I kept a separate bibliographic record of the sources I used in my research. Here are the sources quoted in the above excerpt:

Ardant, Gabriel. "Financial Policy and Economic Infrastructure of Modern States and Nations," in The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Edited by Charles Tilly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Duby, Georges and Mandrou, Robert. A History of French Civilization. Translated by James Atkinson. New York: Random House, 1964.

Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War. Translated by W.B. Wells. New York: Capricorn Books, 1965.

[9thdoctor]

I'm a little confused about what you mean by "taxation." Historians generally agree that taxation did not become a permanent feature of European governments until the 14th century. Of course, this doesn't mean that taxes were somehow "voluntary." Rather, the feudal system relied on a system known as "payment in kind."

My intent is to use the term “taxation” to refer to any means of funding the functions of government. So, I’m including, say, the resources the serfs had to hand over to the landowners, who then had to pass some on to the Church and King, in the concept of taxation. Granted this isn’t quite in line with the definition on Wikipedia:

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

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

This definition rules out voluntary taxation, so what do I do? I suppose I could substitute “government resource collection” or some such for “taxation”, but I don’t see that improving what I wrote. Rand had to dance around this terminology issue too:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.

[sbeaulieu]

I would be agreeable to paying taxes if I could state on my tax return what percentage went to what programs, i.e., the military, firefighters, police forces, etc. Tax us, but let each person say where it goes to. That would at least give us some say as to where the money goes, and therein which programs survive as a result of necessity, not the whim of politicians with a motive.

I understand this is an extremely deep topic. I get what ND is saying. It's damn near impossible to stop the current freight train and implement something new (and untried). Rand's approach would work for a new settlement, city, state. And we know money is needed for these programs. And as Tony puts it, if no one had to pay taxes, the programs which keep us safe would fall to the wayside... maybe even to the point of disaster. But, in the end, I would see people paying to shore up what's vital. That's what the government has gotten away from.

~ Shane

[George H. Smith]

I'm a little confused about what you mean by "taxation." Historians generally agree that taxation did not become a permanent feature of European governments until the 14th century. Of course, this doesn't mean that taxes were somehow "voluntary." Rather, the feudal system relied on a system known as "payment in kind."

My intent is to use the term “taxation” to refer to any means of funding the functions of government. So, I’m including, say, the resources the serfs had to hand over to the landowners, who then had to pass some on to the Church and King, in the concept of taxation. Granted this isn’t quite in line with the definition on Wikipedia:

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation This definition rules out voluntary taxation, so what do I do? I suppose I could substitute “government resource collection” or some such for “taxation”, but I don’t see that improving what I wrote. Rand had to dance around this terminology issue too:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.

So far as I know, the first person to advocate "voluntary taxation" by name was Auberon Herbert, a 19th century libertarian who resigned his seat in Parliament after reading Herbert Spencer. The phrase amounts to a contradiction in terms.

Rothbardian anarchists have attempted to deal with this problem by linking payments to specific services performed by market "protection agencies." If you want a service, then pay for it; if not, then don't.

A major objection to this approach is the "public goods" argument, according to which the "positive externalities" of certain "public goods" -- most notably national defense -- cannot be restricted to those who pay for it. Thus, since people will want to be "free riders," no one (or at least an insufficient number of people) will pay for the service, so it will not be provided (or at least not to the extent needed), even though virtually everyone would agree that the service is vital.

So what conclusion do you draw from your observations about taxation? Do you favor some degree of coercive taxation, or do you take the anarchistic detour around the problem?

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

My intent is to use the term “taxation” to refer to any means of funding the functions of government.

Oops, I just realized this is too broad. When Trajan invaded Dacia and looted it to replenish the Roman treasury, that wasn't "taxation" in the sense I mean. So, what, call it "lawful means of funding..." or "funding from domestic sources..."? I don't know, no time right now.

[sjw]

Would a free, rational, moral people pay for something they were convinced they were getting value from? The answer is easy: certainly they would.

Ninth's question is unimportant.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Ninth.

Here is part of an unpublished analysis that I wrote of the public goods argument c. 1995:

Economic arguments are one of the most powerful weapons available to libertarians, but close attention should be paid to the context in which these arguments occur. Frequently the libertarian will try to show how the free market will solve various social problems, without asking whether, or in what sense, a problem can be said to exist in the first place. This brings up an important strategic principle: He who determines what constitutes a "social problem" will also determine what qualifies as a "solution." More often than not, social problems are defined in such a way that nothing but governmental intervention will count as a solution. This is nowhere more evident than in what economists call the "public goods problem," which is in fact a pseudo-problem.

According to a standard text on microeconomics (one that is sympathetic to the free market), a "public good" is definable by two objective characteristics of the good itself: first, it must be "nonrival in consumption," i.e., consumption by one person does not diminish the quantity consumed by anyone else. The second characteristic is "nonexclusion," i.e., it is either impossible or too costly to confine the benefits of the good to those who pay for it.

A typical example of a public good, according to our text, is national defense, because it protects everyone simultaneously and cannot be limited only to those who pay for it. Those who benefit from a public good without paying for it are known as "free riders." These free riders, it should be noted, are not irrational people. On the contrary, "when public goods are involved, free rider behavior is rational." (Apparently every rational person desires something for nothing, even if this means that the "something" will never be produced.)

National defense, according to this economist, should be produced, in the sense that everyone would benefit from it. Yet it will not be produced in the free market, because every rational calculator prefers a free ride. Therefore, neither the economist nor the consumer is to blame for this supposed "problem"; rather, it is the market that has failed. Of course, having defined the "problem" in this manner, any market "solution" is disqualified beforehand. Thus does government enter center-stage, able and willing to solve the problem of market failure.

Every professional intellectual should love this kind of analysis, for ideas qualify as public goods, according to the criteria of nonrival consumption and nonexclusion. My enjoyment of an idea does not diminish your enjoyment of the same idea, nor is it feasible to restrict the consumption of ideas to those who pay for them.

Finally -- at last! -- I understand why I (a market intellectual) am not rich and why I do not produce more than I actually do.

My brilliant theories, which benefit all who partake of them, are public goods. Everyone enjoys my ideas and would dearly love for me to produce more of them. But these potential consumers are also rational free riders, who do not pay me enough to stimulate my optimal level of production. If I do not produce more than I should, it is not I that have failed, but the market. And if I have not become rich, as any genius of my caliber deserves to be, this is owing to an inherent defect in the market itself, which has failed me one again. Since the market has failed to solve "The George Smith Problem," economic theory requires that we turn to government for a solution, perhaps in the form of a tax subsidy which will support my production of public goods. Such is the remarkable power of economic science, which has solved not only the problem of national defense, but "The George Smith Problem" as well.

Despite its pretentious jargon -- nonrival consumption, positive externalities, rational free riders, and so forth -- the public goods argument reduces to the claim that the market will not produce what I think it should produce, so we ought to abandon the outcome of real market decisions and rely instead on the nonmarket decisions of government. (This, remember, is supposed to be a value-free analysis.) Through coercive taxation, government will enable consumers to enjoy a product that we would gladly have paid for voluntarily, if only our rational decisions (to be free riders) had not prevented us from satisfying our rational preferences (for public goods). The mind boggles at this sophisticated reasoning. whereby our voluntary choices become the chief obstacle to implementing our voluntary choices, which must therefore be enforced by involuntary means.

The concept of a public good, as traditionally employed, is a muddy brew of ill-defined terms, context-switching, and unacknowledged value judgments. A conclusion about market failure, which is where the public good argument has been designed to take us, shares these flaws while adding another one to the list, viz., the anthropomorphic fallacy....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Would a free, rational, moral people pay for something they were convinced they were getting value from? The answer is easy: certainly they would.

Ninth's question is unimportant.

Shayne

As Bob Saget used to say in an early comedy routine: They say I have a drinking problem. I drink. I fall down. No problem.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

So what conclusion do you draw from your observations about taxation? Do you favor some degree of coercive taxation, or do you take the anarchistic detour around the problem?

You tell me, does the last paragraph (first post) amount to an anarchist detour? I don’t say coercive taxation is moral, and I put scare quotes around “good” government for a reason. So, where’s the line between minarchism and anarchism? Does calling it a paradox mean you’re an anarchist? In practice, as of 2011, living in the USA, I favor scaling back government to its minimal functions. If some state (or foreign nation) gives a voluntary funding model the old college try, I will observe their progress with considerable interest. I gave reasons why I don’t think it can work, but I’d sure like to be proven wrong. “The last devotee of Ptolemy before the Copernican revolution” can go on my gravestone, substitute Adam Smith (?) for Ptolemy and the name of the genius that comes up with the workable voluntary system for Copernicus. I don’t believe that name will be Rand.

What set me off was the fact that I kept reading people on OO who don’t see a problem here, and couple this with a Peikovian obsession with their closed system “integration”. So, the idea that if Rand was wrong about taxes, she was wrong about everything, and the “whole system collapses”. Given what a weak case she makes in the Government Financing essay, I think it’s ridiculous to think the whole philosophy is contingent on whether voluntary taxation will work at some point in the future, once a fully free society has been established. It’s got that Marxian “state will whither away” eye roll inducing quality to it.

[George H. Smith]

So what conclusion do you draw from your observations about taxation? Do you favor some degree of coercive taxation, or do you take the anarchistic detour around the problem?

You tell me, does the last paragraph (first post) amount to an anarchist detour? I don’t say coercive taxation is moral, and I put scare quotes around “good” government for a reason. So, where’s the line between minarchism and anarchism? Does calling it a paradox mean you’re an anarchist? In practice, as of 2011, living in the USA, I favor scaling back government to its minimal functions. If some state (or foreign nation) gives a voluntary funding model the old college try, I will observe their progress with considerable interest. I gave reasons why I don’t think it can work, but I’d sure like to be proven wrong. “The last devotee of Ptolemy before the Copernican revolution” can go on my gravestone, substitute Adam Smith (?) for Ptolemy and the name of the genius that comes up with the workable voluntary system for Copernicus. I don’t believe that name will be Rand. What set me off was the fact that I kept reading people on OO who don’t see a problem here, and couple this with a Peikovian obsession with their closed system “integration”. So, the idea that if Rand was wrong about taxes, she was wrong about everything, and the “whole system collapses”. Given what a weak case she makes in the Government Financing essay, I think it’s ridiculous to think the whole philosophy is contingent on whether voluntary taxation will work at some point in the future, once a fully free society has been established. It’s got that Marxian “state will whither away” eye roll inducing quality to it.

As I have pointed out several times on OL before, the line between the ideal Randian government (without the power to tax) and Rothbardian anarchism is a very thin one indeed. As I have also pointed out in various essays throughout the years, a "government" without the power to tax, including the ideal Randian government, is not a "government" in any historically recognizable sense of the term. For many centuries the power to tax has been regarded as an essential characteristic of sovereignty. In the Federalist Papers, for example, taxation is referred to as the "life blood" of a government.

Although Auberon Herbert, the advocate of "voluntary taxation" whom I mentioned in an earlier post, regarded himself as an advocate of limited government, he was embraced by the Tuckerite anarchists in the U.S. as one of them, i.e., as an "anarchist" in substance, if not in name. If Rand had been around during the late 19th century, she would also have been regarded as an anarchist in substance, if not in name.

Ghs

[Xray]

So far as I know, the first person to advocate "voluntary taxation" by name was Auberon Herbert, a 19th century libertarian who resigned his seat in Parliament after reading Herbert Spencer. The phrase amounts to a contradiction in terms.

"Voluntary taxation" is indeed an oxymoron. For the idea of taxation implies that is it imposed upon the citizens/subjects, which would be the very opposite of a state/ruler being given money from citizens/subjects voluntarily.

My intent is to use the term “taxation” to refer to any means of funding the functions of government. So, I’m including, say, the resources the serfs had to hand over to the landowners, who then had to pass some on to the Church and King, in the concept of taxation. Granted this isn’t quite in line with the definition on Wikipedia:

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation This definition rules out voluntary taxation, so what do I do? I suppose I could substitute “government resource collection” or some such for “taxation”, but I don’t see that improving what I wrote. Rand had to dance around this terminology issue too:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.

This is more like a 'donation', where citizens give money for something they consider worthwhile supporting.

The problem is, since payment for governmental services would be voluntary, those who don't pay could use governmental services too.

Which might create considerable conflict among payers and non-payers, with the payers accusing the non-payers of 'parasitism'.

[George H. Smith]

So far as I know, the first person to advocate "voluntary taxation" by name was Auberon Herbert, a 19th century libertarian who resigned his seat in Parliament after reading Herbert Spencer. The phrase amounts to a contradiction in terms.

"Voluntary taxation" is indeed an oxymoron. For the idea of taxation implies that is it imposed upon the citizens/subjects, which would be the very opposite of a state/ruler being given money from citizens/subjects voluntarily.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Rand actually uses the phrase "voluntary taxation." She speaks instead of voluntary financing, which is fine.

Ghs

[Xray]

So far as I know, the first person to advocate "voluntary taxation" by name was Auberon Herbert, a 19th century libertarian who resigned his seat in Parliament after reading Herbert Spencer. The phrase amounts to a contradiction in terms.

"Voluntary taxation" is indeed an oxymoron. For the idea of taxation implies that is it imposed upon the citizens/subjects, which would be the very opposite of a state/ruler being given money from citizens/subjects voluntarily.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Rand actually uses the phrase "voluntary taxation." She speaks instead of voluntary financing, which is fine.

Ghs

Quote from the chapter 'Government Financing in a Free Society' (TVOS, p. 135):

"In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary." (Rand)

[BaalChatzaf]

Hi Yo Silver! The Free Rider, rides again!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

So far as I know, the first person to advocate "voluntary taxation" by name was Auberon Herbert, a 19th century libertarian who resigned his seat in Parliament after reading Herbert Spencer. The phrase amounts to a contradiction in terms.

"Voluntary taxation" is indeed an oxymoron. For the idea of taxation implies that is it imposed upon the citizens/subjects, which would be the very opposite of a state/ruler being given money from citizens/subjects voluntarily.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Rand actually uses the phrase "voluntary taxation." She speaks instead of voluntary financing, which is fine.

Ghs

Quote from the chapter 'Government Financing in a Free Society' (TVOS, p. 135):

"In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary." (Rand)

I think this line shows that Rand was aware of the problem with the phrase "voluntary taxation."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

We need taxes because we need to hate government.

--Brant

psycho-reality

[9thdoctor]

Ay yi yi OO is so damn unstable, what a pain. Anyway, I'm trying to post this over there (same thread), and it's not happening. Someone brought up the example of 18th century Hamburg and it's tax system. I replied here, but can't find much on it. So, following is the post I'm trying to make on OO (and am about to give up on).

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.

[Peter]

Ninth Doctor wrote:

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.

end quote

I’m all for that! The Hamburg honor system sounds much like the mature Randian view – which was an unfinished symphony, not a scientifically proven truism. I hope Ayn Rand’s Theory of Government is not lost to history like the Hamburg System.

Rational Anarchists and Piekovian Objectivists demand an integrated, pure, system of thought and governance, equal to science but their views also border on requiring religious truth. If a mixture of voluntary taxation, payment for services, or lotteries is tainted by MINIMAL, OR TEMPORARY coercive taxation or “demand of payment for services” backed up by force or coercion, then all Government is illegitimate. Putting “Voluntary Taxation” off until we are a totally free society is unacceptable to a Rational Anarchist. Perfection, without government, is required for a good life.

Inside “Core Objectivism,” if one thread of a complex thought is shown to be false then the whole system collapses. “A is A” is the bed rock and so everything after that must be true to reality or it all collapses into absurdity. And “Core Objectivism” goes further: if Rand or her “Intellectual Heirs” are not flawless deities, then the system collapses.

I agree with Ninth Doctor that Rand spoketh too much, though in a minimally contradictory way. She had her earlier pronouncements and then later revisions.

Rand went from: “In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.”

To the more mature version: “. . . the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.”

From: “The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable.”

To: “The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today — since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society . . .”

Her mature view is lacking in Absolutism and Thomas Paine’s stinging rhetorical style as seen in Roark’s or Galt’s speeches.

I like the earlier and the mature Rand for different reasons. Her philosophy needs a mature, contextual overhaul, based on reason and science. It must be separated from leaders with feet of clay, including Rand. Call this new Philosophy what you will, but it is inevitable yet evolving more slowly than it should because of . . . a lack of fiber in his diet?

I will leave it there.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[9thdoctor]

Peter, you draw a distinction between early and mature Rand, but all your quotes come from the same essay. Also, the Hamburg system lacks a key feature of Rand's: tying government revenues to government services.

[Mikee]

It appears to me our highly technological society is evolving to where, in fact if not in appearance, most people are "free riders". Very few people are capable of understanding or participating in the manufacture of the technology that produces the products that sustain the lifestyle people are becoming more and more accustomed to. What happens when most things are produced by intelligent machines? When skilled labor is no longer necessary to mass produce all of the basic needs of the entire population? I'm afraid games like the OWS crowd are playing will be the only game in town until they get what they want: a guaranteed free ride for life. They will never achieve "equality" however. They will be able to exhort only as much as won't bring down the whole system. Parasites don't survive if they kill the host.

[9thdoctor]

It appears to me our highly technological society is evolving to where, in fact if not in appearance, most people are "free riders".

Are you sure you're on the right thread? I don't get the connection.

[Mikee]

It appears to me our highly technological society is evolving to where, in fact if not in appearance, most people are "free riders".

Are you sure you're on the right thread? I don't get the connection.

I guess I should have included this (from this thread):

Hi Yo Silver! The Free Rider, rides again!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps you block Bob?