No taxation equals no government?

[Francisco Ferrer]

Marotta,

If I am a troll, then you've been dealing with me long before "troll," in the sense you use it, was invented. Four decades ago, under a less distinguished moniker, I contributed regularly to Skye d'Aureous and Natalee Hall's Libertarian Connection.

As we know each other from LC, then one or both of us failed a Turing Test. Hidden behind your new name, your work sounded like that of many others who have come and gone. They came to engage and mostly argue against Objectivism. Among the best of them were Dragonfly and Ted Keer, and there were others. Like you, they were insightful, knowledgeable, and challenging. But at some level it just wears thin. OTOH, Selene is not doctrinaire; and I do disagree with him. But he does not care one way or the other. He is not here to engage. He is here to present. Boydstun, Campbell, and a few others are like that. They offer deep content but do not care much to argue back and forth.

So, granted that you deserve more respect than I accorded you at first, allow me to apologize, so that we can move on.

The fee is not voluntary if you are forbidden to seek justice (i.e., recovery of what is rightfully owed to you) by any means other than the monopoly insurer of all contracts, namely the government.

We cannot argue about what Ayn Rand did not say. Private adjudication is a lacuna in her thin political theory. She never regarded politics as important as so many of her admirers today do. She did say that the most important social changes must be philosophical. That will lead to the political changes. Rand did devote much time and effort to political commentary, but most often to illustrate moral or epistemological truths.

To me, if you did not pay the government fee, then you cannot go to a government court; but you are perfectly free to seek justice any other way, except by force.

Then the fee is not voluntary. Let's examine two cases:

1. If A crosses onto B's land and takes one of B's sheep, then B is fully justified in entering A's land and recovering the sheep. Has force been used in taking back the stolen property? Yes, but it is defensive force, an action entirely different in character from the earlier trespass and theft of the sheep. B's counteraction moves a good from illegitimate to legitimate owner, not in the other direction. It is retaliatory, not initiatory force.

2. Similarly, it is retaliatory, not initiatory force if B enters A's land to take a sheep that B paid for already and that A has refused to deliver according to the terms of a sales contract between them. B's action moves a good from illegitimate to legitimate owner.

Now one could argue that to avoid chaos the power to recover stolen property should be left strictly in the hands of an institution called government. Since "the government is not the unpaid servant of anyone and everyone," some way must be found to finance it. But it cannot be by taxes. Ayn Rand correctly notes that "the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force." Rand understands that taking a man's sheep (or part of his income) to fund government is the initiation of force.

But what if a sheep that rightfully belongs to B is being held by his neighbor A, and B is forbidden by the government from recovering the sheep himself and at the same time the government refuses to take action to return the sheep to the rightful owner? In this case government's threat to put B in jail if he enters A's land and grabs what belongs to B would also represent an initiation of force.

And this is the contradiction that Rand's insurance fees place her in. Rand acknowledges that one should not have to pay a tax to the government in order to live in a free society, a community in which individual ownership to property is recognized and protected. For example, a citizen would get the benefit of having a military to repel invasions without having to pay a fee. He would not be required to pay for the cost of preventing foreign armies from initiating force.

However, Rand's system would in fact require involuntary financing by refusing to allow the use of retaliatory force in the case of a broken contract. B's rights are violated just as much in Case 2 as they are in Case 1. In effect B cannot live in a society that protects property rights without payment of a fee.

As I pointed out previously, "Rand might as well have argued that everyone in society must pay a fee in advance to have any of their property rights enforced. We won't track down the thief/vandal/rapist/murderer unless your contract fees are paid in advance. Such a position would be no less moral than the one she put forth in 'Government Financing in a Free Society.'"

[Brant Gaede]

If the contract is broken cease dealing with the breaker and spread the word. If a contract is likely too problematic, ask for a bond.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

If the contract is broken cease dealing with the breaker and spread the word. If a contract is likely too problematic, ask for a bond.

--Brant

If spreading the word about contract breakers is preferable to using defensive force, then that policy should be followed by everyone in society, including government.

In fact, why limit it to contract breaking? Forget prison, just spread the word about murderers, rapists and armed robbers.

[Brant Gaede]

If the contract is broken cease dealing with the breaker and spread the word. If a contract is likely too problematic, ask for a bond.

--Brant

If spreading the word about contract breakers is preferable to using defensive force, then that policy should be followed by everyone in society, including government.

In fact, why limit it to contract breaking? Forget prison, just spread the word about murderers, rapists and armed robbers.

Prison for them--and the word

--Brant

two types of law: civil and criminal (go from there)

[syrakusos]

If spreading the word about contract breakers is preferable to using defensive force, then that policy should be followed by everyone in society, including government.

In fact, why limit it to contract breaking? Forget prison, just spread the word about murderers, rapists and armed robbers.

Your error is the extension of a "preferable" solution in one context to all contexts absolutely. That is not objective justice; it is absolutism.

In "The Country of the Kind" by Damon Knight, the convicted killer was tagged with a scent that he himself could not detect. Everyone avoided him. On my blog (narrowly here and wider here) I assert a "laissez faire criminology" of doing nothing.

One of my criminology professors was Fatos Tarifa who wrote Justice is Mine about blood feuds in Albania. Like blood feuds in many other societies, they go back generations, even centuries. The killing is ritualized. You shoot someone; then you lay him and his weapon out. You goto his tribal chief and declare that you killed the man. You then have three days to put your affairs in order, after which one of the victim's relatives can kill you, then go to your chief, etc., etc., for generations without end ...

If that seems ridiculous, you have forgotten Northern Ireland and know nothing about Palestine. In fact, I heard on NPR, a story behind the story of the Peshawar School Attack of December 15/16, 2014. For the Taliban, this had nothing to do with religion or ideology or political power, but everything to do with tit-for-tat retaliatory justice. It was not a mere military operation but that the attack on Taliban villages took the lives of innocent women and children.

The attack was in retaliation for an ongoing Pakistan Army operation against the TTP and its allies in the North Waziristan tribal area, Khorasani said.

The TTP said many of their family members had been killed in the campaign, and said the attack on the school was in revenge for those deaths.

"Many TTP members have lost their family members and they have said they want to inflict pain," Al Jazeera's Hyder said. - Al Jazeera here.

Tribal revenge is not objective justice. In order to come to any kind of realistic solution, we must discuss this in terms of the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of ethics.

[Francisco Ferrer]

If spreading the word about contract breakers is preferable to using defensive force, then that policy should be followed by everyone in society, including government.

In fact, why limit it to contract breaking? Forget prison, just spread the word about murderers, rapists and armed robbers.

Your error is the extension of a "preferable" solution in one context to all contexts absolutely. That is not objective justice; it is absolutism.

There may be an excellent reason to deal with contract breakers by spreading word of their crime--and doing nothing more. There may be an excellent reason why the consequences for that particular crime should be less punitive than other forms of illegitimate wealth transfer. But instead of presenting such reasons, you content yourself with merely issuing a warning against absolutism.

[Brant Gaede]

Dealing with crime basically means, rationally, preventing future crime. It is not wise to become fixated on justice to the extent it becomes a cover for revenge. Justice is formal acknowledgement of a crime by placing blame and objectifying punishment under law. Then it serves the basic function of preventing additional crime including from private revenge ("justice") gone bad. That's the role of criminal law. That's legitimate state function. I don't see too much need for public courts in civil "law" except for real property. I think it can mostly be handled privately through various contractual means such as don't deal with known liars, use private courts (arbitration), put up a bond, demand references, etc.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Tribal revenge is not objective justice. In order to come to any kind of realistic solution, we must discuss this in terms of the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of ethics.

Pardon a quibble, but I'd say "better" solution(s). In the meantime, I await a paragraph or two that makes sense of these "foundations of ethics" apropos "solution" and "objective justice" to know what you are talking about. And please throw in "alternatives to prison"* and press "mix."

--Brant

*this other thread seems to be dying on the vine

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15071&hl=

[BaalChatzaf]

Dealing with crime basically means, rationally, preventing future crime. It is not wise to become fixated on justice to the extent it becomes a cover for revenge. Justice is formal acknowledgement of a crime by placing blame and objectifying punishment under law. Then it serves the basic function of preventing additional crime including from private revenge ("justice") gone bad. That's the role of criminal law. That's legitimate state function. I don't see too much need for public courts in civil "law" except for real property. I think it can mostly be handled privately through various contractual means such as don't deal with known liars, use private courts (arbitration), put up a bond, demand references, etc.

--Brant

There will always be crime. Why? Because some people are incapable of remaining rational and controlled under provocation. Tempers will always be lost (by some) and violence in some cases will follow. Humans are ruled primarily by their passions and not by reason and that is what there will always be theft, rape, beating, and killing. We can minimize this misery, most likely, but we cannot eliminate it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Dealing with crime basically means, rationally, preventing future crime. It is not wise to become fixated on justice to the extent it becomes a cover for revenge. Justice is formal acknowledgement of a crime by placing blame and objectifying punishment under law. Then it serves the basic function of preventing additional crime including from private revenge ("justice") gone bad. That's the role of criminal law. That's legitimate state function. I don't see too much need for public courts in civil "law" except for real property. I think it can mostly be handled privately through various contractual means such as don't deal with known liars, use private courts (arbitration), put up a bond, demand references, etc.

--Brant

There will always be crime. Why? Because some people are incapable of remaining rational and controlled under provocation. Tempers will always be lost (by some) and violence in some cases will follow. Humans are ruled primarily by their passions and not by reason and that is what there will always be theft, rape, beating, and killing. We can minimize this misery, most likely, but we cannot eliminate it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The problem with your formulation is the implicit horrendous amount of all this bad stuff out of human nature. It ain't that bad; never was. Evil is too expensive. The rewards, overall, too slight. Otherwise it becomes bad robbing bad, the good crowded out, accelerating the downward trend of available booty and we're all soon living in Haiti and not much left for even the bad to do.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The problem with your formulation is the implicit horrendous amount of all this bad stuff out of human nature. It ain't that bad; never was. Evil is too expensive. The rewards, overall, too slight. Otherwise it becomes bad robbing bad, the good crowded out, accelerating the downward trend of available booty and we're all soon living in Haiti and not much left for even the bad to do.

--Brant

We have the same common ancestor as the Chimpanzee which is a nasty murderous animal. Nothing cute about Chimps. Unfortunately we did not inherit the better nature that was passed down to the Bonobos. We are 95 percent genetically identical to Chimps so it is not great wonder that we have some of their bad disposition. Humans are capable of reason, as is well known, but when reason and passion collide more often than not passion rules. Which is why there are wars, murders, beatings, robberies, and rape. Do not hold you breath until Man gets his passions under complete control. If you do, you will turn blue and faint.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The problem with your formulation is the implicit horrendous amount of all this bad stuff out of human nature. It ain't that bad; never was. Evil is too expensive. The rewards, overall, too slight. Otherwise it becomes bad robbing bad, the good crowded out, accelerating the downward trend of available booty and we're all soon living in Haiti and not much left for even the bad to do.

--Brant

We have the same common ancestor as the Chimpanzee which is a nasty murderous animal. Nothing cute about Chimps. Unfortunately we did not inherit the better nature that was passed down to the Bonobos. We are 95 percent genetically identical to Chimps so it is not great wonder that we have some of their bad disposition. Humans are capable of reason, as is well known, but when reason and passion collide more often than not passion rules. Which is why there are wars, murders, beatings, robberies, and rape. Do not hold you breath until Man gets his passions under complete control. If you do, you will turn blue and faint.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My Father, not a Chimp, was a crypto-Nazi, American (Nationalist) Firster and anti-Semite in the late 1930s. You will turn blue and faint waiting for me to be too.

--Brant

[Alexander Warner]

I ran across this idea recently and it's left me scratching my head. One person I was reading said that no taxation means that there is no government. This seems a little counter-intuitive to me. Do you think taxation is an necessary to that government exists? I can easily imagine, say, a small town with town hall meetings that might not have taxes. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if some or many of the initial settlements in America were without taxation given the lack of infrastructure.

It's impossible to run a government without taxation. How are they supposed to get money for defense, maintaining police systems etc? As simple as that.

[Brant Gaede]

You want to "run a government"?

[Wolf DeVoon]

It's impossible to run a government without taxation. How are they supposed to get money for defense, maintaining police systems etc?

 

Lemme think. 90% of my county property tax is for badly-run schools, not cops. 80% of my state taxes are for county school subsidies, socialist high ed, prisons, and "human services" (whatever that is). 85% of my Federal taxes are for entitlements, welfare programs, socialist health care, and anything bureaucratically imaginable other than defense.

 

When you consider that the U.S. has troops stationed all over the planet for the unearned benefit of other countries and we absolutely bungled everything we touched in the Middle East, with the resulting blowback of unstoppable jihad and tens of millions of refugees, it calls into question how much "defense" we actually got from paying taxes?

 

Declaring that it's impossible to run a government without taxes is an assertion, not an argument.

We're $20 trillion in debt with $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Taxation can't fix it. Taxation caused it.

[BaalChatzaf]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

[Selene]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

An excellent second question Bob.

Now answer the first.

Precisely what are we being asked to sign onto in terms of funding?

A...

Post Script:

We can start by taking the Federal Budget and eliminate Agencies as a start.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

I put the book cover there for a reason.

[BaalChatzaf]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

I put the book cover there for a reason.

Galt's Gulch had no government. It had a set of conventions and customs. No police. No army and conflict resolution courtesy of Judge Naragansett.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

I put the book cover there for a reason.

Galt's Gulch had no government. It had a set of conventions and customs. No police. No army and conflict resolution courtesy of Judge Naragansett.

Golly, Bob. I didn't guess anything could be so spectacularly confused.

Comparison of utopian fiction presented in Atlas Shrugged and the actual experience of living in a private community beyond the reach of government. Examines theory and practical real-world aspects of liberty, property, constitutional law and national security in the context of a fully free society. Presents a novel proposal to fund national security by private enterprise that does not rely upon (and has no legal right to impose) taxes. Extensive discussion of property as a moral office of responsibility to advance the general welfare by offering employment. The book is addressed to Objectivists and libertarians, and it offers a new theory of value and virtue that considers individual character, personal ambition, and risk of change. Discussion of constitutional law includes loyalties beyond the law, fundamental rights, due process, and persistent presumption of innocence. http://www.amazon.com/The-Constitution-Government-Galts-Gulch/dp/1499550456

[Jules Troy]

Bonds. Court funding bonds, War bonds, Police Bonds, etc. if you believe in and the government is doing it's job "properly it is rewarded by its citizens for their performance in those areas by buying bonds. If the country was being attacked by a foriegn government it would be in its citizens best interests to fund a war effort with the purchase of bonds. No taxation necessary.

[jts]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

Government says to the citizen: Give me money so I can protect your rights or I will shoot you.

[Jules Troy]

Even if the government is kosher, it still costs money for it to do what it is legitimate for it to do. How do we fund it?

Government says to the citizen: Give me money so I can protect your rights or I will shoot you.

[Jules Troy]

Oddly in many ways government does resemble and use Mafia methods. Just on a larger scale!

[Brant Gaede]

Oddly in many ways government does resemble and use Mafia methods. Just on a larger scale!

It'd be odd if it didn't.

--Brant