From a libertarian perspective, your generosity is reflected in what you do with your own money, not in what you do with other people’s money. If I give a lot of money to charity, then I am generous. If you give a smaller fraction of your money to charity, then you are less generous. But if you want to tax me in order to give my money to charity, that does not make you generous.
But it does seem to make you self righteous.
I’ve always been mystified by the “Robin Hood” mentality that apparently believes that robbing Peter to give charity to Paul is an act of generosity. This is a like saying murdering Mary because her existence bothers Joan is an act of kindness.
Maybe it stems from the leftist’s inability to remember the past, much on display at present. Since the act of armed theft takes place before the act of generous giving, he simply forgets it happened.
And he doesn’t really care anyway. He has no intention of playing the role of Peter, that vicious evil money-grubbing capitalist who once sneered at him (Robin Hood) for being unable to earn an honest living, or the role of Paul, that sad sack of desperate loserhood. The leftist always intends to be Robin Hood, that glorious and (more importantly) unquestionable mini-God, sent to judge who shall have and who shall have not.
I get tired of people who say, “You should do more because you can” or words to that effect. They always seem to say it to the wrong people and do less than the people they’re saying it to.
Is there any moral difference between paying for the US military via taxes and paying for charities via taxes?
Many kinds of charities benefit everyone. Lets focus on those, just for a moment. For example, immunizing everyone (regardless of their ability to pay or their legal status) benefits the whole community.
For Americans, is there any moral justification for taxes (“armed theft”) to pay for the US military that doesn’t exist for taxes which would pay for immunizations?
As you might guess, I’m thinking about the free loader problem. Thanks for any Libertarianism 101.
What’s most important is not how much you can give, but now much you can get for your charity or cause. How your charity gets that money doesn’t matter. If you can force others to give to your favorites, at the expense of their favorites, then you are a truly virtuous person. Especially if those other people’s causes or charities are ones that you find objectionable or downright evil.
Many kinds of charities benefit everyone. Lets focus on those, just for a moment. For example, immunizing everyone (regardless of their ability to pay or their legal status) benefits the whole community.
That’s not a charity. It’s a public-health issue.
I could say “that’s not a charity, that’s a X” for nearly any charitable cause. Charity isn’t irrational, and it is rarely altruistic (as opposed to an example of enlightened self-interest). I picked immunizations as a non-controversial example, but pick a different charity if you like. I’m really wondering about free-loaders.
I could say “that’s not a charity, that’s a X” for nearly any charitable cause.
Not coherently, or rationally.
Arnold Kling’s example was health care. Some of health care involves communicable disease. The rest of it involves (among other things), economic productivity and efficiency for society. If you keep the workforce healthy, you have a more productive society. If you pro-actively keep everyone out of emergency rooms with proactive preventative medicine, you save money.
If only some people fund emergency rooms (or universal preventative health care), the rest will be free riders. Mandatory taxes are one solution to the free rider problem. My question is what libertarians such as yourself, who don’t seem to be want an end to all government, and who don’t seem to be opposed to taxes which fund the military, propose to do about the free rider problem for programs which benefit everyone, such as preventative health care. Whether or not preventative health care is really a “charity” or not is beside the point, but if you have a different charity in mind, I’m ready to be enlightened. (I don’t mean to sound sarcastic – I’m sincerely interested.)
Correction: I’m interested in what you propose to do, but I’m even more interested in the morality of it all, according to you (or Carl, or anyone else who views taxes as armed theft.) I’m interested in why mandatory taxes for preventative health care is armed theft (and thus evil) while mandatory taxes for having a strong national defense is not theft, and is not evil. Please correct me if I’ve mischaracterized anyone.
Yes, Bob, we know you can play those kinds of logic games, but it doesn’t make them equivalent to defense.
The rest of it involves (among other things), economic productivity and efficiency for society. If you keep the workforce healthy, you have a more productive society. If you pro-actively keep everyone out of emergency rooms with proactive preventative medicine, you save money.
It is not the role of the federal government to “make a more productive society,” even if keeping a healthy work force had that effect. This is not on the same plane as national defense, which cannot be provided by charity. I think that if you thought about it a little bit, you’d be concerned about what happens at the bottom of the slippery slope in a world in which it is. Who will decide the best road to productivity? Whose freedoms will be crushed to implement the plan for industrial efficiency?
And there’s no evidence that “proactive preventative medicine” will keep people out of emergency rooms. Many people are in emergency rooms because they don’t want to, or can’t afford a regular doctor’s visit, and it becomes the treatment of last resort.
Whether or not preventative health care is really a “charity” or not is beside the point, but if you have a different charity in mind, I’m ready to be enlightened. (I don’t mean to sound sarcastic – I’m sincerely interested.)
Preventative health care is neither a charity function or a legitimate role of the federal government. The only reason that it makes sense for it to get involved with it is because the federal government has already gotten its claws so deeply in the health care system via Medicare and Medicaid, so that it preventative care might save it from spending even more money.
As for the free rider problem with emergency rooms, it’s a problem to be lived with. It’s nowhere near as bad a one as the many that universal care would create.
Rand, I really do think you make a lot of good points, but I’m primarily interested in the moral point of view rather than the pragmatic one — it worries me when you and so many of the people who comment here describe taxes as armed theft. So, what is the moral justification for mandatory taxes to provide for the military? Saying “it is the role of the federal government” isn’t a moral justification. If it was a moral justification, elected officials could redefine the federal government to have new roles, which would then be paid for by mandatory taxes, and you wouldn’t be able to complain that such taxes were an evil example of armed theft.
I imagine that you believe that taxes for a national defense can be mandatory yet moral because of the free rider problem. If you do, can’t that moral reasoning can’t be extended to other functions, that you’re calling charity. If you don’t, do you think that mandatory taxes for national defense is moral? (Please substitute “ethical” for “moral” wherever you see fit. As an atheist, I don’t make the distinction, but I respect those who do.)
Bob, unless you’re an anarchist, taxes, while armed theft, are a necessary evil to fund those things that would be utterly impractical to otherwise fund. National defense is one of the most basic roles of a government, because absent it, there is no nation. The other is establishing courts and an internal rule of law. One can argue that universal vaccinations are a form of national defense against an external threat, albeit a microbiological one, and could be justified on that basis.
Health care for individuals, and indeed any economic benefit provided to individuals, is not a role of government at all in a classically liberal formulation, and that goes in spades for the federal government, even if states want to be so foolish as to experiment with it. It flies in the face of federalism. I think that, if we were to have a viable third party, it might be best cast as a Federalist Party, to attempt to get back to the intent of the Founders.
The US Constitution is based on negative rights, not positive ones. If you want positive rights (those that cannot be granted to some without depriving others of them), move to Europe or Canada.
That’s an interesting answer. I appreciate the thought that went into it.
So, the moral question is now answered: you’re saying that mandatory taxes are evil, even to pay for a national defense. And do I understand that you’re implicitly saying that the free rider problem is not a moral justification for such taxes – regardless of free riders, you think that mandatory taxes are evil.
So, look again at Arnold Kling’s blog posting. He is suggesting that even a national defense might rely on voluntary contributions. Why do you think that mandatory taxes for national defense are necessary? Why couldn’t we do the moral thing and rely on voluntary contributions for the military?
As for new political parties, I think historic trends are working against any attempt to make important distinctions between the state and federal levels. I think your third paragraph, on types of rights, would have more traction. State boundries reflect circumstances which have since changed. Many (maybe even most) states have such high populations which such diverse interests that the distinction has become less important. Yes, I could move from Illinois to North Dakota and the distinction would start to matter, but if I moved from Illinois to another big state like California or Florida or New York, I don’t think it would, and a third party would need be appealing to voters in big states to be successful. A third party might do better to make a distinction between Federal/State power on one hand, and truly local power on the other (say, divisions of no more than 25,000 people). Also, from a moral point of view, the state vs federal distinction doesn’t matter at all, and I think a third party would have to be appealing on moral grounds.
By the way, if you called your federalist party “the Federalist Party”, it might be confusing – as the original Federalist party in the US was for a stronger national govt, and I assume you want a weaker one. Of course, you could hardly call your party the “Democratic-Republican Party” either, but I suppose that’s the strict constructionalist state’s rights party which you would model it on.
Bob, there is a vast literature on these topics, which are hardly new (e.g., Nozik, Hayek, Epstein, et al,). I really don’t have the time to do your homework for you.
By the way, if you called your federalist party “the Federalist Party”, it might be confusing – as the original Federalist party in the US was for a stronger national govt,
So? The “Democratic Party” used to stand for slavery. What’s your point?
I think you can’t morally justify mandatory taxes for a national defense, and yet you believe that voluntary contributions won’t work.
By your standards, this leaves you morally indistinguishable from a liberal – now we’re just trying to establish how much you want to steal.
I think you can’t morally justify mandatory taxes for a national defense, and yet you believe that voluntary contributions won’t work.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what you think.
> Rand, I really do think you make a lot of good points, but I’m primarily interested in the moral point of view rather than the pragmatic one — it worries me when you and so many of the people who comment here describe taxes as armed theft.
Since taxes are collected under threat of violence, surely Bob can’t be objecting to “armed”, so the objection must be to “theft”.
I find it interesting that he wants to argue “moral”.
Would he find it “moral” to walk up to his mother with a gun and demand money to pay for the things that he finds “necessary”? I suspect that the answer depends on which things, and that he’s unwilling to threaten his mother over some things that he want so spend taxes on.
If I’m correct, he gets to explain why it’s wrong for him to threaten his mother over those things but for some third party to threaten mine over those exact same things.
Andy, how do you feel about mandatory taxes to pay for the US military?
Bob… actually, everyone,
I’m weighing in because I haven’t been happy with the responses to Bob’s question – which I think is a good one. As Rand mentioned it has been answered by many before: I’d add Ayn Rand to that list. I’m not certain that Bob doesn’t already know the answer, and is trying to coach others to it, but here is my answer.
Firstly – all taxes are not theft. They are an encroachment on liberty, and one that a rational person can agree to.
…-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Taxes collected separate from this purpose are theft. The social contract between individuals and their government allow taxes to be collected on a moral basis as long as the contract (in our case represented by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) is not in breach.
The military, inasmuch as it is a defender of individual rights per this contract, is a legitimate organization for which taxes can be collected.
The Founders didn’t enjoy the idea of taxes, even for the fundamental purposes of government. They even contemplated voluntary funding of the military. They came to what I consider a rather obvious conclusion – no matter what Oath military members are forced to take, they will serve who pays them. The Founders were not willing to gamble liberty on an Oath or the whims of wealthy contributors – the power to protect is the power to destroy – so they separated funding of government from individual influence using an impersonal tax system. This of course holds for all necessary functions of government (dispute resolution and protection against force and fraud, external and internal) because the institutions created for this purpose must necessarily have the power to protect (and therefore destroy).
I recommend reading some of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal) if you’re interested in this area of philosophy & politics and our Founders deliberations.
One more thing for Carl,
Socialists have illegitimately laid claim to the “Robin Hood” persona – and we(conservatives, libertarians) often enough fail to correct them or even attribute it to them ourselves, but this is incorrect.
Remember – Robin Hood was taking back the spoils of oppressive taxation. The rich he stole from were those in government and those in cahoots with the tyrant Prince John. They gained wealth through the enslavement of others (not productive in their own right). He was fighting an illegitimate government and aristocracy.
I prefer to re-frame Robin Hood as an English ancestor to Ragnar Danneskjold (from Atlas Shrugged).
Ryan,
First, I appreciate your thoughtful answer. I promise I’m not trolling – on the contrary, this reading this blog has made me curious about Libertarianism, and has made me question some of my center-left assumptions.
I agree that taxes are an encroachment on liberty – I hope everyone agrees to that. You say that taxes are not theft if they for the following purpose: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… .
You’re quoting from the Declaration of Independence, and the rights that are being referred to are “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. One issue here is that while the Declaration of Independence is wonderful, it isn’t a given that it provides a moral justification. If the Founders had forgotten to say “Life”, and had just listed “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” from the list, would our moral or ethical requirements regarding government be any different? Suppose they had omitted “pursuit of happiness”? What would change then? I think nothing would change.
I think the key phrase is “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and I think the problem is that folks like Andy (above) don’t fundamentally believe that if the majority imposes a tax on the whole population, the minority has actually consented to it. In other words, the folks that are calling taxes “armed theft” are fundamentally rejecting the idea of democracy. And that’s what worries me.
I’d be very interested in hearing what you think!
In other words, the folks that are calling taxes “armed theft” are fundamentally rejecting the idea of democracy. And that’s what worries me.
If a majority decided that everyone named “Bob” should be rounded up into camps, would you have “consented to it”? If not, would you be “fundamentally rejecting the idea of democracy”?
Just to clarify: I think that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is so broad that any tax the voters dream up might qualify, even if only via what Rand called “logic games” earlier in this tread.
In particular, health care seems to qualify under the rights to both life and the pursuit of happiness. The distinction between negative vs positive rights is very interesting, but when an unemployed voter with a life-threatening illness is confronted with a tax bill for a military boondoggle and another tax bill for a health care insurance that wasn’t tied to his former job, the distinction won’t seem very relevant.
In particular, health care seems to qualify under the rights to both life and the pursuit of happiness.
Only if one is profoundly ignorant of the intent of the Founders, who believed in negative, not positive rights, because they understood the inherent contradictions in the latter.
The distinction between negative vs positive rights is very interesting, but when an unemployed voter with a life-threatening illness is confronted with a tax bill for a military boondoggle and another tax bill for a health care insurance that wasn’t tied to his former job, the distinction won’t seem very relevant.
Bob, I’m indifferent to what an unemployed voter thinks, insofar as it affects my own opinion of right and wrong, and constitutional and unconstitutional. You should be as well.
Rand, I’ll have to read more about negative and positive rights to answer you. I’ll have to take Ryan’s advice (as well as your own.)
On the other side of the equation: Ryan pointed out the problem of loyalty i if we fund the military with private contributions. With all due respect to Ryan, I think this is a non-issue. The government could continue to be the sole source of funding for the military – and the military needn’t have any knowledge of who pays their now voluntary taxes. Today’s military is loyal regardless of who pays their taxes, and more importantly, regardless of how much they pay, and there is no reason that needs to change even if taxes become voluntary contributions. So: I’m still looking for a reason why you aren’t in favor of voluntary contributions to fund the military. I’m certain the military would get funded by someone, aren’t you? I think the problem is free riders. And I think that’s the real moral justification for mandatory taxes, including taxes on all sorts of benefits, not just military ones.
I think the problem is free riders. And I think that’s the real moral justification for mandatory taxes, including taxes on all sorts of benefits, not just military ones.
So, Bob, are you saying that you agree with us that it’s politically unhealthy for such a huge amount of the populace to pay no federal income tax? Will you be out at the Tea Parties on April 15th with a sign saying “No Representation Without Taxation”?
In particular, health care seems to qualify under the rights to both life and the pursuit of happiness.
I think I see the problem:
“Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men…” [hopefully I got the hyperlink code right this time, no pre-submit review, so I can’t tell beforehand. if not, google for: Ayn Rand Man’s Rights]
There can be no right to health care, because it would require a right to enslave others. No man has a right to another’s productive effort – it would require a violation of the other person’s rights, an irreconcilable paradox that destroys all rights.
As for: The government could continue to be the sole source of funding for the military – and the military needn’t have any knowledge of who pays their now voluntary taxes.
I’ll try to stay away from an Appeal to Authority (seeing as am prior military and currently working for the DoD), but why do you assume that the military is separate from the government? The military today has knowledge of who the appropriations money comes from and funnels through – just look at the undue influence the HASC and SASC have on the execution of military acquisitions, who are influenced by corporate voting blocks and campaign contributions. Or look at the BRAC (Defense Base Closure and Realignment) process and the pressure put on the military by our legislature to keep bases open that the military prefers to close.
These things happen today already. The Military is government – the information will flow. Integrate that information with the following question: How do you propose to keep private individuals and organizations that do choose to fund some aspect of the government from announcing that they do so? The portion of the population that chose not to fund the police/judiciary/military (the free riders you mention) would very quickly be at the mercy of those who did.
In short, considering the issue of loyalty a non-issue in regard to military funding is a serious oversight.
So again, the moral issue is not that “some freeloader would be benefiting from my contribution” so we must tax them. Anger at freeloaders (or any punitive action) is not a moral justification for taxation.
…I think the problem is that folks like Andy (above) don’t fundamentally believe that if the majority imposes a tax on the whole population, the minority has actually consented to it.
This is an interesting point of view – I think your understanding of the social contract is misfocused. The social contract with government is for the protection of our individual rights. It is not a contract with government to execute the whims of the majority. If that was the case we’d experience much more of the problems Rand alluded to with his question (two wolves and a sheep vote what to have for dinner and all that.
> Andy, how do you feel about mandatory taxes to pay for the US military?
I don’t have a problem with sticking a gun in my mother’s face for that. Then again, I can distinguish between different things that one might spend money on.
Is Bob willing to let me stick a gun in his mother’s face to fund my healthcare? How about the pool that I share with my neighbor?
“No Representation Without Taxation”? That’s the point, isn’t it?
I don’t know whether the UK is worse or better than the US on this particular point, but I am quite sure that far too many people in both countries have a vote despite paying no tax at all, and therefore having no incentive to minimise that tax. And that applies to local politics as well as national.
In the UK, local taxes are paid on property and not income. People renting property usually pay their own “council tax”, but (crucially) those having their rent paid by the State – and there are quite a lot of those – pay no local tax as well as, obviously, no income tax. I think, personally, that Margaret Thatcher had it right – everyone pays local tax, and if you want to vote in a spendthrift local government, fine. But you are damned well going to pay for it.
Democratic voting with no qualifications for voting leads inevitably to “bread and circuses”. I don’t know what the qualification should be, although I have some ideas; but one thing I do know is that there should be some form. Maybe public service putting yourself at risk. Maybe a property qualification. Maybe simply “you paid more than $X (or in my case £Y) in taxes last year”.
Maybe, also, there should be a disqualification for voting in a particular election – that being that if you are employed by the body you would be voting in the elections for, you don’t get a vote. After all, the net tax paid by a government employee of any sort is negative.
> The social contract between individuals and their government allow taxes to be collected on a moral basis as long as the contract (in our case represented by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) is not in breach.
I’ve never run into anyone who thought that the US Consitution and DoI was the sole basis of moral.
Note that that’s not the only contract in play AND that one is in breech.
Next.
Strawman.
I said “represented by” not “sole basis of”. The social contract they represent is thus: I will submit my ability to use force to objective laws, if the government protects all my individual rights. The Constitution and Declaration get their power from Natural Law, they are not the source of morals or rights, just the Founder’s particular written representation of them.
On the other hand, I fully agree that the social contract with our government is in breach (hence our current taxes and tax system are evil).