Gene Callahan Goes Too Far (Again)
I am actually very sympathetic to Gene’s arguments in the comments on this thread, but I think he goes too far. If we accept his argument below, watch what we are able to do afterward. So here’s Gene, responding to someone who thinks taxes are theft:
[Othyem wrote:] “The requirement that we pay taxes presupposes the government is legitimate to begin with.”
[Gene responds:] Yes, it does. And the statement that taxes are theft presupposes the government is illegitimate to begin with. It certainly can’t be used, as many try to do with it, to show that the government is illegitimate.
And, of course, the requirement that I pay for the mango I ate in the grocer scenario above presupposes that private property is legitimate to begin with.
…I suppose someone will now say, “So, Gene thinks private property is illegitimate!” That’s not my point, which is, instead, that one cannot argue against some legal regime by stating “It employs coercion!” ALL legal regimes do, even the one in Rothbardistan, or they wouldn’t be legal regimes. (They [would] just be suggestions.) But a lot of ignore this fact and engage in the rhetorical flourishes we saw efinancial using above, which just amount to empty propaganda. Perhaps we should prefer Rothbardistan to what we have, but if so it’s not because the State “rests on coercion”!
OK there are two different confusions here: First, Gene is using “coercion” interchangeably with “force,” and that’s not how Rothbardians use the term. In Rothbardistan, if someone shoots a home intruder, he hasn’t employed coercion against the guy. Maybe that’s a rhetorically shady trick, in Gene’s eyes, but that’s the way the terms are used. Coercion by definition is a violation of property rights. (At least, the way most libertarians use the term.)
Now let’s take on the bigger issue, and deal with the fact that Rothbardians can’t use the (alleged) coerciveness of the State to render it illegitimate, since they are presupposing that taxation is theft, etc. This is all very clever, and I totally understand why Gene thinks the Rothbardians are moving in a circle.
But hold on just a second. Suppose the Rothbardians are right, and taxes really are theft, and so the State really does rest on coercion. Now I want to complain about this. What exactly would my complaint be? Why, it would be that the politicians are a bunch of thieves, and the State itself rests on coercion.
So, contra Gene, it is indeed the case–if the State is illegitimate–that the State is bad because it steals from me, etc. I am not moving in a circle by saying this.
To see why, switch the context. Suppose my son comes home from school and says, “I can’t stand that Jim, he’s such a bully!” Then my son starts lifting weights, hitting the punching bag, etc. in order to stand up to Jim on the playground.
If Gene were there, he could pull a stunt like this: “What exactly is your problem with Jim? You’re mad that he’s a bully, hey? But you yourself are planning to use force against him. So to someone who doesn’t think Jim is a bully, YOU are the bully. So we can’t use Jim’s bullying to prove that he’s a bully, now can we? You’re just assuming your conclusion.”
Of course, the real irony in all this is that the Rothbardians have a rather intricate development of just property rights, starting from square one. I myself don’t necessarily endorse every element in the argument, and I’m not even sure I endorse the enterprise itself.
But my point is, there are lots of things you can say against libertarians in the Rothbardian/Hoppeian/Kinsellian tradition. But to accuse them of arguing in a circle, in order to conclude that the State is illegitimate, is not plausible.
Reading what you quote, I don’t see Callahan making that mistake. Rather, he makes a more elementary flaw. Callahan writes,
I’m not sure what this has to do with coercion (I’m not sure Callahan tried to imply that it does). Anyways, the main difference is that when a consumer buys a mango at the grocery store he is doing it because he benefits from it directly; they both benefit from the exchange. The true isn’t the same of taxes (even if you assume that all taxpayers enjoy government programs proportionally to taxes paid, it doesn’t necessarily follow that these programs are equal to the amount of taxes paid [and, I would have thought someone who published a book with the Mises Institute would understand subjective theory of value to its fullest].
So, even if you don’t think that the state is illegitimate (and, I think Callahan has a very minor point here) it nevertheless stands that there is a much different relationship between mango seller and mango consumer, and government and taxpayer. All considered, the state is as legitimate as the relationship between the slaver and the slave. The relationship exists, but obviously one is exploiting the other.
“I am actually very sympathetic to Gene’s arguments in the comments on this thread”
That’s extremely generous of you.
He seems to be morphing into a villain from an Ayn Rand novel – Ellsworth Toohey perhaps? We can’t know anything, up is really down, etc. Yawn.
Clever confusion should not be mistaken for depth.
This Gene guy’s argument is “I know you are, but what am I?” plus “Well, then, I guess EVERONE must be wrong?”.
I don’t know the details of Rothbardistan, but I would suppose it would be regime free – legal or otherwise. OR you could make the case that the number of regimes in Rothbardistan is equal to the number of citizens ecompassing their individually acquired (without coersion) property.
You can’t not have property rights.
Even in the Soviet Union, they must have had people who decided how a piece of land or a machine was going to be used. So, bureaucrats were the de-facto owners of the property. Even in an ideal communal utopia, people will have to make choices about how to use scarce resources.
The point is that the apparent coercion is a consequence of natural laws, not man made ones …….. It is a consequence of the fact that the same piece of land cannot be used to do more than one thing at the same time. This natural law brings property rights into existence, whether we like it or not.
So, Callahan’s analogy is flawed on multiple levels.
Taxes are man-made. You can abolish taxes with the stroke of a pen……. You can’t abolish property rights. You can only change the owner(s).
RG – I’m not sure that’s entirely true. For instance, many libertarians hold different opinions as to exactly what is appropriate in “defense” – even regarding your own property. In other words, most would agree that “forcing” someone off your property is a “just” use of force. Shooting someone for stepping on your lawn, on the other hand, is not as clearly just. So there are different degrees of defensive force and it’s not clear that individuals, or competing protection agencies, would agree on what is appropriate in that sense. I would argue that the main difference would be that there would be competing legal “regimes” in an open market, as opposed to the imposed monopolistic regime we have now.
But to continue on Gene’s argument, there certainly is a difference between breaking into someone’s house to steal their TV and breaking into someone’s house to snag a first aid kit or call 9-11 for someone who’s had an accident nearby when you are far away from other means of help. This however, contra some of the arguments I perceive Gene to be making, does not take away from the coercive or aggressive nature of the action, in my opinion. But maybe there are both defensive and offensive actions which are more or less understandable, depending on the circumstances. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily “un-libertarian” about recognizing intent and degree in action.
On the other hand, it still should be recognized as a transgression and the victims should be legally eligible for compensation. If you broke my window while I wasn’t around to take a first aid kit, you should be responsible for the broken window and the kit. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Although I have a hard time believing that a homeowner wouldn’t be cooperative in this situation (libertarian or not). But I don’t think the degree to which such an action is justified takes away from the fact that it is transgression – I still expended my labor to acquire that window and kit. Expecting compensation might be tacky, but it’s not ridiculous.
I suppose my point is that maybe, in some peoples’ view, such aggressions are “justifiable”. Fair enough. We can have that debate. What I think is a little disingenuous is to act as if no violence or theft has occurred simply because it’s been sanctioned in some sense. THAT, to me, seems quite silly. Given Gene’s comment(s), I wonder if the following line of reasoning also seems appropriate to him in the context of death during times of war:
“And the statement that killing innocent people is murder presupposes the government is illegitimate to begin with. It certainly can’t be used, as many try to do with it, to show that the government is illegitimate.”
You are confusing trade and theft. You must improve your property rights fundamentals.
How am I confusing trade and theft – could you point me to what makes you think that?
Trade is the reason you don’t get shot for walking onto somone’s lawn.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply – so again, how am I confusing trade and theft?
The above is response is specific.
The reason people don’t get shot walking onto someone else’s lawn is the consent of the person who owns the lawn (whether shooting someone for simply walking on your lawn is just or not) – not trade. There are lots of people who walk on my lawn in a given period of time; I can assure you that nine times out of ten, trade has nothing to do with the reason I didn’t shoot them. So again, please point out specifically about what I said previously that denotes I don’t understand the difference between trade and theft. WHERE (exactly) did I confuse the two?
Consent is trade.
In a roundabout way I suppose you could view consent as a trade of sorts; although it’s often a “one-sided” trade – a gift of sorts. But once, again, I’m not sure how pointing this out refutes anything I’ve said. You’ve still yet to point out where or how I’ve confused trade and theft – so get to the point.
I think I understand where Gene is coming from. If a libertarian is actually arguing that “taxes are theft because the government is illegitimate and has no right to tax, and that the government is illegitimate and has no right to tax because taxes are theft”, then it’s a circular argument.
However I don’t think that’s the actual argument most Rothbardian/Libertarians are making (at least that’s not the argument I would make). Instead, I would argue that: the government is illegitimate because (among other things) it taxes, and taxes are theft because theft is the taking the legitimate property from another without the consent of the other, and this is wrong based on the nature of property rights.
Both when I use this argument and when I declare that you should pay for the mango, I am presupposing the existence of property rights. If you deny property rights, then we are having the wrong conversation, we should be discussing the existence of property rights before we can talk about the legitimacy of government on the same level.
If you do not believe in property rights, then it does follow that being forced to pay for a mango is in the same category as being forced to pay taxes. The grocer has no more of a claim on the mango than the customer does, and so the grocer is depriving the customer to his equal use of the mango without payment, just as the government deprives you of your (relative) freedom with out payment.
It is logically consistent to condemn the grocer for demanding money for the mango, if one starts from the premise of no property rights. It’s difficult to have a conversation when you can’t agree on the premises.
“In Rothbardistan, if someone shoots a home intruder, he hasn’t employed coercion against the guy. Maybe that’s a rhetorically shady trick, in Gene’s eyes, but that’s the way the terms are used.”
I know that Bob. (Sigh.) In Marxistan, the guy who claims he owns a mango tree is employing coercion. It all depends on what you think the just legal regime is.
Gene, I invite you to withdraw your “sigh.” I actually thought you were making the simple circularity argument, and was prepared to attack it, when I saw that you were saying all legal regimes employ coercion.
So you see, you are using two separate arguments. No sighing allowed. Your “In Marxistan, the guy who claims…” point is different from my point about the home intruder not employing coercion.
So there’s two different things going on here: You are using “coercion” to mean “force,” when that’s not how Rothbardians use the term.
Then, on a completely different matter, you are disagreeing with how Rothbardians figure out who the aggressor is.
Gene, just to make sure we’re not having here a failure to communicate: When you say, “All legal regimes employ coercion,” that is nonsensical in the Rothbardian framework. It’s like saying, “All innocent people are murderers.”
So in dealing with your quotation, I had to (a) change your use of “coercion” to “force,” and then (b) deal with the fact that you and Rothbard disagree on property rights.
If the Rothbardians want to use a non-standard and cranky definition of coercion, they’re going to have to coerce me to go along.
In ordinary usage, if I’m “peacefully” wandering across a field and the owner shoves me off, he has coerced me. The Rothbardian usage is an attempt to win an argument by definition.
I’m not sure whether Rothbard really used the term “coercion” in this idiosyncratic way. (If so, this would indeed have been a poor choice of words.) Can anyone supply a quotation?
Here’s a blog post by Kinsella against the misuse of the term “coercion” by certain libertarians: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/07/the-problem-with-coercion/
Nice, Gene. You “sigh” at my clarification, I calmly point out that you missed my whole point, and then you take it in stride and go on about the “cranky” definition of Rothbard. (And note in the original blog post, I even gave you an out and said, “Maybe that’s a rhetorically shady trick, in Gene’s eyes, but that’s the way the terms are used.”)
And c’mon Gene, you’re telling me the average observer wouldn’t have thought you were attacking the typical Rothbardian all this time?
“I think I understand where Gene is coming from. If a libertarian is actually arguing that “taxes are theft because the government is illegitimate and has no right to tax, and that the government is illegitimate and has no right to tax because taxes are theft”, then it’s a circular argument.’
“However I don’t think that’s the actual argument most Rothbardian/Libertarians are making…”
Well, thank you. I’ve never made any claim about the frequency of this argument. However, I will certainly say I see it in the simple, circular form in many, many Internet discussions, so it’s not a straw man I’m addressing.
“But my point is, there are lots of things you can say against libertarians in the Rothbardian/Hoppeian/Kinsellian tradition. But to accuse them of arguing in a circle, in order to conclude that the State is illegitimate, is not plausible.”
OK, Bob, you’re making a terrible mistake in regards to my argument. I have NEVER said the argument I’m critiquing is the ONLY libertarian argument, or the MAIN libertarian argument, or the only or main Rothbardian argument. It is, however, a style of argument I hit again and again, and I’m showing it’s invalid. Say Rothbard showed the state was illicit with some other argument: Fine, then he’s not making the argument I’m critiquing. Again, I NEVER have said this was the only libertarian argument!
Regarding your bully example, here’s a good analogy to this case:
You: Why was Jim bullying you?
Son: Well, he says I owe him $10.
You: Do you?
Son: Not according to me, I don’t. I never signed that loan agreement.
Well, clearly, before we decide if Jim is a bully or just acting to get what is rightfully his, we have to investigate each sides case for the validity (or lack thereof) of the debt.
And I have seen people making the argument I am critiquing without any awareness that it is the legitimacy of the debt that must be addressed. Of course, if you don’t have any obligation to pay taxes, then collecting them is a species of theft. But, if you DO have such an obligation, then failing to pay them is a species of theft. So what must be addressed is “statists'” arguments for why there IS an obligation to pay taxes, e.g., “The State is crucial to maintaining social order, and social order is crucial to our very lives. Therefore, we are obligated to support the State.”
Now, the way to defease that argument is at the “the State is crucial to maintaining social order” step: demonstrate that it isn’t, and the justification for taxation disappears.
But just shouting “Taxation is theft!” will convince no one not already convinced that the State is illegitimate.
Now is it clear?
I think so. You are spending time writing dozens of blog posts against random libertarians who post in the comments of blogs.
That would be like me attacking the people who leave comments at Krugman’s site, rather than Krugman.
Am I being unfair here? You are saying your point is that this type of libertarian doesn’t see the need to justify his view of property rights. You also concede that Rothbard, Kinsella, and Hoppe have written oodles on how to justify their views on property rights. (Maybe they’re wrong; you and I don’t like Hoppe’s most famous attempt.)
So who exactly are you aiming these volumes of criticisms at?
OK I have calmed down now. I was still mad about the “sigh” when it was clear you weren’t getting my point. (I’m sure you know the feeling…)
I remember now that it was some prominent guy at Cato (?) that sparked your latest assault on this issue. It was someone talking about Rothbard, right? You’re right, that guy said “taxation is theft” and moved on, and he was a prominent enough thinker that if he made the mistake in question, it would be worth pointing out.
However, I imagine that thinker in question (I’m not being coy, I can’t remember who it was) was perfectly aware of Rothbard’s broader views. Just like I don’t have to bring up a discussion of Locke if I come home and complain that I was pickpocketed on the subway.
Cool, Bob, but realize I haven’t witnessed just a single instance of this mode of argumentation. I run across it repeatedly.
Part of the difficulty here is, I think, that I tend to forget how foreign the philosophical style of arguing is to most people. Aquinas famously rejected the ontological argument for God’s existence. If he were alive today, I am sure his rejection would have been met with blog comments like, “oh, so Thomas doesn’t believe in God!” and “Thomas doesn’t even realize there are any other arguments for God’s existence!”
Sigh.
And, as I wrote elsewhere, I am really the anarchist’s friend here: I am pointing out that, if you really want convince someone who disagrees with you, you have to argue by first acknowledging the way they see the issue. (Chesterton made this same point to apologists for Christianity, btw.)
I think he just called anarchists satanists.
“if you really want convince someone who disagrees with you, you have to argue by first acknowledging the way they see the issue”
There’s the rub, Gene; too much political discourse is not about persuasion, but about a tribal vanquishing of perceived foes.
My two cents worth is that I agree with Gene’s overall point that the “taxation is theft” mantra is not a useful way of engaging with non-libertarians.
Not sure I know enough about definitional squabbles over “coercion”, but note that in the law of the wild, ALL “property” requires force or the threat of force to defend it. It is the very defense that effectively makes something “property”.