09
Oct
2014
Taxes Are Theft?
…he asked innocently. I am guessing I will have more to say on this topic, but here’s the first swing. Notice this part where I point out something ironic in Sumner’s discussion of Hiroshima:
It’s also interesting that we can use Sumner’s rhetorical device against him. Notice in the beginning of his passage, he says that people who label the a-bombing of Hiroshima as terrorism “use the word as a sort of crude cudgel, to bash their opponent.” Well gee whiz, Sumner says that as if it advances the debate on rhetoric by one iota. But why should we think that? If a-bombing kids is acceptable, why can’t we bash people with a crude cudgel if they’re advancing a really monstrous argument? There’s good cudgel-bashing and bad cudgel-bashing, right?
“I have a hard time seeing how anybody can explain away the systematic taking of large percentages of income–against the owners’ wills–performed year in and year out by the US government. If any reader still thinks, “Oh c’mon, it’s just different when the government does it,” I invite you to watch this John Oliver bit on “asset forfeiture” (what an antiseptic term). You’re telling me those cops aren’t just robbing people at gunpoint?”
Interestingly, all the typical statist justifications for why taxes are not theft would imply that these “asset forfeitures” are not theft either:
“You chose to live here.”
“You can always move.”
“The government is legitimized by majority vote, and so what the government takes from you is not theft.”
“Social contract derp.”
Etc
“I have a hard time seeing how anybody can explain away the systematic taking of large percentages of income–against the owners’ wills–performed year in and year out by the US government..”
That is because you never justify your unstated background assumption that people have an absolute moral right to external property, an idea that is unjustifiable. I am guessing you are going invoke Rothbard’s natural rights ethics, but that system is profoundly flawed:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/06/rothbards-argument-for-natural-rights.html
By contrast, your opponents would argue that they can defend an ethical theory that is not flawed like yours, and that taxation — assuming it is based on democratic representation, is an amount proportionate to your income that is not too excessive — is a duty and responsibility of living in a nation state.
Oh man. I can’t figure out which theory is worse, natural rights or democratic duties. I hope Bob has better opponents than that.
Yep. I think the discussion would be much more civil and fruitful if both sides would admit that there is no clean, clear and self-explanatory theory to justify this or that approach else it wouldn’t be a matter of debate.
Whatever. I am just for reciprocity. And taxation doesn’t go along with that, else it wouldn’t be a tax but just a mere fee.
“Whatever. I am just for reciprocity. And taxation doesn’t go along with that, else it wouldn’t be a tax but just a mere fee.”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Self-determination, secession. If one group can bind others within their jurisdiction then reciprocity is not given.
E.g. If Spain denies the Catalonians the right to secede or even to vote for it, then obviously they assume for them rights they deny to the Catalonians, which is defining the area in which to vote.
The problem of a democratic majority is defining the area in which to vote. Obviously depending on this you have different majorities, and it is completely arbitrary and ludicrous why people not living in Catalonia should have the right to forfeit them the right to vote only in their area. Obviously the way to go is like it was done in Scottland, in Checkoslovakia. Interesting in this case is the creation of the state Republic of Kosovo. Serbia was against it yet the UN said the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo was fine. They obviously have a different opinion on Crimea and eastern Ukraine..
If the current boarders of a nation define the area for such a vote, then obviously no minority that felt subjugated could ever hope to be sovereign than by way of civil war. I mean, to stay with Serbia, do you think if there would have been a vote in pre 1914 in all of the Empire of Austria-Hungary, that Serbia could have left Austria-Hungary? Obviously not. And now they behave the same as Austria-Hungary did..
And also I have not heard one of those against secession ever claim that it was right of Austria-Hungary to restore order in Serbia militarily in 1914..
“Yep. I think the discussion would be much more civil and fruitful if both sides would admit that there is no clean, clear and self-explanatory theory to justify this or that approach else it wouldn’t be a matter of debate.”
I believe Bob actually does that, perhaps just to make his argument more workable with individuals.
Saying taxation is OK as long as it’s “not too excessive” is easily knocked down just on it’s vagueness alone. It further requiring “democratic representation” just makes it, superficially at least, look like an reactionary defense of the Western status quo. (Nothing against being a reactionary per se, just skeptical that it’s anything more than ad hocery)
I’ve always seen them as going together hand-in-hand.
That might be a smart way to look at it, they both stink equally.
You never justify your unstated background assumption that people have an absolute moral right not to be arbitrary executed by shooting them in the back.
Then again, Obama believes that no such right exists anyhow so maybe not worth trying.
So, to what extent do people have a right to their property, in your legal framework. Only to the extent that the state dictates? Is the state justified in seizing any property at any time by fiat, or is there some “absolute” limit that should never be crossed?
Tell me, LK, why is slavery bad? Is it just ’cause it’s so darned inefficient?
“Only to the extent that the state dictates?”
No. Ethics is derived from a defensible and justifiable ethical theory — not the state.
In my view, that ethical theory is a form of consequentialism. Governments can make laws, but they might be moral or immoral.
People have a limited right to property, as justified by consequentialist ethics. It is not a natural nor absolute right.
“Is the state justified in seizing any property at any time by fiat”
No. There must be rules and accountable processes by which a democratic government taxes its citizens. If some state were to tax so much of your income that you were left in starvation, then, yes, that is immoral.
As for slavery, the principle that people ought not to be property and should have the right not to be enslaved and so be free from all the evils that generally stem form slavery is perfectly justifiable under consequentialist ethics.
But I thought you just said it was OK as long as the slaves weren’t left in starvation
So in other words you think all people who are citizens of governments are slaves?
First, your opponents disagree.
Secondly, they are right; you are wrong. A slave is a person who is the “property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience”. Citizens of modern Western democratic states are not slaves. The state does not own us and also bind to us “absolute obedience”. We are obliged to follow the laws, but that is not a condition of slavery.
For example, even historically people in many Western democratic states have been able to opt out of the most objectionable things like military service or conscription on the grounds of being “conscientious objectors” and so on.
“We are obliged to follow the laws, but that is not a condition of slavery.”
What happens if a person does not follow the laws?
Much the same as what would happen in libertarian society? Arrest, trial by peers, and if found guilty an appropriate punishment?, lol.
What is an “appropriate” punishment?
Ken B. you’re banned. At least I thought you were.
“Appropriate” as fit to punish the crime committed — and as can be defended as just and moral under the ethical theory you think is right.
Curiously, not many would agree with Rothbard that police can “beat and torture mere suspects”. And you libertarians think you have the moral high ground.
Rothbard is PROPOSING forgiveness after-the-fact for police crimes which actually stop a crime. It wouldn’t apply in the case of mistakes. Further, there is no reason why such a rule need be adopted as a contractual bylaw by anyone under AnCap unless they thought it was a good idea. In the event it was adopted, it is most likely that the victim would also have signed on to the policy in addition to the perpetrators.
It seems odd that “progressives” who favor drone murder of civilians in the endless war for social democracy could object to such a rule in any event.
Since LK actually has no substantive critique of either the NAP or Austrian analysis, he remains stuck trying to hang us with either poorly stated or poorly thought out quotes from 50 to 100 years ago.
If there are “post-Keynesians”, why aren’t we allowed to correct, clarify and/or extrapolate from the teachings of the Austrian masters and/or basic principles? But, as always, doing that make us “idiots”.
Rothbard:
“police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty.”
That “may” to any reasonable person signals that Rothbard is accepting that it is moral in such cases for the police to use torture, if the suspect turns out to be guilty.
So basically you’re telling us that ancap libertarian paradise will allow torture?
“Further, there is no reason why such a rule need be adopted as a contractual bylaw by anyone under AnCap unless they thought it was a good idea.”
So if a subgroup of libertarians in ancap paradise want to ignore Rothbard’s private law codes on theft or murder against outsiders, then they can just opt out?? hahaha
So if a subgroup of libertarians in ancap paradise want to ignore Rothbard’s private law codes on theft or murder against outsiders, then they can just opt out?? hahaha
1. The way to resolve differences and conflict is through contractual agreements. There is nothing to stop people in contractual privity from agreeing on Rothbard’s torture rule among themselves. They would be constrained if other communities found it so foul as to induce a refusal to trade with them.
2. No one can “opt out” of the NAP against outsiders and I never said they could. Further, you always find it necessary to remove the context from EVERY situation you “analyze”. That you are constantly changing the subject and distorting arguments means not only that you’ve lost the argument but that you know it too. Go away.
Just consider libertarians as “advanced” Westerners then, conscientiously objecting to taxes.
And in that case you should lose your right to use all public goods– roads, highways, bridges, sidewalks, public spaces, use of government police, fire services etc.
Of course, there is a solution here: libertarian “conscientious objectors” need to leave their countries. Nothing is stopping them.
They should find a (1) nation they want to live in or (2) buy some property in a some third world country and set up some independent communities — as seems to be done by some libertarians, though the results aren’t too promising:
http://panampost.com/adriana-peralta/2014/09/04/galts-gulch-chile-libertarian-paradise-turned-nightmare/
In that case? Was that not basically proposed for draft dodgers too?
“Of course, there is a solution here: libertarian “conscientious objectors” need to leave their countries. Nothing is stopping them.”
Of course that presupposes the very thing in question.
I reckon you could swap in your own proposed ethical theory and see the same problems.
“I’m being taxed but it’s not based on democratic representation!”
“Start your own country”
“The amount isn’t proportionate to my income”
“Start your own country”
“The amount is too excessive”
“Start your own country”
About a third of the people in my country pay no nett tax at all. I suppose you want them to leave? Are you going to be the one who explains it to them?
So, hypothetically, had the Confederacy enacted and effectively enforced a law that slaves were entitled to refuse any work over an eight hour work day, then the slaves would no longer have been slaves?
Scott H wasn’t making positive argument there. He was confirming with you his understanding of what you said. He is questioning what you said.
Consequentialism cannot tell us what actions are moral in the present versus immoral in the present. It can only tell us what THOUGHTS are justified, but has no criteria for actions. For example, consequentialism permits actions that end up inflicting harm on people, as long as the consequentialist actor BELIEVES or EXPECTS (any word for thought only) he is “helping.”. Consequentualism can and always does result in conflicts between people who all want to achieve the goal, but differ in PRESENT actions whereby property rights come into conflict.
The only way consequentualism can avoid such conflicts over scarce bodies and goods, in the PRESENT, is if the consequentualists make it their goal to respect and enforce private property rights. I can be a consequentualiat by stating ” My preferred OUTCOME is private property rights, and thus all actions that are means to that goal, are justified from a consequentualist ethic.”
“So in other words you think all people who are citizens of governments are slaves?”
No.
Citizens of governments that can confiscate all property until they reach the starvation limit are slaves.
Well that is a bit strange. If I force you to work for me, but feed you well then you are not my slave?
Consequentialist ethics do not acknowledge either the knowledge problem or the bias problem that human beings face. Here is more, coincidentally, from LessWrong.
That’s just the low-hanging fruit, but it demonstrates that consequentalism, even if accepted 100%, fails to be a viable system of ethics due to human imperfection.
Vanilla consequentialism does not address the problem of scarce resources.
Major_Freedom, what do you mean by vanilla consequentialism? Consequentialism is not an ethical philosophy, it’s a broad category of ethical philosophies. But if you take any given consequentialist philosophy, like utilitarianism or Rawlsianism, they usually do address how scarce resources should be allocated.
We have a right to our property to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with “keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom” of course.
Okay did the state exist before I was born? Was I born into a social contract? Did I have a ‘democratic’ voice in any of the laws prior to my birth? What of the Republic, which is not a democracy and is subject to the candidates stating one position and then NOT doing what they say they will do.
Please also note that slavery is a form of social contract. How is Slavery different in it’s form of social contract than an individual is with rights usurped by a state in which they live before birth? Regardless of the form of representation?
Can you really change a state in a democracy or a republic for that matter? History would suggest that ADDITION to laws and Social programs is possible but please name one social program in a state that has not undergone a revolution that has ever been removed. It does not happen.Ergo the concept of Social Contract and Government is flawed in general and must be seen as what it is an authoritarian society in which regulation and previous generations beliefs are forced on the current generation.
Taxation, by the state, according to the Supreme Court of the United States is the power to destroy. So it is therefore the ULTIMATE form of power for what other authority is so given?
Finally are your rights LK? If the state decides to destroy you what are your rights? Do you have any? If so where does the states power end and yours begin? Does it matter?
What is duty?
LK,
Please explain what precise “justification” you use to arrive at the conclusion that “democratic duty” enforced at gunpoint is legitimate, moral activity, whereas absolute property rights protection and enforcement is not legitimate, moral activity.
You claim libertarianism is not justified, whereas statism is justified, yet you have not actually shown exactly how or why, nor have you justified the principles you use to justify your favorable opinion towards mob rule. Not too excessive? What does that mean? How is it different from me saying “It is justified for me to take your wealth against your will, provided it is not ” too excessive” according to the criteria I choose.”
LK, your post is really nothing but bare assertion, nothing more.
LK,
Please explain what precise “justification” you use to arrive at the conclusion that “democratic duty” enforced at gunpoint is legitimate, moral activity, whereas absolute property rights protection and enforcement is not legitimate, moral activity.
You claim libertarianism is not justified, whereas statism is justified, yet you have not actually shown exactly how or why, nor have you justified the principles you use to justify your favorable opinion towards mob rule. Not too excessive? What does that mean? How is it different from me saying “It is justified for me to take your wealth against your will, provided it is not ” too excessive” according to the criteria I choose.”
LK, your post is really nothing but bare assertion, nothing more.
LK, please show me an ethical theory that is not flawed?
“That is because you never justify your unstated background assumption that people have an absolute moral right to external property”
That is because he doesn’t need it for his argument. Sound definitions the concepts “property”, “theft” and “taxation” are sufficient to establish his position. Frankly, I wonder why you keep dragging ethics into the argument on Bob’s page.
Bob, you say “However, it is very instructive to ask people, “What are the defining attributes of theft (or murder or terrorism or slavery)? Why do we abhor it in most circumstances, but not when agents of the State do it?” But in practice I don’t think I’ve seen anarchist talk like this. They don’t typically say “Theft means X. X is bad for reason Y. Government action falls under X. Therefore government is bad for reason Y.”
Instead, what they typically say is “Theft means X. Theft is bad. Government action falls under X. Therefore government is bad.” That way of arguing is problematic, because it makes it seem like people have more agreement with you then they really do: when people casually agree with you that theft is bad, they’re imagining people illegally taking stuff from them. But when you convince them that government technically falls under the definition of theft, you’re implicitly trying to argue that they *already* believe that the things that government does is bad, rather than merely arguing that they *ought* to believe that government action is bad, given the reasons for their other beliefs.
To put it in more concrete terms, consider the following example: suppose you went up to an (uneducated) libertarian and you asked them a few questions:
Q: You’re pro-freedom, right?
A: Of course.
Q: Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want as long as you’re not physically harming someone else’s body, right?
A: Yeah, that sounds like a good definition.
Q: You’re not physically harming someone else’s body if you break into their cabin to get refuge from a blizzard, are you?
A: No, you’re not.
Q: OK, so that means that if the owner tried to shoot you as you approached the cabin, that would be infringing on your freedom, wouldn’t it?
A: Yeah, I guess so.
Q: So it would be immoral for the cabin owner to shoot you, right?
A: Hmm, I guess you’re right.
I think this would be a problematic way of persuading someone, because you’re getting them to agree to a definition of freedom, even though they haven’t really thought through whether everything that falls under that definition is morally acceptable. And then you’re persuading them that something which they weren’t even thinking about when they said they were “pro-freedom” actually falls under the definition that they agreed to.
It’s somewhat like a bait and switch: you bring up a word for which the person already has an intuitive definition in their mind, then you argue that the word applies to something on the basis of a definition that’s different from the intuitive characterization.
Keshav don’t you think there were examples throughout history of people doing stuff that was immoral, and only later did they “mature” by realizing it contradicted their stated value system? I think the process you describe sounds great.
Bob, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out contradictions in people’s stated beliefs. The problem is when you present the ways to get out of the contradiction in a misleading fashion.
To take the example I gave above, suppose you told the libertarian “You either have to accept my view that property owners cannot use violence to defend their land, or you have to accept that you’re anti-freedom.” That’s misleading because yes, they would be “anti-freedom” under the definition which they agreed to, but that doesn’t mean that they would be anti-freedom the way they intuitively think about freedom.
Similarly, when you tell someone “You have to either be an anarchist or be pro-theft”, you’re making it seem that they have to be for the kinds of acts which in their intuitive conception constitute theft, when really you’ve just shown that they’re for certain acts which qualify under some English-language definition of theft.
The fundamental problem is, you’re making it seem that whenever there’s a contradiction between an intuitive characterization of a word and a formal definition of the word, we should always base our moral judgments on the formal definition of the word. But ultimately what matters is not the label we put on something, but whether it’s genuinely right or wrong.
Sooo..
Keshav all you’re saying is that no truth can be known because every argument or idea is a floating abstraction based purely on arbitrary definitions and arbitrary ways to manipulate the words.
No, I didn’t say that no truth can be known through argument. All I’m saying is that arguments should ultimately grapple with the content of ideas, not merely the labels we put on ideas. Whether taxation qualifies under the definition of “theft” or the definition of “hippo” only matters insofar as we’ve established that all the things that fall under that definition have a given moral quality. If the case for anarchism is valid, then it will be valid not because taxation happens to qualify under the dictionary definition of a word that happens to be spelled “T-H-E-F-T”, but rather because things that meet that definition are immoral for some other reason.
We compare it to other things which are also theft.
If I bump into you in a crowd and end up with your wallet in my palm, that’s theft. Tax is not like that, so it isn’t theft. They get different labels because they are different ideas.
Tel, if anarchist asks someone, “What is the relevant moral difference between a private individual taking your money against your will and the government taking your money against your will?”, I’m fine with that. That’s not the form of argument I’m criticizing
Keshav, taxation is theft because it is theft. Many people find taxation morally valid, so be it, that does not change the fact that it is theft, rather, it means many people find some theft morally valid. I think you are going to far here. At some level all words breakdown to a mishmash of unintelligible gobbeldygoook yet we are capable of communicating provided we don’t analyze our words into oblivion. If someone can come to an absolute notion of morality I don’t see how that could be universally held by all people. 90% of people could come to agree that taxation is a morally acceptable form of theft and they could arrive at that conclusion from vastly different moral views. Now 10% of people think it’s wrong to be stolen from. Their view isn’t wrong because they are minority. Morality happens to be an exceedingly spongy term, far more so than hippo or theft. The problem of determining a clear definition of right and wrong is not so important when people are free to agree to what ever they wish, regardless of whether or not I find their actions right or wrong.
Keshav,
Do you honestly believe Murphy is NOT grappling with the content of ideas? That he is just calling taxes theft the way a mathematician would just formally define taxes as “hippo”?
Your response presumes the debate is over definitions, and you’re interpreting Murphy’s argument as such by implication. Yet he is talking about the content.
Bob, suppose we lived in a world where the dictionary definition of murder was “killing someone or eating pizza”, but the intuitive idea of murder was just the same as in our world. Suppose someone saw you eating pizza and said “You should admit you’re a murderer!” How would you respond? You’d presumably say something that sounds absurd, like “Yes, I admit that technically I’m a murderer under the dictionary definition. But there’s good murder and bad murder. I’m still against murder as I intuitively understand the term. It’s only because we’re using a bad definition of murder that I technically qualify under the definition.”
Keshav, I think you would murder me in a game of chess.
You keep arguing over definitions.
Theft implies stealth or cunning.
Tax just requires a credible threat, and it isn’t stealthy, so tax is more properly robbery under arms or protection money, depending on your preference.
I call the bombing of innocents to save your own military man not only terrorism and a war crime, but to be the act of cowards.
The trouble is that cowardly tactics have proven effective time and again, which is why they are popular.
In movies the bad guys always threaten the hero not to act against them else they get his family killed. That is the same tactic! Of course unlike in movies this tactic is effective in real life. However I have never seen a movie in which the hero responded: Let’s see about that, I get your family first, ha!
Morality isn’t a question of effectiveness.
Tel, I mean the effectiveness of evil means is what defines the whole moral dilemma in which people find themselves that have a noble cause in mind.
Should I go the easy and (for me) safe and effective way while this means putting considerable harm/risk on innocents or should I go the hard way, which keeps innocents safe (at least from my personal actions) but poses greater and considerable risk for me?
Though in my view if the evil means is actually killing innocents, which is such a bloody permanent condition for people and very hard to recover from, then this should really not be a dilemma to decide..
Coward might be the most misused word in the English language, literally…
How nice, I am reading this post and Stevie Ray Vaughan comes up im my random playlist (no its not only 2 songs in it), with guess what?
” Let me tell you how it will be
There’s one for you, nineteen for me
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it all
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet
Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
And you’re working for no one but me ”
“Taxman”
Beetles.
In case you don’t get my joke. I know it is the Beatles I just like to refer to them as little bugs being from across the pond and all. Anyways they made that song, The Taxman.
Didn’t know that. Thanks! I have the blue and red 4CD beatles best of collection. Yet this song is not on it..
It is on the album Revolver.
Oh but the SRV version is so much better.
The important take-away here is that how the argument is framed and supported is important, and that an argument can be misused if it is presented without the proper context. Those familiar with the literature will know Nozick’s and Rothbard’s cogent arguments, but they require some time to develop properly. It isn’t so much that “Taxation is Theft!” is some kind of false equivalence, but that it requires bringing the reader or listener through a series of logical steps that reveal the inherent contradictions in the statist argument.
Sumner’s a rationist and a utilitarian, so he wants to move away from the rhetoric and argue the underlying fact. I’m sure he’ll agree that rhetoric matters if you want to convince people you are right, but isn’t that helpful if you want to pull apart arguments and work on whether the premises are true.
I feel this way about the “is economics a science” debate. Sure, you’re free to define “science” in a way that includes or doesn’t include economics, but the question is whether economics is useful for a given purpose.
I agree wholeheartedly. Truth should be determined in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of the labels we put on those ideas. Calling non-anarchists “pro-theft” or calling Hiroshima supporters “pro-terrorism” may be good as a rhetorical device, but it’s different from the more substantive task of finding out what acts are actually right and wrong, and even different from the more meager question of what people’s moral beliefs are, whether they contradict each other, and what the source of the contradiction is.
Taxes/Inflation are theft and war is killing, both are anti Biblical.
When folks talk about the ethics that allegedly undergird state policies like redistribution, they often, at least momentarily, try to leave you with the impression there is a council of wise elders appointed by well-meaning citizens who decide policy and determine what is best based on an objective, Rawlsian “orginal position” that forms any utilitarian calculus. I’m not sure it happens this way, or could ever happen this way. In any event, assuming these debates are decided by unbiased intellectuals/citizens, we are still stuck with the fact that these issues remain contested and will ultimately be decided by force from the perspective of those who disagree. For example, a libertarian rich person might not value a single dollar as much as the poor but they will often value their liberty in such a way that infringements will diminish their utility significantly depending on whether they are Charles Koch or Warren Buffet.
Well, utilitarians usually think you should exclude what’s known as “psychic harm” from the moral calculus. For instance, if there’s a Christian who feels unhappy that there are lots of non-Christians in the world, most utilitarians don’t think it would be morally acceptable to decrease the number of non-Christians in the world to increase the Christian’s utility, because the harm that the Christian is suffering from is purely psychic harm, not harm that derives from material need and the like. Similarly, if a rich guy suffers a small loss of utility due to being deprived of a dollar, but suffers a large loss of utility due to the psychic harm of his libertarian ethics being violated, utilitarians believe that only the small loss should be taken into account, not the psychic harm.
To see these ideas taken to their logical extreme, see this post by Steve Landsburg:
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2013/03/20/censorship-environmentalism-and-steubenville/
“Well, utilitarians usually think you should exclude what’s known as “psychic harm” from the moral calculus.”
Which is ludicrous, as I think you realize. You could argue that we would all be better off if our motor cortex were hijacked with implanted devices that controlled all of our movements, turning us all into utility-maximizing zombies. I think that most of us would prefer death to that kind of existence.
Well, utilitarians tend to believe that people already are utility maximizers (it’s almost a tautology – utility is pretty much defined as that which is maximized by a person’s choices). In any case, utilitiarians aren’t advocating that each individual should neglect his own psychic harms when making his personal decisions. What they do generally think, though, is that when you’re deciding what policies are good for society as a whole, you should exclude people’s psychic harms from the utility calculations.
But yes, I do think that the whole utilitarian framework is ludicrous. If you want to see just how absurd this “excluding psychic harm” business can become, see the Steve Landsburg post I linked to in my comment above.
A material need is still ultimately derived from a want, or the avoidance of a purely psychic harm. People need food because they *want* to live (or to avoid the psychic harm of starving to death); they don’t need to live.
Restitution is theft!
You must be a thief.
I have a question and a comment. Question first: If the practical ability to earn money, keep it, invest it, buy property with it, keep that property secure from those who might like to take it, enter into contracts using it, etc, in fact derives from the “state”, i.e., an organizing authority with the power to enforce contracts and laws on behalf of individuals regardless of their wealth or social status, as opposed to, say, some sort of Rothbardian natural law, then is taxation still theft?
Comment: I wonder if there is a moral problem with the argument that taxation is theft if the argument leads to the vast majority of people in a community or state being placed in untenable circumstances against their will. By this I mean I think it is fair to say that while most people dislike paying taxes (me included) most people regard them as necessary to maintain a civilized society where necessary infrastructure is maintained, the elderly don’t starve in the streets, an army protects the borders, etc. (me included). I don’t think you could come close to winning a majority vote in this country for making taxes voluntary, because even though people think they’re unpleasant to pay, people also recognize that many of their neighbors would love to free ride. Now suppose that the view of the few Libertarians out there prevailed, and taxes were made voluntary and the result was the collapse of many heretofore provided services and security, as well as the development of third-world style disparities in wealth so that the vast majority were suffering much worse from the “state’s” lack of taxing authority than they were before. if a significant majority of the population in a state or community or whatever wanted mandatory taxes reimposed to better the overall economic and security positions of the community, and only a few insisted on the virtue of no taxation, would taxation still be theft, or put differently, would there be a moral problem with that position in the face of the majority’s desires and suffering?
Wait, that’s really two questions. Sorry.
This is akin to asking if, with ten people in the desert who are starving to death, it is justified to take a vote on which one should be killed and eaten by the others. What if one or more people refuse to participate in the vote?
I think that you could convincingly argue that the group would be better off to kill and eat one of its members rather than all starve individually. I think that you can even make the case that participating in the vote means that you consent to the outcome, should you be one of the people chosen to be killed.
Take the case where two people refuse to vote. If the remaining eight only vote on who among those eight who voted is killed, and then refuse to share the meat with the two who abstained (or they refuse to eat), it is possible that those two will starve. While it seems wrong that they would perish for holding to their principles of non-violence, they made a choice not to prey on one of the group to their own benefit.
Then we have the case where the majority of the eight decide to eat one of the two who have abstained, and then force the other to eat, even against their will. Better to eat one dissenter than have everyone starve to death, right?
I can’t tell you whether it is more noble to reject the state and possibly starve or risk the possibility of being killed for the greater possibility of living. I do know that I find the prospect of murdering an innocent who refuses to participate to be especially heinous.
I think it’s about time we all stop even giving theoretical credence to the assumptions that states are the ultimate backstop to prevent starvation, and in the extreme prevent extinction of the human race. It is nothing but another illusion in the same family as “Obey God or you’ll suffer for an eternity.”
Once those 8 people eat the 2 individualists, and their bellies are full only temporarily, then what? If 7 vote to eat 1 (in which case that 1 will likely choose to become individualist), and those 7 are full for another day, then what? Etc.
Statism can only be prolonged if it takes the form of parasitism, e.g. killing people at a rate slower than new babies are born, and/or destroying individual people’s health at a rate slower than they themselves can replenish it.
The ideal of “no starvation”, using statism, without the consequences of other people starving, or being killed for other reasons, can only “work” if the state is sufficiently constrained in its parasitism that the people forced to be the parasite’s hosts are able to produce more than what they need to stay alive.
In order to justify all this, statesmen have found it in their own selfish interests to latch onto Keynesianism, which preaches that parasitism is not only innocuous, but absolutely necessary for capitalism to even function in the long run and to avoid self-destruction. Most statesmen have taken in the illusion that what is in their own selfish interests is at the same time in the interests of society, which explains why such statesmen believe Keynesianism is really “true”.
MF,
“I think it’s about time we all stop even giving theoretical credence to the assumptions that states are the ultimate backstop to prevent starvation, and in the extreme prevent extinction of the human race.”
I agree, but many will remain unconvinced. Many can’t even accept that simple and obvious notion that violence is at the heart of state action. My point is that, with the state, you could be one of those eaten, whether you vote or not. Statists see this as a feature, not a bug.
I’m not sure the analogy is apt. Leaving aside the obvious qualitative moral difference between killing and eating people versus requiring people to pay a portion of their income to the sate, in the desert analogy, the refusal of two people to participate does not make it impossible for the majority to kill and eat whomever they vote to kill and eat. Nor can the two people affect what happens to the majority. My question was different: suppose that the few who believe taxes should be voluntary somehow impose their will on the majority who don’t. Then suppose that the result is, as most economists and political scientists predict, very negative for the majority. Is there then a moral problem with equating taxes to theft and stating taxes can never be collected involuntarily, when a very few are imposing their definition of taxes as theft on a majority that is suffering because of that definition?
As to the comment that it is time to stop giving even theoretical credence to the assumptions that states are the ultimate backstops to prevent starvation … I don’t think these kind of comments have much persuasive force. I could just as easily say, “it is time to stop giving even theoretical credence to the notion that private enterprise will police itself, contracts can be enforced without an enforcement mechanism, and that a libertarian utopia is possible when 2000 years of history suggests it is not.”
This would rightly be rejected as rhetoric. Although I note in passing the fact that government did in fact prevent starvation during the Great Depression, and without it, many more would have starved. Of course I know one can certainly blame the Depression itself on government and I know many here do. Regardless, i don’t think anti-state beliefs, no matter how passionately felt, really address what I’m asking in my questions.