Taxes of all kinds discourage production, writes Frank Chodorov. Man works to satisfy his desires, not to support the state. When the results of his labors are taken from him, whether by brigands or organized society, his inclination is to limit his production to the amount he can keep and enjoy. The indirect tax is a backhanded recognition of the right of the individual to his earnings; the direct tax, however, boldly and unashamedly proclaims the prior right of the state to all property. Private ownership becomes a temporary and revocable stewardship. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/6522/taxation-is-robbery/
Taxation Is Robbery
Previous post: Meanwhile, you are being forced to pay to kill
Next post: Men and Women Work the Same Amount
{ 135 comments }
← Previous Comments
Sam said:
“RogerM you don’t make arguments, all you do is make broad sweeping pronouncments and assertions such as “they are dishonest” this “discussion is going in circles”; “this is trivial”; ect. However, you never make arguments to back up your assertions, rather you pile assertion on top of assertion. At least Bjorn is trying to make an argument, so who cares if he uses Rothbard and Hoppe to back up his points.
Your assertions are convincing only to those who already share your world view. Heck, I’m a minarchist and more inclined to share your veiw of things, but I find your ranting emberassing because you make other minarchists, such as myself look bad.â€
Sam’s comment reveals honesty, especially as he does not share my views. Noble of him! I respect that!
A noble heart is the main thing.
Björn Lundahl
I kinda agree-ish with RogerM, Björn Lundahl, inasmuchas you defend your beliefs as absolute rules for living which is similar to what religious folks believe. You then support your claims by saying if one person breaks the rules could you imagine then if everyone broke the rules? We’d be all done for! Which is akin to an all-or-nothing morality of religions as opposed to moralities of other people such as the Ancient Greeks who believed that no act was particular wrong only its usage hence the need for virtue of the doer.
TLWP
We all have different opinions, but I believe that if someone claims in this forum and in a debate about ethics or economics that an idea is logically correct, that is claims that certain principles are correct because they are logically derived from an axiom, this is also what the debate is all about. Other people in the debate that have other opinions should then try to logically prove that this very idea is wrong because of this or that reason.
For me it has no value to claim and to cheat that something is true that I really believe is not true, but I pretend that it is true because I want it to be true! What I want is beside the point.
While “debating†with Roger I realized that he is not honest and that he only pretends that he is. You know, if someone, for example, “claims†that I do not exist and that “he doesn’t think so†it will be impossible for me to prove him wrong as he will deny any rational answer.
I find it, for example, very silly and dishonest to accuse anarcho-capitalists for being religious and unscientific when the accuser himself is religious and believes that this very fact makes it scientific. When I pointed this out, he also, went on defending religion and God!
I just wanted to show that this guy is not honest. I have several other reasons to also believe so. But why should I go through all of Roger comments and point out that because of this or that reason he is not honest. Psychologically it would be a little destructive. An honest person, though, could look for himself.
Sam was clever enough to realize this fact. He (and I) did probably not want to accuse anyone of being dishonest, but because of honesty, felt obliged to make the accusation.
Björn Lundahl
Roger M writes:
The “great modern philosophers” (who, exactly? Sartre? Camus?), if they say what you are saying, are wrong.
God created the world with a certain order to it, and this order is discoverable by way of reason. See Aristotle’s Ethics for how this applies to morality. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that you didn’t need God to establish basic morality in political science, since these things are discoverable with the tools that God gives us — namely, the senses and reason.
Your claim that property rights can’t be absolute and that anarchists worship property rights is simply baseless; it’s an ad hominem fallacy at best. All anarchists point out is that there is no service that the State provides that voluntary, contractual agreements can’t take care of.
Finally, you sum up Mises as follows:
Recall also that Mises believed that any community — state, canton, county, city, district, neighborhood — has a right to secede or associate with such a government at any time. He explicitly says that if such secession was possible for the individual as well, it would have to be respected.
Mises articulates the basic minarchist position, and he talks about governments, when done well, as the protector of rights and nothing more. His view of secession makes it clear that governments couldn’t enjoy monopolistic, coercive domination over a geographic region without consent of its governed, even down to the neighborhood level. Taxes were good insofar as those paying them consented and remained associated with the State. He did not have in mind a State that would send it’s army to any neighborhoods that decided to leave the taxes and bureaucracy behind.
Does that sound like the government that you are supporting? The “government” that Mises supported is a different beast than what we see around us. What State upholds the rights of its citizens to secede from it?
DC: “The “government” that Mises supported is a different beast than what we see around us.”
I’m not defending the state we have. I guess you could call me a miniarchist, too. I see a lot that’s wrong with the US government and agree with most of the criticisms of it by anarchists. I defend the idea of the state as a legit institution, though not a perfect one. The main problem with trying to have a discussion about issues on this web site is that most of the posters don’t try to understand what others are trying to say. I never wrote or intended most of what I’m accused of. For instance, why would you assume I defend everything the US government does just because I defend the idea of government as legit?
My argument with anarchists is that they they make property rights an absolute so that any form of government and taxation become theft by definition. That philosophy pretty much started with Rothbard, who I consider a great economist, but who made a major error in philosophy of ethics.
A few people are upset because of my use of the term dishonest and I think that needs clarification. I didn’t intend to call anarchists dishonest people. I apologize if that’s what anarchists understood. Some of the misunderstanding could be to my attempt to keep posts as short as possible. What I intended was to say that the technique of using non-standard definitions for words in common usage is a dishonest technique. That doesn’t mean the people who use the technique are dishonest. They may not be aware of the dishonesty and not intend to be dishonest. It’s so commonly used that few people consider it dishonest. But it’s a technique not worthy of Austrians or anarchists.
Socialists are the worst offenders in that regard. For example, people have used the word “liberal” to refer to socialism for over 50 years, but the word has nothing to do with socialism. Socialists took the word and gave a new definition in the hopes of fooling ignorant people. They’ve attempted the same thing with the words “rights” and “justice”. Today, you have to define each of those words before you can use them because socialists have ruined them.
The purpose of language is to communicate. In order to communicate well, everyone must understand the meaning of the words used in the same way, as much as possible. When some group changes the definition of a word by inventing their own definition, without making other people aware of that change, communication fails.
I think anarchists have done that very thing with the term “property rights.” That’s why I discussed property rights with Bjorn for several days an never understood his arguments until it occurred to me that he was using a non-standard definition of the term.
RogerM,
“I defend the idea of the state as a legit institution, though not a perfect one.”
Please defend it, then, as libertarians do their anti-statism, i.e., on moral grounds. And that means defending the founding of the state as well as its maintenance.
David: “Please defend it, then, as libertarians do their anti-statism, i.e., on moral grounds. And that means defending the founding of the state as well as its maintenance.”
I thought that was what I had been doing.
The issue really boils down to the definition of property rights. If you accept Rothbard’s definition, then logically you have no other choice but to accept anarchism. That much is clear. At the same time, you need to explain to people you’re talking to that you’re using a non-standard definition so that they won’t misunderstand you.
But if you accept the standard, dictionary definition of property rights, the definition that most English speaking people understand, then you open the door for the possibility of government as being not only legit, but a good and moral thing.
However, the fact that government can be a good thing doesn’t mean that it will be. Most governments throughout history have done terrible things to their people. But that doesn’t mean the institution is evil, just that the people filling roles in the institution were evil. Condemning government because many people misuse their power is like condemning freedom because criminals take advantage of it, or condeming love because many lovers murder their partners.
Answers.com:
Property Rights
Rights to the ownership and stewardship of, and profits from, land, capital, and other goods.
http://www.answers.com/property+rights?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Property rights (economics)
A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals[1]. All economic goods have a property rights attribute. This attribute has three broad components[2][3]
1. The right to use the good
2. The right to earn income from the good
3. The right to transfer the good to others
These rights need not be held by a single person or collective.
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars (see property rights) are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists’ focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.
http://www.answers.com/topic/property-rights
Björn Lundahl
Naturally, the definition of natural law does not include that the starting point must be “God†in an ethical system or that the state must be supported and included in such a system.
The definition of natural law is, instead, as Rothbard pointed out in The Ethics of Liberty:
“NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.â€
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/three.asp
Answers.com:
“A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.â€
“natural law, theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.â€
“Natural Law
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed.â€
“Natural law
The doctrine that human affairs should be governed by ethical principles that are part of the very nature of things and that can be understood by reason.â€
“Natural law has one meaning:
A rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.â€
“Natural law (Latin jus naturale) is law that exists independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state.â€
http://www.answers.com/natural+law?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Björn Lundahl
RogerM,
No, you are not answering the question of why the state, any state, is morally justified. You have to explain not only how the actions of a state — and even “good” ones can only be financed through the confiscation of private private known as taxation — are morally justified, but how its coming to be is morally justified. If not through conquest and subjugation — i.e., aggression — then how? And what are some historical examples of states coming to be without aggression?
It is ludicrous to believe that taxation is robbery and unnecessary. It is true that tax revenue is taken from individuals unwillingly, but that revenue is used to pay for benefits that are necessary and would never be paid for voluntarily. I find it perplexing that the same people who are against taxation and government are the same people who promote universal health care and government assistance. Before anyone claims that taxes and government are unnecessary, take a moment to think about what this country would be like without the luxuries that are paid for with tax revenue. Developed cities, environmental regulations, trade agreements, the military, and the space program are all products of tax revenue. It is easy to see the benefit of abolishing tax because it is immediately gratifying. Extra money in your pocket would be nice, but that would come with a high price tag. Taxation is the price we pay for the freedoms that we enjoy. I agree that taxation might be excessive, but it is not unreasonable.
As far as the economy is concerned, taxation and government are absolutely necessary. Government funding has been used to subsidize everything from agriculture to the airline industry. It is the government’s ability to collect taxes that has spared this country from what may have been multiple recessions.
Excellent satire, Tyler. It is indeed difficult to see how anyone could offer that so-called reasoning with a straight face, and yet I see it all the time. My favorite part: “It is the government’s ability to collect taxes that has spared this country from what may have been multiple recessions”? Pure gold! Are you by any chance a professional comedian? You should consider it if you aren’t already. You have a real talent.
David:”No, you are not answering the question of why the state, any state, is morally justified.”
I thought I had, but here goes again. In natural law tradition, government is justified in that it promotes the peace and protects law-abiding citizens against criminals. Of course, to understand natural law, you have to consider the historical character of societies. Throughout most of history, and in most of the world today, justice was a family matter. Families didn’t kill and steal from each other. But if someone from your family stole from or killed someone in my family, then every member of my family was obligated to seek revenge. That traditional form of justice still dominates in most of the third world, especially the Arab world. But it causes long term blood feuds and endless violence. In medieval Europe, the nobility employed private armies to protect their property and lives, but they often fought each other and the violence was pretty bad. Natural law saw government as a way to lessen the violence and impose some kind of order. Without government, they saw society descending into chaos and violence.
Natural law theorists considered property rights the most important right behind survival. Since they saw government as necessary to the survival and prosperity of mankind, they allowed for taxation to support it. In the middle ages, kings went to the nobility and asked for taxes to fund their wars so that the people being taxed had a say in how much tax to pay and what is was used for. In the Dutch Republic, England and the US, legislative bodies were set up to represent the people so that those being taxed could determine how much tax they would pay and how those taxes were spent. Because the people have a say in taxation, only anarchists consider taxes to be theft.
Of course, that brings up the continual cry from anarchists that not all people have agreed to pay taxes so taxation is theft from those people. To which others respond with the free rider problem, to which I agree. If you consider basic government (that which provides domestic and international security only) to be a good thing, as I do, then you could argue that those who don’t pay their share are the thieves; they’re stealing from those who pay taxes to provide that good.
On the practical side, it may be possible to operate a government solely on voluntary contributions, as I argued at the top of this line of posts. I’m certainly willing to work toward such a government. But I don’t see that it is morally superior, nor do I have a problem with the current system that requires most people to pay some taxes. Is it coercion? Absolutely. Just as forcing someone to give up stolen property is coercion. Not all coercion is bad.
But a voluntary tax system may not work, especially in war time. In that case, coerced taxation is necessary for the survival of the government. Do people have still have a choice? Yes, they can sell their property and move to another country.
Bjorn: “These rights need not be held by a single person or collective.”
So a person and the government may have rights to the same property?
According to Webster, “that which a person has a just claim to;” A key word in that definition is “just”. Justice and rights refer to relations between humans. So in Crusoe’s case, discussing rights is meaningless as long as he is alone. Only when Friday appears does the issue of rights and justice obtain meaning. Rights and justice are a concern of societies and only exist in society. Therefore, property rights cannot exist outside of society.
Bjorn: “Naturally, the definition of natural law does not include that the starting point must be “God†in an ethical system or that the state must be supported and included in such a system.”
That odd. Every single natural law theorists except Grotius stated very clearly that God had to be the starting point or no morals could exist. And as I have written, most atheist philosphers agree. Why? Because no man has authority over another man. So no matter how well I reason in my argument, it’s still a man’s reasoning. Another man could be just as reasonable and come to a different conclusion if he started with different assumptions.
RogerM,
Where to begin…
1) You refuse to address the means by which the state, any state, comes into being. (Hint: think Indians and Africans.)
2) Society cannot exist without government, but the state is only one form of government (the worst one). Thus do you confuse what libertarians do not.
3) “Natural law theorists considered property rights the most important right behind survival. Since they saw government as necessary to the survival and prosperity of mankind, they allowed for taxation to support it.”
How nice of them. Meaning how nice of those renowned natural law theorists Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great, the Roman emporers, the Spanish conquistadors, the proponents of Manifest Destiny, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Dubya . . .
4) Yes, “it may be possible to operate a [state] solely on voluntary contributions.” It may also be possible be possible for pigs to fly.
Bottom line: You are both evasive and incoherent, as unable to answer a direct question as you are to argue from principle. Thus do you merely perpetuate the status quo, and thus are you part of the problem, not the solution.
Björn: “These rights need not be held by a single person or collective.”
RogerM: “So a person and the government may have rights to the same property?â€
Björn: Ask Answers.com. They wrote it. Not relevant in this case.
RogerM: “According to Webster, that (property rights) which a person has a just claim to.â€
Answers.com:
Ownership
Exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; often said to include the concepts of Possession and of Title, thus being broader than either. Note: Ownership is said to often include both the possession and the title.
http://www.answers.com/ownership?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars (see property rights) are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists’ focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.
http://www.answers.com/topic/property-rights
It was, naturally, this last view I was relating to all the time. Anybody could understand that (except, of course, Roger). De facto property rights are the relevant thing.
Bjorn:”…even alone on “his†desert island Robinson Crusoe had ownership of property that is control of property…”
RogerM: “Of course he did. There was no one to challenge his ownership. The example if trivial beyond belief.â€
Björn: Note: Ownership is said to often include both the possession and the title (see above in this comment). Further “discussion†on this subject is not relevant.
RogerM: “Rights and justice are a concern of societies and only exist in society.â€
Björn: Wrong, rights and justice can exist for all times and places (remember the definition of natural law):
The Ethics of Liberty:
“NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.â€
Bjorn: “Naturally, the definition of natural law does not include that the starting point must be “God†in an ethical system or that the state must be supported and included in such a system.”
RogerM: “That odd. Every single natural law theorists except Grotius stated very clearly that God had to be the starting point or no morals could exist. And as I have written, most atheist philosphers agree. Why? Because no man has authority over another man. So no matter how well I reason in my argument, it’s still a man’s reasoning. Another man could be just as reasonable and come to a different conclusion if he started with different assumptions.â€
Björn: The truth is, of course, that if the general public supports an idea or principle it will have authority over the individual. The world is ruled by ideas. Today, for instance, the principle of democracy has a great influence on our societies and if people believe in God and religion those concepts too will have influence. There are different ideas and also different religious beliefs. Man chooses his ends and hopefully the great ideas will succeed.
Björn Lundahl
Bjorn: “De facto property rights are the relevant thing.” Why? Because you say so? Where’s your business about man being unable to survive without property rights? Or the stuff about property rights being an eternal principle like the law of gravity, or being as necessary as to life as oxygen. Those were the components of your definition of property rights that I objected to. Why aren’t those aspects included in the definitions you copied from Answer.com? I have no problem with Answer.com’s definitions. It’s your additions that I object to.
I completely disagree with your concept of property rights and none of your ranting or raving or foaming at the mouth has given me any reason to change my mind. Your conception is contrary to common usage and historical usage, and in case you didn’t notice, contrary to Answer.com
Bjorn:”NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.â€
If you begin the natural law tradition with Thomas Aquinas, then scholars reasoned about natural law for about 1700 years. At no time in those nearly two millenia did anyone ever suggest that property is absolute, and therefore government and taxation is evil. Not once! Then Rothbard comes along and claims to have discovered something that no one before him had discovered, that government is evil because property is absolute. Now I know that Rothbard was a brilliant economist and I give him a lot of credit for that, but isn’t it just a tad strange even to you that after 1700 years no one could discover what Rothbard discovered? That sucker must have been buried deep? Doesn’t it suggest that maybe Rothbard didn’t discover anything, but invented it?
Dave: “1) You refuse to address the means by which the state, any state, comes into being. (Hint: think Indians and Africans.)
No one knows how government started. It’s all speculation which I don’t find very interesting.
Dave: “2) Society cannot exist without government, but the state is only one form of government (the worst one). Thus do you confuse what libertarians do not.”
Sane people see government and state as the synonyms. Thus do libertarians try to confuse people with artificial distinctions and definitions.
Dave:”How nice of them. Meaning how nice of those renowned natural law theorists Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great, the Roman emporers, the Spanish conquistadors, the proponents of Manifest Destiny, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Dubya . . .”
Are you serious? Do you really not know who the great natural law theorists were? Or are you just trying to be funny?
Dave:”It may also be possible be possible for pigs to fly.”
Your brilliance is overwhelming. It’s responses like that that I usually won’t answer, if you really want to know why I don’t respond to your posts.
Dave;”You are both evasive and incoherent, as unable to answer a direct question as you are to argue from principle.”
Possibly. Or possibly you’re just lack the intellectual ability to understand.
I think my head just imploded. Like Lewis Black says.. You guys are out of control!!
RogerM, I can’t believe you’re disparaging Rothbard because he came up with a new idea after a long succession of philosophy. What new idea was ever discovered before it was discovered? All those millenia we went without knowing the earth revolved around the sun! What sacrilege to suggest otherwise!!
To argue that math isn’t anything like economics is tripe. As if there were not forward and backward progress in math and physics. People are finally starting to question the basis of string theory. Mistakes in proofs and problems thought to have been solved are always occurring. To imagine that there are no laws that govern humans means that the law of diminishing returns and of supply and demand are not immutable. It means that I will not always choose (as long as I have the power to choose) to satisfy my most pressing need, as determined by my values.
Why should it not have taken several millenia to discover the true nature of the state? Humans are very complicated, much more so than an apple falling from a tree, or a ball rolling down a ramp, or a planet lurching around a ball of gas.
Besides, who says Rothbard was the first to say that government was evil, and its taxes likewise? I imagine he was not the originator. What’s the saying? There’s nothing new under the sun.
Have we discovered everything there is to know about humans and human action? I think not. I rather believe the study of human action, which used to go by the name philosophy, is evolving, much like any other field of study. The questions we ask in particular in economics are no longer,”Why are we here? What is my purpose in life? From whence came I?” But one question we do endeavor to answer still,”How then should I live?”
Austrian Economics is the best answer I have yet found. A consistent code (an ethical code is a set of rules set by an organization – different groups have different ethics. A “moral code” I think is more appropriate, in its use as a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct – this from answers.com of course) by which I can live, with none of the contradictions inherent in other popular behavioral codes.
And since I seem to be the only person who cares about sloppy mathematics on this site, I’ll go ahead and show that (1+1) != 3 by such a wrongheaded method as performed halfway up the page before this topic gets archived.
(1+1)x = 3x
as x approaches 0, the two sides of the equation do indeed approach 0 as well. This is as far as it goes.
What is shown is a demonstration of the identity principle and the commutative principles on which our system of mathematics is based.
Basically, 0*anything = 0.
Obviously.
However, when x = 0, (1+1) != 3. This is like adding instead of multiplying on your 5th grade math test.
when x = 0, (1+1)x = 3x. This is the solution “we are looking for.”
That is, the statement is an indirect question: What number times (1+1) is equal to that same number times 3?
Why, zero is!
Rewriting the equation:
0 = 3x – (1+1)x
0 = 3x – 2x
0 = x
Or alternatively:
(1+1)x – 3x = 0
2x – 3x = 0
-x = 0
x = -0
an amazing feature of zero, that it is equal to its negation, a feat unattainable by any other number. A demonstration is betting your friend zero dollars on a horse race: regardless of who wins the bet, the total number of dollars in your possession remains unchanged.
Actually, I like this thought better:
If (1+1)x = 3x shows that (1+1) = 3 when x = 0, then (1+1) can also be shown to equal to 4, 5, 6, sqrt(13), pi, and so forth. In fact, all numbers in the real and imaginary domains must be equal to each other. In fact, the statement (1+1)x = (your face)x also means that your face is equal to (1+1). By extension, all our faces must be equal, as must be all things in existance, both known and unknown.
Simply because you do not know that your neighbor has two apples, does not mean that he does not have two apples.
Simply put, in order for numbers to exist at all, (1+1) cannot be equal to anything but 2. Otherwise, they are a meaningless fiction, simply scratches of ink on paper, or dots of light scorching my retinas. “Numbers” are simply the best way we have found to deal with the concept of what “more” and “less” and that most insane desire of humans to better their situation (the thirst for knowledge, the knowledge to improve our lot). Why else would we learn to count at all?
Thank goodness for numbers!
Phew, I thought no one cared about my mathematical crapulence! ;D
To the honest reader I can only say this:
Rothbard and Hoppe have uniquely discovered ethical proofs with the use of praxeology (a general theory of human action). This alone gives us a hint that their investigations and conclusions have good reasons to be successful.
As Roger only can be blathering a lot of statements and misunderstandings and superficially talk about philosophers through history and is incapable to deliver any actual proofs to back up his assertions, his “ideas†should be rejected immediately.
When it comes to it, why should I listen to blathers and misinterpretations and silly questions when I have logical proofs delivered in front of my eyes? Could we reject economics with the same kind of blathers that Roger has stated? If I wanted to know the truth and therefore wanted logical proofs to back them up, could I interpret that Roger has delivered them or should I, at least, consider reading and thinking about Hoppe’s ethical proof? Are those logical proofs disqualified because of Rogers’s statements? Does anyone seriously believe that for instance, serious and extremely intelligent people like Rothbard and Hoppe would have considered them?
Björn Lundahl
Francis Schaefer predicted in the 1970′s that atheists would not be able to live without absolutes as Camus, Sartre and others told them they should live in order to be logically consistent with their atheism. As a result, they would arbitrarily choose things to replace the absolutes they had abandoned with their abandonment of God. And he was right. The left chose the environment as its god; anarchists have chosen property. Anarchists can see the errors of radical environmentalism that result from their arbitrary choice of an absolute, but not their own errors. And the anarchist choice of property as their god is arbitrary, as Chodorov wrote:
“The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the state is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postulate is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.”
Axel: “I can’t believe you’re disparaging Rothbard because he came up with a new idea after a long succession of philosophy.”
That’s a very good point. We have made progress in science and should expect to make more. However, based on my brief knowledge of the history of philosophy and ethics, I don’t see that kind of progress in the field of ethics and the study of human nature. People often quote Aristotle because few people have been able to improve on his understanding of the two. For that matter, read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible, written about 1,000 BC, and you’ll find as good an analysis of human nature as any modern book. The field of ethics has rarely moved forward, but constantly goes in circles.
Natural law was based on a study of human nature, which doesn’t require the discovery of new tools with which to study it, whereas astronomy, for example, needed the telescope to be invented. We study human nature the same way today as people did a thousand years ago–by observation and using reason to draw conclusions. I see no reason to believe our powers of observation and reasoning are any better than was theirs. I haven’t read everything every natural law writer wrote, but what I have read shows no hint of Rothbard’s “discovery” at all. In addition, Rothbard’s “discovery” rests completely on the arbitrary choice of property as an absolute, as Chodorov writes, which no natural law writer before him would have dared to do.
Rothbard claimed his ethic was not new, but a continuation of the natural law tradition that preceded him. But it’s clear that he made a sharp break with that tradition in making property an absolute. I don’t see that as progress.
RogerM,
Your repeated assertion that libertarians worship property is absurd. We simply believe that the right to property flows natrually from the right to one’s life and the liberty to pursue it, mindful that others have the same right.
Furthermore, your statement that “No one knows how government started. It’s all speculation which I don’t find very interesting” only shows how wilfully ignorant you are of history and how incapable you are of honest reflection. You stated that natural law theorists “allowed for taxation” as if they were the ones who determined the course of history — as if Genghis Kahn or Alexander had to permission from them in order to ram their “governments” down the throats of foreign peoples.
What nonsense. And what a mindless rut it puts you in.
One can only hope that others following along can see for themselves why libertarianism is morally and intellectually superior to every other school of thought.
Thank you, then, for furthering the cause.
Axel:”Austrian Economics is the best answer I have yet found.”
I agree completely. However, I woulnd’t confuse Rothbard’s ethics with his economics. The two have little to do with each other. Most Austrian economists I have read don’t appear to be anarchists, including Mises and Hayek.
Dave: “Thank you, then, for furthering the cause.”
No, thank you. The pleasure was all mine.
Jesse> Excellent satire, Tyler… My favorite part: “It is the government’s ability to collect taxes that has spared this country from what may have been multiple recessions?”
My favorite one was: I agree that taxation might be excessive, but it is not unreasonable.
Excellent. {laughs}
MR> “NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.â€
RM> Francis Schaefer predicted in the 1970′s that atheists would not be able to live without absolutes as Camus, Sartre and others told them they should live in order to be logically consistent with their atheism. As a result, they would arbitrarily choose things to replace the absolutes they had abandoned with their abandonment of God.
I absolutely do not have the time or perspicacity to absolutely (completely) understand Natural Law. How is that for an absolute?
TLWP: “inasmuchas you defend your beliefs as absolute rules for living which is similar to what religious folks believe. You then support your claims by saying if one person breaks the rules could you imagine then if everyone broke the rules? We’d be all done for!â€
Well, this is because of the reason and conclusion that human life is objectively defended by the principle of none aggression as I wrote:
As this objective mean (none aggression) preserves an axiomatic value (life) and as this mean is derived from an axiomatic value, the whole system is an axiomatic system. This is the system that only can therefore be, logically and axiomatically, defended.
Alternatively, the principle which objectively preserves and defends human life (in accordance with an axiomatic procedure for finding this out, see above, normative principles) is the principle of none violations. The meaning of none violations is just “noneâ€.
As we cannot, logically, deny life, as long as we choose living, we cannot either, logically deny its axiomatic condition i.e. its axiomatic mean (none violations).
If we want to find out an ethic based on rationalism or if we want to be “scientific†we must play by its rules by making and defending a rationalistic conclusion and nothing else.
Björn Lundahl
Rothbardian Ethics
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The Problem of Social Order
Robinson Crusoe, alone on his island, can do whatever he pleases. For him, the question concerning rules of orderly human conduct – social cooperation – simply does not arise. Naturally, this question can only arise once a second person, Friday, arrives on the island. Yet even then, the question remains largely irrelevant so long as no scarcity exists. Suppose the island is the Garden of Eden. All external goods are available in superabundance. They are “free goods,” such as the air that we breathe is normally a “free” good. Whatever Crusoe does with these goods, his actions have repercussions neither with respect of his own future supply of such goods, nor regarding the present or future supply of the same goods for Friday (and vice versa). Hence, it is impossible that there could ever be a conflict between Crusoe and Friday concerning the use of such goods. A conflict becomes possible only if goods are scarce, and only then can there arise a problem of formulating rules which make an orderly – conflict-free – social cooperation possible.
In the Garden of Eden only two scarce goods exist: the physical body of a person and its standing room. Crusoe and Friday each have only one body and can stand only at one place at a time. Hence, even in the Garden of Eden conflicts between Crusoe and Friday can arise: Crusoe and Friday cannot both simultaneously want to occupy the same standing room without coming thereby into physical conflict with each other. Accordingly, even in the Garden of Eden rules of orderly social conduct must exist – rules regarding the proper location and movement of human bodies. And outside the Garden of Eden, in the realm of scarcity, there must be rules that regulate not just the use of personal bodies but of everything scarce so that all possible conflicts can be ruled out. This is the problem of social order.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html
Björn Lundahl
Yes the problem of many people trying to co-exist with each other . . . The more people who enter the problem the more freedom people lose because, chances are, one person’s freedom can infringe on someone else’s freedom. Playing loud music infringes on someone else’s right to silence. Not surprisingly in times long gone with small population densities, freedoms were high and regulations were low . . .
The Law
Frédéric Bastiat:
“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.â€
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G16367
Björn Lundahl
The murderer is sentenced guilty before the nature of life
You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules? If you do not like this dimension you can pass away from it any time you want. No one is forcing you to stay.
With the help of reason, consciousness and intelligence, you can observe that your fellow men strive to sustain their lives. They do what their nature calls them to do, namely to live. You are a threat against that! You are a threat against this dimension! This dimension would not exist if it couldn’t cope with what is threatening it. You wouldn’t have lived if murdering has been allowed, and despite of this fact, you place yourself above the very cause of your own life. How can you place yourself above the very cause of your existence!?
No organism or life can exist if it is not accommodated to what life demands, and that is partly to eliminate the very things that can cause that life ceases. It is the self-preservation that is the very cause for me to throw out the murderer from my kingdom. You never learn! You are parasites of life! You are saying that you did not choose life because you didn’t create yourself, but no one has, for all men are participants of an eternal process and this fact does not declare your irresponsibility.
The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the murderer’s actions shall be rejected and punished until such destructive threats ceases to exist.
My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.
With a good conscience I will now consider if you also shall be thrown out from my dimension and return to the unconsciousness. If I judge to not throw you out, I will do it with a bad conscience since I have the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules which I then will have denied.
Björn Lundahl
The thief is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.
Men visit my kingdom for a time and then later leave it. I observe this species that with its reason, consciousness and intelligence protects her values and purposes. They cultivates harvest where the wind blow the very least, they build greenhouses to protect the harvest against frigidity; they spray the harvest to protect it from insects. With its reason, consciousness and intelligence some men observe that the harvest can be stolen and out of this reason men defends their harvest with the might of weaponry, for the self-preservation and man’s purposes are then protected.
You can steal due to the fact that man to some extent succeeded to keep down the theft and you can live because man has to some extent succeeded to suppress the theft. Human beings became human beings the day they started to create and you belong to this species. You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to ignore my rules? Since childhood you have learnt that theft is wrong and despite of this, you steal. You are a parasite of life, motives and objectives because theft is a parasite of life, motives and objectives! The day man no longer succeeds in her effort to suppress theft, that day motives, objectives and life ceases to exist.
The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided My nature is thus such that the thief’s actions must be stopped and punished until they ceases to exist.
My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.
In the name of true Justice, as it is built upon the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules, you will now be sentenced for the crime you have done and for the compensation to the victim and this to its fullest extent.
Björn Lundahl
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }