Taxation = Theft, Animated (by Slovaks)

Link via the Twitter feed of Jeff Jacoby.

Comments

[H man]

It's not theft. It's extortion. Please get the terminology right.

[free2booze]

Get the terminology right, or we will democratically elect someone, who will demand you use the correct terminology.

[Jozef]

True. In Slovakia, taxes are still commonly called "vypalne", which means "money paid to protection racketeers".

By the way, despite a 19% flat tax on earnings, thanks to high mandatory social and health insurance payments, the tax freedom day was on June 2 this year.

[MNG]

I've always hated that slogan. Taxation has elements that are like theft (ultimate threat of force for non-compliance) and elements unlike theft (where the victim has an equal say in whether and what amount is taken, those who take ostensibly do so for a third party, etc.).

A lot of things are like that, sharing some elements but not all elements, and it is why we have different words for things.

[omg]

In order to say it isn't theft, you would have to agree that the second scenario they give (where 6 out of 10 people vote to use physical violence) is not theft. George has an "equal say" in that scenario, does he not?

[spencer]

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY, MOTHERFUCKERS! DEAL WITH IT. That's what democracy gets us- rule by the lowest motherfucking common denominator.

[Jeffersonian]

I think what Mange means it's bad when one guy robs you at gunpoint, but two...man, you're outvoted.

[Amakudari]

I was angry when a guy tried to mug me, but when I saw his friends I realized then and there that it was only fair.

[spencer]

But, by definition, theft is a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent.

So, the argument must be that this isn't criminal- right? WHY is it not criminal, that's the question we should be asking. Anyone? (roads, the children, fire departments, Somalia- I can hear them now).

[SugarFree]

Consent doesn't figure in unless you support individual rights. On the abacus of utilitarianism, all the beads are faceless.

[MNG]

Better said that "On the abacus of utilitarianism, all the beads are equal".

Utilitarianism is just the marriage of two uncontroversial ideas:

1. Actions should be judged in terms of their consequences for human welfare
2. Everyone's welfare counts, and counts equally

[Sean W. Malone]

Except that unfortunately, utilitarianism has no way of adequately measuring everyone's "welfare", and unfortunately turn to insanely pretentious valuations by a handful of technocrats (generally) and then proscribe their valuations on everyone else.

Attempting to objectify value and then claim your preferences are superior to all others as an idea probably has done the most damage out of any other broad concept I can think of. Not to godwin the thread here, cause it's a major case in the point... but that's PRECISELY what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the other dictators in the world have in common. It's also what Republicans & Democrats have in common.

[MNG]

On a technical level you have a point, but we guess at how our actions will impact other people's welfare all the time, and we do pretty well actually. You didn't buy your wife a bowling ball for your anniversary, did you? If it was as hopeless as some people like to argue to correctly identify what increases other's welfare we would wander into stores and choose gifts on random (or worse, we would not be able to guess that we should by a gift for some occasions).

[Voros McCracken]

The problem is that the accuracy of those "guesses" correlates quite well with your familiarity with the situation.

So the argument is that the best way to increase the welfare of others is to have those decisions made by those closest to them rather than by a massive bureaucratic state with no stake in the matter.

From the example in the movie maybe your friend George knows more about Oliver than you do, and knows he's just scamming and looking for money to buy some meth. Maybe George knows that the best thing for Oliver is _not_ to give him the money.

[spencer]

That argument is retarded. It makes no senst and has no merit. You are speaking of giving anniversary gifts as if that- in any way whatsoever- is the same as dictating what others do and how it gets paid for.

You have to know this, right?!

[Seamus]

You forgot to add "exclusively" after "judged" in the first idea listed. And unfortunately, that makes the proposition far from uncontroversial, as many a deontologist would be glad to explain to you.

[MNG]

But it is a strange theft indeed where the most people who pay also make up a majority of those who decide who and how much is going to pay.

[JW]

Really? When was the last time you had a say in how much you would be taxed and whether or not you would be taxed at all? Ever? I mean, directly had a say, not the farce that is a simple election.

The fact of the matter is that you have zero influence on the magnitude of taxation you will be assessed.

There's also the issue of the majority deciding what the minority will pay, which you conveniently dodge.

[MNG]

Elections are not farces. We choose the people who design our taxes.

"There's also the issue of the majority deciding what the minority will pay, which you conveniently dodge."

I don't dodge that, the majority also chooses how much it will pay to, and that is bizarre for a theft. It's as if ten men surrounded you and talked with you about how much you, and they, should give to one of them to do good works for all eleven of you. That's an odd form of theft.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

I didn't choose shit. Elections let aholes like you say "we" chose something. Thats how you can tell they are a farce.

[Mattrue]

"It's as if ten men surrounded you and talked with you..."

The ten men don't need to surround you and convince you of jack! 6 of them just need to agree that they pay too much (or not receiving enough welfare or services) and the other 5 (especially you!) pay too little. This is why almost half of the people in this country don't pay federal income tax and it's continuing in that direction.

Taking this to its logical conclusion (I know this is very difficult for state apologists) what would you call this system if not theft?

[adam]

I believe a certain Mr Holmes described that system as "the price of civilization".

[Mattrue]

The funny thing is that the income taxes Mr. Holmes paid were mainly to finance war -- something very anti-civilization. Then they were for the New Deal during his last few years of life. But somehow this country was civilized (excluding slavery) for the vast majority of the first 150 years without many taxes.

[JW]

Elections are not farces. We choose the people who design our taxes.

Elections are very much the farce, especially on the topic of taxes. If your only choices are for candidates who promise to raise your taxes only 3%, and no candidates who promise to lower your taxes, then the choice is a false one.

Even if some candidate promises to lower taxes, they are not bound to do so by this promise.

I don't dodge that, the majority also chooses how much it will pay to, and that is bizarre for a theft.

Assume a hypothetical society of 100, where everyone can and does vote. If 51 out of 100 are poor, with total wealth under $20,000, and 49 out 100 are millionaires, the 51 can decide that everyone will pay 100% of their wealth over $1,000,000 to the state for direct wealth redistribution, from which the poor will directly benefit.

How is that not theft?

[Drax the Destroyer]

How is that not theft?

Uh let's see if I can derive the statist boilerplate response-

Well, for one, despite variation among individuals, it is easy (and lazy) for us to believe that all the wealth of the minority 49 was somehow accumulated through slavery, fraud, blatant mafia-style crime, poisoning the environment, and (GASP) vile inheritance so it is a matter of "justice" to forcibly extract it. Two, if the rich minority refuses to "raise up" the poor majority, the poor majority will be forced to rape and pillage the rich to their heart's content, so paying them off keeps them from turning into cartoon vikings. Three, if the rich don't use the "valuable services" provided through taxation, that's not anyone's fault but their own i.e. they paid for it so they should feel free use it. Four, even if the rich somehow have provided value to everyone in the community, it will be inevitably proven that said value (cars, cell phones, computers, drugs) is detrimental to the natural state of man and should be curbed and stopped at every chance. Five, if the rich minority does not provide for the majority, the majority would be forced to forgo the necessities of life (Ipads, Xboxes, Dining out, Hi-Def pornography, Bullshit College Educations etc.) and save everything they can for the future. Can you imagine such a nightmarish realm where people have to actually save to purchase the things that are actually important them? It's like a horror out of Lovecraft.

-Yeah...that sounds about right.

[MJ]

That analogy kind of works if you are talking about a flat rate tax with no exceptions among the eleven people deciding. Unfortunately, that is not the tax system we have nor is it the type you support. It is ridculous to claim that progressve taxation is not theft under that analogy.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

So you admit it's theft? Good.

[Seamus]

You mean the system where a majority (say, everyone with income below the 51st percentile) could decide that all the taxes would be paid by the minority (say, everyone with income at or above the 51st percentile)? Sure, that would be perfectly fair.

[Amakudari]

But it is a strange theft indeed where the most people who pay also make up a majority of those who decide who and how much is going to pay.

Except much of our spending is financed by debt. Something like 30% right now, last I checked.

That's not people voting for how to tax themselves, it's people voting for how to tax those in the future without a say in the matter.

[JW]

where the victim has an equal say in whether and what amount is taken

Usually, when parties are equal, you have a bilateral agreement of mutually agreed terms, which commences after some negotiation.

I must have fallen asleep and slept through my negotiation, because I don't remember any such haggling as to how much their cut will be.

[SugarFree]

All polite tyrannies assume they have consent. Impolite ones don't even feel they need to appear to care.

[JW]

I picture the polite tyranny along the lines of Basil Fawlty and Manuel working out Manuel's pay scale.

[spencer]

what do polite trannies do?

[Sean W. Malone]

"where the victim has an equal say in whether and what amount is taken, those who take ostensibly do so for a third party, etc.)"

In what world is this actually true in reality?

If Americans had an "equal" say in where their money went to, by poll numbers at least, almost none of it would go to foreign aid, wars, political party national committees, and a whole pile of other shit...

[Britt]

The ends do not matter, minge. Theft is about the victim, not the perpetrator. If something is taken from me without my consent, it does not matter to what end it goes toward. I have been robbed, my rights violated, regardless of whether the money is buying guns, butter, or puppy orphanages.

[SugarFree]

Everything you have you got because of blind luck and racism. Everything you have belongs to the collective.

[cynical]

Not really -- particularly in a representative democracy, either you get a say (your guy wins) or you do not (you don't vote or your guy loses). You're voting for who gets to have a say in the actual business of governing, basically, and if you lose, you don't get one. Of course the nice thing about our system is that, even if you win, you don't get one, since your candidate is probably a sleazebag sellout who doesn't give a shit about your agenda unless it positively affects his political career.

[cynical]

Or, look at it this way -- all systems of government are a mix of consent and coercion. The people that agree with the status quo consent, those that do not are coerced. Even though all of them are technically forced, it doesn't really matter if you're on board with it to begin with, which is why laws against things like murder don't even get libertarian hackles up.

In a tyranny or oligoarchy or feudal society, the number of those who are coerced is likely to be much higher (but even there, many people might agree with the way government runs things even if they have no say in it). Democracy is good because it tends to increase the number of people who consent to government, but the simple fact that people are able to voice their refusal to consent does not actually mitigate the fact that they are coerced. That is, voting is not good as a means, only as an end, and that end is to increase the consensuality of governance. If it fails in that regard, then democracy is no better than a dictatorship.

But just like 51% consent is less tyrannical than 5%, 95% consent is less tyrannical than 51% -- and the more government tries to do, the more likely it is that they do it in a way that citizens only go along because they are compelled, not because they agree. Which is why liberty is nice.

[Mr Whipple]

You are right, minge:

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

-Lysander Spooner

[fubar]

They forgot to shoot the dog!

[adam]

that was my first reaction too....damn you Balko!

[Restoras]

No, no, no, it's:

Taxation = LEGALLY SANCTIONED Theft

[rts]

Original, with English subtitles and other info: http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/

[spencer]

we must define subtitles differently.

[rts]

Eh?

Subtitles are textual versions of the dialog in films and television programs, usually displayed at the bottom of the screen. They can either be a form of written translation of a dialog in a foreign language, or a written rendering of the dialog in the same language, with or without added information to help viewers who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to follow the dialog, or people who cannot understand the spoken dialogue or who have accent recognition problems.

[robc]

That version said mises.cz, so was to Slovaks or Czecks who did it?

[Sean W. Malone]

No... This has been around for I think over 6 months now, it's just been translated by different groups in different countries.

Surely this isn't the first time people at H&R are seeing George Ought to Help, right?

[Airplane!]

No, it isn't. And don't call me Shirley.

[Ted S.]

It was Slovaks. Czech doesn't have the ? that appears in pom?c?.

[SugarFree]

Federal taxation, as currently performed, seems to have three levels to me...

Level 1: Taxes used to support the Constitution-authorized activities allowed the government as I see them.

Level 2: Taxes used to support the Constitution-authorized activities allowed the government as the government sees them.

Level 3: Direct transfer payments. (AKA, spreadin' the wealth around.) Although I do consider far more things to be DTPs than most people.

And my feelings?

1: I consent.
2: I assent, with a determination dismantling it to level 1.
3: I do not consent, and it is therefore theft.

[robc]

I havent consented to #1. I need to see the terms of the deal before I sign off on it.

[SugarFree]

I can accept that.

[MNG]

You assent to taxation for the Post Office?

[spencer]

A post office- not the Post Office.

[kinnath]

No. I agree to pay postage to cover the fair cost of deliverying my mail. I do not consent to having a chunk of my paycheck sent to Washington D.C. so that some bureaucrat can decide what constitutes a fair price to deliver mail.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Didn't we see this video here before? Or is there some subtle difference I'm not seeing?

[SugarFree]

The last time didn't have the 40 seconds of hardcore porn-pounding tacked on to the end.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Also, George's outfit wasn't so atrocious.

[Danny]

Kind of dumb. Tuition for kids of a guy with bad luck? Most public school systems are on an everybody-pays-and-everybody-can-attend basis.

This animation would be more true to the actual redistributive model if it were about food or shelter or medical care. But I guess the writers wanted to choose a less compelling social need to strengthen their point of view.

Also, this illustration would have to fold in "redistribution" to the guy who wants help to solve and avenge the murder of a family member, the guy who wants to protect his border farm from foreign encroachment, the guy who wants to build a road between his town and the capitol city, etc. etc.

More fundamentally, most of these "redistribution" choices are not made and voted on "ex post" for specific individuals. They are made and voted on "ex ante" to cover whoever in the group happens to get the bad luck going forward.

Take Medicare/Medicaid. Between you and me, one of us might live to 90 and need a nursing home, while the other of us will drop dead face-first into the cake at our 65th birthday party. But which of us is which? We don't know. Maybe you are "redistributing" to me. Maybe I'm "redistributing" to you. We won't know until our retirement ages are reached decades from now.

Tax is theft. Property is theft. Tyranny of the majority. We want a stateless society. Blah blah. This is the human condition. You will neverevereverever be "left alone" because some rareified notion of "self ownership" is going to magically drain the element of coercion and intimidation out of human affairs. Open, transparent and democratic government is our best hope.

[Britt]

We will never ever ever be left alone because statist fucks like you can't stop bothering us, and there's too damn many of you to shoot.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

+1

[Danny]

Exactly, Brit, exactly. I am a part of the "reality" that you have to deal with. Raging against those "like me" is akin to raging against cancer or earthquakes.

More precisely, you are never going to have a social/economic system that is all "winners." Having a competitive society means you have losers as well as winners. As a practical matter, the more competitive you make the society, the more losers you have relative to winners. Losers of competition are not just going to "accept their lot in life." Losers, and potential losers, who realize their common interests, will use politics to mitigate the consequences of lost competition -- for themselves, their families, and all those with whom they share similar risks.

This is politics. It is the essential nature of things. There is no rule written in the sky by the hand of god that says "winners take all." Compromising with the parties that ended up with the downside of a risk-test is just part of the "cost of doing business" for those who got the upside of a risk-test. This is how it is, and how it should be. Competition is not, and should not, equal elimination.

[JW]

More precisely, you are never going to have a social/economic system that is all "winners."

Who is making that claim?

As a practical matter, the more competitive you make the society, the more losers you have relative to winners.

There is no rule written in the sky by the hand of god that says "winners take all."

Sure there is. I voluntarily took a risk and made good decisions, without coercion of anyone else, that benefited my decision making process. You did the same, but chose poorly and "lost." Lost, being defined as a smaller market share or going out business altogether.

Where is the rule written that you get to be compensated for voluntary risk taking and poor decision making, by forcibly taking the wealth of others? How is that not theft?

Having a competitive society means you have losers as well as winners.

How is forcibly redistributing wealth, competition?

Show your work.

[Danny]

A rat can eat your wheat, even though you grew it and the rat did nothing but take it. It is the natural order. Why should a man play by different rules than a rat?

Answer: because he is a man, not a rat, and he should play by a set of rules made among men.

So, you bet and win, and another man bets and loses, and you propose "winner take all." Why should that be the prevailing assumption? I say "winner takes 85%; loser takes 15%." Who is right?

Before the bets are placed, the bettors have to agree to participate in the betting. There is no rule of morality that, a priori, obliges us to participate in a 50-50 system, or a 60-40 system. And no one is metaphysically obliged to participate in a 100-zero system, either.

We make political rules about the winner/loser split. All participants -- the winners and the losers -- know what the split will be, and participate on those terms as set.

Political rules need not be, and generally are not, 100-zero systems. And political rules are not unanimous, so, yes, there is coercion. But that is politics. You can't get unanimity with thousands or millions of people in the system.

Maybe it would be nice if you could choose to leave the system if you don't like it -- go Galt. But with 7 billion people on a planet this size, that's not a very practical option. So, we do politics.

[SugarFree]

Lie back and enjoy it. You'd make a fantastic rape counselor, Dan T.

[Tncm]

A rat can eat your wheat, even though you grew it and the rat did nothing but take it. It is the natural order. Why should a man play by different rules than a rat?

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No libertarian is saying that one person can steal from another. That violates propertarianism, the ethical system libertarianism is predicated on.

Answer: because he is a man, not a rat, and he should play by a set of rules made among men.

Nobody's saying that we shouldn't have rule of law.

So, you bet and win, and another man bets and loses, and you propose "winner take all." Why should that be the prevailing assumption? I say "winner takes 85%; loser takes 15%." Who is right?

Entrepreneurs don't "bet". They use price signals and other market factors to allocate productive resources, produce the desired consumer goods, and make a profit. If an entrepreneur engages in malinvestment than he or she will have to reevaluate their method of conducting business, or will close up shop altogether, freeing land, labor, and capital for others who do know how to meet consumer demands effectively.

The fact that the market penalizes stupidity and poor planning while incentivizing intelligence and meticulous organization is something I consider a feature, not a bug. You seem to think otherwise.

Before the bets are placed, the bettors have to agree to participate in the betting. There is no rule of morality that, a priori, obliges us to participate in a 50-50 system, or a 60-40 system. And no one is metaphysically obliged to participate in a 100-zero system, either.

No one's ethically obliged to participate in any system period. You could always go live in the mountains and divorce yourself entirely from the market and society if you wanted to. If you disliked the world altogether I suppose you could even commit suicide, though I wouldn't recommend doing so for obvious reasons.

We make political rules about the winner/loser split. All participants -- the winners and the losers -- know what the split will be, and participate on those terms as set.

The hapless citizens participating in a mobster protection racket know the terms, too.

Political rules need not be, and generally are not, 100-zero systems. And political rules are not unanimous, so, yes, there is coercion. But that is politics. You can't get unanimity with thousands or millions of people in the system.

You can have law without coercion.

Maybe it would be nice if you could choose to leave the system if you don't like it -- go Galt. But with 7 billion people on a planet this size, that's not a very practical option. So, we do politics.

Wrong. You do politics, and I and others like me on this board tout a viable and superior alternative.

[JW]

"So, we do politics theft."

Fixed.

Really, your argument has already been reduced to this. No need for further comment.

[Britt]

You're not an earthquake or a force of nature Danny. You're a sniveling bitch who lacks the ability or the bravery to take my money by force, so you outsource it to someone else all the while preening about your moral superiority. You speak of reality. I agree with you that statist fucks will always be with us. Much like venereal disease, cockroaches, and other loathsome examples of natures incredibly diversity. That doesn't mean I have to like it, or pretend that what we have is a difference of political opinion. Republicans and Democrats are two halves of a gang arguing over what the loot should be spent on. We are those who stand for righteousness, who say that theft is theft no matter how many mongoloids like yourself or silk tongued products of the Ivy League insist it is not. We know that A is A, that changing the name of the thing does not alter the thing.

So now, as we slouch towards the final reckoning, I ask you what you will do? Who will you blame when you have taken everything from those who created, when you have borrowed all there is to borrow and stolen all there is to steal. Who then will you turn to and demand that they sacrifice what is theirs to fatten the carcass of scavengers? Who will you make the villain when all the villains of the moment have been drained of their wealth or forced out of the polity? You'll have plenty of people to lie to, but none left to steal from.

[Danny]

If you believed that, then somebody could come into your house, lock you in the closet, steal every single bit of crap you own that could be moved out to a truck, burn the rest in a gasoline bonfire on your front lawn, and drive off. And when you finally got the door open and saw what happened, you could only say:

"Hey, in principle, it's not any worse than April 15th!"

Anybody who says taxes are theft kind of deserves to get a beatdown from a gang of muggers in Central Park, so that they have a valid point of comparison (...but not really).

[zoltan]

Yes, because all theft is like a Central Park mugging. Moron.

[Britt]

I have a lot more respect for muggers and robbers then I do for you Danny. See, they will come into my gunsights, lay there ass on the line.

You just cheer from the sidelines while federal men do your stealing for you. Give me an honest crook anyday over the likes of you.

[MJ]

"A rat can eat your wheat, even though you grew it and the rat did nothing but take it. It is the natural order. Why should a man play by different rules than a rat?"

Humans kill rats with impunity. A man who lives by the ethics of a rat justly deserves the same treatment. That's why a man should not live as a rat.

[Danny]

So a man caught eating a handful of corn that is not his deserves to be killed?

I think we know all we need to know about you, MJ. Thanks for your input.

[MJ]

You're the one invoking natural order. If the natural order is that vermin steal your substance, then the flip side of that coin is that you have licence to destroy the vermin. Especially when living as vermin is a choice.

Your deciding what cut winners and losers get is only enshrining the ethics of vermin in law. Advocating that makes you the Tree of Liberty's natural manure.

[Danny]

Mmm, indeed. Men, like vermin, will steal to eat, QED they can be killed like vermin. Exactly. More of this, please, MJ. Keep digging, keep digging.

[Leia Hologram]

Open, transparent and democratic government is our best hope.

Help us, democracy, you're our only hope!

[JW]

Kind of dumb. Tuition for kids of a guy with bad luck? Most public school systems are on an everybody-pays-and-everybody-can-attend basis.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come along with "But, but, but..." about how a hypothetical situation doesn't exactly jibe with reality and therefore isn't valid.

The great thing about H&R is that I never have to wait all that long.

[Danny]

Well, this is an instance where specificity has some importance. If you are going to use as an example something with a very specific context, like the public education of school-age children, you are botching it up by framing it, counter-factually, as an ex-post means-tested income-sensitive program.

Something more generic and/or more overtly "redistributive" would provide a much more apt example.

[JW]

Well, this is an instance where specificity has some importance.

No, it doesn't. It's not as much a hypothetical situation as much as it is a thought experiment.

Who cares *why* Oliver needs the money? It's not important. Oliver could be needing the money to pay off his bookie, who is threatening to kill his family if he doesn't pay up.

That he does need money, and George chooses not to give him money, is the central issue.

[Danny]

How dumb is that? Everything turns on *why* Oliver needs the money, and what happens if he doesn't get the money. Your example illustrates the point: if he wants to pay off a bookie, that's one thing. If he wants an armed guard to intervene to protect him against the bookie -- let's call the armed guard a "police officer" or something like that -- that's another matter entirely.

We can help him pay off the bookie, or we can help him pay for the armed guard. Either way, some of our $$ gets "redistributed" to a dumb fvck who wouldn't be in trouble in the first place if he hadn't been gambling with a bookie on credit. But we don't have any other choice.

Dialing 911 is, in a sense, "theft." But not having 911 to dial won't lead to a less larcenous result.

[kinnath]

Everything turns on *why* Oliver needs the money, and what happens if he doesn't get the money.

No, not in the slightest.

The only question is whether or not George can be forced, against his will, to help a third-party.

This is a simple yes/no question; no other details are necessary to answer the question.

[kinnath]

The more interesting question is whether or not George can be forced, against his will, to help himself.

[Danny]

Well, that's obvious. most of us are forced to pay for responses to 911 calls that we don't make. Answering that question with an unqualified "no" just puts you in outer space where you can safely be ignored.

[kinnath]

Thanks for playing

[Colin]

Juraj je peknej vul.

[Joe]

I loved the video, especially the part where the agents come and go on what looked like Segways.

[Danny]

That was no accident. It had some kind of deep meaning. What, I'm not sure. But something.

[Joedoe]

I think this misses the next step. Is taxation theft? Of course it is. The real question is whether or not it is morally justifiable theft (i.e. the 'is it moral to steal bread if you are starving?' question.) So whether or not taxation is morally justifiable should be based on how we spend our tax money, and that is where the debate should be.

[joshua corning]

I think this is rarely touched upon in these debates.

I would like a closer examination of Hobbes in libertarian discussion about the basis of morality.

In essence i think the state does have a role in holding a monopoly of violence but it is limited. A state that goes outside those limits will endanger itself and its citizens. The problem with Hobbes is that his theorem was postulated before democracy.

Essentially he proved the importance of the state in terms of keeping the peace and for stability so citizens could flourish. He did not foresee a state gaining stability through a democratic process and therefor gain relatively in its stability and could for at least the last 200 years forgo the natural limits of the state.

What needs to happen and will happen is a state to be founded or some other sort of collective that competitively threatens the large democratic overreaching state.

Such things as Bitcoin, or the internet, or seasteading, or tax competition among EU nations.

Democratic states have gotten a free pass because of the stability they provide has been historically phenomenal...and that stability has created phenomenal prosperity.

People like Danny confuse this prosperity as legitimizing democracy as a superior decision making entity...it is not. it only gives stability.

A stable state that is also limited would quickly overcome the prosperity that a stable state provides.

This is the great libertarian experiment in my mind. To find that kind leviathan and crush the perceived legitimacy of the Big stable state democracy. and expose it as inferior.

This is not an argument against Democracy by any means. I am only pointing out that democracy without limits creates less prosperity and benefit then a democracy with limits.

[robc]

If the state has a monopoly on violence, then I have no right to self defense. Therefore, the state does not have a monopoloy on violence.

QED

[Joshua Corning]

If the state has a monopoly on violence, then I have no right to self defense. Therefore, the state does not have a monopoloy on violence.

Yes we do not live in a "perfect" Hobbsian state...which is a good thing.

But you would have to admit the right to self defense is very very very limited in comparison to the vast powers the state has to not only impose violence but to prosecute those who use violence without their say so.

if you really really want to split hairs i can call it a monopoly on violence with the exception that if someone is trying to kill or harm you you can do something about it.

The point being that today the state has a monopoly on violence and we do benefit from it. Our government is a Hobbsian state.

There are no bandits between your house and the supermarket and people do defer to the government when those outside of it try to violently overthrow it, and we do prosper because of this arrangement.

Now a statist like Danny would say that a state monopoly on violence is good therefor any monopoly the government has over anything should benefit us.

It is a huge leap and without any proof. Still that is what statists do.

I don't think the proper response by libertarians is bury their heads and ignore the whole hobbsian nature of the state and the benefits it provides.

[Strider]

The overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to insure that the state does not have anything close to a monopoly on violence; just the opposite, in fact. It insures that the people, if necessary, can forcibly overthrow the state.

[Joedoe]

I think generally 'violence' is shorthand for 'law enforcement' in this case.

[kinnath]

is it moral to steal bread if you are starving?

No

Next question

[Danny]

Which only shows that morality is not natural law. It may not be moral for the starving to steal bread, but it is natural. Indeed, refraining from stealing what you need to steal in order to avoid starvation would be utterly unnatural.

So, is law to be based on nature, or on morality?

I say nature. More precisely, we should use moral means to try to reach natural ends. Consider: no one should starve. How do we reach that result? The most "moral" means is to say that we are free to pursue our own interests, and are only required to set aside, according to some pre-existing rule ("law") a reserve that protects whoever happens come up short from having to choose between stealing and starving.

(Perhaps a system of being free to pursue our own interests will create such abundance that a reserve will not be necessary. Fine! We will test the result. If the reserve need not be tapped, it can be returned. Surely, no one can object to a precaution which can simply be undone when shown not to be necessary, eh?)

[kinnath]

So, is law to be based on nature, or on morality?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Next

[Danny]

Written by slave owners. QED busted. Neeeeexxxxxt!

I don't believe in a "creator." Neeeeeeext!

The declaration of independence was not incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. Neeeeext!

Neeeext!
Neeeext!
Nextnextnextnextnextnextnextnext!

[kinnath]

One of the cool things about words is that once they are written down, it doesn't really matter anymore who wrote them.

Anyone can read the words and decide if they're true or false.

[Danny]

The notion that the preamble to the DOI is some kind of result-specific proto-Randian gospel from which the Ron Paul agenda unfolds like a Euclidian geometry proof, undermining the political legitimacy of taxpayer-funding of things like public schools and hospital care for the indigent, is just unserious. The political marginalization of such views is richly earned. You get all the obscurity and contempt you deserve.

[kinnath]

F = m a

[kinnath]

And the Lord said:

Let there be light

And there was light.

[kinnath]

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

[Tncm]

Written by slave owners. QED busted. Neeeeexxxxxt!

Guilt by association.

I don't believe in a "creator." Neeeeeeext!

But you do believe in some creature called "nature" which has clearly specified which actions are and are not proper for humanity to follow.

The declaration of independence was not incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. Neeeeext!

Does that somehow disparage its place as one of the most important documents in the history of the United States or the truth of its statements?

Neeeext!
Neeeext!
Nextnextnextnextnextnextnextnext!

This pedantry doesn't add intellectual integrity to your arguments.

[joshua corning]

But you do believe in some creature called "nature" which has clearly specified which actions are and are not proper for humanity to follow.

Nice burn.

[Danny]

"Nature" is apparent to the senses and requires no "belief," and does not denominate anything as "proper" or "improper."

No "faith" is required to observe that animals, including the human animal, by their nature, take what they need to eat.

[kinnath]

So Danny, do you like movies about Gladiators?

[Tncm]

"Nature" is apparent to the senses and requires no "belief," and does not denominate anything as "proper" or "improper."

No "faith" is required to observe that animals, including the human animal, by their nature, take what they need to eat.

My problem with you is that you think there's some clearly-defined morality present in the natural world when there isn't. Just admit that you're ethical system is arbitrary and we can move on.

Animals also eat their young if they're too weak to live, indiscriminately kill each other, and rape females if they can't find mates. I guess all of those things are moral, and the law should reflect this fact.

[Danny]

All I have said is that nature and morality are separate, and both are separate from law.

Law is not co-extensive with nature, nor is it co-extensive with morality. Law comes from politics, which is informed by nature in part, by morality in part, by individual self-interest in part, by collective self-interest in part.

None of this makes law or politics or "ethics" into something "arbitrary." Pragmatism, empiricism, and contextualization are not "arbitrary."

Taxation of property is coercive at some level. But property itself is coercive at some level. People have different fortunes and different outcomes -- in part due to forces under their control, and in part due to forces not under their control.

Everyone should get a say in politics, winners and losers alike. Winners want respect for their winnings. They want respect for their winnings even from the lowest of the losers. What do the losers get in exchange for respect for the winnings of the winners (a type of respect that nature does not dictate, but morality does)? Well, that's a pragmatic question. I'd say, losers get a floor under them of basic decency, winners get everything else.

The glibs on this site tend to want to give the losers something less than that. I guess that may meet their definition of "morality," insofar as those suffering from acute privation will "deserve" to suffer like that, as the glibs see it. But it won't be a "non-coercive" system in any sense. The coercion will merely be directed against the losers, because something is going to have to overcome their 'natural' propensity, as human animals, to take what they need to survive even after it has been put under lock-and-key in the name of "property". Glibs speak of "non-coercion" when all they really mean is "coercing only those who I think deserve to be coerced."

I ain't buying. Neither is 96% of the electorate. Maybe the glibs are right and the rest of the world is wrong, in theory? Who cares. Whatever their theories, it's very unlikely that, in practice, their world would be much less ugly than what we are muddling through right now. The glibs tend to be as smug and self-rightious as anybody else you might find along the political spectrum. They haven't gotten any trust because they haven't earned any trust.

[kinnath]

The onlymost "moral" means is to say that we are free to pursue our own interests., and are only required to set aside, according to some pre-existing rule ("law") a reserve that protects whoever happens come up short from having to choose between stealing and starving.

[Danny]

Ipse, meet my friend dixit.

[Joedoe]

Fair enough. I can accept that you believe that theft is never justified, although I happen to disagree. I simply wish that people would ask the question "Is theft morally justified by this expenditure?" I suspect that for the majority of government programs, the answer would be 'no.'

[robc]

There is no need to ask that question if theft is never justified.

[Joedoe]

True, but I would venture that most people don't believe that theft is never justified.

[Tncm]

Which only shows that morality is not natural law. It may not be moral for the starving to steal bread, but it is natural. Indeed, refraining from stealing what you need to steal in order to avoid starvation would be utterly unnatural.

Ethical systems have been and always will be subjective. To say that some sort of objective morality can be extrapolated from reality is to give up rational discourse altogether. Ultimately ethics is a debate over which moral values are superior and which ethical system will best achieve these moral values.

For example, my highest moral value is human material wealth. Therefore I am a propertarian, because I view this as the best way to achieve human material wealth. If you didn't care about material possessions and instead cared about equality you'd be an egalitarian. I can try to convince you that human material wealth as an end will better enrich your life and the life of those around you, but in the end it comes down to opinion.

So, is law to be based on nature, or on morality?

This is an absurd dichotomy. Everything in existence is, by definition, natural. I suppose you could be defining it in the narrow sense of the trees and rocks in my backyard, but that would be even more ridiculous. So saying you want to base the law on nature is like saying you want to base the law on gravity. I can't even put into words how much this doesn't make sense to me.

I say nature. More precisely, we should use moral means to try to reach natural ends.

You're question-begging. What are "moral means" and what are "natural ends", and how did you come to reach this conclusion?

The most "moral" means is to say that we are free to pursue our own interests, and are only required to set aside, according to some pre-existing rule ("law") a reserve that protects whoever happens come up short from having to choose between stealing and starving.

Some animals eat the weakest members of their pack. Why isn't this the "natural" thing for humans to do? Why do we have a moral obligation to force everyone to care for the poor?

(Perhaps a system of being free to pursue our own interests will create such abundance that a reserve will not be necessary. Fine! We will test the result. If the reserve need not be tapped, it can be returned. Surely, no one can object to a precaution which can simply be undone when shown not to be necessary, eh?)

I can.

[joshua corning]

So, is law to be based on nature, or on morality?

Man is a wild animal living in the wild.

Morality is an invention of man, and man is an animal of nature so therefor any invention of man comes from nature.

Note: Morality is not truthfully an "invention" of man. It is more of a creation from the emigrant behavior of humankind...but "invention" works here for the main point.

[joshua corning]

emigrant behavior = emergent behavior

Damn spell check to hell!

[Danny]

Tncm would like it noted that he is a victim of coercion, because y'all can't see that it would be best to have "law" without "coercion."

Noted, Tncm, duly noted!

[Tncm]

Tncm would like it noted that he is a victim of coercion, because y'all can't see that it would be best to have "law" without "coercion."

Thanks for the rigorous response. Good to know we have such a great debater gracing the boards of Hit and Run.

[angus]

How can you have law without coercion? It doesn't seem possible.

[Danny]

I expect that, by "law without coercion," they mean state violence that is somehow legitimized by linkage to a "property right" is never coercion. Once you set up "property" tripwires, anybody who crosses a tripwire can be smashed in the skull with a crowbar, yet there is no coercion.

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

I have always been on the "taxation is theft" side because taxes are indeed collected under threat of force. However, videos such as this pose the question in a backwards manner. There is a common good and there does need to be a way to pay for it. Personally I would like my tax form to have boxes I could check to determine where my money goes. Courts? Sure. Roads? You betcha (though I would still prefer toll roads everywhere). Combat of infectious diseases? Sure. Just enough military to make sure no one invades us? Indeed. War on drugs? No. Wars of foreign aggression or bases in far flung lands? Nope. Corn subsidies? No and no to all subsidies. Food Stamps? Actually, yes. Probably the one thing keeping my house from being burgled given where I live.....

But this "utopia" where there is no state and no public services is never gonna happen because only, maybe, 10% of people could operate that way. There are places that come close. Everyone who has anything also has armed guards and high walls to protect themselves from the teeming horde of have-naughts who. It's an ugly ugly system. So I begrudgingly pay my taxes and I give a good deal to charity. Any libertarian or small government, anti-state idealist who does not give to charity is a hypocrite.

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

That latter "who" is superfluous...

[robc]

There is a common good and there does need to be a way to pay for it.

Video covered this. The one guy donated money. Problem solved.

[angus]

How do you hope to prevent people from using coercion upon others (this video is based on that implied "common good")?

Without the use of coercive threat it would seem an impossible task.

[Strider]

You were going OK (mostly) until the "food stamps" thing. Attempting to buy off the moochers with a little stuff only whets their appetite for even more stuff. Ultimately the only thing keeping them out of your house is your willingness to kill them with whatever weapon(s) you keep on hand.

[Jim]

Kind of sounds like Sally from CATO.

[Can'to]

The leader of the Republican Party and Speaker of the House John Boehner agreed on March 1, at the White House, at a critical moment in budget negotiation, with the premise of this cartoon: taxes are "stealing from the American people." Congratulations, I guess. Libertarians can hold themselves responsible, as I'm sure will historians, for the current impasse and breakdown in governance in Washington.

This got me thinking about your little cartoon. It seems to leave out a lot of important information. It never explains how the characters got their money/property in the first place, or how they agreed on who owns what. It depicts government thugs using violence to collect taxes, but doesn't mention the police and army protecting everyone's property, or how all that gets paid for. It describes taxes "redistributing" wealth to the needy, but not building and maintaining the infrastructure, schools, and other systems needed for markets and money-making. And it certainly doesn't mention that the characters sensibly voted, under agreed-upon democratic processes, to create social security insurance programs that benefit everyone when they, like poor Oliver, have a "run of bad luck." In fact, from this perspective---which more closely tracks American reality than this piece of propaganda---it seems it's the people who REFUSE to pay taxes who are the cheaters and thiefs.