Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: More on justice
Message-ID: <1909@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:47:42 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1909
Posted: Sun Jan 20 00:47:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 05:32:55 EST
Lines: 123
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-28300:inmet:7800276:000:5196
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan 18 15:01:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / bunker!garys /  5:19 pm  Jan 17, 1985
>> [Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Libertarian party;
>> nor may any statements I make be construed to represent
>> the viewpoints of *anyone* besides myself.]
>> 
>> >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
>> >
>> >From a recent posting by a libertarian:
>> >
>> >> Taxation is theft....
>
>> >Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric.
>
>Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
>
>Tax (vt): 1. To assess ordetermine judicially the amount of
>(costs in a court action).  2.  To levy a tax on.  3. (obs)
>To enter (a name) in a list.  4. Charge, accuse, censure.
>5: To make onerous and rigorous demands upon.
>
>Tax (n): 1a. A charge usually of money imposed by authority
>upon persons or property for public purposes.  1b.  a sum
>levied on members of an organization to defray expenses.
>2.  A heavy demand.
>
>[key phrase is "by authority"]
>
>Taxation (n): 1.  The action of taxing; esp. the imposition
>of taxes.  2. revenue obtained from taxes.  3. the amount
>assessed as a tax.
>
>Theft (n): 1a. The act of stealing; specif, the felonious taking
>and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the
>rightful owner of it. 1b. an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement
>or burglary) of property.  2 (obs) something stolen.  3 a stolen
>base in baseball.
>
>I think that "depriving the rightful owner" is synonomous with
>"without authority."

>Therefore, taxation is not theft; 

That's interesting -- My dictionary "Webster's New World"
defines "steal" as: "To take or appropriate (another's property, ideas,
etc.) without permission,  dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret
or surreptitious manner."  Note that lack of permission is all that
is required (or dishonesty, or unlawfullness).  

To say that
taxation is not theft on dictionary grounds would be quite risky.
Your implication is that taxation is not theft because the 
government hast the right to define ("by authority") what portion of 
one's salary is not rightfully owned by its earner.

My own dictionary leaves the question of "authority" vs.  "right"
open: "Authority:... the power or right to give commands, enforce
obedience, take action, or make final decisions".  Note that "power" and
"right" are distinguished.

> ... the question remains, however,
>is what the government does taxation or theft?  I.e., does the
>government have the authority to levy taxes?  (Answers of the
>form, "no, because taxation IS theft" are question-begging.)
>Does the government have any responsibilities which require
>funding to discharge?  Or, are all of the responsibilities of
>the government contingent on someone's willingness and ability
>to finance it?

Oho!  Let's be clear on ends and means here.  To say that the 
government has the "responsibility" to do something doesn't mean that
any means whatsoever are permissible in pursuit of that goal.  If, for
example, the government had the responsibility to keep the streets
safe, that would not render permissible the torture and interrogation
of street gang-members.  The CONVENIENCE of the government is not 
the basis for good law -- thus your question: "Does the government
have any responsibilities which require funding to discharge" is MILES
away from being the same as "Does the government have the right to
tax people".

>
>> there is a very simple reason why taxation is
>> immoral: it is the enforced payment of a non-contractual pseudo-
>> obligation.  The key word is *non-contractual*.  Taxpayers never
>> (at least in this country) entered into an agreement with the
>> government whereby the government would provide each of them with
>> well-defined services for well-defined costs.  (And even if one
>> set of taxpayers did enter into such an agreement, that would be
>> ethically binding neither on their descenants nor on their
>> contemporaries.)
>
>Then, neither should the government's monopoly on the use of
>force be binding on those same descendants.

IT WAS NOT! That's why states had their own police forces despite having
a central government.  That's why the FBI can use force inside state borders.
That's why the right to bear arms was in the constitution.

If you disagree, please find in the constitution the place where the 
US government claims a monopoly of force.

>
>> > And thereby hangs another tale....
>
>...which I agree is an absurd scenario.
>
>> > he
>> >engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook.
>> 
>> As I understand libertarian principles, such as society would not
>> even have lawyers -- the legal system would not be sufficiently
>> complex to require such specialists to help people defend their
>> rights.
>
>Oh come now.  No lawyers?  HA!  I keep hearing libertarians
>say that in the case of a dispute, one can always sue.  Who's
>going to handle these suits?

That sort of depends -- my own belief is that there would wind up
being professional negotiators, lawyers if you like, but that
not all judgement agencies would permit their use.  In any case
lawyers in a libertarian society would have no special privileges,
they'd need none (perhaps this is what the poster meant?).