Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Taxation is theft?
Message-ID: <5031@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 07:52:25 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5031
Posted: Thu Feb  7 07:52:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 07:52:25 EST
References: <326@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 101

Over to Richard Carnes:

Any organisation with a hell of a lot of money has a hell of a lot of
power. Any organisation that gets to make all the rules has a hell of
a lot of power. When you look at a large, bureaucratic government you
see an organisation with both of these properties. There is no guarantee
that the government is going to be benevolent, either. The mechanism
called ``voting'' is supposed to keep the government in some way ``fair''
or ``benevolent'' or ``reflecting the will of the people''. In practice,
it doesn't work. The problem is that a lot of the power in a government
is held by civil servants who can't be voted out, and, even worse, that
in selecting a government you are faced with a package deal -- do you
vote for the government that is trying to increase the social welfare
programs that you seriously believe are contributing to *keeping people
poor* or do you vote for the government that is already building more
nuclear arms than you want to have around? Both governments are expensive
and do things that you hate...

The problem with all redistributive schemes is that you take things away
from one person and give them to another person - and it is the morality
of such taking away that needs to be examined. Even if it is decided that
the taking away is moral, though, it bodes well to not give the money
*to the government*, since the government already has a lot of power.

Now, the only times I can see where it is moral to take things away from
one person and give them to another is when the first person is not
entitled to them and the second person is. So we are back to: when is
somebody entitled to somebody else's things?

Well, the first case is where the first person has stolen the original
thing from the second. The second is where the two parties had a
contract whereby the first was supposed to give something to the second,
and then refused to do so. The third is where the first person has
infringed upon the rights of the second and can be ordered to pay
something in compensation.

Now, unless you can prove that the ``rich'' (hereby defined as the ones
you want to take something away from) in some way by their very existence
have either entered into a contract to provide for the ``poor'' (hereby
defined as the people you want to give the something to) or have, again
by their very existence, have infringed upon the rights of ``the poor'', then
you are out of luck in trying to use these arguments as justification for
taxation.

Some libertarians believe that by living in a certain area one, by one's
continued existence there, have agreed to support the minimal state. They
use this argument to say that a head tax to pay for the upkeep of the
government defence and judicial system is just. 

These arguments are not the ones that are usually used to justify most
of the ``taking from ``the rich'' to give to ``the poor''''. The argument that
is used is that ``the poor'', by being so badly off, *deserve* more and that
the force of this deserving is sufficient to take things away from ``the
rich''. A lot of people profess to believe this.

Now, I see nothing wrong with believing this. I suggest that all the people
who believe this should give to charities. I recognise, though, that there
are some people who do not believe this at all. From my perspective, they
are behaving less than ideally. I think that they are short on enlightenment.
This is a problem.

I do not think that the solution is to take their money away from them
because they are (in my opinion) wrong to not support the people who
I consider ``poor''. Just because they are wrong in this, does not give me the
right to force them to behave as I would behave.

Given this perspective, the notion of national taxation for redistribution
of wealth seems flawed. I propose an experiment. Make such payments
voluntary. The one of two things will happen. Either people will pay
them, or they will not. If most people pay them then there is no need
to worry about ``the poor'' -- they will be getting a lot of money, and,
since everybody (anybody disagree? maybe Martin Taylor, hmmm...) 
complains that the current programs are transferring money from the
middle class to the middle class and from ``the rich'' to ``the rich'' and from 
the middle class to the rich (and sometimes even ``the poor'' to ``the rich'')
it seems clear that ``the poor'' could do with substantially less money *if
they got all of it*.

The other thing that could happen is that people would not pay it. Assume
that they do not give money to private charities, but really and truly
decide that they want ``the poor'' to have no more money at their expense.
I think that this would be sad, but it would demonstrate that the notion
that the current government does ``the will of the people'' is wrong.
Instead, the government will be caught doing ``what some people think that
the people ought to be doing'' which is hardly the same thing.

How could this scheme fail? Well, if you tried in in a place where 
most people were poor, you could claim that the will of ``the people''
was identical to the will of ``the poor'' and that ``the rich'' 
are only a tiny and insignificant fraction. This does not seem to be
the case in North America. The other way that this scheme could fail is
if people all sent in no money, but then, after seeing the effects this
had on ``the poor'' regrettted their action. I think that with massive
belt-tightening they would be able to contribute to any of the numerous
organisations which would spring up to deal with the crisis, though.

So, Richard Carnes -- have I left any holes? When do you say that
taxation is justified?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura