Taxation Is Not Theft

By Andrew Bernal

(Scroll down for rebuttal.)

Is taxation theft? According to many libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and anarchists it is. This belief is said to be grounded firmly in the non-aggression principal (NAP), which states, in not so many words, that aggressing (threatening or initiating force) against someone’s life, liberty, or property is unwarranted, except when in response to an aggressive action committed by an individual party or a nation (i.e. murder, robbery, assault, etc.). Prior to delving into why taxation should not be considered a form of theft, let’s briefly examine the history of the NAP. The initial formulation of the NAP (or at least the first variant of what we now know as the NAP) was written by the 17th century philosopher John Locke (who some would regard as the father of liberalism and one of the founders of what would become libertarianism). Locke’s version of the NAP rests in his work titled The Second Treatise of Government. The excerpt from the second treatise that contained the, “original,” NAP went as follows,

“To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man. A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident, than that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection, unless the Lord and Master of them all, should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another, and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty…But though this be a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State of Licence, though Man in that State have an uncontrollable Liberty, to dispose of his Person or Possessions, yet he has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler use, than its bare Preservation calls for it. The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker… unless it be to do Justice on an Offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the Preservation of the Life, Liberty, Health, Limb or Goods of another,” (Locke, 1949).

The NAP’s current form is most accurately reflected by the renditions of Locke’s work done by 20th century philosophers Ayn Rand and Murry Rothbard. Rand’s rendition can be found in her 1964 book The Virtue of Selfishness. In Rand’s book, she pens an essay titled Man’s Rights and it is in this essay where her variant of the NAP resides. In Man’s Rights, Rand writes the following,

“If one wishes to advocate a free society — that is, Capitalism — one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principal of individual rights…”Rights,” are a moral concept — the concept provides the logical transition from the principals guiding an individual’s actions to the principals guiding his relationships with others – the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics…The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny…Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside of the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence… The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, on interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to action on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights…A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal—and men have legal protection against him… Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights,” (Rand, 2005).

While Rand approximated the current definition of the NAP, it was Rothbard who defined the NAP in its current form. In his essay War, Peace, and the State, Rothbard writes,

“…Let us construct a libertarian theory of war and peace. The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory,” (Rothbard, 2018).

A keen reader will notice that in no definition of the NAP is taxation mentioned, or at the very least it is not mentioned directly. This is because the topic of taxation has been a vexing issue of contention between libertarians (especially the more anarchical libertarians and the more orthodox libertarians). Of the three authors quoted above, only Rothbard directly claims that taxation is theft. In the same essay mentioned above, Rothbard emphatically states,

“The State…is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called “taxation”) is the keystone of State power,” (Rothbard, 2018).

Rothbard’s radical take on taxation is not shared by his contemporary ally, Rand. When discussing taxation, Rand somewhat admits that the idea of people contributing to the governmental till for common services is utopian. Rand says,

“In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance…The choice of a specific method of implementation [for a voluntary payment system for government services] is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions,” (Rand, 2005).

Even the founder of liberalism (the overarching philosophy that Rand’s own philosophy, objectivism, and Rothbard’s political philosophy, anarcho-capitalism, find their roots in) doesn’t condemn taxation. In fact, he supported taxation (as illustrated in the last sentence of the quote attributed to him given above) as long as the taxes were used in programs to help everyone.

While Rothbard’s sentiments on taxation are shared, unsurprisingly, by anarcho-capitalists and the like, Locke’s stance on taxation is widely accepted by liberals, conservatives, orthodox libertarians, and even many in the tribalistic masses known as the American republican and democrat parties. The reason why Locke’s view on taxation is so much more palatable than those given by Rothbard is because Rothbard’s claim assumes that without taxation the same governmental services will be funded by voluntary donations or will be replaced by a market-driven alternative. This means that military services, social welfare, infrastructure, public safety, and the like will all be funded through voluntary donations, or will have a private analog that will be implemented in a similar fashion and will serve the same purpose. While Rothbard’s hypothesis may prove to be true on a small scale, it should be noted that Marx’s ideal of a communist state functions properly on the right scale as well (namely, a small scale). To put it another way, the only way a true voluntary system would work is if everyone in a population had identical (or near identical) incentive structures. The only place where this is conceivable is on the scale of a small tribal population. In a population in the thousands (let alone the over 300 million living in the United States), the incentive structures become so independent and individualized that such voluntary service structures fall into complete chaos. For example, on a small scale (approximately 100 people) everyone can agree to certain policing methods and methods of defense/offense on neighboring groups. It follows that because everyone agrees to the methods, everyone (or, at least, a clear majority) agree to the means to those methods (financing, rules, etc.). Thus, everyone contributes to the system appropriately. In a large population, however, you may have no more than 10% of the population agreeing on policing, defense, or offense methods. Moreover, you may have no more than 5% of that population agreeing on the means to those methods. How then, can one realistically expect everyone to contribute to a shared voluntary system at a sustainable level, regardless of how well designed the system could be.

Beyond the plausibility of a voluntary, tax-free system of governance, the very claim that taxation is theft is philosophical non sequitur. All iterations of the NAP refer to force applied by one party on another to bereave the second party of life, liberty, or property. Such a depriving action is a zero-sum game, or an event where the loss of property, liberty, life, or utility is balanced equally by another’s gain of property, liberty, life, or utility. Taxation reduces monetary earning, but, in return, offers a service or good to the taxed party. It is true that the taxed party may not partake in the services or want the good, but the service or good is offered nevertheless. Furthermore, even if the taxed party does not partake in the goods or services, others in the taxed social group may partake. This allows for peaceful social cohesion among the masses, as everyone is taxed (albeit to varying degrees) and everyone benefits (either directly or indirectly) from the goods and services proved through the taxed funds. By not paying taxes, one threatens the stability of the social fabric. This threatening action (although rather an abstract threat) can be considered a violation of the NAP, a violation that warrants the use of force. Therefore, taxation is not a zero-sum game and cannot be an inherent violation of the NAP.

The claim that all forms of taxation are equivalent to thievery is analogous to the millennia old idea that charging interest is a form of thievery. In the case of the latter, the idea stems from a general ignorance of how economics works (specifically investment and re-investment). While very different economic processes, interest payments and taxation both share a common protection under the law. Namely, if you fail to pay back your interest, you will loose your property or be sent to jail. Therefore, under the misconstrued version of the NAP, interest payments are a form of aggression and should be banned. This stance against interest payments, however, is only held by the most extreme, and is oft disregarded as general ignorance. If interest payments are not seen as violations of the NAP, shouldn’t it follow that not all forms of taxation are violations of the NAP?

This is not to say that all forms of taxation are valid. Some types of taxation can be declared theft with some legitimacy. Taxes that are taken only from one group of people and given to another specific group of people is an example of a zero-sum game, and is therefore a violation of the NAP. Taxes that are gathered but are used for programs, services, goods that are not available to everyone, or programs that are not held accountable to the public as a whole (i.e. governmental intradepartmental programs), or those that used to oppress the public in lieu of judicial due process cause can also rightly be seen as violations of the NAP.

High tax rates, new taxes, and the like are not, in and of themselves, violations of the NAP. More often than not, these are more issues of fairness, optimization, and poorly-understood incentive structures than criminality on the part of the government. To quickly assume criminal intent by declaring the tax as a violent act (in this case theft) is, at best, reactionary and, at worst, insincere. Such proclamations do little to ameliorate the issue at hand (unfair taxing practices, high tax rates, economic inflation, etc). As mentioned before, this is not to say that all forms of taxation are absent of malfeasance or that they’re all innately well intentioned. They’re often clumsy, misguided, or the start of an ultimately futile endeavor. This means that all taxes should be carefully considered before implementation, and regularly revised post implementation. Those taxes that are malevolent in nature should be protested with the highest vigor and be disposed of promptly. To misconstrue the nature of taxes for an ideological end, however, will benefit no one and can only damage the ideology utilizing the misconstrued concept.

References

Locke, John, 1632-1704. (1948). The second treatise of civil government and A letter concerning toleration. Oxford :B. Blackwell.

Rand, A., & Branden, N. (2005). The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of egoism. New York: Signet Books.

Rothbard, M. (2018). War, Peace, and the State. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-state-waxes-fat-off-war/

Taxation Is Worse Than Theft

By Joram Roubique

It is very important when approaching a topic like taxation that the terminology we use is understood. Here are a few dictionary definitions of the word “tax.”

Dictionary.com:

a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

Merriam-Webster:

a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes

a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses

a heavy demand

Oxford English Dictionary:

A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

A strain or heavy demand.

Using these definitions, it is reasonable to expect that everyone, libertarian and communist alike, knows what the word “tax” means: a compulsory contribution to State revenue; a demand of money imposed by the State. This leaves little room for debate as to the meaning of what a tax is and what it represents. A tax is not a voluntary payment like rent or insurance, nor is it a penalty levied as a result of not meeting demands within voluntarily signed contracts (e.g., interest charges and late fees). There is no opt-out option or choice involved. Taxation is legal plunder and a modern form of tribute.

Let us look at the history of taxation as explained by Frank Chodorov (His article “Taxation Is Robbery” may be the best ever regarding the topic of taxation.):

“By way of preface, we might look to the origin of taxation, on the theory that beginnings shape ends, and there we find a mess of iniquity. A historical study of taxation leads inevitably to loot, tribute, ransom — the economic purposes of conquest. The barons who put up tollgates along the Rhine were tax-gatherers. So were the gangs who “protected,” for a forced fee, the caravans going to market. The Danes who regularly invited themselves into England, and remained as unwanted guests until paid off, called it Danegeld; for a long time that remained the basis of English property taxes. The conquering Romans introduced the idea that what they collected from subject peoples was merely just payment for maintaining “law and order.” For a long time the Norman conquerors collected catch-as-catch-can tribute from the English, but when by natural processes an amalgam of the two peoples resulted in a nation, the collections were regularized in custom and law and were called taxes. It took centuries to obliterate the idea that these exactions served but to keep a privileged class in comfort and to finance their internecine wars; in fact, that purpose was never denied or obscured until constitutionalism diffused political power. All that is long passed, unless we have the temerity to compare such ancient skulduggery with reparations, extraterritoriality, charges for maintaining armies of occupation, absconding with property, grabbing of natural resources, control of arteries of trade and other modern techniques of conquest. It may be argued that even if taxation had an unsavory beginning it could have straightened itself out and become a decent and useful citizen. So, we must apply ourselves to the theory and practices of taxation to prove that it is in fact the kind of thing above described.”

(As a side note, I will use the term “the State” to refer to involuntary government, or the monopoly of force, as opposed to the often confusing and generic term “government” which can be voluntary, decentralized and nonviolent in a free society.)

Bernal: “Prior to delving into why taxation should not be considered a form of theft, let’s briefly examine the history of the NAP… A keen reader will notice that in no definition of the NAP is taxation mentioned, or at the very least it is not mentioned directly.”

This type of argument is based on the absence of specific wording in order to infer conclusions about the interpretation of a passage. It is similar to how modern liberals and progressives often debate the issue of gun control. Given there is no mention of the technological advancement of weaponry in the Second Amendment, they believe it must be assumed that the amendment should be interpreted only to refer to muskets and cannons, adding that with no specific mention of an individual’s right to military-grade weaponry, the phrase “a well regulated militia” refers strictly to the military of the State. Not having an originalist view of the Constitution and having no understanding of the ethics of the Framers, this interpretation of the Second Amendment might be easily believed, but if we are to be honest about the ethics espoused by the ones who clamored to have a Bill of Rights injected into the Constitution, it is without a doubt that they intended for patriots, those who valued their country and liberty more than their government, to have the weaponry necessary to defend themselves from tyrants and their soldiers. In this same way, if we are to consider the ethics espoused by Rand and Locke, the need for “taxation” to be specifically mentioned is unnecessary given that it rests foundationally and historically on the initiation of force. The Bill of Rights must be held to a consistent originalist standard of ethics despite its authors being ignorant to changes in technology, and we must hold Rand and Locke to their standard of ethics and follow them to their logical conclusions.

In the case of John Locke and Ayn Rand, whom most free-market right-libertarians would consider to be intellectual giants, it is entirely possible that they did not follow their principles to their logical conclusions regarding taxation and statism and instead made exceptions for the State over the individual and his right to private property (this includes his money), failing to extend their principles universally. While neither of them may have outright endorsed government officials taking money at gunpoint, they may have seen any alternative as being a form of chaotic anarchy, the kind we see most often associated with groups like Antifa and other political activists and movements that endorse communism.

Locke states clearly in the quote above that “no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions,” yet when it comes to a person’s financial possessions, it would be both intellectually dishonest and inconsistent to divorce an individual’s finances from the rest of his possessions. Perhaps Locke, as all humans are, have been and will be, was a victim of his era. As with the ignorance of those intellects who preceded Issac Newton, living with gravity and likely having speculated about it but not yet being able to properly theorize it or understand it as Newton eventually did, so are those preceding Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, etc. They were ignorant, if not willingly so, to this particular principle: taxation is not only theft but also robbery and extortion. Not only does the State claim to have a right to an individual’s property, to take it against their will (theft) by force (robbery), the State uses fear and threats through legislation (extortion) to deter and punish an individual from keeping their own property for themselves; if the individual disobeys and chooses not to give in to the State’s demands, they are jailed, and if they are to resist arrest, they can be injured or killed for doing so.

As much as I admire Ayn Rand and value greatly the philosophy of objectivism, I find her worst arguments surround the topics of anarcho-capitalism and what rights are reserved for the State. The Randian concept of liberty roots itself in the idea that because every individual has the right to their own freedom to action unto their own judgement, for their own goals, by their own voluntary, uncoerced choice, a State must exist to have a monopoly of force in order to punish citizens who resort to physical force and the violation the rights of others. In the Randian ethic, the State exists only to remove that threat of violence from society and exact punishments for violating the rights of others. In the quote above, Rand admits that “a private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal—and men have legal protection against him.”

This principle must also be applied to government officials as they are, ultimately, each one an individual. Individual rights are inalienable. They are not subject to the State, let alone its officials. Being part of a collective and having a State-sanctioned title does not grant anyone legitimacy in an effort to claim special rights individuals do not themselves possess.

Compulsion and imposed demands are antithetical to libertarianism, whether coming from a single individual or a group of individuals. What right is there of the State to another person’s possessions? Neither an individual nor a group of individuals can give any other individual or group of individuals rights they do not themselves possess. I do not have the right to take money from my neighbor against their will in order to pay for them to have a security system, and my neighbor does not have the right to take money from me against my will to pay for me to have health insurance. My neighbors and I together, as an organized collective, still do not possess the right to take away someone else’s money against their will, even if the majority agreed to it by vote or public opinion with good intentions. Neither my neighbor nor I, both of whom have no right to take money against each others’ wills, can transmit this nonexistent right to a group of people or elected officials. Neither voting nor majority opinion grants the transformative, magical action of creating special rights.

Returning to Locke’s principles, he stated that “the only task of the government is the protection of private property” and considered the only legitimate government authority to be one derived from the consent of the governed and that a government’s “rights” could only be derived from individuals (or citizens) rather than mere birthright (through the divine right of kings). Arguably, the Lockean stance on the role of government and definition of taxation are completely different from the typical statist interpretations often applied to them today.

Many people who are proponents of taxation and social contract theory will say, “If you don’t like it, just leave. Your willingness to stay here is your consent.” This is a non sequitur. As someone with Cajun heritage, I can attest that the Cajun people have been here for much longer than the American Federal State has (By the time my grandfather attended public school, he could only speak Cajun French and his teachers would beat him for being unable to speak English. There are many stories like this for the older Cajun people. No one would say, “Just leave,” to American Indians unhappy with how their culture has been destroyed by a State that came long after they were here.). Also, even if someone were to attempt to leave the U.S. they would have to seek permission and may not be allowed to leave in the first place. The U.S. also has the world’s highest fee to renounce citizenship and not long ago increased this fee by 422%. Even if someone wanted to leave and begin a life somewhere else, it is up to the State to decide if they are allowed to go and how much they will be stolen from before it can happen. Telling someone, “Just leave if you don’t like it!” is akin to telling a slave on a plantation complaining about his beatings, “Just leave if you don’t like it!” It is not that simple. Staying put and working with what you have to avoid a worse beating is hardly consent. Social contract theory is both wholly inadequate and completely illegitimate.

As with many political theories, particularly the ones with the most truth attached, time permits us the ability to amend if not nearly perfect them. Libertarian stalwarts like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, etc. all built upon the ideas and principles of those who came before them and extended those ideas more universally in many cases. This is not to discredit Rand or Locke by any means. As Issac Newton put it, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

Bernal: “While Rothbard’s hypothesis may prove to be true on a small scale, it should be noted that Marx’s ideal of a communist state functions properly on the right scale as well (namely, a small scale).”

Unfortunately, Bernal poisons the well by comparing Murray Rothbard’s ideas about a free society being funded voluntarily with Marx’s ideas about a communist State and adds that the only way in which each of these ideas could possibly work is on a small scale with a small population of tribalist people holding nearly identical views. While this may be true in some respects, even on a small scale, communist States do not prosper. They are doomed to fail from the start due to a plethora of reasons but primarily due to a lack of fundamental understanding of economics and especially ethics. The free market prospers on all scales, large or small, because it is not predominated by coercion and central planning but allows for voluntary interactions between consenting adults, resulting in a spontaneous order, to dictate the direction of a given industry.

Bernal: “How then, can one realistically expect everyone to contribute to a shared voluntary system at a sustainable level, regardless of how well designed the system could be?”

I think in this regard, we will probably disagree on what constitutes “too big” or “too small,” let alone what it means “to contribute.” In America’s case, it is my view that it is completely ridiculous to expect a population of over 300 million people to be governed effectively by (let alone be willing to submit to) a small, corrupt city on the East Coast thousands of miles away from the vast majority of the population. Is $21 trillion in national debt, endless war and an ever-increasing proclivity for regulatory meddling in the economy sustainable? The reason the disgusting number of taxes and wars exist is due in large part to the size of a region dominated by a particular State and the imposition by that State to grow its powers and reach beyond anything the Founders, or even John Locke, would have ever imagined.

For example, Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most ardent defender of liberty among the Founders, opposed the idea of a standing army, a sentiment today that any average conservative (and even liberal) would consider to be unpatriotic and unAmerican. In 1789, Jefferson wrote:

There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.

Does there come a point in which a country’s size in population legitimately determines the authority granted to the State, whether it is to have standing armies or things like nationalized healthcare? Why not centralize all industries, including the healthcare, automobile, grocery, and oil industries rather than just law and order? As David Friedman puts it, if we do not trust the State to feed us or clothe us or control our healthcare, why should we trust it to provide for us law and order, the most essential part of a society’s process of organization?

Besides for fear and indoctrination, there is no reason we should put our faith in the central planning of a gigantic federal State, especially given the horrors it caused in the last century alone.

Bernal: “The claim that all forms of taxation are equivalent to thievery is analogous to the millennia old idea that charging interest is a form of thievery.”

The only people who make this claim are those oblivious to economics and consent. No libertarian concerned with ethics and economics would make this claim. Again, taxation is compulsory, while interest is charged once a contract is voluntarily signed or consented to and the customer is made aware of the implementation of interest. If an individual is not notified about interest being applied to his loan and it is retroactively applied without notice to the customer, that would be unethical. If he is accidentally or willingly ignorant to the inevitability of interest in what is plainly stated in a contract, that is stupidity.

Comparing taxation to interest is like comparing a prison to a hotel. If I am thrown into prison against my will for wanting to keep the money I worked for, I have no say in what room/floor I want, what food or beverages I want or who my roommates will be. If I voluntarily rent a hotel room and sign a contract, I agree to the extra costs that come along with staying longer, breaking furniture, ordering room service and making long distance phone calls.

All compulsory sex is rape. All compulsory labor is slavery. All compulsory monetary contribution to the State is theft. If there is no consent, there is no legitimate claim.

Bernal: “Taxation reduces monetary earning, but, in return, offers a service or good to the taxed party. It is true that the taxed party may not partake in the services or want the good, but the service or good is offered nevertheless.”

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, should she be thankful and take pride that she now has a new “little miracle” to bring into the world? For what is more precious than a human baby? If taxation is just “as long as the taxes were used in programs to help everyone,” what if there was a population epidemic and the State decided to implement, rather than the Chinese one-child mandate, mandatory childbirth for every woman capable of having children? Who decides what programs are helpful to everyone? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Voters? The majority? Some people claim that the federal funding of Planned Parenthood is immoral while others claim it is helpful. Do those who are forced (without having first consented) to pay for things they find extremely unethical not have a valid complaint?

If the local mafia “offers” not to smash up my storefront because I pay them not to, is that a service? If a nicer mafia “offered” me store security or else I would have bricks mysteriously thrown through the windows, would this be a service? Submission due to threats and violence is not consent at all; it is obedience. Statism is a shakedown.

Also, taxation offers nothing but the guarantee of theft, robbery and extortion. The services offered to mitigate this barbarism is hardly a good trade. The State forces their services upon people. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, when it comes to welfare, the State takes lots of money from you quietly and gives a little of it back to you flamboyantly. It is the biggest waster of money in the world and contributes to less charity, less investment and less wealth creation than individuals with their own money do in a free market.

Most importantly, principled libertarianism rests primarily on private property rights, which are built upon the following axioms:

An individual owns himself , is his own private property, and his consent is required to have access to either his person or property.

, is his own private property, and his consent is required to have access to either his person or property. No individual has a right to anything that is acquired by coercing another individual into providing it (positive rights). For example, no one has the right to things like money, guns, education, healthcare or food because this would require the use of force against other individuals in order to provide these goods and services to the individuals demanding them.

For example, no one has the right to things like money, guns, education, healthcare or food because this would require the use of force against other individuals in order to provide these goods and services to the individuals demanding them. An individual has the right to not be coerced by another individual or group of individuals (negative rights). For example, everyone has the right to not be stolen from, to not be prevented from owning a firearm, to not be prevented from receiving education, to not be poisoned or murdered, to not be starved, etc.

For example, everyone has the right to not be stolen from, to not be prevented from owning a firearm, to not be prevented from receiving education, to not be poisoned or murdered, to not be starved, etc. Only individuals act and only individuals have rights. Rights unable to be possessed by an individual are impossible to be transferred to a group of individuals, no matter the attempted means of doing so. For example, no individual has the right to steal from another; therefore, no group of individuals has the right to steal from another group or individual. This is from where the libertarian mantra “taxation is theft” is derived.

Rights unable to be possessed by an individual are impossible to be transferred to a group of individuals, no matter the attempted means of doing so. For example, no individual has the right to steal from another; therefore, no group of individuals has the right to steal from another group or individual. This is from where the libertarian mantra “taxation is theft” is derived. Contracts are only valid if consented to, and no contract is valid if the person consenting to it is doing so under duress. Simply believing that a social contract exists or conceptualizing that one should exist for all to adhere to is not enough to grant it any serious consideration for legitimacy. According to the 19 th century abolitionist, lawyer, writer and libertarian philosopher Lysander Spooner, the U.S. Constitution, for example, has never been consented to except by the men who signed it, and it has no legal basis for anyone else who had not consented to it, not even the children of those who signed it. He concluded that the Constitution has either authorized or been completely inept to prevent the massive expansion of the Leviathan State.

Simply believing that a social contract exists or conceptualizing that one should exist for all to adhere to is not enough to grant it any serious consideration for legitimacy. According to the 19 century abolitionist, lawyer, writer and libertarian philosopher Lysander Spooner, the U.S. Constitution, for example, has never been consented to except by the men who signed it, and it has no legal basis for anyone else who had not consented to it, not even the children of those who signed it. He concluded that the Constitution has either authorized or been completely inept to prevent the massive expansion of the Leviathan State. It is impossible to claim moral agency for doing things under threat of imprisonment or death. The submission out of fear or ignorance of repercussion in not doing what is demanded removes any legitimate moral claim. The State prevents the individual from having the agency to be as moral or ethical as he may choose to be.

The taking of someone’s possessions, whether it be a body part, their financial earnings, private land, etc. against their will, even if a service or “good” is offered in exchange, is worse than theft; it is deliberately immoral. If the State needed to supply itself with vehicles, buildings, computers, and land would it be ethical for the State to take them by force if it was for a “good purpose?” Why would confiscating these assets be worse than confiscating what is used to purchase these assets?

Bernal: “By not paying taxes, one threatens the stability of the social fabric.”

Did the Founding Fathers not threaten the stability of the social fabric by revolting against the Crown? The Founders were rebellious tax evaders, smugglers and law-breakers. It was the patriots, radicals and those within the Sons of Liberty who pushed for and organized the secession of the Colonies and instigated the Revolutionary War. Though they agreed to have taxation, they wanted taxes to be very low and with representation. Indeed, it is argued that the taxes and regulations imposed by the king the Revolutionaries revolted against pales in comparison to the taxes and regulations imposed by the State today.

The only social fabric threatened by evading taxes is the one fabricated by a highly statist society. If people within a society heavily reliant on arranged marriages began to pursue marriages based on love and individual choice, this would threaten the stability of their social fabric. Women being granted agency would threaten the social fabric of many countries in the Middle-Easts. Social fabrics should be threatened within reason, especially if that fabric is woven with blood and bones.

Before taxes were stolen out of a person’s paychecks, the only taxes paid were through sales tax and tariffs (indirect taxes) and reserved for the “welfare of the Union” in order to limit taxation and allow the Federal government to operate according to the restrictions allotted within the Constitution rather than allowing Congress to decide for everyone what was beneficial to the nation’s general well-being. There was no leviathan welfare or warfare State like there is now. The fabric of society existed fine enough without the imposition of the State forcing people to pay more in taxes for services that primarily served the purpose of those who promised presents in exchange for votes.

Through the welfare and warfare State, the society has already be threatened and destabilized along with the American classical liberalism and libertarian ethic of self-reliance and individualism being undermined. Instead of relying more upon family and friends, the State is more often relied upon. This dependence on the State for an individual’s well-being has lead to threats to the individual, the family, the right to self-defense, property rights, free speech, racial cohesion, and peace. Paying taxes, or having your money ripped from you without your consent, has also led to endless wars, bombings and the ensuing devastation of societies overseas.

Each of the last several years, the Federal government has collected a record number of taxes with the national debt expanding upwards over $21 trillion and trillions more in unfunded liabilities. Is trusting the State and it running up an insurmountable debt that will be hoisted upon generations to come not a threat to the fabric of society?

I would rather live in a world with too much liberty than not enough, with less statism rather than too much of it. For many, the introduction of the Constitution in establishing a powerful centralized State threatened the social fabric at that time.

“Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire.” -The Anti-Federalist Papers

Bernal: This threatening action [not paying taxes] (although rather an abstract threat) can be considered a violation of the NAP, a violation that warrants the use of force. Therefore, taxation is not a zero-sum game and cannot be an inherent violation of the NAP.

This is not a libertarian position. This is a socialist position. Society does not define the individual; the individual defines the society. The only social order I am interested in is a libertarian one, à la Hans Hermann-Hoppe.

Using the logic from the above quoted statement, does refusing to fight in a war and dodging the draft violate the NAP? This would be a threat to the military’s authority, which would be a threat to social cohesion, and using the logic above, can be considered a threat to the NAP. In a society reliant on arranged marriages, people who pursue marriages individually could be considered violators of the NAP. In a society reliant on the subjugation of women, wanting to grant women agency could be considered violating of the NAP. Social fabrics are threatened all the time but do not necessitate violence from an all-powerful State.

Endorsing taxation and the funding of a corrupt, wasteful, murderous State (e.g., the American Empire) is the endorsement of the violation of the NAP on an infinitely larger scale than refusing to pay taxes ever could be.

Lysander’s Spooner compares a government to a highwayman:

The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution. It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. 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 road side, 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 travelers, 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 villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed.

Refusing to pay taxes and abandoning the State, in the long run, would help social cohesion because it would bring about a refocusing of societies on debate/persuasion, liberty-based ethics, family and individuality, and it would likely cause a fracturing of one over-sized nation into multiple nations, countries, regions, covenants, etc. I do not wish for this to happen overnight, as I would imagine the chaos to be extensive if a collapse of the State were to happen immediately, but in a peaceful, intellectual and gradual drifting away from statism as the primary means of fixing social problems and providing social services.

Bernal: “High tax rates, new taxes, and the like are not, in and of themselves, violations of the NAP.”

At what point are they considered violations of the NAP then? If the State takes 1/3 of our income currently and decides to take 1/2 of our income, is that a violation of the NAP? If the State decides to take 75% or even 99%, is that a violation of the NAP? Why would it ever be a violation if the majority that dictate what is an acceptable social fabric consider it to be beneficial to everyone? Are we to rely on mobs, bureaucrats and politicians to decide for us what is a violation or what percentage taken from us is too much?

I wager that the Founding Fathers would be absolutely ashamed to see the regression that has been woven through taxation alone since the Revolution, and I think they would be embarrassed to see the failure that has become of the American experiment due to the inevitability that comes from an ever-growing, cancerous federal government. Executive, legislative and judicial power has ballooned into communistic, fascistic levels.

Thus far, this rebuttal has established:

Definitionally, taxation is widely understood to be a compulsory contribution to State revenue; compulsion is a violation of the non-aggression principle

Ethically, no individual can give a right they do not and cannot possess to another individual or group of individuals, and this includes the expropriation of another’s property

An individual’s rights are not subject to the State or majority opinion

No contract is valid unless agreed to voluntarily without coercion

Historically, taxation has its origins in brutality exacted upon those subject to the barons, invaders, and magistrates or rulers of a given region

All existing theories are imperfect and are open to further improvement

In conclusion, taxation is worse than theft because the State violates an individual’s right to his property by expropriation (theft) through force (robbery) with fear and threats of imprisonment via legislation (extortion) to deter and punish him from keeping his own property for himself, only for the State to waste his tax dollars on funding political projects, endless and needless wars that have destroyed countries and societies, the overthrow and propping up of despotic regimes, the expansion of mass surveillance, dissemination of State propaganda, a failing school system, drug wars and corrupt bureaucracies.

One of the only ways to stop the madness is to resist statism: to quit putting our money into the machine, stop complying with it and start competing with it. But will the American people ever again have the courage it once had to resist the ballooning central control of their rulers, or will they continue to believe the Leviathan can be tamed? My hope is that we see a non-violent, intellectual revolution in which people begin to turn toward more peaceful, voluntary and free market approaches to solving social and global issues.

Like this: Like Loading...