At the end of last week’s tax debate, my opponent and I received about 45 minutes of questions from audience members. Most of these attacked pro-liberty ideals, which also happen to be American ideals. As I was born in New Zealand and moved to the United States in adulthood, this placed me in a bizarre scenario: advocating liberty to Americans.

Here are seven of the questions that perhaps best represent the total. Almost all were directed at me, but my opponent, John Scott of the University of North Carolina, made a few remarks as well.

1. “Legitimate” taxation, and what about government education? (three minutes)

[audio:http://bit.ly/u7CHUI]

I didn’t actually use the phrase “taxation is alright for a legitimate cause,” but the question remains, and it is by no means an easy one. Many people—staunch libertarians or anarchists—say all taxation is theft and unacceptable. The minarchist or minimal-government libertarian position is that taxation is only warranted for defensive activities, the protection of life, liberty, and property. That equates to police, national defense, and a judicial system.

Activities such as these better fit the characterization of “protectorate,” rather than “government.” In other words, they are only in place to protect individual rights, rather than to redistribute wealth, provide entitlements, or manage individuals, as collectivists so desire. They are, however, the roles originally prescribed by the Declaration or Independence, the United States Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution.

Article 1, Section 1 of the North Carolina State Constitution:

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Both of these libertarian positions, minarchism and anarchism, rule out taxpayer-funded education. (Whether the same can be said for classical liberalism is not so clear.) For more on why private education is vastly superior, I recommend this speech given by Harry Browne at the Foundation for Economic Education, “The Greatest Mistake in American History: Letting Government Educate Our Children.” If only more people understood it like this lady, as she questions Robert Higgs:

Simple technological advancement may make government education redundant, and people will flee it (if they aren’t already). However, in addressing government education as it exists today, I suggested pushing for control as close to parents and the local community as possible, since that enhances parental choice and competition which provides an incentive to raise the quality of whatever education may be on offer.

2. Cigarette (sin) taxes, imposed health care costs, and property appropriation? (four minutes)

[audio:http://bit.ly/uktm9X]

This audience member expressed concern that the freedom to smoke would violate his freedom to breath clean air, and it would require him to pay for the health costs of those who made poor decisions. The opposing freedoms only generate a problem in public places, where there is no clear owner. On someone else’s private property, smoking does not impose a cost on you. When you happen to be on that person’s property, it is the owner’s decision as to whether he shall allow smoking to go ahead.

This raises an important point, though. In a free society, people are going to do things that we do not necessarily approve of, from eating unhealthily to jumping out of airplanes. A respect for freedom requires us to refrain from using the police to enforce busybody urges.

Regarding the cost to the medical system, this is a common but superficial argument. By imposing collectivist medicine on individuals, and forcing them to contribute through taxes, you do not gain authority over their lives. That’s using one imposition to justify another—as though two wrongs make a right.

Moral property acquisition, according to classical liberal and libertarian thought, occurs by first-occupancy and the mixing of one’s labour with the land or whatever the item may be. To then take that property would also take the person’s labour. Unfortunately, that is not how most land acquisition occurred, at least in so far as I can tell, so someone’s current moral claim to land may be weakened. The labour-mixing approach has vulnerabilities too, even when it does occur, so that is why I said property taxes would not be my first priority for elimination.

3. Occupational license fees and restrictions; what’s the problem? (three minutes)

[audio:http://bit.ly/rF30zg]

This one caught me by surprise, since I did not anticipate that anyone would want to enforce such laws. However, apparently some people do, and mandatory occupational licensing has exploded in the past 50 years.

Proponents appear to falsely assume that without governmental licensing, businesses would run amok—even though they must satisfy customers to keep them coming back. Such licensing requirements are blatant economic protectionism and an impediment to prosperity, particularly against the most vulnerable. The Institute for Justice does excellent work fighting these requirements, as explained below.

4. Where is there more freedom than in the United States? (one minute)

[audio:http://bit.ly/sdWfCR]

The rapid downward trend of the United States in terms of economic freedom ought to be a wake-up call. When the United Kingdom—the colonial power from whom the American founders gained independence—is now freer than the United States by at least one credible measure, we have problems. Here are two prominent rankings of economic freedom for you to consider:

Heritage Foundation:

1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. Australia 4. New Zealand 5. Switzerland 6. Canada 7. Ireland 8. Denmark 9. United States 10. Bahrain

Fraser Institute:

1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. New Zealand 4. Switzerland 5. Australia 6. Canada 7. Chile 8. United Kingdom 9. Mauritius 10. United States

5. Society goal of “common good” as justification for redistribution? (one minute)

[audio:http://bit.ly/vUcg94]

This word “society” came up plenty. However, it brings forth two underlying confusions. First, that we can categorize individuals into societies that equate to a nation state. Second, that these nation states have clear goals, such as a loosely defined “common good.” I can use myself as an example. Am I a member of the American society? What if I were here as a tourist? You soon see that the categorization breaks down. Additionally, even if a nation state has a nominal goal, that doesn’t mean that the individuals in the geographical location agree to it. Even though I might like for people here to promote the principles in the Declaration of Independence, evidently plenty of them are not on board.

The notion of “common good” brings forth its own problems for proponents of redistribution. It is loosely defined, if ever, and it plays into the hands of tyrants, since it allows an abstract idea to override the real moral claims of individuals.

6. Don’t we need tax-exempted loans to fund governmental organizations? (two minutes)

[audio:http://bit.ly/tcUlfe]

Sure, if you want government officials borrowing on your behalf and on behalf of future generations not here to defend themselves—which is the status quo. Additionally, these tax exemptions divert investment away from private borrowers, a distortion of the financial sector and a transfer of power to government officials.

7. Don’t all large organizations function with debt? Why not government? (two minutes)

[audio:http://bit.ly/rucHWW]

I failed to mention that governments, since they impose debt on behalf of others, are distinct from private organizations. If you want to go into debt, fine; but it’s your responsibility. The same cannot be said for government.

As I do note, though, the states are large organizations, and to a large degree they do operate without ongoing debt—and that includes North Carolina. We can and should impose the same budgetary restrictions on the federal government, as I’ve outlined before.