A libertarian technicality? Maybe. But regardless, here’s minarchism over anarchism.
Posted on August 26, 2010 at 5.09 pm
Q. You said you believe in minarchism. How do you reply to the claim that taxation is theft? And furthermore, since you believe in a free market, why would the market not be a good way to run things like the legal system and police forces? It works for everything else, what makes law or police any different? — logicallypositive, from tumblr.
A. Well, I’m not fond of taxation. The income tax is certainly abusive and unnecessary. Indeed, I’d prefer to have the government funded in as noncoercive a manner as possible. I kind of like Ron Paul’s idea of a low, uniform import tariff — or, even better, lottery (with private lotteries legalized, of course). That’s basically voluntary taxation, which I find completely acceptable.
That said, I’m not an anarchist and do want a nightwatchman state for the protection of person and property. I’m inclined to think persons smarter than I could figure out a way to fund it without taxation, but, assuming they were fairly applied (not progressive or regressive, for instance) I’m not against the very low taxes which would be required to support such a minimal regime.
Note: Taxation for unjust purposes (aggressive war, corporate or social welfare, etc.) is indeed theft. But I assume we agree on that point.
In answer to the second half of your inquiry, what makes it different is that my right to the nonviolation of my person and property has nothing to do with how much of that property I have.
This isn’t the case with the sorts of things the market handles; I have no right to health care regardless of my wealth, but I do have a right to not be assaulted no matter how poor I am. For instance, just because I can’t afford to hire a judge and lawyer, you still shouldn’t be able beat me up or burn my house down. But the fact that I can’t afford to hire a doctor very much means he’s not obligated to treat me.
Now, given the choice between our current government and the anarcho-capitalism you describe, I’d certainly pick the latter. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s the best option.
Those interested in this topic should read the essay posted at universalsocialprinciples.com. It explains the only way logically possible to set up a governmental structure which both protects and preserves political freedom. Neither liberals, conservatives nor libertarians have a firm grasp of the logical social principles that must be adhered to in forming proper governmental structure. Once all three groups grasp those correct principles we will quickly establish a politically free and peaceful world on this planet.
Hi!
First off, you say that taxation is theft when it is used to fund war or corporate welfare. I disagree on this distinction. If I steal money from you, does my use for that money change the nature of my act of theft? It’s your property, which I have taken without permission… and in the same way your watchmen state would steal property from free individuals in order to dominate the defence market. It appears to be that all forms of taxation, however meagre and Ron Paul endorsed, are undeniably acts of aggression against the individual. I do not believe this is something a libertarian should properly endorse. How can a state even be said to be “for the protection of person and property” when it’s inherent nature violates property rights and threatens free people?
Even if you came up with a method of funding a state without taxation, you’re still oppressing individuals who would like to enter the defence market by insisting on a violent monopoly on defence services, correct? I mean that’s the definition of the state, a monopoly on violence within a given area. What about the right of people to buy and sell services in that particular market? Why force consumers to settle for the socialised service when we know the free market always provides superior results?
Obviously you have a right to non-violation… you also have a right to purchase health services, or feed yourself. Why is it that only the defence service should be socialised, when all are equally necessary to human survival? You say you have “no right to health care”, meaning you have no right to violently steal that service from others: why is this different in the case of defence services? It seems like an arbitrary distinction.
Loved the post, looking forward to your response. Cheers!
Hey, thanks for the comment. I also got your second tumblr question. I’ll get around to answering them, but it may be a few days XD
No rush mate, I’ll keep an eye out.