Are taxes theft (and so what if they are)

Hello all, I have a question for all the Anarcho-Capitalists here about taxes.

Now, I’ve heard AnCaps say that taxation is theft, the taking of a person’s property by force. According to people like Murray Rothbard, the Government is a gang of thugs who extort money from people under the banner of “helping them”.

Well, it’s true. Taxation is theft. Taxation is robbery. Taxation is the taking of another person’s property without their consent. But is that ALWAYS wrong? Consider welfare. Consider food stamps. Consider medicare and medicaid. Many people currently LIVE off these programs because they cannot support themselves. Is it really that wrong to highly tax people who are making 6-7 figures a year because it’s “theft”? Those rich people are not starving, THEY’RE not struggling to survive, yet somehow this redistribution of wealth is considered such an absolute evil by AnCaps and Libertarians.

Why is theft ALWAYS wrong?

Anyways, just wanted to pose the question to all the Misesians out there, it was brought up to me by a Keynesian I met over the internet.

Well, seeing as theft is the unjustified taking of someone else’s property, I would think by definition theft is wrong.

What do you mean by “wrong”?

What is “unjustified”? I could certainly say that helping the poor and elderly justifies taxes.

Is that what taxes do? Help the poor and elderly?

This question is posed to Anarcho-Capitalists who say that taxes are “wrong”. I’d like to keep it on that track.

In this system somewhat.

Is that what taxes do? Help the poor and elderly?

In this system, somewhat.

(Sorry for my sloppy handling of the forum box.)

Taxation is inefficient, and involuntary – it has bad consequences and violates what many libertarians believe to be natural rights. By any libertarian ethical standard, its “wrong.” I don’t know what more you want. It seems like you’re saying “sure, but whats wrong with bad consequences and rights violations?”

Are you familiar with the phrases “in the right” and “in the wrong”? Perhaps you have heard of “right of way”? If I am traveling and have right of way, and we get into an accident, I am in the right. You would be in the wrong. If I have a right to my watch, and you take it from me without consent, then you are in the wrong.

This is what justice is all about - who is in the right. If, in the course of robbing me, I hit the robber, then I would be in the right (of course, I am only allowed to use so much violence before I would be in the wrong). My actions would be justified - I was in the right. If I were to kill the robber, and it turned out I used excessive force, then my actions would be unjustified - I was in the wrong.

You could certainly say that stealing an apple from a fruit stand in order to give it to some starving child is morally good. I would not nessarily agree with that statement. But to say that it is justified is to misunderstand what justice is. By stealing the apple, you have taken something to which you had no legitimate claim - you were in the wrong. The fruit vendor has the legitimate claim. Stealing the apple would be an unjustified action, even if your end goal is meant to be honorable. But here’s the thing, the fruit vendor has a tort against you now. You stole from him, and now he has a dispute with you.

If you want to say that so long as your goal is honorable, then your actions are justified, we have a phrase for that: “The ends justify the means”. I don’t believe that this is a just philosophy to hold.

I suggest that you read these two posts by forum member Clayton:

What Law Is

A Praxeological Account of Law

While those two posts do not directly address your question, they will provide you with a framework for law and dispute resolution, which is very relevant to theft.

  • Consider welfare. Consider food stamps.

Yes, lets break this down:

Bob is desperately poor. His family is freezing in an apartment he can’t afford to heat, let alone keep up with the rent. They face hunger every day, and have no money for even basic medical needs. Bob needs money to pay the bills, and food to keep his family fed, or they are in grave danger of dying from any number of situations.

Mary is a rich owner of a furniture manufacturing business. She has ample money to meet most desires of her family, and lives in a huge house on several acres of land. Let us assume for reasons of moral simplicity that Mary has earned her money more or less justly, and doesn’t exploit her workers.

Bob, seeing Mary’s abundant resources, approaches Mary and asks for money to pay for his aforementioned problems. Mary, for reasons of her own, declines to help Bob. Maybe she’s already given what she thinkis is “enough” to local charities, maybe she’s just an stingy miser, maybe she’s afraid if she helps Bob directly then many other poor and destitute would come to her door. Her reasons shouldn’t nessecarily factor into whether what occurs next is theft or not.

Bob, distressed that Mary turned him down, and ever more desperate to save himself and his family, sends Mary a letter stating that if she doesn’t provide him with the requested funds, then he’ll have to take “drastic measures”. Mary, shrugging it off, ignores the letter. Finally, Bob is at the end of his rope. Despite his better judgement, Bob gets a bat and a few of his friends together and break into Mary’s home during the evening. They approach her, and demand the cash. If she refuses, they’ll kidnap her. They don’t intend to harm her, but if she resists they can’t promise anything. Mary, under threat of her freedom and life, goes to her home safe and gives Bob $10,000 in cash. This will help him just cover his bills for the next year. They depart peacefully.

The next year Mary recieves a letter from Bob. He’s been trying to get back on his feet, but times are tough and despite his best, honest efforts, the money from last year is gone and his family is on the edge of starvation again. He requests another $10,000, and says that if it will not received, then he’ll have to return with his friends again. He suggests that it would be easier this year if Mary just pays the money up front.

Is this theft? Yes, pretty clearly. Is it wrong? Well, not as wrong as some guy making a living stealing cars. But in the grand scheme of things, yes, this is still a sort of injustice. In fact, it might be LESS wrong if Bob simply broke into Mary’s house and stole the money. Instead, he now threatens her with imprisonment, and has in essence taken control of a portion of her life.


Now consider that it’s not just Bob doing it. but the local chief of police. He’s still giving the bulk of the money to Bob, but he’s keeping a little for himself. And Mary’s getting pretty pissed. She’s talking about hiring a body guard. To placate her, the chief tells her that he’ll go over to the shop of Bob’s friend Steve, and give him a hard time. Steve has a small chair-making shop. His chairs, although the same price as the one’s from Mary’s factory, are of much higher quality because they are hand-crafted. He’s been cutting into her business for a long time, but she was trying to play the game fair and square. Now she’s getting ticked by Bob’s annual fees, and decides that she needs to make it back somewhere. So she agrees to play nice with the chief of police, if the chief agrees to go fine Steve for health & safety violations. The chief then keeps the fines, and Steve is forced to raise his prices, to the benefit of Mary’s business.

Now we have a society where, instead of mutual, voluntary co-operation, everyone is trying to get ahead by sticking their hand into the other guy’s pocket. Some say this is “nessecary” for modern society to exist. And to an extent, that may or may not be true. But the problem comes from when it ceases to be seen as an evil, and is isntead twisted into a virtue or “right”.

Bob stealing bread to feed his family may be wrong, but it can be forgiven. But if Bob ceases to see that what he is doing is wrong, and instead sees that bread as his right, then you’re set up for tragedy.

Actually, I sort of am. Where do you derive these “rights”? How did you reach the conclusion that people have these “rights”? What if I’m not a libertarian, why should I believe in these “rights”?

True. If we have a society wherein everyone is held to the exact same standards as the Government complete chaos would transpire (which is why this idea of rights must be instilled in the masses).

What if I prevent that starving child from dying with that fruit? All I’ve took is ONE fruit from a stand of dozens and dozens of fruit, and I’ve saved a life.

Could you provide a direct quote of an AnCap using “wrong” in this context? (A hyperlink would suffice.)

Is there any particular reason why you have ignored the rest of my post? Buy the fruit yourself and give it to the child. Is there any particular reason why these situations need to be resolved with theft?

If it is good my must it be coerced?

You can’t “buy” a millionare’s money.

Perhaps because the possessor of that money is too greedy to give it away?