Libertarianism: the Debate

Economics Political Theory
1

I found this site: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html . It is large and wordy critique of libertarianism. I both enjoyed the cognitive dissonace and reveled in the chance for a debate.

I emailed this to Mr. Huben:

I stumbled upon your site and found it a refreshing counter-point to my largely libertarian philosophy. I’m compelled to send you an email for this one quote, though there are many more I found poorly reasoned. To begin a series of (hopefully) intellectually stimulating dialogue here is my first “problem”:

*"*You are not coerced to accept US government services any more than you are coerced to rent or purchase a place to live."

Wrong: what happens if you stopping paying for government services? You are coerced by the gun. Renting or any other market action allows the actor to chose where he or she wants to live is a voluntary act. You don’t have to pay rent if you aren’t renting.

Thoughts?

Huben replied:

Has it occurred to you what happens when you stop paying for rent? You will be evicted at the point of a gun.

Why should government support freeloaders any more than private property owners should?

And actually, you can live in the US without paying for government taxes. We do not tax the poor, in part because they arguably do not benefit from government services and in part because it would excessively affect their liberty.

Let’s see if you can answer all three of these responses.

I responded:

Thanks for the response!

When an individual voluntarily creates a contract he/she is expected to follow through on the predetermined conditions. This is usually the nature of an economic exchange. When an individual is born, he or she is forced to enter a social contract that is backed by force. One is voluntary, the other is not.

I don’t see why government should “support freeloaders” at all.

Where can you live without paying taxes? (Sales, excise, property?)

As a side note, are you familiar with Robert Nozick’s work?

Hubin responds:

Thanks for the response!

When an individual voluntarily creates a contract he/she is expected to follow through on the predetermined conditions. This is usually the nature of an economic exchange. When an individual is born, he or she is forced to enter a social contract that is backed by force. One is voluntary, the other is not.

This is covered in my FAQ. "In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship. "

I don’t see why government should “support freeloaders” at all.

Then you think that government should not tolerate non-taxpayers in the US any more than a landlord should tolerate non-rent payers? Including expelling them from the premises?

Where can you live without paying taxes? (Sales, excise, property?)

This is also covered in my FAQ, #14.

As a side note, are you familiar with Robert Nozick’s work?

Yes. Are you familiar with Wolff’s book and the other criticisms of it?

I think his work is nothing but a sly way of making fallacious assumptions and illogical arguments and hoping the readers don’t notice.

I like this kind of discussion. Shall we making a game of taking apart his critique piece by piece, offering the Austrian view and engaging a very important debate: are our beliefs valid?

Jonathan

2

I wish the government would expel me for not paying taxes instead of jailing me.

3

The guy’s an evasive, rude jerk-off. He needs to show a) why a social contract generates any real legitimate claim b) failing that, that the government has some legitimate claim to “its” holdings like an appropriator. If he cannot, he has no argument. Unless he wants to seriously argue the government is a parent. But he’d again have to answer the challenges I posed. As for Nozick, there have been responses to his critics. He probably justifies government using a public goods type argument, which again is replete with questionable assumptions, to say the least.

-Jon

4

Doesn’t it make a difference that the U.S. government does not own the country? The landlord owns the property so it is obvious why he should be in the position to evict a tenant who refuses to pay rent. But why can the government legitimately force its citizens to pay taxes if the government does not own the country?

Additionally, if a citizen does not pay taxes, they will be thrown in jail for tax evasion. If a tenant does not pay his rent, he is thrown off the property. But why does it make sense for the government to lock citizens up and make them prisoners if they don’t pay taxes? Aren’t they spending tax revenue to fund the prisons? The whole system seems ridiculous. The government wastes tax money to keep citizens in the country because they aren’t paying taxes. If the government were actually in the position of a landlord, they would throw their citizens out of the country instead of arresting them. However, we know that the government does not own the country, so they cannot throw citizens out. These two cases are clearly incomparable.

But most importantly, Huben is blaming the victim. The landlord is victimized by tenants who don’t pay their rent - they are stealing from him. But why is it that the government is the victim if a citizen refuses to pay taxes? Huben’s statement that people can just leave the country if they don’t want to pay taxes is impractical; many people don’t have the resources to just get up and leave. But the more fundamental flaw in this argument is that he has not explained why Americans don’t have the right to live in this country without being forced to pay taxes. If a husband beats his wife, we don’t say that it’s her fault because she could move to a different house. Our response is to throw the husband in jail for violating this woman’s rights. Why shouldn’t it be the same in the case of the taxpayer?

5

Which kind of foils the “we need guvmint to protect the poor!” crap.

-Jon

6

I wonder if he would be comfortable with parents taking out loans on behalf of their children before they’re even born? Or perhaps signing them up for the army when they turn 18?

I don’t quite think he realises that even if my great great great great grandparents signed a “social contract” (which never actually happened, government always has been forced on the people by a minority) it wouldn’t be binding on me, to say it would is to advocate slavery. Which is funny because I remember him taking a cheap shot at libertarians opinions concerning the civil war.

In any case social contract theories beg the question as to why the government has the right to enforce and make said contract in that given area.

False analogy, if I order the food I make it explicit that I intend to pay, a contract needn’t be a signed piece that’s just proof that the contract has been made. However, simply living in lines defined as the USA does not give the state to the right tax me, especially as this analogy ignores the fact that all states have acquired land by force, and therefore don’t have a valid claim to it.

And he fails to mention how many times the US Government has violated the constitution, not that I care, but it simple invalidates the whole “social contract” bullshit.

I would carry on, but I really don’t feel like refuting the same tired nonsense by some foolish state apologist, the fact is even in the email he can’t even attempt at being polite.

7

This guy would like to think that the government owns territory like a home owner owns their home, or a property owner owns their land. So there are no home owners or land owners where governments are conserned, the government owns everything. I’d like to see what principle he uses to justify ownership over something, since he certainly can’t argue from a principle of homesteading.

8

We have probably all had these frustrating exchanges trying to defend libertarianism.

I think the crux of the matter is that these people do not reject coercion. Discussing the legitimacy of the state becomes trivial with a person who sees coercion as a morally valid means to an end.

9

What he’s arguing is that it ISN’T coercion for the state to make people pay taxes because they’re residing within the state’s boundary and the tax is a sort of rent.

10

I don’t mind discussing Huben’s “FAQ” and critiquing it, but I think you’re wasting your time arguing directly with him. His FAQ is pretty long, and covers a lot of ground, even if his reponses are less than satisfying. He’ll just keep referring you back to the FAQ.

11

Why should the government be considered the legitimate owner of the land that it rules? Most, if not all, governments are created by force in the first place, and use force to maintain their “ownership” of the land they rule.

We tax the poor through sales taxes, obviously. The fact that the poor can afford to buy less just means they pay less tax than people who can afford to buy more. The poor also pay property taxes, since the owner of rental property passes that cost on to the renters. The poor are also “taxed” when wealthier people and businesses are taxed, because those taxes reduce the ability of others to create more jobs and help the poor more through charity.

It is reasonable to assume that parents are excercising your rights on your behalf as guardians, but this is still assuming that government is valid and has rightful ownership of the property it exercises its power over. The mere fact that government is exercising a coercive monopoly power over the property should be enough to invalidate government’s “rightful ownership”, even if we ignore the origin of the government. A landlord has the right to evict you from their property, but not to imprison you or torture you, if you don’t pay the rent. The concept of citizenship is interesting, but doesn’t seem very relevant here.