Is there a better response to this argument besides the obvious one.
“Assumes that the state has legitimate claim over the land in the first place”.
Or perhaps another response all together which can also be used against such an argument?
Serfdom: Love it or leave it. It’s not really a choice, is it? Even if a serf could leave the land to which he had been attached, it would only be to be attached to the lands of some other lord. In any case, this line of thinking comes out of a failure to really appreciate the importance of human action. I think your time is best spent in expounding on the nature of human action and how vital the action of others is to our own prosperity. Moral arguments are the strongest if you already share some kind of common ground but everyone understands their own self-interest.
Clayton -
You can’t “leave it” unless you pay a hugh tax on your wealth to the state (at least in the USA).
I always remind people that the government is constituted by “We the People”. If they disagree, then I get them to admit that they don’t believe the government operates by consent. They have to pick their poison.
Bring up something they disagree with, then tell them to leave if they don’t like it?
“Taxation is theft, so why blame the victim? Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation “if you don’t like it you can leave”? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the same things to victims of physical and sexual assault?” ~ Chris Leithner, 2009
Thanks, Conza, that has great rhetorical effect. And I don’t mean that in a disparaging way. I mean it in a way that convinces people who would rather die than reason from point a to b to c.
Since their sensibilities are already fired up about the evil males and the innocent women, they should be able to see the comparison.
Reductios tend to work better when you use examples that they hold near and dear.
Great one, Conza.
I have not agreed to the rules put forward here. If you suggest I leave, I’ll refer you to the non-aggression principle which gives me the position to ask even a majority to leave as I have the intellecual and -objectively- moral high ground.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
I have not agreed to this system. I have agreed to another one. Violent and coercive forces seek to initiate violence and expropriation upon me and mine within our freely agreed upon system.
An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. So is a violence-initiating defense firm.
Driving me out with tyrrany is no different than a car-jacker excusing me from my car at gunpoint..
Not really. On my property you must indeed “love it or leave it”.
Is there a better response to this argument besides the obvious one.
“Assumes that the state has legitimate claim over the land in the first place”.
If you find such an argument, it might be used by communists against exploitation by capitalists.
Seriously, I think legitimacy is the only difference between “the state exploits people” and “capitalists exploit workers”.
The problem with the taxation is theft one is that you have to establish that taxation is theft first. Most people don’t see it that way. Establishing a chain of consent (or lack thereof) is usually necessary to first establish that taxation is unjust.
Wise words.
So how would you better address the “Love it or Leave it” argument?
The best argument against it is that it isn’t an argument, it’s just a phrase without any reasoning behind it.
“love it or leave it”
“Love your country or shut up and don’t try to change it or criticize it”
“Love your family at all times or disown your family”
It’s honestly pretty laughable, don’t try to improve the world in which you live, love it. The opposite of any democratic or rights based state of affairs.
“The problem with the taxation is theft one is that you have to establish that taxation is theft first. Most people don’t see it that way.”
That’s not actually a problem, given that the “love it or leave it” argument is only ever generally trotted out - after they have no response to it NOT being theft.
They accept it as theft but they think it has greater benefits for society etc.
I have never seen a love it or leave it argument that agrees that taxation is theft. The entire argument is based on consent, which is why they tell you to leave if you don’t like taxes. The “people who live here” have consented, and if you don’t, then leave.
Taxation as theft is only an interesting argument to libertarians. People who actually pay taxes, vote and believe in the nation state see it as a civic duty, not as the violent act it is.
^Of course, it’s the only way they could justify not having things the way they would like it as individuals: by seeing it as a duty. Something that is inevitable or inescapable (death and taxes). We just don’t jump through the same mental hoops.
I feel like the general population has put up with oppressive governments for thousands of years out of pure ignorance of it’s true nature: If you didn’t know you were a slave, would you think you were being oppressed? If the answer has been no through time, then there would be no reason for people to revolt. It’s just passed down through culture.
I think many statists cave in to equating taxation with theft. They just don’t see it as a problem. They look at it from a utilitarian viewpoint and think that funding public goods through theft is something that society just has to accept or else there won’t be any “public goods” like sewer systems, police, national defense, etc. If you could show them a theory that meets these demands (i.e., market anarchism), then they should change their viewpoint. But, on the other hand, you are dealing with the human animal, one that is adverse to change and subject to groupthink. They’ll dismiss the theory out of a hunch that they’ve never seen it work, so therefore it probably won’t work. And then they’ll vote for Romney or Obama.
One other point I think I should bring up, they disagree with the notion of libertarian aggression as well. They believe in entitlements beyond just not directly interfering with people’s property. They see it as impractical that essential services be left up to the volatility of the market and feel that having a state project means it is guaranteed.
“I have never seen a love it or leave it argument that agrees that taxation is theft.”
Ok, that’s great. But I have. Room full of minarchists. You’ve never heard - government is evil, but it is a necessary one?
“The entire argument is based on consent, which is why they tell you to leave if you don’t like taxes. The “people who live here” have consented, and if you don’t, then leave.”
They accept it as violence, if you do not pay - you go to jail. They’re not braindead. For them it is about consent, yes - they’ve consented , so they agree and put up with it. If you don’t “consent”, well then too bad - “leave”.
And yet - why should I be the one who has to leave?
“People who actually pay taxes, vote and believe in the nation state see it as a civic duty, not as the violent act it is.”
And you don’t think pointing out the inherent violence is going to change anything? (Even be it for fellow observers of the discussion?)
What I’ve never seen is anyone even be able to give a response to the proposed question, let alone turn the tables.