Property Rights and the 'BUT YOU DROVE ON ROADS' Objection

Economics Political Theory
1

I was reading the recent Slate hit piece on Robert Nozick and libertarianism, and saw this common objection that your property isnt solely yours because you drive on roads or use some other government service to acquire it. Im not entirely familiar with the libertarian rebuttals, but I completely agree that being forced to use the service changes everything.

What I was struck by is how this is used to justify other taxes and government mandated services- and how irrelevent that all is. We pay seperate taxes for road maintenance and services, so how can that be used to justifiy forcing you to buy completely different services? It would be like a monopolist baker insisting I use his medical services because i bought bread from him.

I understand that roads education and other government services are partly responsible for developing my skills and bringing me together with people to utilize them. but so what? what does it matter if I already paid for it? If I buy capital from someone and use it to produce something else, its still entirely my property. ford and gm are not entitled to the fruits of my labor if i use their cars to drive to work. i already freakin paid them their fair share when i purchased the car.

Any thoughts on how to better handle this objection?

What are some good arguments against "if you don't like it, leave!" and...
Against Taxes
2

Soviet citizens took food from the government, therefore they all approved of communism, or aren’t allowed to disapprove of it…

3

I recently made a post regarding this topic to which nobody replied. My basic thesis was that this objection puts forward a malicious, perverted, and twisted idea of what government is. Government in any good sense of the term, if there is, occurs when people get together to accomplish a common goal. Does this mean, then, that people who benefit from that thing, such as a road, now owe the government something? No, not at all. The roads were built for the express purpose of benefitting everyone and anyone who uses it as some kind of sword over the head of everyone is a deranged individual indeed.

4

they all did approve of communism, except for the mentally ill of course :slight_smile:

also not all of them took food. see ukraine

5

Phaedros, it’s essentially the “Where would you be without me?!” argument. It’s used to deceive people into “voluntarily” going along with one’s demands.

6

Ukrainians were starved by Stalin, they didn’t refuse food.

The parable I use to rebut this argument is the random park developer. A developer drives through a neighborhood and sees an emtpy lot. He gets a brilliant idea… he’ll buy it and build a park on it! After he builds the park, everyone is so happy and the kids of the neighborhood play on the equipment all the time. Then, at the end of the year, the park developer goes door-to-door to collect the Park Tax. “After all,” he notes, “your children have been playing on it all this time… you have enjoyed the benefits of the park I built for you, do you think it doesn’t cost money to build a park for your neighborhood?” The people of the neighborhood are, naturally, baffled. It is true they benefitted from the park and the park is freely available to all. It is true that the developer had to spend money out of his own pocket to build the park. But, see, the developer never asked anybody if they wanted his park. He didn’t put up any signs or any indications that he would be charging for its use. And many of the singles living in the neighborhood note that they’ve never set foot in the park and they don’t have children, so why the hell is the developer trying to charge them for the use of other people?

Nobody asked the government to build roads. Nobody asked the government to do any of the things it does. To come back and tell us “oh, but we built this and we did that and somebody has to pay for it, money doesn’t grow on trees you know!” is just bullshit. Unfortunately, it also happens to be possibly the single most effective and difficult to refute arguments which the State deploys in its defense.

Clayton -

7

Me driving on roads doesn’t mean that I accept the situation I am put in. All it proves is that the roads are currently the most efficient way of transport. It doesn’t mean that there is not a better way to build roads nor does it mean that you would have volunteered to pay for the roads. It would be like a robber taking all your money and then saying, “I’ll buy you a meal so you don’t starve,” and that somehow accepting the meal implicity proves that you are being hypocritical in denouncing the robber. The government extorts you for your money so you can’t spend it on anything else, and then the usage of a service that they monopolized in the first place lends credence to the extortion?

8

If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he consenting to his enslavement?

9

What makes you think that such an assertion (it’s not really an argument) is so effective and difficult to refute?

10

I don’t see it being difficult to refute at all. Its only seems effective because the people spouting that type of thing never had any intention of reaching an understanding and are just trying to argue for its own sake.

11

You guys spend way too much time on the internet reading sympathetic texts and discussing with people who already agree with you. Just ask around with your statist friends, “Why do we have to pay taxes? I didn’t agree to pay taxes, I didn’t sign up for any of the ‘services’ the government ‘gives’ me, so why do I have to pay for something I don’t agree to?” and you will, without fail, hear something to the effect “Well, how did you drive here? The government paves the roads, enforces speed limits to make driving safe” etc. etc. etc. This is the random park developer fallacy. Just because the government has provided a good or service I didn’t ask them to and just because I’ve utilized the good or service they’ve provided without any notice that I thereby agree to pay them doesn’t mean I’ve agreed to be taxed. And the difficulty in refuting it doesn’t arise from its being very logical or true but from the scrambled brains of the average person off the street. People’s brains are short-circuited to vehemently dismiss logical, factual arguments whose conclusion is “therefore, it is immoral for the government to collect taxes” or “therefore, we don’t need government” or “therefore, government is - by virtue of what it is - evil.” It really doesn’t matter how you arrive at those conclusions - logic, facts, reason, self-evident observations… all are futile.

Clayton -

12

Well the issue is that a fraction of your tax dollars is going to something that is unchecked by competition. I would pay for schools, roads, etc. But the government crowds out competition. If you wanted to pay for a private school or a toll road, you are paying for the use of the private school and the toll road in addition to the public options. Thus it is more economic oftentimes to use the public services since they are using your money to fund it in the first place. There is no sense in paying for something twice.

13

@Clayton You sound pretty jaded, I think it may come off in your attitude when you talk to these people and that is what’s scrambling their brains. I do agree it can very possible to be stuck in a small bubble when talking to the those that sympathize with the same position, though.

I talk to people around me all the time and I’ve convinced a many lot the real situation behind the government and they sure do become interested, and this is New York City- liberal/democrat stronghold. If I tell someone “government is evil”- they will think I’m equating the average DMV worker or Post office worker with being evil, when its just someone who wanted to earn money someway and pay the bills. The system of government sure is evil to me, but that’s certainly the poor foot to start off on.

Whenever I became frustrated with someone for not understanding how superior my logic is compared to theirs- that’s when things don’t work out. I’d emphasize connecting emotionally with people over all else- this is what matters in connecting to the average person on the street. Walter block debates and listening to famous lecturers of libertarian philosphy is great for me personally as a learning tool- but I have a hard time convincing anyone to change their mind after watching any of them(if they even go so far as to watch them!).

If you’re going to think that people have scrambled brains, you’re certainly not going to treat them with any respect. Maybe you think you are but 100% guarantee it will show up subtley somehow in a way you don’t notice. I’m just speaking from my own experience and I had to learn it myself that being upset with people who don’t “get it” is sure-fire way to just get people even further away from your position. Love is the wine you must drink! Its very powerful if that’s your basis when you talk to anyone about subjects that can be very close to a person’s self-identification or view of reality.

14

Ohh, Im going to remember this one … :smiley:

15
16

OK, we’re getting really far afield here. Let me recap briefly:

Me: This is one of the most effective arguments of the State, most difficult to refute

You: Not difficult to refute, just use logic

Me: Logic is beside the point, people don’t want to believe they pay all those taxes for no good reason

You: But you should be nicer in the way you talk to people

The fact is, I simply don’t try to talk to people about this kind of stuff because I’ve found it’s an utter waste of time. I live in Oregon - perhaps it’s more of a leftist/statist stronghold than New York. People here do believe in fairies, they do, they do. Arguing that all the legitimate services which the State provides me whether I want it or not can be produced privately and that such production is more just and efficient is a waste of time.

If someone expresses a frustration with the status quo I will sometimes offer support. If I can weasel in something about how the government basically does whatever it likes because it is self-policing, I do. To me, that is the single most powerful argument against the State. I was blown away the first time I read Hoppe define the state as an “agent [that] must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent.” [Emphasis original] It’s stunning how simple the problem is. It can be stated in a single sentence. To correctly define the State is to discredit it.

But people are steeped in propaganda and I suspect that people generally have a dispositional tendency to accept the authority of a chief, in whatever form he may come.

I agree with everything you’ve said here and I certainly don’t talk to the person on the street the way I talk on this forum. A different audience requires different rhetoric. Nevertheless, I am pretty jaded about the ability of most people to absorb even a tiny fraction of the truth about the State. So, I generally don’t say anything on politics or, at most, restrict myself to piggy-backing on criticisms of the government made by others in a conversation.

Clayton -

17

That’s what I do, Clayton. I drop little hints here and there, but the opposition has completely walled off a portion of their brains to consider that what they’ve been told may after all be false. There’s too much investment in the system emotionally for these people who watch and agree with the Rachel Maddow / Sean Hannity types.

18

Block has written extensively on this, as well as using other government services, and even being employed by government:

(The letter he’s replying to is at the bottom)

work for government?

From: Walter Block
Sent: Thu 1/7/2010 10:26 PM
To: Eric Shear
Subject: RE: dilemma

Dear Eric:

My advice to you is to pursue your career, and forget about all the considerations you mention below. I used to teach at a state school, I use public roads, mail letters in the US post office, carry around fiat currency, deal with statist banks, and will gladly accept Social Security payments in a year or so. I don’t think libertarianism requires self abnegation. Of course, there are certain things you may not do as a libertarian: arrest people for victimless crimes as a policeman, bomb innocents abroad as a soldier, etc. (Even here things get a bit complicated, in my view.) But working for NASA is hardly in that league.

I have written a bit about this:

Block, Walter. 2002. “Accepting Government Subsidies,” Fraser Forum, February, p. 27; http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2002/02/section_13.html

Block, Walter. 2004. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I” Reason Papers, Vol. 27, Fall, pp. 117-133; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf

Block, Walter. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 85-109; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; (death penalty justified, net taxpayer, ruling class analysis p. 87)

Block, Walter. 2007. “Ron Paul and Matching Funds,” October 1; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html

Block, Walter. 2008. “Replies to readers” September 23; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block108.html (libertarians hypocrites for using public school?)

Block, Walter. 2009A. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for, and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1;http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/17-libertarian-punishment-theory-working-for-and-donating-to-the-state/

Block, Walter. 2009B. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism” in Hulsmann, Jorg Guido and Stephan Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 137-148; http://mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf

Block, Walter. Forthcoming A. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism” Journal of Libertarian Studies

Block, Walter. Forthcoming B. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies

Block, Walter. Unpublished. “Libertarianism, punishment and statism”

Block, Walter and Chris Arakaky. 2008. “Taking Government Money for Grad School?,” May 23; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block100.html

Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166 June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf

D’Amico, Dan and Walter Block. 2007. “A Legal and Economic Analysis of Graffiti” Humanomics Vol. 23, No.1, pp. 29-38; http://mises.org/journals/scholar/damico.pdf; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=24713

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics
College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504)864-7934
fax: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu

From: Eric Shear [mailto:renegade.omega@gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 1/7/2010 2:13 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: dilemma

Hello, my name is Eric.

I have been reading LewRockwell.com for 5 years now, especially your articles. I have always found them thoughtful and informative, so I thought I’d ask for your help with a dilemma that I find hard to resolve. I am a libertarian who abhors everything the US government has been doing, especially its overseas military adventures. However, I am an engineering student who is studying for a career in the aerospace sector. As you probably know, that sector is heavily dominated by the companies which have been doing business with the US government. It will be difficult to avoid them when the time comes for my first job out of college. There are still other companies, of course, but if they decide not to hire me, I will be forced to check the above-mentioned companies out. To make matters worse, it seems that the US dominates the world’s list of aerospace-related companies.

I have a longstanding interest in space exploration. I would rather design space probes than the next-generation bomber. In fact, I am participating in a NASA scholarship program related to that very thing. But if that is not possible once I graduate, will I have to hold my nose and get in bed with the organizations I hate most, or are there alternatives?

Thank you.

-Eric
PS: You can post this on LewRockwell.com. I’d like to know what other people think.

You're All A Bunch of HYPOCRITES
Ron Paul takes Social Security?
Against Taxes
David Gordon Layeth the Smackdown
A few questions
Using the Internet to proclaim being anti-tech
Any of you work in the public sector?
19

The gubbermint made nothing, owns no thing, has nothing,that was not either given by coercion or taken by force.

Mat 22:17

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

If you are a slave to the fiction,deliver your pound of flesh. Taxes are for social control. When the gubbermint can print what it needs,Taxes are the tool of keeping the masses subjugated. In the final analysis,it is all God’s.caesar put an image unto some prior existing material.

20

The roads are funded through force. They will probably reply with “WHY DON’t YOU MOVE?! hurr hurr” but that only proves the point that it is force.