Walter Block says that it is perfectly acceptable to accept government grants. Do you find this acceptable?Isn’t this exactly the same as accepting stolen money?
well, we can certainly allow somone to steal back as much as they have ever been charged in taxation and tarriffs. after that it may become suspect,
on the other hand if it is impossible to determine the rightfull owner of the ‘funds’ then better to have it with someone libertarian than someone who would honour and serve the state. i.e. im saying if you find a thiefs stash, but you dont know who to return it to. its better you should have it, than the theif have and enjoy it. but be prepared to return the goods if strong evidence of ownership becomes forthcomeing. with fungible goods like government funds, such evidence is almost impossible it would seem.
The money is going somewhere. Best to get some of it for yourself.
The government steals daily from you via income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, various excise taxes (e.g. alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gas tax, etc.), capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, and God only knows what other taxes. In addition to this, government extorts and steals from you through various regulations. You have every right to steal money back, ESPECIALLY if you use that money to fight the government.
I think that Walter Block is wrong. Given that government taxation is theft, and that punishment in a libertarian society should be retributive, one should only accept the sum equivalent to what you’ve been stolen. If you are given more, it is beneficiency of stolen money by the government, which is inherently immoral. This is the Rothbardian approach.
One time Ayn Rand was asked by a teenager if she (or he, I don’t remember) should accept a government scholarship. She answered yes, because that money was already stolen, so it was better to use it, because then another would be in her place accepting it.
ivanfoofoo, for there to be a crime, you would need to show the victim. then the criminal should have the opportunity to recompense the victim before you take things further.
ergo. take what you can from the theives, when people knock on your door claiming you have their money, ask for evidence. if the evidence is good hand it over. else keep it.
So that means that one should be considered criminal unless he shows the contrary? I thought it was the other way around.
no, in law, to show standing, there must at least be a crime, re a a victim, before it makes sense to accuse any one person of being a criminal. hence you are innocent until it is shown that you arent. showing that you arent innocent is done by providing evidence that you possess stolen goods.
The government possesses stolen goods. I still don’t get it.
yes, but here are a subset of those goods, now tell me who rightfully owns that subset?
I know how much money the government stole from me. That’s the only thing I want to know.
down to the last cent?, you may end up with cents more than you should have… think about it. good news isits not practically a problem. for the aforementioned reasons
Proportionality in retribution does not mean mathematical equality.
so take twice as much as you are owed, its only mathematically unequal.
i dont understand where you are coming from on this
Hmm… I don’t believe you do know how much they’ve taken from you. Consider increases in costs, barriers to entry, sales tax, sponsored monopolies and price hikes, artifical demand for colleges, health insurance regulation of deductables.. ad infinitum.
Well, it all depends on the situation given. Suppose that as a taxpayers you paid lots of taxes (read: you have been robbed) in the past. Should you be allowed to receive the government’s grants? Or suppose that you didn’t pay taxed but your parents have been robbed of money which could be otherwise given to you to cover you fees. Should you be allowed? Or let’s suppose that neither you nor your parents have paid taxed. However, a person X could be found and that person says that because s/he paid taxes, the equivalent of government’s grants could be given by s/he if s/he had not pay taxed. Should you be allowed?
I thought he only supports matching funds if you use it to fight against the state.
I’m not sure if I agree with Block, i’m very inclined to disagree. One of the main tenants of libertarianism, is that you don’t need the governments money. Even if you use the money to fight the state, you are still contradicting libertarian theory, which is that, Ends can be accomplished via the market.
But that’s not the government’s money. It was your in the firs place. Why should you not take this back?
Then you should support welfare. All those people on welfare are just getting their money or their fellow citizens money- back, no?