What is immoral about taxation?

Economics Economics Questions
41

Yes, both Mises and Hayek are definitely classical liberals. Hoppe - who is anti-state and (therefore) anti-tax - has criticized classical liberalism for its inconsistent stance on government of which the problem of taxes is a sub-species. I don’t agree with all of Hoppe’s reasons (in particular, I reject Argumentation Ethics as a sound argument) but I agree with his gist. The classical liberals made the romantic mistake of believing that the sovereign is capable of self-restraint if assisted by the intellectual class to help clearly delineate the bounds of acceptable and unacceptable government policies (of which a “constitution” is supposed to be the central core).

The problem with even one penny of taxation is the camel’s nose in the tent. Once you’ve accepted taxation as valid, in principle, then the argument is not over whether to tax or not but merely how much. Read this article by David Friedman for an explanation of how the game-theoretic concept of “Schelling points” can be applied to the economic problem of property rights. I see taxation as a universal violation of the “Schelling point” of the private property of all subjects of the Prince.

Clayton -

42

Doesn’t Hoppe argue that monarchs are capable of self-restraint?

43

No. They vary in character by accident of birth.

44

No. I believe he argues that when compared to democratically elected officials, monarchs are more likely to exercise self-restraint, since they and their heirs actually own their “property” (kingdom, domain), whereas democratic politicians are merely caretakers of the machinery of the state. As such, each democratic politician will have no interest in maintaining the capital value of the property over which he is wielding power, and each will attempt to “get his” during his reign, since whatever he does not exploit will simply be taken by somebody else. Tragedy of the commons, really.

45

You are correct. Having second thoughts about using the term moral.

stealing is never moral. Under no circumstances. Even though I would probably do the same as you in an extreme case (I mean, I see your point), that doesn’t justify the crime of stealing at all. It just show, that humans are after all, humans, with compassion and love for the people who suffer. And that humans are capable to forgive other humans such crimes and even much more extreme things I will not mention here. But anyway, I’m moral objectivist.

46

I don’t think “maximum overall morality” can come about through force. Nor can it come about through dependence. I think most would agree that, in this picture, Bill Gates is not very kind if he won’t give up less than one-billionth of his wealth to feed a starving child (although it seems quite unusual that the state would have Bill Gates on speed dial for whenever a starving child situation were to come up.) But is that what’s happening? Perhaps Bill believes that his money won’t go to the child. Perhaps he doesn’t want to give the child’s parents incentive to not earn income to support their child’s well-being. Perhaps he’d rather sign a contract insuring that the child would only get fed out of his pocket for a certain duration of time or under certain conditions, such as requiring the parents to maintain support for their child. Perhaps he doesn’t want to encourage more parents to keep their children malnourished in order to save money and join in on the Bill Gates guaranteed welfare system. Or perhaps he wants to disincentivize potential future parents from having kids they cannot take care of. Under this last situation, the child would die . . . assuming the parents do not have $10 and the other 7 billion people in the world won’t help. But perhaps parents would be more wary in regards to having children they cannot afford, and many potential similar situations could be avoided.

47

I don’t think we can call on anyone to feed a starving child. It all sounds too childish. I’m sure Gates knows what’s best for his money, after all it is his.

48

Government is illegimate because a contract is a voluntary agreement between parties. Obviously government is not voluntary so it is illegimate and for it to take money from us is THEFT!

49
50

This is really more of an philosphical/ethical question than an economic one, but…

The argument for taxation being immoral generall runs like this:

P1: If it is wrong for any person or group of people to take somebody elses money against their will, then it is wrong for the state(which is really just a group of people) to take somebody elses money against their will via taxes.

P2: It is wrong for any person or group of people to take somebody elses money against their will

C: It is wrong for the state to take somebody elses money against their will via taxes.

The typical response is to say that taxes are somehow necessary. Many minarchists will even acknowldge that taxiation is immoral, but necessary for ______(fill in the blank). Then it becomes a question of whether it really is necessary. If even the most basic functions of government can be performed by voulntary exchange, then taxiation is indeed inherently immoral.

If the state has to coerce bill gates into handing over $10 to feed a starving child is this still immoral?

Is taking Bill Gates’ money against his will the only way to ensure the child eats? If it is, then the state taking the $10 might be morally justifiable. However, I have serious doubts thats actually the case…

in this case, is having a morally absolutist rather than relativist view a prerequisite for being an austrian?

Out of curosity, what do you mean by ‘moral absolutism’ vs. ‘moral relativism.’ Very few moral abolutists would say that ‘a given action is always wrong regardless of circumstances.’ Rather most take the position that ‘in a given situation, a given action is always wrong(or right)’

The most well known example is that its wrong to lie, unless you live in Natzi Germany and are talking a Gestapo officer about whether or not you have Jews hiding in your attic.

51

Let’s say you finish work and just got paid for the week. You’re leaving the bank from cashing your check, and someone walks up and takes some of your money, then walks away. While he’s leaving, he says, “Don’t worry, it’s going to a good cause.”

Question: do you feel all warm and tingly inside, trusting that the person who took some of the money you earned will use it for a good cause, or do you feel differently? Why?

Furthermore, let’s say you resist the man taking some of your money, and he pulls out handcuffs and arrests you, thus taking the money he would have initially taken and taking you to jail.

Question: do you feel all warm and tingly inside, trusting that the person who took some of the money you earned will use it for a good cause, or do you feel differently? Why?

Let’s say the man coming up and taking your money had a ski mask on and a gun. You can tell he’s very thin and he’s probably very hungry and could use a good meal. He threatens to hurt you or kill you unless you give him some of your money, if not all of it. You give it up out of fear.

Question: do you feel all warm and tingly inside, trusting that the person who took some of the money you earned will use it for a good cause, or do you feel differently? Why?

The unwilling foreiture of one’s property is wrong in all cases. Thus, I would say taxation is immoral. What say you?

52

Is taking Bill Gates’ money against his will the only way to ensure the child eats? If it is, then the state taking the $10 might be morally justifiable.

Patently, this is not the only way, as the child will not eat money, but food. Therefore, there is always an option of confiscating that food directly, instead of via money.

53

Not to mention that such scenarios only exist in the fevered imaginations of statists. Never in the history of the world has a wealthy been sued because he had “too much money” and this was somehow harming someone else. The whole of thinking is purely emotive and vapid.

Clayton -