Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

I'd think it to be a bit more complicated than that, but it sums things up nicely. At least to me, your views in regards to politics are typically formed by your own personal experiences, your education, and lastly your ability to form political opinions based on such. There are plenty of middle of the road people out there, the difference is how they choose to play their politics.

Translation:

Peoples' politics are typically based on their thoughts, but some just do what they're told. It's the latter that make a difference.

 

[Omnis]

This is a problem that too many people worldwide do not understand. That voting is serious, that it has moral implications, and that you are responsible for the breaches of morality that you request. Do not pretend that I am arguing that if someone votes for Obama he is guilty of any deed that Obama performs. Voting in favor of a military does not make one guilty of the Fort Hood shootings.

Which is why there is supposed to be a poll tax. Worked out great when it was in use.

I'd think it to be a bit more complicated than that, but it sums things up nicely. At least to me, your views in regards to politics are typically formed by your own personal experiences, your education, and lastly your ability to form political opinions based on such. There are plenty of middle of the road people out there, the difference is how they choose to play their politics.

Spoken like a true PoliSci guy.

Translation:

Peoples' politics are typically based on their thoughts, but some just do what they're told. It's the latter that make a difference.

And the antithesis of PoliSci language.

 

[Touring Mars]

Now, stop dodging. Tell me if you're willing to do in person, what you have asked your government to do for you.

I already explained why I thought that your scenario was unrealistic and misleading. But to satisfy your desire for a specific answer regardless of my objections to the nature of the question, I will answer anyway. No, I wouldn't do in person what I have asked my government to do on my behalf any more than I wouldn't do in person what I have asked my army or my police force to do on my behalf - but that is not because I believe them to be in the wrong. I reckon that what you are trying to get me to say is that I would be willing to enforce my interpretation of morality and the law upon someone else, or that I should be prepared to threaten deadly force because I support agencies that do the same. That would be vigilantism, and so I probably wouldn't do it, even if it was morally justified.

For a full consideration of the morality of making provision for those who cannot provide for themselves, you have to consider a raft of issues, over and above individual property rights - such as one's civic responsibilities, the societal benefits of minimizing poverty and social exclusion, social rights and, most significantly, enforcing the basic human rights of those who cannot act (for one reason or another) in their own interests and require others to act on their behalf. As such, moral considerations of how human rights apply are relative and not absolute. It appears absurd to support the idea that robbing Peter could ever be morally justified... but robbing Peter to save Paul's life could be a moral act, depending on the circumstances - especially if it is done in such a way that Peter's excellent quality of life is barely affected at all, while Paul's is drastically and permanently affected for the better. The fact that Peter has also been unjustly treated is relatively minor - the lesser of two evils... the moral outrage of violating Peter's rights is outweighed by the far greater moral justification that Paul would be dead or otherwise completely unable to function in society if not for the intervention.

Anyway, I fear we may have to agree to disagree on this. I wish I had more time to devote to this discussion and the multitude of issues it raises, but I really don't at the moment.

I apologize for offending you - that was not my intent

👍 I appreciate that, and I apologize for an overreaction on my part.

my criticism of the UN smorgasbord of human "rights" stands. It is clearly written from emotion, not logic. It really takes little effort to analyze it enough to see that.

I think it is fair criticism for the most part, and I agree that the social and economic rights as set out in the UN charter are probably more accurately 'goals' as opposed to rights, but they are fundamentally important issues nonetheless, and the charter serves as an important reminder to governments that they have a moral duty to respect human rights, both individual and social. It depends on one's point of view, but whether individual rights enable societies to function, or whether functioning societies empower individual rights is a key point - does either have any meaning without the other? At the very least, it is a point worth considering, and I admit to being no expert on the issue.

 

[livemusic]

For a full consideration of the morality of making provision for those who cannot provide for themselves, you have to consider a raft of issues, over and above individual property rights - such as one's civic responsibilities, the societal benefits of minimizing poverty and social exclusion, social rights and, most significantly, enforcing the basic human rights of those who cannot act (for one reason or another) in their own interests and require others to act on their behalf. As such, moral considerations of how human rights apply are relative and not absolute. It appears absurd to support the idea that robbing Peter could ever be morally justified... but robbing Peter to save Paul's life could be a moral act, depending on the circumstances - especially if it is done in such a way that Peter's excellent quality of life is barely affected at all, while Paul's is drastically and permanently affected for the better. The fact that Peter has also been unjustly treated is relatively minor - the lesser of two evils... the moral outrage of violating Peter's rights is outweighed by the far greater moral justification that Paul would be dead or otherwise completely unable to function in society if not for the intervention.

The ends don't justify the means. Theft is wrong, it doesn't matter the purpose. Plenty of people would be happy to save Paul's life without government enforcement.

 

[Biggles]

If all you want to do is cast Libertarians as bad guys, it's little wonder no-one wants to listen to you.

I don't cast Libertarians as "bad guys". I think Libertarian's ideas have an important contribution to make, but it does seem fairly apparent that they don't want to listen to me - in fact any, even moderately dissenting view, is aggressively shouted down by the Libertarian fundamentalists on here. That kind of extremist position, where there is absolutely no room for compromise, is familiar from other ideologies that have been put forward equally confidently over the centuries. The fact that Libertarians advocate a straightforward "mind your own business" philosophy, does not make me any more comfortable that that the resulting outcome will successfully improve "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" in the world.

I do have a question though. Am I right in thinking that the Libertarians here believe that the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution have been under attack, not just recently, but for the last 100 years?

 

[homeforsummer]

The ends don't justify the means. Theft is wrong, it doesn't matter the purpose. Plenty of people would be happy to save Paul's life without government enforcement.

Though I don't disagree that outright theft is wrong, are you really so sure there'd be someone there to save "Paul"'s life? What if "Paul" was, say, an impoverished single mum with four kids living in a dilapidated suburb? You can presume, if she even has time for friends, that they're as badly-off has her and can barely afford clothes for her own kids and money for healthcare, let alone money for someone else's healthcare.

I'm sure most of us are lucky enough to have a metaphorical "guardian angel" - if healthcare in the UK was all private and I suddenly came down with a life-threatening disease that required expensive treatment, I'm reasonably confident that I'd have plenty of friends and family willing to scrape the money together for it - but not everyone is even slightly that lucky.

It's wrong to assume that everyone everywhere has someone they can rely on for handouts when the going gets tough. Which is where public healthcare funded by tax revenue comes in.

I work in taxes. I get to see a lot of peoples' earnings, and I often see some very high figures coming in. Of course, they get taxed massively too (higher-rate tax, for those earning over £37,400 per annum, is 40%), but then when you're earning as much as some of these people, you're really not going to miss even 40% of your earnings. I'm not saying it's right, but as TM said, it's hardly going to affect their standard of living, wheras public-funded healthcare might drastically improve someone much less fortunate.

I also think the NHS might be easier to swallow for many people, myself included, if they didn't offer free treatments for stuff that's your own damn fault. Like smoking. Or drugs. Or being fat and lazy and having a heart attack because of it. If they could guarantee that taxpayers' money was being spent saving the lives of kids who've been hit by cars, giving old people hip operations and removing brain tumours, I'm sure people wouldn't mind as much.

It's abuse of the system that people object to the most.

 

[livemusic]

Though I don't disagree that outright theft is wrong, are you really so sure there'd be someone there to save "Paul"'s life? What if "Paul" was, say, an impoverished single mum with four kids living in a dilapidated suburb? You can presume, if she even has time for friends, that they're as badly-off has her and can barely afford clothes for her own kids and money for healthcare, let alone money for someone else's healthcare.

I'm sure most of us are lucky enough to have a metaphorical "guardian angel" - if healthcare in the UK was all private and I suddenly came down with a life-threatening disease that required expensive treatment, I'm reasonably confident that I'd have plenty of friends and family willing to scrape the money together for it - but not everyone is even slightly that lucky.

It's wrong to assume that everyone everywhere has someone they can rely on for handouts when the going gets tough. Which is where public healthcare funded by tax revenue comes in.

I'm not talking of help from friends and relatives, although that also works. I'm talking about charity. I mean, everyone who is for socialized healthcare must be for charity. If you want to help others, please do, but don't impose that on others. People don't have the right to be sustained by others, this must be willingly done.

I work in taxes. I get to see a lot of peoples' earnings, and I often see some very high figures coming in. Of course, they get taxed massively too (higher-rate tax, for those earning over £37,400 per annum, is 40%), but then when you're earning as much as some of these people, you're really not going to miss even 40% of your earnings. I'm not saying it's right, but as TM said, it's hardly going to affect their standard of living, wheras public-funded healthcare might drastically improve someone much less fortunate.

I also think the NHS might be easier to swallow for many people, myself included, if they didn't offer free treatments for stuff that's your own damn fault. Like smoking. Or drugs. Or being fat and lazy and having a heart attack because of it. If they could guarantee that taxpayers' money was being spent saving the lives of kids who've been hit by cars, giving old people hip operations and removing brain tumours, I'm sure people wouldn't mind as much.

It's abuse of the system that people object to the most.

The system will always be abused as long as its runned by the government, and I'm not talking of the money being used on smokers, drug addicts or obese people. I'm talking of the waste of money from the government. I don't know UK's healthcare system but over here the government program is crap. Tons of money from taxes go in but it doesn't show, its infrastructure is horrible so you end up getting a private healthcare insurance and paying twice. That happens because the government, differently from a private organization, doesn't work for profits. They can't see where money is being wasted because they lack this response from the market. If the money isn't enough they just tax us more!

 

[Duke]

I do have a question though. Am I right in thinking that the Libertarians here believe that the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution have been under attack, not just recently, but for the last 100 years?

In my case, yes. As early as the mid-19th century the US was already violating its own Constitution, when religious conservatives forced "In God We Trust" onto the currency. Before that the US money only said "Liberty". It's gotten worse since then, sometimes in big chunks and sometimes in little nibbles.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm not talking of help from friends and relatives, although that also works. I'm talking about charity. I mean, everyone who is for socialized healthcare must be for charity. If you want to help others, please do, but don't impose that on others. People don't have the right to be sustained by others, this must be willingly done.

That would require more charity than I think the public would be willing to give. Can you imagine the charity required to pay for healthcare to every single person below the poverty line?

The system will always be abused as long as its runned by the government, and I'm not talking of the money being used on smokers, drug addicts or obese people. I'm talking of the waste of money from the government. I don't know UK's healthcare system but over here the government program is crap. Tons of money from taxes go in but it doesn't show, its infrastructure is horrible so you end up getting a private healthcare insurance and paying twice. That happens because the government, differently from a private organization, doesn't work for profits. They can't see where money is being wasted because they lack this response from the market. If the money isn't enough they just tax us more!

To be honest, the UK system is equally crap, but then people have also got used to it, given that it was started the year before the Morris Mini first rolled off the production line. You guys don't have the "benefit" of it having been around for years and not knowing any differently.

 

[Duke]

So because you're used to it, we should get used to it?

How about actually fixing the problem instead?

 

[Omnis]

That would require more charity than I think the public would be willing to give. Can you imagine the charity required to pay for healthcare to every single person below the poverty line?

Right, so let's just force them to give it anyway.

Actually, people are quite charitable when they don't have someone's hand going through their pockets. Look at all the donations for Katrina and the Tsunami a couple years ago. But you're also talking about managed care, which is expensive and is basically a failed method of health service delivery. Real health insurance isn't that expensive, even for people below the poverty line. And even if they really can't afford it, why force them to buy it like Pelosi would?

 

[homeforsummer]

Right, so let's just force them to give it anyway.

Actually, people are quite charitable when they don't have someone's hand going through their pockets. Look at all the donations for Katrina and the Tsunami a couple years ago. But you're also talking about managed care, which is expensive and is basically a failed method of health service delivery. Real health insurance isn't that expensive, even for people below the poverty line. And even if they really can't afford it, why force them to buy it like Pelosi would?

I'm not saying they should be forced. I'm not saying they shouldn't, either. I'm just raising an observation.

So because you're used to it, we should get used to it?

How about actually fixing the problem instead?

How about not making assumptions? If you can find exactly where I said you guys should "get used to it" then feel free to continue. I suspect you won't be able to find that though, as I said nothing of the sort - nor did I even imply anything of the sort. I simply said we'd got used to it as a country. I guess you missed the part where I stated that the UK system was crap?...

 

[Omnis]

I'm not saying they should be forced. I'm not saying they shouldn't, either. I'm just raising an observation.

Yeah, I know. But at least we can see the incredibly bad logic on display.

 

[Touring Mars]

(This post leads on from a discussion in this thread, but since it deals with taxation in general, it is more relevant to this thread - and livemusic's previous post )

The ends don't justify the means.

I disagree - particularly in this example.

Theft is wrong, it doesn't matter the purpose.

I totally agree, but this is precisely why libertarians will tell you that taxation = theft, when it is actually not "theft" at all. Taxation is a legitimate tool of government, afforded it by law - the US Constitution specifically permits taxation, as does the law of just about every sovereign state on Earth. You might still call tax "legalized theft" if you like, but to do so would be inaccurate and an oxymoron. The reasons why governments are afforded the power to tax are manifold and complex, but suffice it to say that it is merely a matter of libertarian opinion that taxation (or the redistribution of wealth) is always and in every case unjust. Clearly, there are justifiable reasons why taxation should be and is permitted. It is useful to bear this in mind when using phrases like "Robbing Peter to pay Paul", that "robbing" is actually the wrong word to use. Whichever way you dress it up, the libertarian assertion that taxation is theft is tantamount to saying that the US Constitution is wrong.

 

[Omnis]

I disagree - particularly in this example.

I totally agree, but this is precisely why libertarians will tell you that taxation = theft, when it is actually not "theft" at all. Taxation is a legitimate tool of government, afforded it by law - the US Constitution specifically permits taxation, as does the law of just about every sovereign state on Earth. You might still call tax "legalized theft" if you like, but to do so would be inaccurate and an oxymoron. The reasons why governments are afforded the power to tax are manifold and complex, but suffice it to say that it is merely a matter of libertarian opinion that taxation (or the redistribution of wealth) is always and in every case unjust. Clearly, there are justifiable reasons why taxation should be and is permitted. It is useful to bear this in mind when using phrases like "Robbing Peter to pay Paul", that "robbing" is actually the wrong word to use. Whichever way you dress it up, the libertarian assertion that taxation is theft is tantamount to saying that the US Constitution is wrong.

Tax is tax. It is akin to theft or extortion. Anarcho-capitalism deems it unnecessary and morally wrong.

However, the US Constitution provides direct taxation as a legitimate tool only if it is apportioned. Currently, it isn't. Therefore, even by the constitution's rules our current tax system is unjust.

 

[niky]

Taxation is payment for government services. Whether you actually use those services is up to you.

In a perfect world, you could simply pull up your stakes and move to another country if you don't like the way your government is run... unfortunately, this world is far from perfect... and almost all governments will ask you to pay for some service that you will never use.

Could always move to a tax haven like Monte Carlo...

 

[Duke]

[T]his is precisely why libertarians will tell you that taxation = theft, when it is actually not "theft" at all. Taxation is a legitimate tool of government... it to say that it is merely a matter of libertarian opinion that taxation (or the redistribution of wealth) is always and in every case unjust. Clearly, there are justifiable reasons why taxation should be and is permitted. It is useful to bear this in mind when using phrases like "Robbing Peter to pay Paul", that "robbing" is actually the wrong word to use. Whichever way you dress it up, the libertarian assertion that taxation is theft is tantamount to saying that the US Constitution is wrong.

I do believe I've addressed this several times, and at some length. Here's the highlight reel:

All taxation is not the issue here and none of the "Libertarian Fundamentalists" think it is. But taxation for social services - a sanitized term for non-consensual redistribution of wealth - IS an issue, and so we will continue to reduce it to its essential basis.

I'll never complain about taxation or threat of force that is going towards defending citizens' rights. Legitimate use of force by the government, to perform government's legitimate function of defending its citizens' rights from violation, is not a problem.

But it is in no way legitimate when taxation/force violates some citizens' rights by taking property away from them in order to redistribute it to other people who have no right to that property (just need, which cannot be considered a right).

There is a distinct separation between use of government force to defend citizens' rights and use of government force to violate citizens' rights. Surely this must be clear, even if you disagree on the welfare issue.

Forced redistribution of wealth is unjust. Taxation for that purpose is unjust, and such taxation is enforced by coercive power.

If the government wasn't taking my money away by force to use on the charities they deem necessary, I would be free to give my money to charities I deem necessary (or even just interesting), and my objection would be at an instantaneous end.

Let's always keep in mind that we are discussing taxation for welfare subsidy (forced redistribution of wealth) only here, not all taxation for any purpose.

Again, let's be careful to distinguish between legitimate taxation to fund government protection of citizens' rights and forced redistribution of wealth, which is official violation of some citizens' rights for the material benefit of others.

To summarize:

It IS NOT unjust taxation to fund the government's defense of citizens' rights, from threats within the country (police) or abroad (military).

It IS unjust taxation to take money from one group of citizens with the sole purpose of giving it - or its direct benefit - to another group of citizens just because they need it (welfare/socialism).

 

[Touring Mars]

To summarize:

It IS NOT unjust taxation to fund the government's defense of citizens' rights, from threats within the country (police) or abroad (military).

It IS unjust taxation to take money from one group of citizens with the sole purpose of giving it - or its direct benefit - to another group of citizens just because they need it (welfare/socialism).

I appreciate you taking the time to draw this distinction - and although I still believe there are legitimate exceptions and objections - I generally accept the point you are making. However, I don't believe it is you that I am addressing on the point of taxation in general, for example:

Tax is tax. It is akin to theft or extortion. Anarcho-capitalism deems it unnecessary and morally wrong.

However, the US Constitution provides direct taxation as a legitimate tool only if it is apportioned. Currently, it isn't. Therefore, even by the constitution's rules our current tax system is unjust.

What about the 16th Amendment?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I don't object to the idea that people have a problem with socialised healthcare or the welfare state - but I do object to people using arguments that actually apply to all taxation to demoan these specific issues. But as if it isn't painfully obvious, I would object in the strongest possible terms of being accused of personally threatening to murder simply because I respected the Constitution. This is the biggest irony of this whole discussion, if you ask me...

 

[Omnis]

What about the 16th Amendment?

You've got a point. I really don't know what to say about that. It's notorious for a reason-- completely clashes with the original intent of the document.

All of this is really moot as long as there's a central bank. As they say, inflation is the hidden tax, and governments always monetize debt.

 

[livemusic]

Well, in my opinion, the American Constitution is great, but it isn't perfect. Taxation should be voluntary, not mandatory, even if it is to fund the government's defense of citizens' rights (which is the only thing taxes should be used for). That's an Objectivist view by the way, not Libertarian.

 

[FoolKiller]

What about the 16th Amendment?

Conveniently created during an attempt to create welfare systems and a central bank. One would almost say that certain socialist thinking individuals actually went and changed the intent of the document to achieve their goals.

I would personally call it a travesty.

You've got a point. I really don't know what to say about that. It's notorious for a reason-- completely clashes with the original intent of the document.

I'm also of the opinion that it clashes with the 9th amendment, but since we have been blatantly ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments for a very long time no one cares.

All of this is really moot as long as there's a central bank. As they say, inflation is the hidden tax, and governments always monetize debt.

Looks like the president might be coming around to that kind of thought, or spewing BS to a Fox News audience.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee761ae2-d443-11de-990c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

 

[Danoff]

I don't object to the idea that people have a problem with socialised healthcare or the welfare state - but I do object to people using arguments that actually apply to all taxation to demoan these specific issues.

I'm quite confident you're not talking about me, seeing as how I did not do that.

But as if it isn't painfully obvious, I would object in the strongest possible terms of being accused of personally threatening to murder simply because I respected the Constitution. This is the biggest irony of this whole discussion, if you ask me...

...also quite confident I didn't do that either.

When you ask your government to take an unjust action (take money from someone who has earned it and give it to someone who has not) using force, you are threatening someone unjustly. When you ask your government to take a just action (apprehend someone who has violated rights, or prevent someone from violating rights), you are threatening someone justly. That's an enormous distinction that seems to consistently be lost on you.

Here's the summary:

Government force in support of human rights = good
Government force in violation of human rights = bad

Both are government force, so that aspect applies to both types of actions. But force in only one of those categories is just.

 

[Touring Mars]

When you ask your government to take an unjust action (take money from someone who has earned it and give it to someone who has not) using force, you are threatening someone unjustly. When you ask your government to take a just action (apprehend someone who has violated rights, or prevent someone from violating rights), you are threatening someone justly. That's an enormous distinction that seems to consistently be lost on you.

It is your opinion that the former is an unjust action, therefore the distinction you are making is spurious (which, by the way, is not "lost" on me at all - I just happen to disagree with it). You are ignoring the reasons why taxation is sanctioned at all (because it is necessary for the effective functioning of the state) and dismissing income tax (and the action of enforcing it) as unjust, even though it is the law. And it is not merely some law that can be voted in and out of existence - it is written in the Constitution that the government has the power to levy income tax, and therefore it is perfectly legal... and since withholding tax is illegal, it is perfectly justified to enforce the law in the event of someone deciding that the law doesn't apply to them.

The "injustice" of having one's property rights violated by income tax depends on how you define property in the context of being a citizen of the state - if your citizenship depends on your submission to the supreme law of the land, and the supreme law of the land specifically grants government the power to levy income tax, then it could be argued that the portion of money earned by an individual that is to be taken as tax is not infact their property, hence why income tax need not be considered a violation of your fundamental rights.

It sounds to me that you should really be asking why it is that government is endowed with the power to tax in the first place, rather than pointing out how wrong the rest of us are for acknowledging that they are.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is written in the Constitution that the government has the power to levy income tax, and therefore it is perfectly legal... and since withholding tax is illegal, it is perfectly justified to enforce the law in the event of someone deciding that the law doesn't apply to them.

I thought we had long established that legal does not always equal justified. I am absolutely positive that you can list something that is legal that you find unjust. You would not accept the it is legal so it is just argument then, so don't think that we will now.

Of course, if you want to get deep into founding documents in regards to how just it is to enforce a law, just because it is the law, we could quote the Declaration of Independence.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

I believe we are proposing the idea of altering it, which our founders called our right.

That said:

It sounds to me that you should really be asking why it is that government is endowed with the power to tax in the first place, rather than pointing out how wrong the rest of us are for acknowledging that they are.

Yes, let's figure out why, when the US government was attempting to create a central bank and welfare system they had to change this:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

To this:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Perhaps it is because they didn't like the original intent notion that redistribution of wealth would be unjust.

And so, why are you so opposed to us arguing in favor of an idea that would result in the abolishment of the 16th Amendment, altering the system of government, which we find to be unjust, as is our declared right? Altering the system, I might add, in a way that returns it to what it was supposed to be.

Prohibition was also written in the Constitution (18th Amendment), but through people pointing out how unjust that was it was then repealed (21st Amendment). Obviously, just because it was the law did not make it justified, or it would have remained the law.

 

[Danoff]

It is your opinion that the former is an unjust action, therefore the distinction you are making is spurious (which, by the way, is not "lost" on me at all - I just happen to disagree with it).

Since I'm defining unjust as a violation of human rights, and human rights are not based on opinion but logic, it is not an opinion that it is an unjust action.

You are ignoring the reasons why taxation is sanctioned at all (because it is necessary for the effective functioning of the state) and dismissing income tax (and the action of enforcing it) as unjust, even though it is the law.

No. Taxes can be justified, but they have to be justified very carefully. Taxation for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth (which is what public healthcare is), cannot be justified. You have confirmed this by explaining that you are not willing to perform this action.

And it is not merely some law that can be voted in and out of existence - it is written in the Constitution that the government has the power to levy income tax, and therefore it is perfectly legal... and since withholding tax is illegal, it is perfectly justified to enforce the law in the event of someone deciding that the law doesn't apply to them.

What's your point? It's written in the constitution that the government has the power to tax everyone the same (this is a combination of multiple amendments) - which it does not. It's also written in the constitution that the government has to provide the same services for all - which it does not. But the real problem here is that the government is not authorized to perform this particular function. It is not authorized to collect taxes for this purpose - because this is not a function the government allowed to perform.

That's not to say the constitution is perfect. It certainly is not, and there have been some very silly amendments to the constitution.

The "injustice" of having one's property rights violated by income tax depends on how you define property in the context of being a citizen of the state

The definition of property is part of the derivation of property rights. It has a clear definition.

It sounds to me that you should really be asking why it is that government is endowed with the power to tax in the first place, rather than pointing out how wrong the rest of us are for acknowledging that they are.

It sounds to me like you're trying to find a way to make an action that you consider immoral for you to perform a moral one for someone else to perform. That's a trick you're not going to have any success doing. But to answer your tax question....

There are sources of revenue that the government can use without violating property rights. The simplest options are usage fees and interest. A government created with an endowment can have income forever by lending that endowment to the economy at an interest rate. Usage fees (like the fee to enter a national park) can be used in many instances to charge those who are using the service for the service rendered. A poll tax can also be considered a usage fee. Beyond that, a sales tax can also be argued in a round-about way to be a usage fee. The income tax can be argued (in a very round-about way) to be an extension of the sales tax. So the income tax CAN be justified very carefully - but it still needs to be used only in support of the legitimate functions of government (protection of human rights)... and that's because of the way you justify the sales tax (and income tax by extension) as a usage fee. If it's used for wealth redistribution, it's not a usage fee.

Keep poking, but you're not going to find holes here. You can't launder an action through others to help somehow make it moral.

 

[Touring Mars]

You have confirmed this by explaining that you are not willing to perform this action.

*snip*

It sounds to me like you're trying to find a way to make an action that you consider immoral for you to perform a moral one for someone else to perform.

A law does not become unjust simply because someone doesn't think it is up to them to enforce it. Also, I don't consider income tax and the use of taxes to fund public services (including welfare programmes) or the limited redistribution of wealth as immoral anyway, nor do I consider the fact that the government possesses the ability to enforce the law as immoral.

And so, why are you so opposed to us arguing in favor of an idea that would result in the abolishment of the 16th Amendment, altering the system of government, which we find to be unjust, as is our declared right? Altering the system, I might add, in a way that returns it to what it was supposed to be.

Prohibition was also written in the Constitution (18th Amendment), but through people pointing out how unjust that was it was then repealed (21st Amendment). Obviously, just because it was the law did not make it justified, or it would have remained the law.

I'm not opposed to anyone arguing in favour of anything, or against the idea that the people can affect changes in the law, or that the law should change to serve the needs of society better. I am arguing against what you guys think the law ought to be, and pointing out that as things stand, anyone who refuses to pay income tax for whatever reason is committing a criminal offense, and therefore any legal action taken against them would be justified for this reason alone.

I know that just because something is the law, it doesn't automatically mean that the law is just - but the fact remains, if income tax really is such an injustice, then how has tax law and the current system of income tax as practiced in the US remained the law and survived numerous legal challenges? In reality, the desire to respect individual rights must be balanced with the need to operate an effective state in which individuals have any realistic chance of being able to enjoy their rights at all, hence why many people (including those responsible for fashioning the constitution) accept/realise that citizenship itself imposes some limits on the rights of the individual.

 

[Dotini]

I'm slowly working my way through this long thread in an attempt to educate myself - to bring myself up to speed with the thinking here. I'm up to page 15. It's all good stuff; a lot of smart, thinking people debating interesting ideas. I hope to contribute some day. I think of myself as being in broad agreement with most of it. I contributed fairly generously to Ron Paul's recent campaign, caucused for him and became a delegate. However, I voted for Barr in the end. I've subscribed enthusiastically to the American Conservative magazine since it began publication. If somebody called me an anti-interventionist paleo-conservative with a "thing" against excessive debt, private and public, I'd plead guilty.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I'm slowly working my way through this long thread in an attempt to educate myself - to bring myself up to speed with the thinking here. I'm up to page 15. It's all good stuff; a lot of smart, thinking people debating interesting ideas. I hope to contribute some day. I think of myself as being in broad agreement with most of it. I contributed fairly generously to Ron Paul's recent campaign, caucused for him and became a delegate. However, I voted for Barr in the end. I've subscribed enthusiastically to the American Conservative magazine since it began publication. If somebody called me an anti-interventionist paleo-conservative with a "thing" against excessive debt, private and public, I'd plead guilty.

Ironic, then, that Republicans for the last ~20 years have racked up more debt than democrats.

Edit: That is not to equate Libertarians with Republicans, though.

human rights are not based on opinion but logic

I didn't think you'd go there—but objectivist that you are, I can't say I'm entirely surprised. I may ask, though, how rights relate to logic—to you?

 

[Omnis]

Ironic, then, that Republicans for the last ~20 years have racked up more debt than democrats.

Edit: That is not to equate Libertarians with Republicans, though.

Republicans for the last 20 years have been Neos, not Paleos.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Republicans for the last 20 years have been Neos, not Paleos.

I'm glad you recognise the distinction and have delineated so. 👍