US Politics: trickle down economics and trickle up dysfunction

[The guy from the Vale]

Taxation is theft -- or to be more precise, it's extortion. Extortion is a substratum of the concept of theft. It's using intimidation, violence, or the threat thereof to extract money or other property. In other words, if I'm extorting property from you, I AM STEALING from you. It isn't a material biconiditional -- one can make the link to theft without including the entirety of its denotation. I agree with NestorMakhnosLoveChild that the "slogan" goes beyond mere semantics. It's based on moralist arguments and principles. Julian Sanchez engages in an obfuscation rather than address the objection. It's like making an argument against those who oppose the death penalty on the basis that "it's murder." "Well... without a State--and its protection--there's no justification for the right to life." Not only is this not true, but if we were to hypothetically indulge its veracity, it still does not explain why the State is entitled to a portion of it. If one wants to argue over what justifies current holdings of property, one can, indeed, provoke thoughtful discourse. Julian Sanchez, however, is merely arguing semantics. No counterarguments; no rebuttals; just semantics--which would be fine, if one can demonstrate that difference in words changes the communicated idea.

No, it's not extortion. Why? Because you are getting something back (roads, police protection, fire fighting departments, a judicial system, etc.), and because nobody keeps you from moving somewhere else where there are no taxes. Think of taxes as a fee - a fee for living in the country and using its roads, being protected by their police, etc. - that is part of the contract of living in the country. If you do not keep your side of the contract, the state is justified to try you for breach of contract, which is what tax evasion boils down to.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The Sanchez piece is a little muddled, but he is not arguing just semantics. First he says that under common usage taxation is not theft (this is where the dictionary definition comes in), because he claims he recently argued with people who believed it was correct and sufficient just to insist that taxation is theft and anyone who disagrees is wrong about the meaning of words. He goes on to explicitly argue that there is a morally salient difference between taxation and theft:

One important component of “theft” as ordinary people use it—though I note the dictionaries don’t always capture this aspect—is that it is intentional. “Theft” is not just taking what one has no right to, but what one knows or reasonably ought to know one has no right to. When someone grabs your coat from a pile at a party, having mistaken it for theirs, then insofar as you’re persuaded they really have made a good faith mistake, you try to convince them of the error without resorting to calling them “thief.” (Especially if there’s some possibility that it will turn out you’re the one who’s mistaken.)

Not all disagreements, of course, are so easily resolved. Even in anarcho-capitalist utopia, after all, there would be some kind of legal system providing for non-consensual transfers of property in the case of disputes. When one person’s actions directly or indirectly harm another, there will often be disagreement about whether compensation is owed, and if so, what amount is reasonable. There will be complex contractual disputes, or questions about whether a parcel of property has easements on it, or about whether the prima facie rightful owner’s claimed property boundaries are just right. Some of these disputes will actually be pretty complicated, and not easily resolved by recourse to simple moral first principles. Invariably, either because the facts or the legal (quasi-legal?) rules are complex or ambiguous, whatever system is in place to resolve these disputes will sometimes get it wrong.

We can stipulate language evolving however we like in an imaginary anarcho-capitalist utopia, but it seems most natural to imagine the denizens of AnCapistan distinguishing between these kinds of inevitable good-faith errors and plain old theft. And it seems natural because there is a morally salient difference between simply taking what you like without regard for whether you have a right to it, and adhering to some process designed to adjudicate and enforce rights claims, even when that process will necessarily yield an unjust outcome in some cases.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The Sanchez piece is a little muddled, but he is not arguing just semantics. First he says that under common usage taxation is not theft (this is where the dictionary definition comes in), because he claims he recently argued with people who believed it was correct and sufficient just to insist that taxation is theft and anyone who disagrees is wrong about the meaning of words. He goes on to explicitly argue that there is a morally salient difference between taxation and theft:

The point that Sanchez is trying to make (poorly) in those three paragraphs, is effectively "mistake of fact" as a defense to the crime. ie: You thought the coat was your coat when you took it from the party, but then you discovered it wasn't. Unfortunately, the real issue here is not "mistake of fact" - it's "mistake of law." You didn't leave the party with someone else's coat because you thought the coat was your coat, you left the party with someone else's coat because you wrongly believed that when people go to a party and put their coats in the guest bedroom, all of the coats in the guest bedroom are up for grabs.

That's not a mistake of fact. That's a mistake of law, because you misunderstood the legal basis upon which property claims are made. Whereas a mistake of fact can be a defense to a crime with a mens rea requirement, mistakes of law (generally at least) are not.

The issue with taxation is not a mistake of fact - the IRS isn't withholding from my paycheck because they accidentally misplaced some money on their balance sheet and think it happened to wind up in my paycheck. The IRS is witholding from my paycheck because they believe they have the right to do so. The argument is, at least, they are are wrong about the moral basis upon which property claims are made.

[Ser Vlad]

The point that Sanchez is trying to make (poorly) in those three paragraphs, is effectively "mistake of fact" as a defense to the crime. ie: You thought the coat was your coat when you took it from the party, but then you discovered it wasn't. Unfortunately, the real issue here is not "mistake of fact" - it's "mistake of law." You didn't leave the party with someone else's coat because you thought the coat was your coat, you left the party with someone else's coat because you wrongly believed that when people go to a party and put their coats in the guest bedroom, all of the coats in the guest bedroom are up for grabs.

That's not a mistake of fact. That's a mistake of law, because you misunderstood the legal basis upon which property claims are made. Whereas a mistake of fact can be a defense to a crime with a mens rea requirement, mistakes of law (generally at least) are not.

The issue with taxation is not a mistake of fact - the IRS isn't withholding from my paycheck because they accidentally misplaced some money on their balance sheet and think it happened to wind up in my paycheck. The IRS is witholding from my paycheck because they believe they have the right to do so. The argument is, at least, they are are wrong about the moral basis upon which property claims are made.

You're confused about the legal concept in play. The issue here is colour of right, which captures both mistake of fact and mistake of law (though this might differ across jurisdictions, and I'm not sure how the US treats the concept). Mistake of fact is a particular instance of colour of right, but not the only instance. In a nutshell, wherever a person asserts a proprietary or possessory right to the thing that's the subject matter of the alleged theft, a person is acting under colour of right.

There is a moral difference between theft and between the taking of property under colour of right. Sanchez argues that libertarians fail to observe this important moral difference, and so criticizes the phrase on purely moral grounds.

[Athias]

No, it's not extortion. Why? Because you are getting something back (roads, police protection, fire fighting departments, a judicial system, etc.), and because nobody keeps you from moving somewhere else where there are no taxes. Think of taxes as a fee - a fee for living in the country and using its roads, being protected by their police, etc. - that is part of the contract of living in the country. If you do not keep your side of the contract, the state is justified to try you for breach of contract, which is what tax evasion boils down to.

And if someone steals an LCD TV from my house and decides to clean up said house, afterwards, I guess... my LCD was not stolen? And what contract? Do you mean that life-long contract that we do not sign the day that we're born?

The Sanchez piece is a little muddled, but he is not arguing just semantics. First he says that under common usage taxation is not theft (this is where the dictionary definition comes in), because he claims he recently argued with people who believed it was correct and sufficient just to insist that taxation is theft and anyone who disagrees is wrong about the meaning of words. He goes on to explicitly argue that there is a morally salient difference between taxation and theft:

Except that he does not make that distinction. He writes:

I will assume that most sane libertarians get all that, and that when they say “taxation is theft,” they’re not claiming that everyone is somehow using words wrong, but rather employing a kind of metaphor, along the lines of the vegan slogan “meat is murder,” urging that we should all use “theft” in a way that encompasses “taxation” as just one more distinctive subcategory (like “embezzlement”) once we recognize that coercive expropriation by states is illegitimate, because taxation is morally on par with all those other transfers we currently describe as “theft.”

He postulates as to how Libertarians makes use of that "metaphor," though unwittingly informing my point above about subcategories--which would render the debate over semantics immaterial. Then he writes:

And it seems natural because there is a morally salient difference between simply taking what you like without regard for whether you have a right to it, and adhering to some process designed to adjudicate and enforce rights claims, even when that process will necessarily yield an unjust outcome in some cases.

Furthermore:

Saying “taxation is theft,” then, doesn’t just entail that the speaker thinks taxation is no more morally justifiable than theft. It implies that this ought to be so self-evident to any reasonable person that those who disagree are (at best) just engaged in some kind of transparent rationalization for disregarding the rights of others. That seems both clearly wrong and unfair, even if anarchists are ultimately right about the illegitimacy of taxation. Why bother arguing at all if you believe that justifications for taxation are merely pretextual, and the great majority who regard it as legitimate (whether voters or agents of the state) do not really care whether it violates people’s rights?

He makes it a referendum on the accountability of those who participate in a State that taxes as opposed to a "normal" thief. This, however, is a non-sequitur since the assertion is not made against the people who "adhere to the process" per se, but the institution itself. Sanchez is not saying that there's a difference between taxation and theft; he's arguing a mitigation since those who are stealing "don't know" that they're stealing. This argument is fallacious, and I once again refer to my death penalty analogy. According to Sanchez's logic, if the State believes it has a right to your life, it therefore cannot "murder" you. He does not attempt to defend this "right" the State maintains, but instead obfuscates by questioning libertarian theories of property appropriation and distribution. Again, making an argument over the justification of property holdings is fine on its own merits, but if he's going to argue that the slogan, "taxation is theft," is inaccurate, or that "taxation is not theft," while maintaining the notion that the right to property is defined in an amibiguous set of State rules, then he has refuted nothing. His arguments boil down to just semantics.

[TrackerNeil]

Generally, a thief doesn't return to you services whose value exceeds many times over the amount of money stolen from you.

Word.

In any case, I don't understand why one would debate that ridiculous assertion in the first place. It's like arguing if Skeletor can defeat Gargamel at Monopoly. The players are imaginary, the game tedious, and the outcome meaningless.

[karaddin]

And it cedes the underlying ground to the Libertarian school of thought - yes it is theft, but it's OK. It's the same way a whole bunch of arguments seem to have gone, and before you know it half the populace thinks money=speech :p

[Athias]

Generally, a thief doesn't return to you services whose value exceeds many times over the amount of money stolen from you.

Non-sequitur. Value is subjective.

[Jon Sprunk]

The only argument needed to completely counter the "taxes are theft" line is that without taxes the country, as a geopolitical entity, ceases to exist. The U.S. landmass would either be conquered by foreign powers or (more likely) the biggest corporations would hire the newly-unemployed armed forces and use them to enforce a new era of mass serfdom. Either way, whichever power rules the country is going to institute (you guessed it) TAXES! And probably higher ones with harsher penalties for noncompliance.

Welcome to the libertarian utopia.

[BloodRider]

Non-sequitur. Value is subjective.

Until you learn what a non-sequitur is and can describe why something is a non-sequitur you really ought to stop saying that. I'm embarrassed for you. What he said does follow from your premises.

EDIT: Oh wait, I get it. You were announcing that you were about to make a statement that does NOT follow from the discussion. Non-sequitur is not an accusation of the person you quoted faulty logic, its a declaration on your part that you are pulling shit out of your ass, and calling it gold.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The point that Sanchez is trying to make (poorly) in those three paragraphs, is effectively "mistake of fact" as a defense to the crime. ie: You thought the coat was your coat when you took it from the party, but then you discovered it wasn't. Unfortunately, the real issue here is not "mistake of fact" - it's "mistake of law." You didn't leave the party with someone else's coat because you thought the coat was your coat, you left the party with someone else's coat because you wrongly believed that when people go to a party and put their coats in the guest bedroom, all of the coats in the guest bedroom are up for grabs.

That's not a mistake of fact. That's a mistake of law, because you misunderstood the legal basis upon which property claims are made. Whereas a mistake of fact can be a defense to a crime with a mens rea requirement, mistakes of law (generally at least) are not.

The issue with taxation is not a mistake of fact - the IRS isn't withholding from my paycheck because they accidentally misplaced some money on their balance sheet and think it happened to wind up in my paycheck. The IRS is witholding from my paycheck because they believe they have the right to do so. The argument is, at least, they are are wrong about the moral basis upon which property claims are made.

Either mistake, a mistake of fact (grabbing the wrong coat) or a wrong belief (believing coats at parties are up for grabs), can be made in good faith, and that's the moral distinction Sanchez drawing. He appears almost to believe that the IRS is wrong to believe that taxation is morally acceptable- it's not completely clear to me because his piece is a little muddled and I'm not otherwise familiar with him- but that there is still a moral distinction between good faith immoral acts and bad faith immoral acts, and that the term theft should be reserved for the worse, bad faith immoral acts. I don't find his argument particularly compelling for my own reasons, but it's clear that he does engage with the underlying moral issues and doesn't just insist on a dictionary definition and leave it at that.

Except that he does not make that distinction. He writes:

He postulates as to how Libertarians makes use of that "metaphor," though unwittingly informing my point above about subcategories--which would render the debate over semantics immaterial. Then he writes:

Furthermore:

He makes it a referendum on the accountability of those who participate in a State that taxes as opposed to a "normal" thief. This, however, is a non-sequitur since the assertion is not made against the people who "adhere to the process" per se, but the institution itself. Sanchez is not saying that there's a difference between taxation and theft; he's arguing a mitigation since those who are stealing "don't know" that they're stealing. This argument is fallacious, and I once again refer to my death penalty analogy. According to Sanchez's logic, if the State believes it has a right to your life, it therefore cannot "murder" you. He does not attempt to defend this "right" the State maintains, but instead obfuscates by questioning libertarian theories of property appropriation and distribution. Again, making an argument over the justification of property holdings is fine on its own merits, but if he's going to argue that the slogan, "taxation is theft," is inaccurate, or that "taxation is not theft," while maintaining the notion that the right to property is defined in an amibiguous set of State rules, then he has refuted nothing. His arguments boil down to just semantics.

It isn't semantics just because you disagree with him. For all we know, Sanchez does believe that there is a morally significant difference between state killing conducted in good faith and murders conducted in bad faith. You might disagree with that, but it isn't semantic.

[Athias]

@BloodRider -

non sequitur

noun

1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

theft

noun

1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession

2. rare something stolen

thief

noun

1. a person who steals something from another

2. criminal law a person who commits theft

Now let us take a look at the statement from The Great Unwashed:

Generally, a thief doesn't return to you services whose value exceeds many times over the amount of money stolen from you.

Thievery is not informed by the services that are returned--which illogicaly implies that what was stolen was "given." Also value is subjective. If one has to take money by force, then the value of that exchange must not thefore exceed the subjective perception of the one who's money was stolen. Hence, NON-SEQUITUR.

It isn't semantics just because you disagree with him. For all we know, Sanchez does believe that there is a morally significant difference between state killing conducted in good faith and murders conducted in bad faith. You might disagree with that, but it isn't semantic.

Yes, "for all we know..." He does not substantiate the argument. The only premise he attempts to make clear is that taxation does not accurately fit the definition of theft.

[karaddin]

Well it's all good because taxation isn't the dishonest taking of property, so it doesn't fit your definition of theft!

[awesome possum]

I am glad we turned back the planeload of illegal immigrants. That is what we are supposed to do. Just because they are from Honduras makes no difference to me.

Why not fly the whole population here otherwise? Give the whole population refugee status? Why not fly the whole population of Syria, Cuba, and whatever other country here. Give them all government services! We have unlimited money!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes Today in Bigoted Stupidity.

[Galactus]

That is not a great article; it's not even a good article. It is mostly a dumb article. It does somewhat-correctly point out that the issue of property (re)distribution along libertarian principles is a thorny issues that many prominent libertarian theorists have devoted precious little time to. It is not completely unaddressed within the movement, as evidenced here, here and here attempting to deal with the issue, primarily in the context of discussing reparations for the descendants of slaves, but in principles which are broadly applicable. The last post, by Roderick Long, actually cites to Rothbard's tentative discussions of the issue in The Ethics of Liberty. It's an interesting issue, but it's inaccurate to suggest that it is has been wholly unaddressed within the movement.

As for the broader thrust of the article, it may be true that the phrase "taxation is theft" doesn't have much appeal as a persuasive phrase, although that is probably besides the point (I'm not convinced, and Julian Sanchez certainly isn't making the case, that the libertarians who are using the phrase are doing so primarily to be persuasive to unconvinced third parties).

As to the idea that the argument is wrong - Sanchez's position is, well, it's stupid - worse, it's willfully ignorant. "Taxation is theft" is a moral claim about the legitimacy of taxation. And specifically, at least in Rothbard's, The Ethics of Liberty, its a moral conclusion reached after an extended moral argument (beginning, at its roots, with the Principle of Non-Aggression).

Now listen, Rothbard, and other libertarian philosophers who have addressed the issue, may be wrong. That's fine. If Sanchez wants to make that argument - I'm all for it. But in order to do so, you have to grapple with the moral foundations on libertarianism on its own merits. You certainly can't resolve the argument, as Sanchez tries to do, by linking someone to an online dictionary. You can tell someone to look up "labor" "theory" and "value" in the dictionary, but what are those words going to tell you about the Marxist labor theory of value? Nothing, of course, because when we discuss terms of art used in philosophical discourse, we are by definition departing from common usage.

Now, does it make a lot of sense for internet libertarians to mindlessly chorus "taxation is theft" to non-believers? No, of course not. It is, as I said before, in part a moral conclusion based upon a series of arguments. It's not a convincing argument in and of itself if you don't already agree with the premises. But as I said above, I'm not terribly convinced that the people making the argument are really trying to convert others by making the statement.

The obvious repudiation to "taxation is theft" tends to be Proudhon's "Property is theft!"

[Galactus]

Sanchez does believe that there is a morally significant difference between state killing conducted in good faith and murders conducted in bad faith

Which mind, is a fairly common idea. Most people are OK with killing of enemy combatants in war, and some are OK with the execution of criminals in peacetime.

[karaddin]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes Today in Bigoted Stupidity.

It's Everyday in Australia whenever asylum seekers come up of late. You know, asylum seekers from places like Afghanistan which we helped destabalise by invading. We call them economic migrants to make it sound like they are greedy bloodsuckers rather than desperate people fleeing awful situations. Because rich people looking for another country happily get on leaky boats that might sink with them on board all the time.

[Galactus]

Thievery is not informed by the services that are returned

By your logic, taxation is not theft, since it is specifically *unlawful* taking of property with the intent of deprivation, while taxation is clearly lawful. (in general, there might be specific instances of it being unlawful)

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yes, "for all we know..." He does not substantiate the argument. The only premise he attempts to make clear is that taxation does not accurately fit the definition of theft.

You're confused. I say, "for all we know" because you appear to believe that the state killing vs. murder example contradicts his argument. It doesn't, not unless he somewhere else claims that good faith state killing is on the same immoral level as bad faith killing, or murder. This has nothing to do with substantiating his argument, and everything to do with you insisting that there's a contradiction in his argument that simply isn't present.

[BloodRider]

Thievery is not informed by the services that are returned--which illogicaly implies that what was stolen was "given." Also value is subjective. If one has to take money by force, then the value of that exchange must not thefore exceed the subjective perception of the one who's money was stolen. Hence, NON-SEQUITUR.

Your inability to follow the logical through line of the conversation does not make a given statement a non-sequitur.

Let me lay it out for you:

Clearly he was saying that the government is not committing thievery. What is more he was giving a reason why the gov't is not a thief.

What is wacky is that you support his argument that clearly thieves do not return to you services whose value exceeds many times over the amount of money stolen from you. But you are unable to see that it is not his assertion that thieves do this. Then you strawman his argument by inserting an undeclared false premise by assuming that he agrees with your premise the taxation is theft. Here's a hint: he doesn't. Few people do. And yelling non-sequitur does little to convince anyone of anything.

But it gets really amusing when you use logic incorrectly, fail to understand the other person's argument, agree with their conclusions, and call it all a non-sequitur.