Taxation, by its nature, is not necessarily theft. Likewise, taking something and not giving something in return is not necessarily theft, either. The circumstances are what matter.
By way of example: two men meet on the street. One is selling apples. The other man has money. They agree to an exchange: one man gets $5, the other gets a bushel of apples. The two go on their merry way, happy as can be. No theft here.
A similar circumstance: two men meet on the street. One is selling apples. The other man has money. While the apple seller is distracted, the other man takes an apple and leaves no money. Now, a theft has occurred.
What is the difference between the two stories above? In the first, there is consent between the two parties. In the second, there is no consent. Consent is what makes an action theft or voluntary. There would be no argument whatsoever on this point. So, the question becomes, can one never consent to taxation? Is taxation inherently non-consensual?
The answer to that question is “no.” Taxation is not inherently non-consensual. It can be agreed upon; it can be consented to. Let’s say a group of people get together and decide to pool their resources for some public good (let’s say, common defense). Depending on the structure of their arrangement, they all agree to provide some annual contribution to this goal. This is, in essence, taxation. Furthermore, it is consensual taxation.
But if taxation can be consensual, doesn’t the use of (or threat of) force for compliance necessarily mean that taxation isn’t consensual? Isn’t that evidence against my thesis? Again, not necessarily. Yes, the thief may use force to get what he wants, but even consensual agreements may carry a threat of force. Contracts contain provisions in case one person reneges on his deal. These are voluntary agreements that contain elements of force if certain conditions are not upheld. So, the existence of force is not in and of itself a sign that the agreement is involuntary.
The real question, the one we should be discussing and thinking on, is “what constitutes consent?” If governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” what constitutes consent? At what point does government “become destructive to these ends”?* Yes, this is the interesting question and one I will not be discussing in this post.
*A quick aside on this point: using the same logic as above, it can be shown that merely being in a minority, losing an election, or not having things go your way in politics is not necessarily a sign of oppression or malfunctioning government.
A Force for Good 
People agreeing to pool their money for a specific purpose is not a form of taxation. Giving 10 bucks to someone on Kickstarter, whether it’s for national defense or a beer cooler, is not “taxation.” Having contractual penalties one actively and voluntarily agrees to is not “taxation.” Getting whacked 25 bucks for a late credit card payment is not “taxation.” “Voluntary agreements that contain elements of force” are not “taxation.”
It seems like you’re redefining “taxation” to suggest that it’s somehow voluntary and does not initiate aggression against others. Just because there exist different transactions and exchanges and agreements in the world that may share some similiar means or ends does not make them the same as “taxation.” I think these are examples that *alternatives* to taxation exist, but not that taxation, as it exists today, is any of these things.
LikeLike
Ok. Precisely define taxation for me
LikeLike
A method of funding government that relies on compuslary payments from individuals backed by the threat of force.
LikeLike
Ok. No argument here. How does that undermine my post?
LikeLike
Because you’re comparing compulsory apples to voluntary oranges 🙂
LikeLike
Compulsory doesn’t change the argument at all.
LikeLike
Well, I was hoping for a more substantial conversation than these short replies, which is why I took the time to write, but OK. I’m guessing you have your own definitions of these key terms (compulsory, voluntary, etc.). I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Short and sweet.
Anyway it’s not about definitions. It’s about conditions. Something compulsory is not necessarily involuntary.
LikeLike
I’ve suggested the idea of Crowd Sourcing Government several times,but the only attaboy I get is that at least, no one calls me out on it. But here in this essay, you might be in the better mood to entertain it. The idea is to get around the free rider problem by making it so that those who do fund it, allow themselves to be part of a club which made it happen. They allow themselves to be coerced into paying the tax. The tax isn’t levied until the number who vote yes meets some minimum percentage at which time only those that voted yes are taxed. There is only social pressure on those that free ride.
Why that is better than simply volunteering the tax is that it gets around the attitude on the part of the potential giver that his sacrifice would be everything to him and yet nothing would get done. What he buys in that case is only “signalling” his patriotism. Even the left who never “volunteer” an unenforced tax, agree there’s no such thing as altruism. They will never say it of course. Note that this club effect is why charity works. There’s many ways to attract gifts, so there’s something of a free market in the way it pleases the giver. But the giver in addition to “signalling” can take pride in likely accomplishment when so many others who agree with him are bound to participate.
LikeLike
Another thought. Would you say that conscription can be “voluntary” too? Here’s an alternate version of what you’ve written:
“Can one ever consent to conscription? Is conscription inherently non-consensual? Let’s say a group of people decide to form a militia or a security company. Depending on their arrangement, they all agree to provide their services to this goal. This is, in essence, conscription. Furthermore, it’s consensual conscription.”
This requires redefining conscription as “voluntarily joining an organization,” whereas the reality is that joining the organization is involuntary. Just because it’s possible for some people to 1.) want to join said organization or 2.) volunteer to join other organizations is not proof that conscription is voluntary. If anything, it demonstrates that alternatives to conscription can and do exist.
LikeLike
Jon,
I am in sympathy with your destination but not your chosen route.
I agree that taxation is not necessarily theft.
But you can’t argue that taxation has the consent of those who don’t agree to it without torturing the language beyond recognition. You can argue they SHOULD consent to it if they are rational and I encourage you to do so.
No matter what arrangements are made between humans some people will experience those arrangements as coercion. In an imaginary an-cap state, those trying to establish the kind of constitutional democracies that we have seen would have violence used against them to prevent that on the grounds they had no right to impose majority rule on the minority. There would be a disagreement about who is coercing who.
One thing we can be sure of is that there will be people on each side feeling coerced in any arrangement. That is why people need to do a lot more than feel coerced in order to have a legitimate claim to challenge the legitimacy of taxation.
LikeLike
Greg-
Agreement is necessary for my argument. If there is no agreement, then taxation can be theft. The question is what constitutes agreement.
LikeLike
Jon,
>—“The question is what constitutes agreement.”
OK then. Let’s approach that question from the other side. What is it that we can really be sure constitutes DISAGREEMENT?
Surely the real possibility of coming to violence over the issue is as reliable an indicator as we could ever have. What could possibly be a stronger revealed preference in favor of DISagreement.
LikeLike
“ The question is what constitutes agreement.”
Exactly. And your answer is …?
LikeLike
Jon
“Agreement is necessary for my argument. If there is no agreement, then taxation can be theft.”
And if there IS agreement, taxation seems like an odd term to use to describe voluntary membership fees.
LikeLike
Greg
“ In an imaginary an-cap state, those trying to establish the kind of constitutional democracies that we have seen would have violence used against them to prevent that on the grounds they had no right to impose majority rule on the minority.
Those who wanted to establish a constitutional democracy would be free to do so, as long as they didn’t try to include those who didn’t want to be included. If a constitutional democracy is such a great idea, I would expect everyone to sign up right away, and there would be no problem.
You may be assuming that a constitutional democracy, like any political authority, must have monopoly power over all persons, institutions, and territory within its arbitrarily defined borders, and you may be correct. That makes it a poor choice.
BTW I know I left you hanging on another thread last week when I went on vacation. If you wish we can return to it, but to tell the truth I’ve kind of lost momentum. I’m sure the subject will come up again sometime soon. 🙂
LikeLike
Jon, in my view, Peter is right on the money on this issue, and I think you have shortchanged him. He deserves better answers than you’ve given him. You are indeed comparing compulsory apples to voluntary oranges.
“The real question, the one we should be discussing and thinking on, is “what constitutes consent?”
Yes, Jon, exactly. That is THE question. How would you define consent?
“Yes, this is the interesting question and one I will not be discussing in this post.”
Oh Geez! Talk about left hanging. “Tune in next time to find out if our hero can save the damsel in distress before the train arrives..”
I think we all agree on the definition of theft: taking something that rightfully belongs to someone without their consent, and Peter provided an excellent and concise definition of taxation, and we now need to agree on what consent means. To me consent must be explicit and express, not implied, except in cases where a person is unable to give explicit consent e.g. they are bleeding and unconscious on the sidewalk and the question arises as to whether they would consent to treatment.
There are several arguments for implied consent that are thoroughly discussed and refuted By Huemer. (that book you haven’t read.) Greg G. disagrees with Huemer’s conclusions from the outset, but hasn’t pointed to any flaws in his logic.
There is room for discussion of various types of taxes as user fees, but there are still questions about how many alternate choices are available to someone wishing to avoid the tax/user fee.
“*A quick aside on this point: using the same logic as above, it can be shown that merely being in a minority, losing an election, or not having things go your way in politics is not necessarily a sign of oppression or malfunctioning government.”
Of course not, but one can’t lose an election if they never agreed to play the game, therefore forcing such a person to comply IS oppression.
LikeLike
Ron,
>—“Greg G. disagrees with Huemer’s conclusions from the outset, but hasn’t pointed to any flaws in his logic.
True but misleading. It’s not Huemer’s logic I object to. It’s his premise. There is no problem with his logic but there is a big problem with his argument. It is built on sand. I reject the premise that it is possible to have ANY solution to the problem of government or anarchy that doesn’t leave some people both feeling and actually being coerced.
My starting premise is that that is not possible. You are never going to make everyone happy and get universal agreement. Social Contract Theories are useful for thinking about what people ought to agree to but hopeless for talking about what they actually do all agree to. Instead of looking for some pie-in-the-sky solution that satisfies everyone and leaves no one being coerced, we should aim for a system that minimizes coercion as much as possible and maximizes human flourishing.
No less a libertarian authority than Hayek justified the state (and a taxpayer funded social safety net) this way. Hayek argued that if a system of government was rule based, and those rules applied to everyone equally, and they maximized human flourishing, then you had the system that maximized liberty as much as possible.
Notice that there is not the appeal to emergence here that troubles you so much. Just an appeal to common experience and common sense.
LikeLike
Greg
“It’s not Huemer’s logic I object to. It’s his premise.
His premise is that government has no more right to use force against a person than any other individual or group.of individuals has, without that person’s explicit consent. To illustrate, he compares typical government actions that we accept as normal, and suggests that the same actions by individual actors would be considered outrageous and unacceptable. He then demolishes every implied consent argument I have ever heard. Maybe you know of some others. He concluded that there is no legitimate source of political authority for government as we know it.
I don’t see what objections you can raise that don’t include appeals to either emergence or implied consent, or you might suggest that government authority requires no consent.
“There is no problem with his logic but there is a big problem with his argument. It is built on sand. I reject the premise that it is possible to have ANY solution to the problem of government or anarchy that doesn’t leave some people both feeling and actually being coerced.”
I don’t think Huemer offers a solution, so I don’t know what you are objecting to. He only argues that there is no legitimate authority without consent. I totally agree that there is probably no ‘solution’ that pleases everyone, but I disagree that some people must be forced.
“My starting premise is that that is not possible. You are never going to make everyone happy and get universal agreement.”
That is my argument also. I totally agree.
“Social Contract Theories are useful for thinking about what people ought to agree to but hopeless for talking about what they actually do all agree to.”
Again, I totally agree. Outside of relatively small groups I wouldn’t expect to see agreement on much of anything.
“Instead of looking for some pie-in-the-sky solution that satisfies everyone and leaves no one being coerced, we should aim for a system that minimizes coercion as much as possible and maximizes human flourishing.”
I’m not looking for “A” solution. I think everyone should be free to pursue their own maximum human flourishing, and thereby maximize the sum of human flourishing. Obviously rights must be respected and protected, and that is the reason people form groups and institutions collectively, to protect their rights and mutual interests. I don’t see a role for coercion outside of agreements reached by unanimous consent. Think bowling league. Think one or several very large bowling leagues.
“No less a libertarian authority than Hayek justified the state (and a taxpayer funded social safety net) this way.” Hayek argued that if a system of government was rule based, and those rules applied to everyone equally, and they maximized human flourishing, then you had the system that maximized liberty as much as possible.”
There is no system on Earth like the one Hayek envisioned, and I doubt there ever has been one. What system are you aware of in which the rules apply to everyone – in actual practice – other than relatively small voluntary groups?
“Notice that there is not the appeal to emergence here that troubles you so much.”
Well that’s a relief. That leaves only implied consent and dictatorship.
I know you favor coercion because you fear (rightly) that people will be reluctant to pay for the things you have decided they need, but I don’t see that as nearly as big a problem as you do. If people don’t want something enough to pay for it, maybe they don’t really need it. Listen to what that’s telling you.
The trouble now is that everybody is lobbying and voting for as much as they can get at someone else’s expense. It was inevitable I guess.
LikeLike
Ron,
>—“There is no system on Earth like the one Hayek envisioned, and I doubt there ever has been one.”
And he didn’t think there ever would be. Hayek was a man not known for his optimism. His most famous book predicted it was likely we’d all have been serfs by now. So he was far from a utopian. He was looking for something closer to what he wanted, not the perfect state. But he had a lot more interest than you do in whether or not his proposals were really possible.
You remember quick enough that perfection is not a reasonable standard when you are defending an-cap. Why do you keep forgetting that when we are talking about the real world?
The right measure for talking about the real world is the entirety of human history with a special attention to current events and real world comparisons. Do you really think the U.S. government and the government of North Korea have equal legitimacy?
Because I hear you saying yes to that. Both have zero legitimacy. In this case it’s a bit awkward that zero equals zero. You should be seeing more of a legitimacy difference there. You are so inclined to think in terms of dichotomies. If you thought more in terms of spectrums the world would look more to you like it does for most people.
LikeLike
Greg G.
“You remember quick enough that perfection is not a reasonable standard when you are defending an-cap. Why do you keep forgetting that when we are talking about the real world?”
Not sure why you think I’m holding any one societal system to a higher standard than another. I have no expectations of perfection in an system, or any person or group of people, ever. I see problems caused by monopoly central governments of every kind, some more harmful than others, that I believe wouldn’t exist, or would exist to lesser degrees if people were free to voluntarily make choices about the associations and exchanges they wished to make, and what voluntary groups they wished to form for mutual benefit.
“The right measure for talking about the real world is the entirety of human history with a special attention to current events and real world comparisons.”
Yes. There have been a variety of horrible might-makes-right systems throughout human history, with noticeable improvements and some new forms over the last few hundred years as individual sovereignty and the concept of individual rights has gained currency. The US is probably the best example of that trend. do you believe that process is at an end? Have we reached “peak humanity”?
“ Do you really think the U.S. government and the government of North Korea have equal legitimacy? Because I hear you saying yes to that.” Both have zero legitimacy. In this case it’s a bit awkward that zero equals zero.”
You know me pretty well. If you re asking if I think the US government is less destructive of personal liberty and well-being than that of NK, the answer is yes, absolutely. If you’re asking if the two governments have equal legitimate political authority, the answer is also yes. They both have none.
“You should be seeing more of a legitimacy difference there.”
Legitimacy is the wrong word. Benevolence isn’t a condition of legitimate authority. Is a kindly slave owner more legitimate than a cruel one?
“You are so inclined to think in terms of dichotomies. If you thought more in terms of spectrums the world would look more to you like it does for most people.”
I see the same spectrum you do. Some forms of government have a higher potential for human flourishing than others, and there is a wide spectrum of differences between individual countries in the world.
But the issue is political authority. Legitimate political authority requires consent. There are no modern states that clearly have that.
LikeLike
Ron,
>—“Well that’s a relief. That leaves only implied consent and dictatorship.”
OK then. And there is a huge difference between the two and a big spectrum in between. Reality is under no obligation to provide you “relief.”
>—“I know you favor coercion because you fear (rightly) that people will be reluctant to pay for the things you have decided they need, but I don’t see that as nearly as big a problem as you do.”
OK. And I know you favor coercion because you favor private property. I understand that because I favor private property too. So, like you, I favor coercing people who don’t believe in private property rights into respecting them regardless of how that makes them feel and even if it results in the use of force.
Ironically, the first people to call themselves libertarians were 19th century left libertarian communists who had an entirely different idea about property rights.
Now I know you will want to emphasize how natural and prevalent respect for private property is in the absence of a government supported police and judicial system. Even though we have vanishingly few examples of that to examine.
I’ll bet you would never leave your money laying around unattended in a group of people you didn’t know. That is a revealed belief about how much people really naturally respect private property in the absence of coercion.
LikeLike
Greg
YOU provided me with relief by not insisting on that emergence nonsense again as a source of political authority.
“OK. And I know you favor coercion because you favor private property. I understand that because I favor private property too. So, like you, I favor coercing people who don’t believe in private property rights into respecting them regardless of how that makes them feel and even if it results in the use of force.”
Of course. Libertarians and ancaps aren’t pacifists why eschew (cromulent word?) all violence. Defensive aggression is legitimate or there would be no private property. a system of private property rights is probably the best system ever devised for avoiding and resolving conflicts over use of scarce resources. Of course those who would encounter coercion by violating property rights have a relatively easy method of opting out of that coercion, and have alternatives available to them.
That’s not true of monopoly government coercion, which as often as not involves violation of the very rights governments are presumably established to protect.
“Now I know you will want to emphasize how natural and prevalent respect for private property is in the absence of a government supported police and judicial system. Even though we have vanishingly few examples of that to examine.
No, it isn’t at all natural to respect private property, but over time, especially in recent centuries, people have learned that mutual agreements to respect and protect the property rights of others provides us with better overall protection than we can provide for ourselves individually. Societal norms and customs. No central authority required.
“I’ll bet you would never leave your money laying around unattended in a group of people you didn’t know. That is a revealed belief about how much people really naturally respect private property in the absence of coercion.”
Of course I wouldn’t, and I agree completely. I have only argued that no central enforcer with a monopoly on the use of force is required. I am my own first and best line of defense against violation of my rights.
LikeLike
BTW I think most people have no problem believing in property rights for themselves, it’s the ability to acknowledge the same rights for others that seems to be difficult.
LikeLike
Ron,
>—“If people don’t want something enough to pay for it, maybe they don’t really need it.”
Maybe they don’t. Maybe they do. Needs often don’t match ability to pay but willingness to pay does indicate a certain undeniable sincerity.
>—“Think bowling league.”
Please stop with the bowling leagues. I’m begging you. Work on some new material.
The analogy doesn’t serve you nearly as well as you think it does. A bowling league is something trivial and how a justice system is set up really isn’t something I would assume should work the same way at all. You should be able to do the analogy with something much more consequential if it’s even worth thinking about.
I suppose I should admit to some unreasonable prejudice against bowling. I agree with a good friend who described it as “the lowest form of entertainment.” I probably wouldn’t have this much antipathy towards it if I hadn’t been so terrible at it. Even so, even if I rolled a 300 game there is no way I would want government run by the same principles as a bowling alley.
LikeLike
Greg
“Maybe they don’t. Maybe they do. Needs often don’t match ability to pay but willingness to pay does indicate a certain undeniable sincerity.”
Willingness without ability is meaningless – unless you mean willingness to pay using other people’s money. I am willing to buy myself a Lamborghini tomorrow – and I’m very sincere.
“Please stop with the bowling leagues. I’m begging you. Work on some new material.”
OK, OK, calm down. I’ll think of something else. Perhaps country clubs with golf courses. Does that seems more substantial. I need an example of a voluntary organization that people collectively form or join for the mutual benefits conferred by membership and for which they are willing to pay and agree to rules and restrictions on their own behavior, and which involves commercial interests competing for members dollars..
“A bowling league is something trivial …”
You should try telling some of my former league mates that.
“I suppose I should admit to some unreasonable prejudice against bowling. I agree with a good friend who described it as “the lowest form of entertainment.””
I think that honor belongs to Miniature golfing, but bowling may be close. Apparently you – and your friend – are of the mistakenly belief that bowling is its own reason for existence and should be taken seriously, but that’s not the case. Bowling is just an excuse to go out one night a week, drink a lot of beer, and generally act stupid.
“I probably wouldn’t have this much antipathy towards it if I hadn’t been so terrible at it.”
Being a good bowler is not the point. Pretending to be really good but making elaborate excuses is a recognized art form. Blaming your ball, your shoes, the poor condition of the lanes – anything but your own lack of bowling skill or your inebriation is a skill most bowlers develop with practice, and one’s level of skill at THIS pastime may be measured by the level of mirth it evokes in your teammates..
LikeLike
Taxation is not necessarily theft. It is when the federal government exceeds its legitimate functions of national defense, foreign relations, a federal court system, and the expenditures of Congress and the Presidency. Taxation can also be theft when military spending greatly exceeds the needs for national defense. State and local governments do not have the same limitations placed on them, but their taxation can also be theft depending on what they are spending the money on and by exceeding the amount necessary to meet their legitimate functions.
LikeLike