orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/29/85)
> > But it isn't really ignored by the Libertarians, it is a central point of > > most of their arguments even though they refuse to admit it. The major > > thing most Libertarians seem to rail about is paying taxes. > > ... The only argument *against* paying taxes is that it > > *reduces one's income* and therefore reduces one's freedom to spend > > as much money as you might like on whatever. But if *reducing* one > > person's income *reduces* their freedom, then *increasing* another > > person's income correspondingly *must* increase their freedom. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > I think this is a straw man. Libertarians don't value "freedom" in > the abstract, general sense: They value freedom from coercion > (specifically, government coercion). Otherwise they would agitate > for all kinds of "free" services from the government like the socialists. > > Another problem with this analysis is that it presumes the utilitarian > point of view, namely that one should strive to maximize some "good" > over the sum of all society, a view that is abhorrent to libertarians > (who prefer the concept of individual rights). Thus the argument is > circular. > > --JoSH Just how *is* taxation a restriction of one's freedom any different than paying for bread in the grocery store? Certainly there is some diminution of freedom in being excuded from the use of a piece of bread unless a fee is paid. Taxation represents a similar diminution of freedom: one has to give up a certain amount of money ("universal exchange value") to enjoy the benefits provided by government. My point is that the *only* way in which taxation is a restriction of freedom is *economic*: otherwise it in no way *coerces* one to do anything per se. It is up to Libertarian attackers of taxation to prove that it in any way reduces people's freedom in anything other than economic terms. If taxation can only be criticized because it reduces one's economic freedom *to* spend more money, then Libertarians are no longer arguing only for a "freedom from" versus "freedom to". The utilitarian view is implicit in Libertarian critiques of taxation: which was precisely my point. Once one concedes the importance of increasing economic freedom (by increasing income) then arguments in favor of some equitable distribution of economic freedom have the same validity as arguments against taxation. Again, it is up to *Libertarians* who attack taxation to prove that taxation is a diminution of freedom in other than economic terms. I anxiously await a reply................ tim sevener whuxl!orb
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/31/85)
In an earlier message, I replied to Sevener: >> I think this is a straw man. Libertarians don't value "freedom" in >> the abstract, general sense: They value freedom from coercion >> (specifically, government coercion). Otherwise they would agitate >> for all kinds of "free" services from the government like the socialists. And Sevener replied in his turn: > Just how *is* taxation a restriction of one's freedom any different than > paying for bread in the grocery store? Now I claim that this is just about as good a proof as one could ask for that Sevener either (a) did not read, or (b) cannot understand what I said. > It is up > to Libertarian attackers of taxation to prove that it in any way > reduces people's freedom in anything other than economic terms. If you absolutely insist: Let us suppose that the IRS agent instead of taking your money, comes to your home and rapes you, taking only an hour of your time and doing no permanent physical damage. Outside of that one hour (which you would have spent filling out forms), how has you "freedom been reduced"? How then can libertarians oppose it? The answer: It is a VIOLATION of your RIGHTS to do something to you by force that you do not want done. Mr. Sevener does not appear to understand any of these concepts. --JoSH
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (01/31/85)
> >Just how *is* taxation a restriction of one's freedom any different than >paying for bread in the grocery store? Really, Tim. We've explained it before, but I'll try again: buying bread at the grocery store is an act of voluntary exchange. I value the bread more than my dollar, the grocery store values my dollar more than the bread, and we trade. No one can coerce either party into parting with what we own; we trade because we want to and have a natural right to. Far from being a restriction of freedom, buying bread is an affirmation of it. This kind of exchange bears no resemblance to any form of taxation with which I am familiar. >Certainly there is some diminution of freedom in being excuded from the use of >a piece of bread unless a fee is paid. No. Consider: 1) A necessary and sufficient condition for the dimunition of freedom by an action is for a person to have less freedom after the action than before. 2) Assume initially, before I go into the store to by the bread, that I have X amount of freedom. 3) Two (legal) possibilities exist: I can buy the bread, or I can walk out. 3a) Suppose I walk out. I still have the same amount of freedom, X, that I had when I walked in. 3b) Suppose I purchase the bread. I'm down a dollar and up a loaf of bread (a situation I obviously approve of), but I still have X "units" of freedom. 4) Therefore, since the "amount" of freedom I have when I leave eqauls the amount of freedom I had when I came in, regardless of my course of action, there is no dimunition of freedom by having the grocery store dictate the terms under which I may purchase its bread. (By the way, I won't trade my TV for the grocery store's bread, but I would trade it for the contents of the cash register at the end of the day. Am I diminishing their freedom by excluding them from my TV unless they empty their cash register?) You mistakenly equate failing to be being better off with dimunition of freedom. I would certainly be better off if the grocery store did not exclude me from the use of its bread, but the fact that a person or persons fail to perform an action that would improve my position does not mean that they have diminished my freedom. >My point is that the *only* way in which taxation is a restriction of >freedom is *economic*: I have no problem with this, although you dismiss economic freedom far too lightly. Like most of your ilk, you view economic liberty as something to be played with and molded to shape a common good. while civil liberty ought to be cherished and protected. In fact, a person's right to dictate the terms under which her labour is sold, to own what she produces, and to trade with her fellows on terms they both agree on is inexorably linked with her right to own her body, her mind, and her thoughts. Attempts to restrict a person's freedom to dispose of his wealth as he sees fit are just as unjust as attempts to restrict his freedom to smoke dope, sleep with whomever he pleases, and worship in any manner he wishes, provided that he respects these same rights in his fellow citizens. >Again, it is up to *Libertarians* who attack taxation to prove that taxation >is a diminution of freedom in other than economic terms. No, since economic and civil liberty are two sides of the same coin. I quote the slogan of the Reason Foundation: "Free Minds, Free Bodies, and Free Markets". Has a nice, natural ring to it, doesn't it? > tim sevener whuxl!orb --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley