fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (02/12/85)
Numerous people have claimed that taxation is not coercive because those taxed (at least in the US) have the freedom to emigrate. In reply to this, I first note that the punishment for tax evasion is not deportation, but imprisonment. But let's ignore that for now, and instead suppose that government does indeed give each of its citizens a choice: pay taxes, or leave. By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are not paid? Does the government own the land upon which she lives? Does the government own her house? Does the government have a right to say whether or not this person can stay in a house that she owns, paid for with her salary, that she earned from selling her labor, eitc? Or is something more fundamental, more important at work here? It seems to me that if the state does not own the property in question, then it has no right to force a person to leave it, regardless of whether or not taxes are paid. In trying to understand why people think it legitimate for governments to offer this choice to their citizens, I can only conclude that people who find taxation noncoercive believe that people live in their homes *at the pleasure* of their elected governments, and therefore it's OK for those same governments to kick them out if taxes aren't paid. If there are other reasons why people think taxation isn't coercive, I'd like to hear them. If governments attempted to withdraw their services from those who didn't pay taxes, then taxation would be noncoercive. If governments presented delinquent taxpayers with a bill for services rendered and attempted to collect, then taxation would be noncoercive. But since the only choice people who refuse to pay taxes have is to leave the country or face imprisonment, a choice it could not possibly present people with if it did not have a monopoly on the initiaition of force, taxation is coercive. Whether or not this coercion is "necessary" is, of course, another matter, but it is still coercion and should be called such. --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/13/85)
I think you would have a hard time finding somebody who really wants to argue that taxation isn't coercive. I certainly wouldn't claim this. The thing that libertarians need to do if they wish to convince people like me that they are right is convince us that there is nothing worse than coercion, including anarchy and being overrun by foreign armies. Wayne
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/14/85)
> By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are > not paid? Does the government own the land upon which she lives? Does > the government own her house? Does the government have a right to say > whether or not this person can stay in a house that she owns, paid for with > her salary, that she earned from selling her labor, eitc? Or is something {etc....} Why is this person who doesn't pay taxes assumed to be female? Are women the only people who might refuse to pay taxes? Maybe women are the only ones that the government is thought to pick on. J. Giles
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (02/18/85)
> > By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are > > not paid? > Why is this person who doesn't pay taxes assumed to be female? > J. Giles The only one making that assumption is yourself; haven't you heard of the generic 'she'? It's fairly popular on the net these days, having been introduced as a substitute for the generic 'he', which makes some women feel left out. Once in a while, something happens which gives a man (me) insight into a problem he can never directly experience... Kudos for whoever introduced the generic 'she'. Gary Samuelson
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (02/20/85)
Me: >> By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are >> not paid? Does the government own the land upon which she lives? Does J. Giles: >Why is this person who doesn't pay taxes assumed to be female? Are women >the only people who might refuse to pay taxes? Maybe women are the only ones >that the government is thought to pick on. > >J. Giles Give me a break, J. G! My choice of the feminine pronoun was part of a conscious effort on my part to avoid sexist language in my postings by using female and male pronouns equally often. 'This person' sounds stilted, and I don't like to keep shifting gender. Had I used the masculine voice, you would have (rightly) complained that not all taxpayers are women. What's a poor well-intentioned libertarian to do? --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/22/85)
> > > By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are > > > not paid? > > > Why is this person who doesn't pay taxes assumed to be female? > > > J. Giles > > The only one making that assumption is yourself; haven't you heard > of the generic 'she'? It's fairly popular on the net these days, > having been introduced as a substitute for the generic 'he', which > makes some women feel left out. Even most feminists admit that the 'generic she' causes more confusion and controversy than it is worth. The only thing it does is focus attention on sexism - which was not the subject of your tax article. In English, the word 'he' is taken to mean 'a person of unknown gender' or 'a person of masculine gender' depending upon context. The word 'she' ALWAYS means 'someone of feminine gender'. If you use the generic 'he', you are just using correct English. Introducing some 'generic she' rule is an overtly sexist act (you are trying to make an issue out of something that isn't and never was). Women have their own pronouns, men don't. J. Giles
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/01/85)
> By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are > not paid? Does the government own the land upon which she lives? Does > the government own her house? Does the government have a right to say > whether or not this person can stay in a house that she owns, paid for with > her salary, that she earned from selling her labor, eitc? Or is something {etc....} The government doesn't need the right, its got the force.