Quick "morality" question

[Darren Dirt]

Which, if any, of the following, are examples of coercive expropriation (i.e. "stealing") and are therefore a moral "wrong"?

1. On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.

2. Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.

3. Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who acts as bagman.

4. Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.

5. Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.

- from an exchange of letters here.

[Tom]

Oh good, you just changed every single variable in the original problem.

[Mr. Analog]

I hate to say it but I think both of these guys are too narrowly focused (hence the clash). I'm not exactly excited to pay taxes and frequently they go to causes or people that I don't support, but then that's the whole point of taxation isn't it? It pays for things I wouldn't volunteer my cash for. Is the Government stealing from me? By some narrow focused "logic" then yes, something is taken from me by "force" (that is to say, if I don't pay it then I get into legal trouble). Taxes are not optional.

[Thorin]

So if you didn't have to pay taxes, Darren, what would you do with that money?  Give it away voluntarily, or keep it and spend it on items for yourself?

I'm selfish.  If I had that $10,000 in taxes back in my pocket, I would spend it on things for me.  I certainly wouldn't give any of it to a family that makes half my income so that they can afford to put their kids in soccer *and* buy the baby milk.  And I definitely wouldn't give any money to the group that maintains the roads south of Edmonton (like to the airport)...  I'd be relying on someone else to freely give up their cash to make sure there's a road for me to drive on to get to the airport.

[Mr. Analog]

Well, let's be fair and not direct things directly at Darren (per se) he just posted the link.

Darren, I would like to know in what context you posted this link. It seems like an interesting debate but which stance do you lean toward and why? I don't want to criticize the post but I feel this discussion bends out of the realm of general interest "hey lookie at this" kind of posting and seems to ask some fairly deep philosophical questions. It would be great if you could tell us why you wanted to share this exchange of letters. (Personally, I find them both hilariously naive viewpoints)

I'm not sure if everyone finds them as humorous as I do.

[Cova]

First - let me say I didn't follow the link, and am responding simply to the question posted here.  And if you take into account only what was written in the OP, then its a very simple answer - all 5 are stealing, there's no argument for anything else.

Now based on the other responses so far, it's obvious to me that the original link would lead to some letters trying to justify the ones farther down the list.  Guess what - that invalidates the question.  Taxes are NOT the same as a random (corrupt) "official agent of the government" demanding cash.

It's a stupid question designed to start flame-wars by trying to justify something obviously wrong by seeing how far they can twist the english language - morality has nothing to do with it (well - you could probably argue that it's un-moral to have posted it if you agree with me).

[Darren Dirt]

Darren, I would like to know in what context you posted this link. It seems like an interesting debate but which stance do you lean toward and why?

My hope was that an intelligent, reason-ed discussion might ensue as a result of some illustrative examples of actions taken by individuals, without the public relations terminology (i.e. "political spin") usually assigned to hide the factual reality of the actions.

I did not know that it was necessary to explain "my stance" on the issue of definitions of terms.

In other words, I was trying to suggest that people observe objective reality, instead of being hypnotised by often-repeated euphemistic descriptions of that same reality.

I can go into greater detail if requested, but based on what little has been offered by the handful of those who responded, I suspect (but am not convinced) that it is futile, for it would not be *I* that would be engaging in flaming etc.


- - -

update: what the heck, before this thread gets hyperlocked...

1. taxes ... frequently they go to causes or people that I don't support, but then that's the whole point of taxation isn't it?

2. It pays for things I wouldn't volunteer my cash for.

3. By some narrow focused "logic" then yes, something is taken from me by "force" (that is to say, if I don't pay it then I get into legal trouble).

4. Taxes are not optional.

1. it comes down to a definition of terms, doesn't it? You just acknowledged that the material resources you possess, as a result of your own labour or luck, are being utilized by someone other than yourself for purposes you yourself would not, and do not, choose to apply them to. Then you say that's the whole "point" -- so how about you say in your own words what "taxes" are, and then if there is interest I will offer up "case law" and "legal dictionary" assistance that helps clarify the meaning of this term.

2. another way of wording what you already said in #1. Although the word "volunteer" was used, so the question is, what is the opposite of a "voluntary" payment, and what other areas of your life do you pay for things in a "non-voluntary" method? To look into it further, are there examples in pop culture of individuals or groups that receive payments from folks in a "non-voluntary" method for things they would not themselves pay for if given the choice, and does society as a whole frown upon such actions by those receiving the payments?

3. what is "narrow focused" logic as opposed to other kinds of logic? In other words, is there something irrational or illogical about equating 2 examples of "action X with condition Y" when one is described with political spin and the other is simply describing the objective reality of the action being taken?

4. when you say "not optional" are you not stating that they are "compulsory"? Again, are there other areas of life where a free individual is "compelled" to pay for products or services that they do not plan on using, or even have a moral objection to? As a real-world example, if the grocery store believed you really needed their products (i.e. fruits and vegetables), would they be doing a moral act by compelling un-cooperative customers into paying for their goods? Is there anything objectively different in the actions of the individuals doing this coercive action against those not interested in being customers, compared to the examples in the "letter exchange" linked above?

...Again, to repeat, it all comes down to the real meaning of the words being tossed about so casually in "civilized society". Most people don't think twice about words like "authority" or "elected representative" etc. but when you examine the meaning of these words, whether in "legal dictionaries", or based on "case law", or even (for the most part) in Common English dictionaries, a lot of questions come to mind that challenge a lot of presumptions...

[Mr. Analog]

Well, I sort of assumed this was the direction of your intent but I wanted to be crystal clear on the subject before we proceed any further.

First, let me reiterate; Taxes are voluntary, I pay them or I don't. There are consequences if I don't. I can also choose to leave Canada if I don't want to pay Canadian taxes.

I think you get hung up on the verbiage I'm using and I don't think I should have to explain it but when I say that both of these guys are using "narrowly focused" logic I mean to say that they are ignoring reality on purpose to further their viewpoints. How realistic is the scenario being presented here? I ask you! You've read a lot into what I said earlier, as much as I don't like paying tax I understand and appreciate how the system works. So, how are taxes really spent? On infrastructure mostly and philanthropic or war efforts or whatever else the Country I belong to (and have a say in, however "minute") decides to spend. I don't feel I have to explain how taxes work or how they benefit me directly or the country at large, so I'm going to miss that because the benefits of such should be patently obvious.

To me it sounds like an anarchist trying to set a "logical" trap for a hypothetical argument which is, to me, flawed. I say flawed because the argument conveniently ignores that while yes, taxes are taken away from you, other benefits that you could not provide to yourself are bestowed upon you in return. That's symbiosis. That's why we have government.

The allegory between "thief" and "state" is completely misplaced.

-- -- --

Now that being said, what do you believe. Do you think the Tax man is a good for nothing parasite? Do you believe the Government's authority of taxation is too powerful? If so, what is the solution? No taxes? More bureaucracy to ensure "fairness"? Is it even a problem or is this more of an exercise in worst case scenario hypothesis?

To generate intellectual conversation on this subject we need a point of reference from you, not just a link.

Stand up! Be heard!

[Cova]

I just wanted to double-post these two snips from Mr. A's post, as both are good examples of what I was trying to say in my above post, but worded very differently.

I mean to say that they are ignoring reality on purpose to further their viewpoints.

I call it "twisting english" instead of "ignoring reality" - the point is that what they're saying and what reality is is rather different.

To me it sounds like an anarchist trying to set a "logical" trap for a hypothetical argument which is, to me, flawed. I say flawed because the argument conveniently ignores that while yes, taxes are taken away from you, other benefits that you could not provide to yourself are bestowed upon you in return. That's symbiosis. That's why we have government.

And again - another way of putting my idea of "It's a stupid question designed to start flame-wars by trying to justify something obviously wrong", but worded somewhat nicer than I did.

[Mr. Analog]

I just wanted to double-post these two snips from Mr. A's post, as both are good examples of what I was trying to say in my above post, but worded very differently.

I mean to say that they are ignoring reality on purpose to further their viewpoints.

I call it "twisting english" instead of "ignoring reality" - the point is that what they're saying and what reality is is rather different.

To me it sounds like an anarchist trying to set a "logical" trap for a hypothetical argument which is, to me, flawed. I say flawed because the argument conveniently ignores that while yes, taxes are taken away from you, other benefits that you could not provide to yourself are bestowed upon you in return. That's symbiosis. That's why we have government.

And again - another way of putting my idea of "It's a stupid question designed to start flame-wars by trying to justify something obviously wrong", but worded somewhat nicer than I did.

Very succinct and very correct.

[Melbosa]

Without following the link at the top, and then reading through these posts; ... ... ...

"The original question is all about paying taxes?"  ->  At least that is what I got out of this discussion.  When I first read it on Saturday, I thought it was a question of "Stealing bread if poor but have family = wrong" style thing, but didn't follow the link.

So what I am saying here is I can see why Mr. A and Thorin were looking for an opinion of sorts with the original post? (FYI - I still haven't had time to follow the links so I may be off here with these conclusions)

[Mr. Analog]

Without following the link at the top, and then reading through these posts; ... ... ...

"The original question is all about paying taxes?"  ->  At least that is what I got out of this discussion.  When I first read it on Saturday, I thought it was a question of "Stealing bread if poor but have family = wrong" style thing, but didn't follow the link.

So what I am saying here is I can see why Mr. A and Thorin were looking for an opinion of sorts with the original post? (FYI - I still haven't had time to follow the links so I may be off here with these conclusions)

Well a stance or a point of reference would be nice.

[Thorin]

I wanted to post a great big response but I found my blood pressure rising as I was typing.  That's a pretty good indicator to me that the original post was a troll (even if not intentional).

If you want a reasoned discussion, even a healthy debate, start by stating your opinion and why you hold that opinion.  Then we can state our opinions and why we hold them.  The way the original post and the response to Mr. A. were written, it seems to me that you wanted us to post our opinions so that you could take them apart.  Even now, you haven't stated your opinion on the subject of taxation, you've only picked apart Mr. A.'s points and subtly insulted those of us that chose to respond.

So if you want a healthy debate (on any topic), please provide the following:
1. A succinct problem statement of what we're debating about
2. Your opinion and supporting statements, as well as possible solutions to the problem
3. Definitions of the words you use (when requested)
4. An open mind that can see that your opinion and/or definitions might be incorrect

Anyone that joins the debate will need to provide 2., 3., and 4. as well.

Notice the thread didn't get immediately locked?  We are not flaming each other at this point and there is still the possibility for a healthy discussion rather than an exercise in name-calling, if you're interested.

[Darren Dirt]

I mean to say that they are ignoring reality on purpose to further their viewpoints.

How realistic is the scenario being presented here?

So, how are taxes really spent? On infrastructure mostly and philanthropic or war efforts or whatever else the Country I belong to (and have a say in, however "minute") decides to spend.

yes, taxes are taken away from you, other benefits that you could not provide to yourself are bestowed upon you in return. That's symbiosis. That's why we have government.

-- -- --

Do you believe the Government's authority of taxation is too powerful?

To generate intellectual conversation on this subject we need a point of reference from you, not just a link.

I apologize; I thought the link would allow for an unbiased exploration of the subject by any interested parties. Instead it appears that most RW'ers were interested in first hearing Dirtman's perspective, then responding to that with their own thoughts. My bad, I guess.


First off, authority is just another word for [presumably "rightful"] power over others. It's not a question of degree ("too powerful"), it's a question of legitimacy -- which I will touch on towards the end of the following.


You mention the individuals in the letter exchange potentially "ignoring reality", whereas I am suggesting that most people are "ignoring reality" by focusing on the memes and terminology without really thinking about the reality underlying the concepts. As NLP and other areas of study remind us, "The MAP is not the TERRITORY". The word is not the object it refers to.

But I won't get into that.

I'm not sure what you mean "how realistic", if you mean how realistic are those examples in the O.P. well those types of things happen every day. The result in the same (current owner losing property to new recipient) and the difference is in how that result takes place, again without euphemistic labels, instead using simple observational narrative verbiage.

You mention "belonging" to a Country. Well, I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but what factually is a "Country"? Most people are referring to a conceptual division when they say "country" or "nation", I presume you mean that and not the actual parcel of dirt (i.e. "territory") that you stand on/reside on, etc. If not, then consider how the government of a "nation" can be governing dirt. And how can those acting as representatives of a country be acting on behalf of dirt.

I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic or flippant, I'm only trying to examine the meanings behind the words we so casually toss around.


You mention benefits "you could not provide to yourself". Keep in mind, any exchange of goods or services among consensual parties is intended to benefit both parties. If customer X doesn't like the price or product offered by business Y, the exchange does not take place. No force is necessary to make it take place, only mutual consent.

But this kind of beneficial exchange takes place on a larger scale, beyond individuals, I do not dispute. A group obviously act as a stronger presence than the singular individuals who make up that group. But ... well, let me try a different angle to clarify:

The services provided via taxation (i.e. by government, funded by taxation) are not themselves the problem. It is the way that those services are provided (funded) that is the problem. Beyond the "concept" of nations and governments etc. is the reality, that "government" is just individual living men and women, acting in the real world upon the physical world and upon the people within a certain parcel of dirt. And the only legitimate authority (i.e. power, rights, etc.) those men and women possess is that which was originally found in those who *delegated* power to them. Might I suggest reading (for example) Lysander Spooner's writings on "representative government" (such as "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority", or his letters to the local governor, etc.) That would help to clarify why I am being so bold as to claim that "government authority" is a commonly-believed myth, but though popular it is still in violation of logic and reason (just by examining what an "elected representative" actually is, factually -- an agent acting on behalf of a principle, thus limited in power to what the represented individual could do as an individual -- Spooner covered the issue in great detail 150 years ago).


Again, I have no problem with a collected group of individuals acting together to "do more" than they could do on their own, to act out their beliefs and desires with faster or greater success than they could alone. But "more" is in terms of quantity, not quality. To contribute more # of hours to build something, for example, that makes sense and has occurred since people could communicate and share their needs with each other. But to magically acquire an increase in the TYPE of power they can exercise, simply because they gather together, that is what I am claiming is in violation of logic and reason.

I hope that, at least, is clear. If not, or if you disagree, please give me an example of when a collection of individual entities acquires new properties that do not exist in any of the individuals. Because that is allegedly what happens when folks under the label of "government" act upon the masses of a political division (nation, province, state, city, etc.) whether or not those actions are in opposition to the wishes of those principals supposedly being "represented" by their agents, or beyond the powers of those individual principals (often called "constituents").

Authority is another word for [rightful] power over others. It's not a question of degree ("too powerful"), it's a question of legitimacy. And these government men and women only acquire power from those that they claim to act on behalf of. But again, those in government act in ways that the individuals they claim to represent would not or could not legitimately/morally act *as individuals*.

That's just the beginning of the rabbit hole. I apologize for raising the blood pressure of any of you fine folks. If you are curious, I have read a handful of different "law dictionaries" over the years, and personally own the respected "Canadian Law Dictionary". I simply looked up terms, and when the definitions included other terms I looked up *those* definitions, etc. Doing that with case law, etc. also contributed to my POV. I don't claim to be an expert in any of this, but as Voltaire (i think) said "If you will speak with me, define your terms".


Oh, and PS: if someone is claiming to have a cure for cancer that involves leeches, and I point out the irrationality of their claim (i.e. "it does not work"), I am not burdened with the responsibility of offering a replacement cure that "works". I may, however, point out that the sufferer has presumed the cancer is only curable via the leech method that has been offered by well-meaning people around him for his entire life, but there may be alternative ways of achieving the same goal. But I am not interested in imposing my own ideas of "replacements" to "make people free" if I believe they are currently in a form of slavery with invisible bars*, as there are dozens of organizations working on the problems that far exceed anything I could articulate. Online there is "The Mises Institute", "Reason Magazine", "Strike-The-Root.com", "LewRockwell.com", for example. Plenty of others, all questioning the basis of much of the current system of control that we have all been born* into

- - - - - - -

*Morpheus' lines to Neo, and V's lines to Evey come to mind.

[Mr. Analog]

I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic or flippant, I'm only trying to examine the meanings behind the words we so casually toss around.

No, you can have a position and I can have a position, but all you're doing is dissecting what I'm saying without really stating what you think or moving the conversation tangentially into some odd discussion about the meaning of sovereignty (seriously, what the heck).

You have a very anarchistic view of governance and it shows in your response. It would have been nice to know your viewpoint from the start because then perhaps I could have a point of reference with which to understand and counter your argument (had you made one to begin with), but instead you waited until others had (in retrospect foolishly) responded before explaining how "wrong" I (and others) clearly are.

I have to state now that this could have been an interesting discussion about tax reform, but it has clearly not gone in the direction you seemed to want. Next time open a debate maybe define a starting position, a purpose of conversation, rather than just letting it fall to any open interpretation.

Darren, you are a good friend and in many ways I respect you, but you really have to learn to stop conversing with us in such an aggressive manner.

I will not absorb your philosophy solely by dictation.