- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,845
- Reaction score
- 2,515
Income tax is a theft of property. Wages are property. An excise tax or tariff is are sources of revenue that are paid when engaging in an activity such as any sale or buying of a specific good, like alcohol or cigarettes. A toll on a bridge is a kind of this sort of tax. You choose to buy then pay the excise. Alternatively, you choose to sell your product in the country and you pay the tariff (Yay for foreigners helping keep our kids out of the factory). One you have a choice and the other you pay or you go to jail and then you still usually pay. It's not ethical (or moral).
Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate it. It does clarify your position, and does seem consistent.
What I noticed is that the taxes libertarians support are all regressive. See this article: 6 Ways to Fund Public Services in a Libertarian Republic
So, the article proposes six options: 1) Lottery, 2) Consumption tax (which includes excise tax you mentioned), 3) Voluntary tax, 4) Usage fees (which includes tolls you mentioned), 5) cooperatives (basically private health insurance would fit under here), and 6) government selling land to people.
I think this list--aside from the two you mentioned (#2 and #4)--is quite absurd, and really shows how a purely libertarian society is not workable. But, as I mentioned, these are all regressive taxes, which hit poor people the most: #1 the lottery is the equivalent of a tax on the poor, #2 and #4 hit the poor the hardest since these taxes are a much greater percentage of their wealth; taxing loaves of bread, etc. And only wealthier people benefit from #5 and especially #6 (with #6 being highly absurd).
As for #3--a voluntary tax--that one has this worrisome bit mentioned in the article:
In a community, town or city, a voluntary per person tax may be implemented. Services provided by the town such as fire and police services could only utilized by persons who had paid the tax. Those who choose not to would be left to fend for themselves, hire private services or depend on volunteer services.
So, it really is as I said: in the purely libertarian world, if your house is burning down--and you didn't pay fire insurance--then they let it burn down. I think most reasonable human beings don't agree with this sort of ideology.
And the truth is that most human beings don't, which is why we treat a child who got hit by a car and comes to our ER even if he/she has no health insurance and can't afford to pay. (There are poorer countries where such people are told to "fend for themselves" and are denied entrance into the hospital.)
I like kids going to school - private school. If I had my way there would be no public education, but there it is - though that is a discussion for another day with plenty of nuanced points. To your point though, we could pay for public education with excise taxes and tariffs, if we really wanted. The situation is not either steal what is mine or kids work in a factory (zomgexclamationpoint). That's some kind of emotional appeal coupled to a clear logical fallacy.
Here's where libertarians really struggle. See, you are very uncomfortable telling it as it is, so you have to blur what you are saying. Clearly, you are saying that in your system, there would be no public education, and we'd be back to the same system where kids were working in factories.
Question: do you think banning child labor is legal, and do you think the government is justified in mandating child education?
So, you think consumption taxes and usage fees should be raised further to fund public education for children, or no? If yes, then why put such taxes that would hit the poor the hardest, and not take them from those who are blessed with more wealth? Is it not more ethical to take such taxes from those who can afford it, instead of placing taxes on bread and butter, which poor people need to survive?
This is not an emotional appeal. This is (bio)ethics. Do you believe this would be ethical?
I propose to you that the libertarian model is unethical and that one should instead approach the matter using the Veil of Ignorance proposed by ethicist John Rawles, wherein one creates a system based on a hypothetical situation of being behind a veil or wall of ignorance. In other words, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." In this thought experiment, you are going to be randomly assigned to someone in the world--or in this particular case, the country. You may be born as Bill Gates or alternatively you may be born as a poor black kid living in a slum. If one did indeed live behind this veil or wall of ignorance, then one would want to set up a society whereby the lowest person in society would have certain bare minimum floor, because one may indeed be assigned to such a person.
This is a much better way to think of things, behind this veil or wall of ignorance, than to think of things after one already has wealth and resources, as most all libertarians do. It is difficult to find a poor, struggling libertarian. This is, as I have said, a convenient position for someone with wealth and resources, and provides ideological and moral cover to what is, at the end of the day, unethical and immoral, i.e. quite literally letting poorer people die.
Taxing you is not the same as stealing from you, no matter how much one says otherwise.
Last edited: