Justifying taxation and the state, also a PhD thesis

[Daniel McKay]

I put it to you that libertarians should, under the right circumstances, be in favor of a big state that provides a significant amount of services for its people.

I am a student in my last year of writing my PhD. For my thesis I am developing and defending a new normative theory called "freedom consequentialism". Part of this involves gathering objections from a range of sources and responding to them in my thesis. Here I am posting a short intro to what my theory is and then a chapter discussing how taxation can be justified by reference to protecting a person's freedom over their own choices, even though it is legalized theft. Please feel free to read this chapter and, if you think I am wrong about any of it, tell me why I'm wrong. I will be discussing useful, interesting and difficult objections in my thesis and anything you contribute will be referenced appropriately.

(edit) Links stopped working and I'm not sure why. The ones posted a few posts below should be working though.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







Didn't read your intro or chapter yet.


What halted me was your phrase, legalized theft.


What are you referring to when you use the phrase, legalized theft? And where can I find a source in reference to your claim?








.

[Daniel McKay]

The taking of property owned by another by force is what I am referring to in one sense. But I suspect the best answer to your question is that I am referring to the libertarian concept of taxation as the unjust theft of a property from individuals by the state. I recommend reading Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick as it is the most influential discussion on this topic. Also I should point out that taxation being legalized theft isn't my claim so much as it is the claim made by a particular libertarian tradition. I am agreeing that it is theft, but arguing that it is justified nonetheless.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Help me out here...

Unjust has a different meaning than legalized. That's why they are two different words.

What exactly is your hypothesis?

What exactly is your final theorem statement?




Copy & paste your bibliography.






.

[Daniel McKay]

I agree unjust has a different meaning from legalized. The libertarian would agree that taxation is legalized theft, but would argue that it is generally not justified. I am arguing that it is justified.

Do you mean for this chapter or the thesis as a whole? The applicable bibliography is in the chapter. The rest is not relevant to this chapter except insomuch as it informs the theory as a whole. I suppose I could post a link to the rest of it here, but I suspect you aren't that interesting in reading it.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




You're right. I'm out.







.

[bobevenson]

Per AEP economic theory, the only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. In other words, all other taxes such as income tax, sales tax and the myriad of other taxes and fees are improper. Money, stocks, bonds and other documents without intrinsic value are not taxable.

[henry quirk]

David,

Both links give me a 'not found' message, so I'll just comment on this...

taxation can be justified by reference to protecting a person's freedom over their own choices

In a perfect world of perfect arbiters and perfect defenders you may be right. In the world as it is, I think you're wrong.

Me, I (self) justify payin' taxes cuz I believe I should pay fairly for products and services I use. Never mind that my tax dollars are spent poorly, in wrong(-headed) ways. I pay, believe I've held up my end of the contract, and generally turn a blind eye to the misuse of those dollars, a misuse that largely endangers my autonomy (cuz, really, what the hell else am I gonna do?). I pay what I must and not a cent more and I expect nuthin' in return (except to be left alone and I ain't seein' a heluva lot of 'that' either).

So, "...libertarians (or any one) should, under the right circumstances, be in favor of a big state that provides a significant amount of services for its people" only if that state is perfect, only if those services are perfect, which, of course, they aren't.

[Immanuel Can]

A short introduction to what my theory is:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B00h0 ... G9GbzJQRHM

A chapter on justifying the state and taxation:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B00h0 ... G5FeGZ1NUU

Dan:

The links don't work for me either. Can you reformat?

[Immanuel Can]

A short introduction to what my theory is:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B00h0 ... G9GbzJQRHM

A chapter on justifying the state and taxation:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B00h0 ... G5FeGZ1NUU

Never mind...I tracked down your whole paper by another route.

Okay, there's a lot to say here. First, some help with defending the idea of "freedom of conscience" as primary: you're going to find this in Locke. Locke's the guy who has the comprehensive legitimation of that right as primary. In fact, all our "human rights" codes of the Enlightenment to Modern eras parrot Locke in one way or another. He's your guy.

You could trace the idea back further, to Luther's move in favour of conscience, for example: but he won't give you the comprehensive philosophical account of why that is necessary. Again, Locke's your man.

Now, a problem for your thesis: it's difficult to defend the idea that "freedom" as such is really a "good." I know that sounds odd, but check out Jacques Ellul in "The Ethics of Freedom." He does a fair bit to show that unconditional freedom is a thing people actually fear, and will do almost anything to avoid. He associates this extreme with "anomie," (meaning "absence of laws, literally), the condition in which there are absolutely no things considered "necessary" or even preferable: fixed rules, guidelines, indicators, benchmarks, and so on. You'll probably want to be aware of that critique, even if you decide for one reason or another not to accept it.

[Daniel McKay]

Not sure why those links aren't working. Here are some updated ones that should work:

Intro: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B00h0 ... G9GbzJQRHM

Chapter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B00h0 ... G5FeGZ1NUU

[Daniel McKay]

I don't think I ever use the phrase "freedom of conscience". Are you sure you found the right paper? Sorry the links weren't working. The one's I just posted appear to be working though.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think I ever use the phrase "freedom of conscience". Are you sure you found the right paper? Sorry the links weren't working. The one's I just posted appear to be working though.

Well, unless New Zealand has a couple of Dan McKays writing papers on this...

I know you didn't use that phrase. I'm getting ahead of things a bit: sorry.
But you'll find that's where this story goes. You asked, so I'm trying to save you some time.

Check Locke. If you can't get "freedom of conscience" legitimated, you will soon find that you won't get any other rights either, and certainly not any duty to recognize "freedom" as a universal good. But with Locke's line of reasoning, which proceeds to "freedom of conscience" first, you have a chance.

You can take or leave the hint. But you did say you wanted feedback. So if you want more on that, just send me a private message, and we'll leave this more public forum for other people to have a say too. I've had mine.

[Daniel McKay]

Okay will do.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well you totally saw me coming, because I read the entire first half of that chapter thinking in terms of +- liberty, so pretty much all the objections I came up with on a first read were useless. I'll give it another read and try to be more helpful later.

One thought occurs though. Is the state justified in, or obligated to, steal some of our money to spend on just looking for problems it is then obligated to fix?

You used the example of neglected or abused children who are consequently robbed of their freedom to exercise full ownership of their person and purse later in life. But that is typically an issue you have to look quite hard to see, so some money up front may be required in order to see the problem so that the obligation to fix it is known. The issue of air water and soil pollutions that can similarly affect future generations also only can be known about after you spend quite a lot of effort looking for it. Experience suggests that if we expend yet more effort turning over all the available rocks, we will surely find other problems that oblige us towards further remedial actions.
Does the obligation to fix the problem come with only a limited or an unlimited obligation to find the problem?
What I am wondering is if you could end up required to implement a 100% tax, to be spent on nothing but searching for all the problems there are in the world of today, tomorrow, and onwards to the heat death of the universe?


Welcome to PN btw. I see you have already attracted the attention of both Bill AND Bob - our very best loons. You are blessed indeed sir.