Taxation Is Robbery

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov

[From Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, by Frank Chodorov; The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1962, pp. 216–239.]

THE Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as "that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects." That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word "compulsory" looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to ques*tion the "right" of the State to this use of power. What sanc*tion, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?

On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the key*stone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxa*tion per se; the State's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.

The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postu*late is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.

If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.

Rest of article at: http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

 

Well, the government does need to get fund from somewhere. And since the government is part of our society, we aren't really getting robbed.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

If one is being robbed, then one has little option but to hand over whatever the robber wants. Since in this country, you have the option of leaving, the argument that we are being "robbed" is hyperbole. The TRUTH is, that we are not being robbed, we are paying taxes and if we don't like paying them, then we may leave.

 

Yet another irrational response from you. Like saying - "hey if you don't want to get robbed, don't go into a high crime area. If you go in that area, then you forfeit your rights to resist theft." That doesn't magically bestow the right of theft upon the criminals in the area to deprive you of your property.

 

Can you disprove any of the following?:

IS GOVERNMENT A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING?

People often debate or argue about the "role of government." But there is a basic argument that is almost always overlooked. It is a very simple argument:

* If you examine anything being "done by government," you will find human beings doing whatever is being done. They may also use equipment and machinery, but the most important work is done by individual human beings. If you go to a school, you will not find any "government" that runs the school. You will find a principal, a number of administrative people, and several teachers - all individual human beings. No matter what government monopoly you examine, for example a police station, you will find that the important work is done by individual human beings. If you visit a military installation, or a court, or a jail, or a veterans hospital, or a road being built, you will find individual human beings doing the work.
* The fact that these human beings call themselves "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not call themselves "government."
* Furthermore, the fact that certain individuals organize themselves into an institution called "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not so organize themselves.
* In general, people who don't call themselves "government," can do anything humans can do, at least as well as people who call themselves "government."

Is there any evidence that just because people call themselves "government," or they organize themselves into an institution called "government," they can do their jobs better?

IDOLATRY

In Man and Superman George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Government is the organization of idolatry." The dictionary defines "idol" as:

* A representation or symbol of worship;
* A false god;
* A pretender or impostor;
* An object of passionate devotion;
* A false conception or fallacy.

An idolater is a worshipper of idols. Idolatry is the phenomenon of worshipping idols. What do we call the belief in the "magical power" of government? What about the belief that because people call themselves "government" - or they organize themselves into an institution called "government" - therefore they have "magical powers" to perform miracles? Superstition, perhaps?

WE NEED PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND MANAGING

Certain "communal" activities need to be performed. For example, in a city certain things need to planned, coordinated, and managed. If you go to any city, you will find some human beings doing just this. They may use computers and other equipment, but the essential planning, coordination, and managing is always done by human beings. If you visit a large company, you will find the same thing. We absolutely do need planning, coordination, and managing. We have it. People do it.

DO WE ALSO NEED COERCION, VIOLENCE, AND MONOPOLIES?

Generally, the people who call themselves "government" operate on a different basis from that of the people who don't call themselves "government." The following assumptions seem to underlie the behavior of the people who call themselves "government":

* We are the only ones qualified to do the things we do; therefore we must have a monopoly to do the things we do and no one else may do them.
* In particular, we must be the only ones who have a monopoly on legalized violence.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to do what we want; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to follow our orders.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to pay for our wonderful services; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to pay.
* Because we do our jobs so well, we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force people to not compete with us.
* Some of our friends (who don't call themselves "government") are uniquely qualified to do the things they do (like doctors and other special-interest groups); therefore we grant them monopolies (licences), so they don't have to compete with unqualified quacks in a free market. Guess what this will do to medical costs - and the licence fees and campaign contributions we'll be able to collect!

Governments utilize coercive power, the power of violence, the power that stems from the barrel of a gun, power over or against people, government power at the expense of individual power. Government is organized violence. Governments, over time, tend to do their utmost to eliminate individual power. With a few exceptions, governments do not solve problems, they create them.

THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT

If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the more people they control.

The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of control.

PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS.

Once you realize that governments consist of people, and that whatever is being done is done by individual human beings - even though they may use machines and equipment - then it becomes embarrassingly obvious that only people can solve problems. The entire notion that government can or should do anything becomes quite absurd.

In their book Breakthrough Thinking, Gerald Nadler and Shozo Hibino write that "an organization, as a collective body, can't approach a problem." They have a section on "political and governmental horrors." They indicate that politics and government "are the graveyards of misbegotten problem solving." Politicians and bureaucrats have three basic types of "solutions":

* Pass a law.
* Throw money at the problem.
* Appoint a committee to study the problem.

In terms of problem-solving methodology, all three types are at best inefficient.

I would go further and suggest that as soon as people call themselves "government," there is a considerable probability that they acquire some kind of "magical power in reverse" - they somehow become less able to solve problems. Nadler and Hibino say that, "Government is operated mainly by bureaucrats, and bureaucrats' classic criterion in decision making is not fulfillment of project purposes but protection of their jobs."

Some people say government is a fecal alchemist - everything they touch turns into feces.

GOOD PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT

There are good people in government who produce worthwhile results. These valuable results are produced, not because the good people call themselves "government," but because they are good, competent, skillful people. If these people were to leave government - stop calling themselves "government" - I expect they would be able to produce even better results.

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua9.shtml

 

That's rhetoric nonsense. "Problems Are Solved By People, Not By Governments"? And then you state that people are governments. Therefore people are attempting to solve the problems - meaning that governments at least CAN attempt to solve the problems, rather than being a useless method of control as you are stating here.

 

No, that wasn't what was stated. I told you once you needed some help with reading comprehension. Looks like that still holds true. Now read it again.

 

That is what I was basing my opinion on.

"PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS." My perception: People solve problems. Governments do not.

"...that governments consist of people...whatever is being done is done by individual human beings..." My perception: Governments are made up of people. Governments are just groups of people.

Putting it all together: People solve problems. Governments do not. Governments are made up of people.

This is how I inferred the double standard. I meant no disrespect to you as I'm pretty sure you didn't write it; the crack about my reading comprehension skills was uncalled for.

 

No, that is how you ignored the totality of his argument and arrived at an erroneous conclusion.

 

Truth-bringer, your post contradicts itself. It says that we do not need government because the people that make up a government are what solves problems. By that logic, doing away with government would make no change in what is being done. The same people would be doing the same job, and face the same problems, only they would not be calling themselves government.

I also disagree greatly with some of the misconceptions your post makes about granting "monopolies" through licenses. There are jobs out there that need regulation. There needs to be some way to ensure that not just anybody off the street can give legitimate medical advice. If I'm on trial, I want to make sure I have a lawyer that knows the law, and a judge that the wasn't just dragged in off the street. The only way I can see to gaurantee that these qualifications are met is through government, and the only way to support these things being done is through taxation.

 

Let's assume for a moment that I agree with you (as the fact that I do not would not be conducive to the request I am about to make). What is the totality of his argument? Could you sum it up for me in a few short sentences?

 

It doesn't really matter wether the post contradicts itself, the fact is that every society ever has always set up a government if it lasts long enough because it is in human nature to establish order, and those with intellect end up making the decisions for everyone else.

And to fund the government, you need taxes. And everything the taxes should pay for the people use for their benefit. I personally believe spending excessive amouts on weapons is a waste of money and the tax payer should have the option about things like that.

I'm left wing, I might even stretch myself to a Socialist at times, but what you seem to want with no taxes and no Government is an orderly Anarchist society. It just doesn't work!

 

The Burden of taxes is not supposed to fall upon the individual citizen.....Corporations are the ones who are supposed to be footing the bill.Instead they are the ones that are getting all the tax breaks, and all of the power, and they in turn Donate MILLIONS to the political parties, which are NOW CONTROLLED by these corporate dollars.... many of which are made by the Breaks these corporations are given!! Its the corporations, and business ,that are supposed to support the tax base........Not the individual citizens

 

Do you believe for even a second that corporations pay taxes? Taxes are a cost of doing business and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of business knows that prices cover the cost of doing business. Slap taxes on corporations and the tax bill is added to the cost of the goods or services they provide thus shifting the tax burden right back to the citizens.

 

No, that's not what it says. You people are doing some selective reading to the max (yes, it's time for an 80's valley girl reference...)

I disagree with your misconception of claiming my post makes a misconception.

The only regulation we need is that knowing business owners and service providers can be sued if they fail to perform against the contract with their customer, and can be imprisoned if their negligence seriously harms or kills someone. We just need honest people in government to actually enforce these laws.

Like all of these licensed attorneys:

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=12096

http://www.mises.org/story/2107

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape10.shtml

Like these judges:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0624041pump1.html

http://proliberty.com/observer/20000409.htm

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/08/867.asp

http://www.judgewatch.org/commons/disruption-of-congress-case.htm


Licensing does not insure competence. Your claim is that only government can regulate ethical behavior via such licensing. Your argument is clearly disproven by the fact that government itself cannot behave ethically at times.