| Look at the morality of a resource allocation method that requires I serve my fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces and contrast it with government resource allocation. The government can say, "Williams, you don't have to serve your fellow man; through our tax code, we'll take what he produces and give it to you." Of course, if I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we'd call it theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft – the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.
This viewpoint overlooks that the government uses tax dollars to provide services. I don't know how it works in other places, but in Australia taxes pay for universal health care, free primary and secondary education, subsidised university education, road building and repair, provision of electricity and water, policing, civil defence, disaster relief, search and rescue, environmental protection...and so it goes on, down to making the storm water drains work and removing rubbish.
Taxes pay for all these services. Taxation is not theft, it is payment for services rendered. Without them, my house would flood when it rained (no stormwater drainage). If it was still standing after the unrestrained criminal element (no police force) had finished with it. We all benefit every day in countless ways from government services and they all have to be paid for.
The article you quote describes the merit of a system where you provide a service and are paid for it. It then derides taxation as a system where "for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American".
What would you do if you mowed your neighbor's lawn and he refused to pay you? Would you use "intimidation, threats and coercion" (either directly or through debt-recovery mechanisms) to "confiscate" that money from him? You betcha.
Why assume your taxes are paying for programmes of which you disapprove? Does the government send you an itemised account of how your individual tax dollars are spent? What would that look like...
Account of Bob Brown
Item: fire and rescue service $3.86
Item: public education system $5.42
Item: environmental protection $1.03
...and so on.
I like nurses. I think they do a great job. The tax I pay in any given year would pay roughly one-third of a nurse's salary. I like to think that, somewhere in the Australian Health System, is a nurse with "Sponsored by Brunhilde" embroidered on his or her uniform. This is much more satisfying to me than imagining it paying for, say, a particularly wanky piece of modern art. It's also just as possible to be true. |