The immorality of government thef

[Mr.Vicchio]

Now, it HAPPENS to be that I rolled on this at WND, but this isn't a WND article, it's just where I happened upon it. So shush, first person to bemoan it's "source" just shows their ignorance. WND is just hosting a copy.

Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets. Say I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me three pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance – the $30. 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. Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person. There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

WorldNetDaily: The immorality of government theft

Walter Williams is a very smart man, and I really like what he has to say, go hit the full article if you want, I just got what I thought was the heart of the issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

Have you read any Ayn Rand Vic?

If you liked that, I would implore you to do so.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Atlas Shrugged? Yeah in HS, years and years ago.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, Rand was both a fictional writer, and a factual writer in the form of philosophy.

Atlas Shrugged was a fictional novel, though very tied to factual reality indirectly.

Have you ever investigated her philosophy of Objectivism?

See if you can find "The Lexicon" at your local library, or on e-bay (where i got my copy quite cheap) and tell me what you think of it.

When I speak of Rand, 9 times out of 10 I am speaking of her philosophical works, not her fictional works.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Never really bothered with her work after reading Atlas, I fell asleep reading it numerous times as I recall. Which is rare for me, normally I eat books.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, like I said, Atlas was a work of FICTION.

Try reading some of her philosophical works before you relegate her and her work to the trashbin, especially if you enjoyed reading the OP.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I don't relegate her to the trash bin, I just got bored :)

I'll go check the library next time I am in there researching.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would love to hear what you think Vic if you give her philosophical works a read.

Here are some links if you are interested:
Ayn Rand [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
The Ayn Rand Institute: Introducing Objectivism
Amazon.com: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (The Ayn Rand Library, Volume 6): Books: Leonard Peikoff
Ayn Rand Society
Ayn Rand and Objectivism Reference Center
Ayn Rand

Many more sources, many also on both sides of support and argument of.....

Hope you find the research or reading beneficial, and educational, I know I did.

[grandpa]

You're enamored by Rand, aren't you?

There are far better.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

No gramps, I am enamoured with independence, liberty of the individual, and the right to live as I see fit with equal respect to others. Rand just happens to have the "market" on those ideals with her philosophy, to which I almost entirely subscribe.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No gramps, I am enamoured with independence, liberty of the individual, and the right to live as I see fit with equal respect to others. Rand just happens to have the "market" on those ideals with her philosophy, to which I almost entirely subscribe.

No you are not. You want liberty for some, artificial legal status restrictions on others. Why can't you admit it?

Grandpa h.

[Brunhilde]

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.

[Brunhilde]

Quote by: grandpa No you are not. You want liberty for some, artificial legal status restrictions on others. Why can't you admit it? Grandpa h.

Grandpa, I'm not sure how you got this from Osborne's posts. Can you be more specific about what legal restrictions he's advocating?

[Autolykos]

Welcome to Volconvo, Brunhilde.

Quote by: Brunhilde 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.

No, it simply renders that fact moot. Does it matter so much what the government does with the money it receives, compared to how it receives that money?

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.

And your point is? Do you think that, without the government taking money from people, none of those things would get done?

Taxes pay for all these services. Taxation is not theft, it is payment for services rendered.

Typically, services are rendered on demand. If I wish for someone to perform a service for me, then I will normally have to pay them for it. No one else will have to but me. Yet, when it comes to the government, I effectively "pay" for a lot of other people's services with my own taxes. So tell me again, how is taxation payment for services rendered?

Without them, my house would flood when it rained (no stormwater drainage).

Right, because you couldn't provide stormwater drainage yourself -- or paying someone else to do so.

If it was still standing after the unrestrained criminal element (no police force) had finished with it.

Of course, because without the government, no one would bother to defend their own property -- or pay others to do so.

We all benefit every day in countless ways from government services and they all have to be paid for.

The fallacy of your argument is that these services would necessarily not exist without government.

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.

Yet would you mow your neighbor's lawn without him asking you to do so, with the promise to pay you for it? That's different from the government. It doesn't present prices for its various "services". People cannot pick and choose which government "services" they want, either at any specific time or in general. In effect, government is all or nothing.

Let me ask you this: Would you be willing to kill your neighbor if he did not pay you for mowing his lawn?

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.

Okay, what's your point here?

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.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, aside from more feel-goodism.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: No you are not. You want liberty for some, artificial legal status restrictions on others. Why can't you admit it?

Here is what I will admit gramps......

I want liberty for myself, and refuse to sacrifice it for others unless by my own choice, for my own intrests.

I could care less about other peoples plights or fights, if they don't have the eyes or sense to see what objective reality is, understand what natural rights are, or give respect where respect is due.

There are two ways to get by in the world.....


Voluntary Mutual Conscent

or

Force

When the first one fails or is denied, resort to option two.

I am not plagued by some love for "all" of mankind that waters down my perception of what objective reality is. People die in the world, everyday, its a fact of life that will never change until people cease to exist. Some die by choice, some by lack of choice. I am not the worlds ruler, nor am I any of the rulers subjects, I am me, a common man with common goals for my own intrests.

Your crusade is a folly of perception gramps, and the fact is that not all people are alike.... since some deny the basic rights of nature, endowed in man by nature and evolution, even for themselves. They are no friends of mine, and if the ocean swallowed them all in one gulp, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep, nor shed a tear.

Investigate boot-straps, and then try finding yours and giving them a tug.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Brunhilde Grandpa, I'm not sure how you got this from Osborne's posts. Can you be more specific about what legal restrictions he's advocating?

the ones that are necessary for private property, for landlords and banking institutions to flourish.

But it's apparently some big secret that privatization is a legally-backed process--even though logical deduction could easily lead us to realize a system of private domnination of resources requires some level of coercion.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I could care less about other peoples plights or fights, if they don't have the eyes or sense to see what objective reality is, understand what natural rights are, or give respect where respect is due.

Objectivity must mean reading Ayn Rand, I guess.

You've said before that people's rights are somehow
'natural' or 'inherent,' but they are not. It depends on what we learn about the world, ultimately.

And, for the record, where do you think "respect is due?"

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Voluntary Mutual Conscent

Which, if acted out according to your views would seem like elitist mob consent. For example, there is your attitude in favor of systematically creating "illegal immigrants."

Quote by: Osborn F Enready When the first one fails or is denied, resort to option two.

Fails at what exactly? There are certainly innumerable situations where option two needn't ever apply.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am not plagued by some love for "all" of mankind that waters down my perception of what objective reality is. People die in the world, everyday, its a fact of life that will never change until people cease to exist. Some die by choice, some by lack of choice. I am not the worlds ruler, nor am I any of the rulers subjects, I am me, a common man with common goals for my own intrests.

I also do not love everybody. But I'm not shallow to the point where I'm the only one that matters, or should matter. That too is a deluded perspective. I know I'm not the only one who should matter beacuse my knowledge didn't all come from within me. I owe my very existence to others, for better or worse, and the intelligence and work of others keeps me alive. Practically nobody is truly self-sufficient, and that's why social problems occur. It's important for me to not just shrug off other people's deaths or misfortunes all the time. I don't want people turning their backs on me when I have bad experiences. If there is any major decent principle in the Bible, that would be it.

I also realize there are indeed many instances people have no one to blame but themselves. But even then, how much shaming should occur? Studying society often becomes a matter of pathology. It's ill and in need of fixing.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Your crusade is a folly of perception gramps, and the fact is that not all people are alike.... since some deny the basic rights of nature, endowed in man by nature and evolution, even for themselves.

It is a fact that not all alike, which is why we do not need a system that tries to encapsulate us all under titles of authority. That is a "folly of perception," as you call it. It's even questionable that we need much of a system at all, in fact.
These are questions that should be dealt with intensively, both in the public and private schools, but it's nowhere near as common a theme as it should be. To often we are simply taught to respect authority and to rely on systematic thinking in general.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: Objectivity must mean reading Ayn Rand, I guess.

No gramps, it means being able to set aside personal subjective opinion and values, to look at something without bias, as it is.

Gramps said: You've said before that people's rights are somehow 'natural' or 'inherent,' but they are not.

You say that, but have yet to prove it in our multiple conversations on the topic.

The fact is, your right is to fight, or comply if challenged, or to exist unfettered if not. That is your natural rights in a nutshell.

Gramps said: It depends on what we learn about the world, ultimately.

My best advice, keep learning, you have a long way to go. You still struggle with the concept of property rights, yet ADMIT man not only REQUIRES property to live, but is DEPENDENT on property to live and exist. This shows a serious flaw in your logic in my opinion.

Gramps said: And, for the record, where do you think "respect is due?"

Right up until force is inevitable, regardless of will or intent.

All individuals deserve respect for their property, being mind, body, and owned possesions and land.

Gramps said: Which, if acted out according to your views would seem like elitist mob consent.

I don't care what it seems.... to YOU. You and I obviously view reality through different lenses of perspective, and I have no respect for your view on this whatsoever.

Individuals have the right to voluntary mutual conscent transactions, actions and agreements. You seem to like to group collectives and individuals in the same clump, as if they were interchangeable.

Gramps said: Fails at what exactly? There are certainly innumerable situations where option two needn't ever apply.

I agree, but since that is obviously subjective and is a different line to everyone....

You may think property is no big deal, so to you, people deciding to stay on your land without, or AGAINST your permission, may be just a casual affair..... it wouldn't be for me, and I would resort to force, as my rights allow and as I believe is necessary.

Gramps said: I also do not love everybody. But I'm not shallow to the point where I'm the only one that matters, or should matter.

GREAT, good for you, and that is YOUR right to decide FOR YOURSELF. I however, have a different view, and am equally entitled to it.

Gramps said: I know I'm not the only one who should matter beacuse my knowledge didn't all come from within me. I owe my very existence to others, for better or worse, and the intelligence and work of others keeps me alive. Practically nobody is truly self-sufficient, and that's why social problems occur. It's important for me to not just shrug off other people's deaths or misfortunes all the time. I don't want people turning their backs on me when I have bad experiences. If there is any major decent principle in the Bible, that would be it.

Not from my perspective, and I don't agree.

You seem to have some instilled or taught form of "service" or "duty" in your values, and that is great FOR YOU. I am not burdened by such, nor will I be, period.

Gramps said: I also realize there are indeed many instances people have no one to blame but themselves. But even then, how much shaming should occur? Studying society often becomes a matter of pathology. It's ill and in need of fixing.

LOL....

Its the individuals who have the problems, and it is their problems to deal with. Only a pompous ass would assume he could fix the worlds problems to suit anyone but themselves.

One of my favortie quotes....

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
-Daniel Webster

I am no master, nor a slave. I am man, myself, and responsible for such and no more. Your idea of "duty" and "born into sin" mentality is what creates sheeple and sheeple herders, and I simply refuse to play either side of that fence, or walk it.

[Alive]

If it's theft, then I'm for theft.

Should we disband the military too because taxes is theft?

If a meteor was coming to earth and we had to shoot it out of the sky, and it cost $500 billion to do so, and if it falls everyone dies (just a purely theoretical scenario) what do you tax-is-theft guys do? Get people to contribute to a charity? You know of the free rider problem don't you? No one will contribute because everyone benefits from everyone else's contribution.

I'm really curious what you tax-is-theft people would advocate doing in the above scenario!

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Alive If it's theft, then I'm for theft.

Then you have no problem with non-government thieves.

Should we disband the military too because taxes is theft?

I would say yes, but that's just me.

If a meteor was coming to earth and we had to shoot it out of the sky, and it cost $500 billion to do so, and if it falls everyone dies (just a purely theoretical scenario) what do you tax-is-theft guys do? Get people to contribute to a charity? You know of the free rider problem don't you? No one will contribute because everyone benefits from everyone else's contribution. I'm really curious what you tax-is-theft people would advocate doing in the above scenario!

Free-rider situations exist all the time. No one lives in a vacuum.

In the extreme example above, I'm sure that some people would be willing to contribute to divert the meteor, despite the fact that some may well not contribute. I consider it fallacious that, just because not everyone may put in his "fair share", no one will be concerned enough to do something on his own.

- Rob