The libertarians are back on the blog — but at least the current wave are trying to be polite.
With them, however, has returned the claim that “all tax is institutional theft”. So let’s deal with this, simply, straightforwardly, and I suggest in such way that is beyond dispute.
First let’s be clear: no modern society has survived without a government. We have seen states without an effective government, such as Somalia. But that society is failing, and at the end of the barrel of a gun. Assuming that this is not the libertarians wish then government is a fact of life that they must accept — as do all mainstream thinkers.
Second, no modern society can survive without property rights that can be protected without resorting to physical violence. Failed states are characterised by property rights enforced by violence. Successful states are associated by property rights enforced by laws passed by governments which can be upheld in courts, set up and maintained by those governments. So, unless libertarians are suggesting that property rights should be enforced through physical violence they must support the right of government to establish, maintain and defend those property rights.
If they do that though they concede to government the right to establish just what the right to property is: no one else has that right. All anyone else can do is establish that they have a right that can be evidenced to exist within the structure of laws that a government has established. But that in turn means libertarians must concede the right of the state to make law.
Once that right has been conceded the state also has the right to make other law: including the right to levy tax to ensure that the system of property rights it has established is maintained by law.But this means that tax laws are created by the same process that creates a right to property: the two are indistinguishable. The right to property is the same as the right to tax: both are simple applications of law.
Of course the legitimacy of both laws is dependent upon the legitimacy of the government: as a democrat I assume a government elected on a universal mandate without interference in the electoral process is legitimate. I assume libertarians do so too: if they do not they have to say so.
In that case then property rights and taxes are equally legitimate. But they are more than that. They are fundamentally related. For example, the right to enjoy residential property in the UK is protected by law. But attached to it is an obligation to pay property tax. The right to be paid under a contract of or for services is also protected in UK law. It does however have attached the obligation to pay the tax arising on that income. In other words, property is not just a collection of rights. It is a collection of rights and obligations. It is not possible to chose the rights and deny the obligations: if you do you lose the rights.
Tax evasion is an attempt to exploit the rights to property without accepting the resulting obligations of ownership. It is rightly illegal.
The argument that tax is theft is related to tax evasion: it is denial of the obligations attached to property. In offering that denial those who promote the idea effectively also deny the right to property without resort to illegality — whether that illegality be the use of force to protect the claim to ownership or the use of deception to maintain it.
In that case the argument that all tax is theft is not just meaningless; it is either plan wrong or it must be seen as an incitement to illegality. And it is undoubtedly an incitement to infringe the property right of another person — for government is in this sense a legal person acting as proxy for us all in community. In that context the statement is something more still, for it is also vey obviously indicative of corruption, whether of ethics or conduct.
All of which makes the claim that tax is institutional theft a profoundly unattractive sentiment worthy of resounding condemnation by all who believe in democracy, the rule of law and society itself.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It should be added that property rights exist within a social structure as well as a legal one and taxes pay to maintain that social structure.
“Assuming that this is not the libertarians wish then government is a fact of life that they must accept — as do all mainstream thinkers.”
I’ve never come across a libertarian that called for no government. Tim Worstall – your “extreme right” bete noir – has repeatedly stated that he believes government is necessary. Indeed, your example of property rights being enjoyed is an excellent example of what a libertarian thinks is the primary role for government.
@John Scrivens
That’s great, debate over then
Tax is not theft
“Of course the legitimacy of both laws is dependent upon the legitimacy of the government: as a democrat I assume a government elected on a universal mandate without interference in the electoral process is legitimate. I assume libertarians do so too: if they do not they have to say so.”
That all depends on what exactly you mean by “universal mandate.” If by universal mandate you mean a situation by which everybody explicitly consents to the arrangement, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate. However, no such situation exists.
The reality is that the majority (or in our case, the largest minority) gets to enforce its will on the the rest and as in the hypothetical example of two rapists and a woman on a desert island, claiming that the will of the majority legitimises everything is, to me, a variant of the morally bankrupt idea that might makes right.
@Paul Lockett
Thank you for confirming you are opposed to democracy
It does justify my dislike of all you stand for
And the understanding that most people have that you and your kind are extremists threatening to undermine society as we know it
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
@Richard Murphy
Thank you for your thought provoking post Richard.
There’s one thing that troubles me though. I wonder if you could shed any light on it? How does a democratic mandate confirm legitimacy?
Let me try and say what I mean:
Suppose “the people” voted overwhelmingly to kill some sub-set of the population such as the intellectuals or the tall or poor or an ethnic sub group or whatever. That would still be “wrong” wouldn’t it? It can be made law and people can be gassed but it cannot be made “right” just because the mass of people voted for it.
So legitimacy must come from some other source than the ballot box surely? What is it?
“Tax is not theft”
Neither is it not theft: it depends entirely on context. For example, if the people who levy the tax keep it for themselves and spend it on unnecessary things then it’s theft. There are plenty of examples, from both the recent and more distant past, of this taking place.
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
“So legitimacy must come from some other source than the ballot box surely?”
Indeed. Any civilised country must embody basic human rights such that individuals are protected from the predations of the majority (particularly when that majority is in the grip of a moral panic: seeing communist infiltrations, or pedophiles behind every tree, to give two recent examples).
@John Scrivens
If you are this absurd please don’t bother to comment again
That is not tax as theft
That is theft from the government of property belonging to the government
Are you really unable to spot the difference?
@DavidNcl
Now let’s stay in the real world shall we?
When has that ever happened?
Not in Germany in 1933 and nor was apartheid legitimate for that reason
And if people really did think that should happen what chance of a legitimate force within their state stopping them?
Of course such action would not be legitimate – but given it is entirely unforeseeable nor is what you have suggested an argument
@John Scrivens
Enough of this libertarian nonsense
More of it and I’ll simple delete comments as contrary to moderation policy
Anti-democratic sentiment of the sort you promote is the clearest evidence of your contempt for the democratic state we live in and is wholly unacceptable in this country, and thankfully, many others too
You’ve had your go
Now very politely – please peddle your misinformation and prejudice elsewhere
“Anti-democratic sentiment of the sort you promote is the clearest evidence of your contempt for the democratic state we live in”
You’ve not come across the Human Rights Act and the ECHR then? Do you think that 51% of the people should be allowed to deprive the other 49% of their basic rights (right to life, fair trial, etc.)?
Yes, you’ll probably delete this. It’s evident that you’ve no interest in any kind of dialogue with people other than those that already agree with you. To such depths has the intellect of the Left sunk.
“This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here.”
Sigh. It’s impossible to have any kind of sensible interaction with you. There is something deeply wrong with a man who is paid entirely from public funds yet hasn’t the decency to engage with the public.
@John Scrivens
You may have noted it was democracy that delivered such protections
Please don’t waste my time again unless you can actually find an argument
@Richard: Actually, the concept universal human rights IS contrary to democracy. Universal rights are superior to democracy, as no laws or popular will can overturn these rights. This is why many entirely moderate people oppose the idea of universal human rights.
This is explicitly accepted by Amnesty International and human rights campaigners including the DPP Keir Starmer. They endorse fixed and unalterable human rights as an antidote to the vagaries of democracy.
The question you’ve got to answer is whether a democratic vote can change human rights. Amnesty International say no. You, in your laudable defense of the supremacy of democracy say yes. The UK, currently, says No.
@Charles
I am not saying that at all
I am actually saying it is democracy that usually upholds those rights and that without democracy there would be no chance that they are upheld
You are simply sticking up a straw man
Of course democracy fails sometimes
So do all systems
But that doesn’t justify its overthrow
Claiming tax is theft is a claim that it should be overthrown
And you cannot use the merit of democracy as a defence for its overthrow – as you and others are
So unless some of non-libertarian persuasion join in this matter is closed
Can I issue a reminder: this comment is closed
I will not be addressing further pedantry from libertarians on this issue
You may wish to argue government is illegitimate
And you may wish to argue that democracy is harmful
But respectfully, that is opinion so unacceptable in the UK political mainstream that it is not worth debating