Does the government force people to do things?

[Barney]

Well, I think you see my point. The implications are indeed damning. So you start with a conclusion and try to justify it. This is no different from just taking it on faith. What has happened in history must be right.

It's not a final conclusion, but only a possible conclusion. The fact that it is new lends an additional weight of evidence against it. How much weight depends on how highly we rate ourselves as thinkers in comparison to everyone else in the world and throughout history.

So it's not at all what I mean that "what has happened in history must be right." I thought I was appealing to a common value, because of all I've heard you say before about how the liberals are "tearing down pillars of society laid by Christianity" etc. I thought this meant you had a respect for tradition and I was appealing to that. If I'm wrong and you don't respect tradition, then what is wrong with liberals tearing down pillars? You're doing just the same. Both sides think they can simply invent a better society and politics out of their own heads without paying any attention to tradition or history - except perhaps as negative examples of how people screwed up because they didn't do things the way I would have suggested.

Let me turn the question around, then. What is the significance, for you, that nobody in history has considered taxation to be theft, and that almost nobody today thinks this either? How much weight do you give this in your considerations?

[Ondrej]

I think you are confusing two aspects here. 1) categorical definitions and 2) historical trade-offs. I can certainly see why taxation has been pervasive throughout history as a trade off between various outcomes. When matters of governance grow to an extent requiring full time occupations such as policemen, judges etc, people are faced with the problem of how to supply an acceptable living to those performing these functions. Since these occupations ostensibly benefit "everyone" in the community, everyone should pay. The trade-off is lawlessness. If the tax burden becomes too great, very often people protest. This is not to say they necessarily frame taxation as theft specifically but they are well aware of the forcible extraction of their wealth by a third party. That few have framed taxation as theft in the past (the validity of which I cannot assess) most likely stems from the definition being beside the point. Defining things one way or another does not change the desirability of law, order, and stability. However, I think it is important to highlight explicitly what we are trading off. In any other arena, the coercive extraction of wealth from someone is considered theft. We are willing to tolerate some theft if it means we can live free from other encumbrances. But to keep in mind that this is no different from simple theft is to weigh the trade-offs with more honesty.

[Ondrej]

After further reflection. Isn't Robin Hood a tale of returning taxes to those to whom it belongs? I would venture to guess that there are probably hundreds or thousands of examples of stories along these lines.

[Barney]

That few have framed taxation as theft in the past (the validity of which I cannot assess) most likely stems from the definition being beside the point. Defining things one way or another does not change the desirability of law, order, and stability.

Definitions matter if they carry other freight with them. It is pretty universally agreed that theft of any kind is morally wrong. So if you define taxation as theft, you are calling it morally wrong by definition. This definition is far from beside the point. It is the whole point. Your chosen definition means that taxation is always and everywhere morally wrong, and that therefore in an ideal society there would be none. If you think definitions are beside the point, then please drop the word 'theft' altogether, and rejoin the rest of the world and of history in acknowledging the moral validity of taxation.

However, I think it is important to highlight explicitly what we are trading off. In any other arena, the coercive extraction of wealth from someone is considered theft. We are willing to tolerate some theft if it means we can live free from other encumbrances. But to keep in mind that this is no different from simple theft is to weigh the trade-offs with more honesty.

But it is different from simple theft for numerous reasons. Coercion is not the only thing that makes something theft. It is only theft if (a) it is agreed by society that the person has a right to the property being taken from them, and (b) if no benefit is given in exchange. However, something is given in exchange for taxes, if they are legitimate. Either it is public services, or it is a kind of national insurance. In the UK, 'National Insurance' is the name of a certain type of tax contributions. They work like insurance, except you don't have a choice about paying them. That doesn't make it theft. Furthermore, since the government is the final arbitrator on who has a right to property, they have the power to redefine what counts as your property. This power is, of course, open to massive abuse, and has been abused in the past. But "the abuse does not abolish the use" (abusus non tollit usum) according to the ancient Latin proverb. If the government abuses this privilege, they are corrupt and should be opposed. But let's not confuse such corruption with more common kinds of theft.

You say "in any other area" as if taxation was some kind of exception to a larger rule. But there is really only one other area, so the rule is no larger than the exception. Better to say: when the government demands money from you in exchange for various benefits, this is coercion, but when an individual or group takes your money from you in exchange for nothing without your consent, this is theft. Once we have got so far as to agree this, we can then discuss whether the government's coercion in this area is acceptable or not.

[Barney]

As for the Robin Hood story, it is interesting that Ayn Rand explicitly contrasted Ragnar with Robin Hood. Ragnar is actually the opposite of Robin Hood. Robin Hood steals from the rich to give to the poor - he doesn't stop to check how the rich got their wealth - maybe by taxes or by some other unfair means. Robin Hood is a thief in the precise term, and he is celebrated in history because he only robs those who got their money unjustly, and because he doesn't keep the money for himself but gives it to those who "need" (I know you hate that word) it most.

[Ondrej]

I have been sitting here for some time thinking about which way to take this. I have a bunch of thoughts but I think at the root of the problem is something you alluded to: theft is morally wrong by definition.

I think we need to specify what we mean by theft (which I think we already did), and then determine why it is wrong. We are going to immediately run into the concept of ownership.

Ownership conveys upon the owner of property the exclusive right to exclude others from using/accessing/etc. the property. Who is excluded and what the property is used for is at the owners discretion. Theft violates this right of ownership by not respecting the bounds of exclusion and by using the property for purposes not desired by the owner. Theft is wrong because it places the desires of one who has no stake in the cost/value of the property above one who does have a stake in the cost/value of the property. Ownership conveys the responsibility for property on the owner (cost of initial purchase, upkeep etc.) and theft conveys the benefit of the property on those who have not paid these costs. Theft divorces responsibility from benefit. Theft elevates the desires of those who have not paid the cost over those who have. This is what makes theft wrong.

It doesn't matter how many people band together and agree that some form of theft is permissible to them it nevertheless still performs the same functions mentioned above. Moreover, there are certain things we forbid from being "up to a vote". No matter how many people agree that person x shouldn't be allowed to speak, we forbid the government from infringing on a person's right to speak. We also convey upon people the right to ownership of their property, not up to a vote, but beyond the government's reach (in principle). The erosion of private property rights will have the same effect whether it is done by unanimous vote or a king's decree.