Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:34:39 -0700
From: auvenj@mailcity.com ("Jason Auvenshine")
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] A moral argument for Abolishing the income tax
To: auvenj@mailcity.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@egroups.com
Those of you who have known me for a while know that my arguments are usually from a pragmatic/utilitarian standpoint. However, today I got a letter from an individual responding to the newspaper article about Axe the Tax, and the moral argument just seemed more appropiate. To make a utilitarian argument refuting some of the guy's other points, I would have had to debate the intricacies of whether or not the Reagan tax cuts were beneficial to the country. Anyway, I thought some of you might be interested in seeing my response.
--Jason Auvenshine
Dear Mr. Hembree,
Thanks for taking the time to write to me with your comments about the article in the Star. Please bear in mind that I did not write that article. The article was the result of a telephone interview, and while I believe it was generally fair and balanced it did not allow me to fully state my position. I will do my best to give a more complete summary here. What follows is my own personal opinion, and as such it may not be the same as others who may support the initiative.
"I would like to hear your argument against the Income tax"
My primary argument against the income tax rests on the moral concept of inalienable human rights. I believe that you, I, and every other human being on this planet have a fundamental right to whatever we produce, assuming we produce it by honest, lawful means without violating the rights of others. If you don't agree with that premise, there is probably little I can say that will convince you the income tax is wrong and should be abolished. I happen to believe abolishing the income tax would be good for the economy, but that is a secondary issue, and one for which an absolutely definite answer is not available. As you probably know, statistics can often be manipulated to support whatever point the statistician wants to make.
So the real issue comes down to a question of human rights and ownership: Do individuals own themselves, and by extension their productive capacity, or does "society" own its members? If you believe society owns, even partially, the individuals that make it up then you probably believe there is nothing morally wrong with forcing one member of society to pay whatever taxes deemed necessry for the good of society as a whole, or other members thereof. However, I believe individuals own themselves, fully and completely. I believe that it is a violation of human rights to take by force the rightful property or productive capacity of another individual, for ANY purpose.
I believe that forcibly taking the property and/or productive capacity of another human being is the moral equivalent of slavery, and I oppose it the same way I would have opposed the abominable race-based slavery that was present in the early days of this country. When it came to abolishing slavery, did it matter if racial slavery was good for the economy, or good for society? NO (it wasn't, by the way, but at the time the abolishment of slavery was being debated there were plenty of people who claimed that it was). Would it have mattered if the masters had allowed the slaves to keep a percentage of their productive capacity for their own use? NO. Would it have mattered if the masters had provided better food, housing, and education to the neediest slaves? NO. Would it have mattered if the masters had allowed the slaves to work for the individual master of their choice, or to perform the task(s) of their choice? NO. You see, the problem was slavery itself: The ownership (or even partial ownership) of one human being by another (or a group of others) was, is, and always will be morally wrong. The income tax is the partial ownership of an individual's productive capacity by the whole of society, it is morally equivalent to slavery and it is therefore morally wrong.
"...you seemed to think that the Health Department acted in a manner you didn't agree with, so instead of explaining why the action was wrong you cried, 'Big Government.'"
Please remember I didn't write the article, and that the article was about the income tax initiative and not about my son's day care. You are correct that many people throw around the phrase "big government" without being specific. I define big government as: Government which infringes upon the inalienable human rights of individuals. When the government closed down my son's day care, they interfered with my right as a parent to chose where and with whom to entrust my child. Did it matter if they did it for a "good" reason? NO (it wasn't a good reason). That's why I used it as an example of big government.
"Democracy is government and less government less Democracy. Russia was a good example of less government."
Democracy is one method by which both governments AND other organizations can decide what to do and who to invest power in. If you've ever voted to elect an officer of a private club, church, etc. that was democratic, but it was NOT government.
The defining characteristic of government is that it is recognized as having the legitimate authority to use force. For example, if an individual, or even 10,000 individuals as a group (call it a "gang") lock you in a room by force against your will, that's kidnapping. But if the government locks you in a room by force against your will, that's jail. The former is not considered legitimate, the latter usually is.
Because the government is recognized as having the legitimate right to use force, there must be limits on what it can do. Those limits are properly based upon fundamental human rights. So, for instance, if a majority of Americans were to vote democratically to re-institute the enslavement of certain minority races, would that be OK? NO. Or, as was the initial situation in Nazi Germany, what if a majority of people want to nstitute a totalitarian dictatorship, would that be OK? NO. It would be a violation of human rights. So in some sense you are right, less government (I call it limited government) IS less democracy. The majority cannot legitimately violate the human rights of a minority, by democracy, dictatorship, or any other means. The analogy of an unlimited democracy is, "200 wolves and 100 lambs voting on what's for lunch". I think even you will agree that's not what we want. Even if we don't agree where the limits of government should be, we should at least agree that there SHOULD BE limits.
Finally, your comment about Russia is perplexing. If you are referring to the former Soviet Union, it was the epitome of gargantuan government! The government literally provided almost everything for people, and took almost all of their productive capacity in order to do so. It was nearly 100% slavery of the individual to society, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Certainly not "less overnment", although it was "less democracy". On the other hand, if you mean the current Russia, it is an example of what happens when gargantuan government fails so miserably that the populace throws out some of its worst aspects without addressing the root of the problem (respecting the rights of individuals). The Russian government is still big (though less so than before) and populated by corrupt politicians beholden to organized crime.
"What is wrong with our government today is the fact we don't know what is going on and the lying politician doesn't have any interest in our concerns, but he cries get the government off our back, and he is taking care of Corporate America at your expense while you are sitting in the back row."
About this, we agree! I'd ask that you take your statement to its logical conclusions:
1. Politicians lie.
2. Politicians say they want the government off our back when they're really the ones who put it there in the first place.
3. Politicians don't have any real interest in the concerns of the average citizen.
4. Politicians take actions and allocate resources to benefit people who are already wealthy and powerful (ie "Corporate America") at the expense of the average citizen.
5. The average citizen doesn't have the time or the access to find out what's really going on in government.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "power corrupts"? See, if you think getting a better set of politicians in office is going to solve the above problems, think again! You see, the problem is that the power wielded by politicians almost always corrupts them. We vote in a new batch of politicians and SURPRISE they turn out to be just as corrupt as the old batch. The problem is power. And where do the politicians get their power? FROM TAX MONEY. The average citizen agrees to an income tax thinking, "they'll take it mostly from the rich, and give it mostly to the poor in the form of good programs". But what happens? The fat cats have the clout to get their special tax breaks, the special interests gobble up the revenue for their pet projects, and the average citizen gets stuck with the bill! It'll be that way forever as long as the politicians have the power that comes from money taken from individuals by force. Why on earth would you EVER trust ANY politician to properly spend your money or anyone else's money? That's what the income tax does, and that's another good reason to oppose it.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinions. If you have access to email, it is generally a faster way to communicate. My email address is auvenj@mailcity.com. For your information, I have included a copy of the testimony given before the house ways and means committee by the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. Also, if you are interested in public debates on these kinds of issues, the Libertarian Party of Pima County holds regular debates between proponents and opponents of specific public policy questions. The next debate is on May 1st, at 7pm in the Wilmot Library. The topic is the upcoming city bond election. Attendance is free and open to the public. I have included the announcement for your information.
Respectfully,
Jason Auvenshine
Send FREE April Fool's Greetings to your friends!
http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/American_Greetings.rdct
Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you dont. And get $10 to spend on the site!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/4/_/651528/_/955856137/
Community email addresses:
Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com
Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss