Obama's Tax Policy

[caveman99]

Oh, brother…

 

When having this conversation I think it is important to first agree upon a few certain truths.

By all means. However, if your proposition is that “truth” is either universal or factual, then your argument has failed before it has begun. For example…

 

First, taking something that does not belong to you is theft.

The term “theft” is a legal term, the definition of which is determined by those who make the laws. In America, laws are made by the legislative branch (while it could be argued that the executive branch has veto power, that is a power to stop the enactment of a law, not the power to make a law – and the legislative branch has the power to override the veto). The legislative branch is the representatives elected by the people (this is significant later in your “argument”).

 

Second, theft is immoral.

Which is ultimately irrelevant when considered in light of your ultimate proposition; i.e., that the government commits theft through mandatory taxation. Morality has nothing to do with a legal definition. A nice rabbit trail down which to send the reader, but a rabbit trail nonetheless.

 

Further, unlike mores, morals are specific to the individual. That is, mores represent a society’s or group’s acceptable conduct. Morals, conversely, are the principles by which individuals decide to act or to live their life.

 

Third, the income tax is not voluntary so it is theft.

This proposition – for it is certainly not “truth” – is flawed in two ways. First, and as noted above, “theft” is defined by the legislature, which in turn is composed of the representatives selected by the people. Therefore, any definition of “theft” is the definition created by the people. Taxation is not included in the definition of “theft”. Second, the income tax is certainly voluntary. It is a law established by the people through their representatives. In other words, the people have elected to tax themselves. The reasons for this are varied, but nevertheless, it is fact – or “truth”, if you prefer.

 

Fourth, therefore, theft is immoral.

This is redundant – see your second alleged “truth”. However, I will assume that you were trying to form some kind of cogent statement along the lines that taxation is immoral, with your proposition being that since taxation is not voluntary and since taxing without consent is theft and since theft is immoral, taxation must be immoral. However, as noted above, each prong of your “proof” is invalid, and thus, so too is your conclusion.

 

Fifth, making something legal does not make it right. Just as legal honor killings and the subjagation of women and minorities was wrong.

Another rabbit trail. The issues of “right” and “wrong” are irrelevant, for the reasons I’ve already stated. To even make this argument, however, you must first define the terms “right” and “wrong” in terms of society or the individual; i.e., mores or morals. If the former, it is axiomatic that laws are the codification of mores; as such, if it is legal, it is “right” based upon society’s mores, as codified in the law. If the latter, it is one person’s determination as to whether they will follow the law or their morals when there is a difference between the two. Which means, while the individual may believe certain behaviors to be “wrong”, that is a personal determination and not a societal standard.

 

Sixth, legal taxation is legal plunder see Bastiat The Law for more.

Yet another rabbit trail. Further, it is just a restatement of your earlier propositions, and fails for the same reasons.

 

Seventh, to advoate an immoral act is to also be immoral.

A nice issue for a philosophical discussion, but yet again, irrelevant when discussing the legality of an act or the mores of a society.

 

The only thing that exists is the individual everything else is either a conception or preception made by individuals. For example, one cannot show a family without showing the individual and one cannot successfully show society without showing the individual. Therefore, what is good must lie with the individual and not be "common." And if the individual gives up his good for the good of others than it must be a vouluntary transaction. If it is taken by force the negation of good is taking place.

 

Murray Rothbard wrote For A New Liberty in which he states how to "protect liberties while paving streets" at the same time. He also rightfully defines society as, “not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individual.” Furthermore, stating the assumption that if the government did not steal in order to pave streets would result in not having streets is an absurd presumption.

What drives individuals into forming groups and societies is the perception by the individuals that the group or society can accomplish that which cannot be accomplished by the individuals acting individually. However, that perception does not mean that the “only thing that exists is the individual”. The act of unification creates a new entity that exists regardless of the individual. Individuals may leave that society or organization, and the society and organization continues to exist.

 

The individual does not, in forming society or creating laws through representatives, “give up his good for the good of others”; rather, he sacrifices some individuality so that he may benefit from the acts of the society or the laws. While he may give up the right to act in any manner he wishes, he does so to ensure that there are laws to govern conduct of all individuals in the society that server to protect him or otherwise benefit him.

 

Streets are needed for trade and commerce, this is Say's Law, a demand has been created therefore the market will create a supply. With competition the streets will not only be better and well maintained they will also be cheaper to produce. This is simple economics that is demonstrated over and over in the market.

Ludicrous. The “market” may create the demand, but it is some kind of governmental entity that supplies the roads. Whether municipal, county, state, or federal, that is the means by which roads are created to supply the demand for highways that are capable of transporting massive amounts of goods from one point in the country to another.

 

If your proposition had even a single shred of merit, it would follow that we would see private enterprises – and private enterprises alone and operating without benefit of tax dollars – creating roads. They would petition their representatives for a law that authorized them to do so, and then they would do it.

 

To date, not a single example of that exists…

 

In the 20th Century alone the world's governments were responsible for the deaths of 360 million people. These are not the institutions that I want paving my streets in the first place.

And yet you live in a society, voluntarily, in which that is precisely what happens.

 

If, as you allege, it is true that “to advoate (sic) an immoral act is to also be immoral”, it is just as true that the individual who contributes to an immoral act is also immoral. You pay taxed, you contribute to a society that is, in your eyes, abhorrent for “killing” others.

 

Are you familiar with the term “hypocrisy”?

 

Other people are not our property therefore we should not treat them as such. Forcing individuals to "pay" and income tax is treating them as property. I will win the argument, that I am the person that knows what is best for me, everytime. So please stop treating me and others as your property. The fruits of my labor belongs to me only and not you. I work for it, so I should decide where 100% of it goes. Stealing 20% makes me 20% a slave and the property of others.

And if that were the case, you might be right. As demonstrated, however, that is not the case. Regardless, if you find it “immoral” or “illegal” (the latter of which is certainly not true), you have recourse, ranging from voting for candidates that will implement your policies to lobbying legislators, to even separating from society and finding another society in which to live.

 

Thank you AR! I saw this earlier today when taking a break at work and said the same thing you said, "oh brother...." I was planning on making similar points when I got home and had time to do so, but you beat me to it. It is for the better because your rebuttal was by far more eloquent and thorough than what I would have written.