So why do we start with the premise that taxation is "theft"? To steal something means that we have taken away something which is rightfully (according to law or, more debatable, morality) somebody else's, so for it to be conceptually true that taxation is theft one must have a right to their pre-tax income. Your pre-tax income is not legally yours...

And why would we need what you say we need at "the very least"?

As for Gordon, I've never heard of a prof who didn't agree with him assigning his works and he isn't even considered a decent theorist by those who don't agree with his ideas. As for Cohen, plenty who don't agree with him assign his works and consider him a great theorist. I'm not sure why I should read Gordon.

I don't see what the relevance of #2 is. As for #1, your example ignores the key issue. For example, who transfered the raw material to the guy who makes the knobs? And who transfered that to that person? But wait...it isn't an infinite regress...for at some point what eventually is your knob is in nobody's possession...how did it go from being a part of the earth to being owned by human beings?

More importantly, I don't see how this is relevant either. Because I never said you had a duty to benefit the state (you are just framing this way to beg the question by assuming the state never benefits anyone else implicitly), and certainly did not in the passage you quoted which was:

Originally Posted by moorobot View Post
However, there are two other issues that I should mention.

1) Whether or not people's pre-tax income is morally theirs or something they are entitled to is extremely debatable; in fact whether we can sensibly say any income in a society with an income tax is actually pre-tax is extremely debatable, because one's "pre-tax" income is mostly a result of previous taxes and transfers (for example, your boss or your customers might be paying you with unemployment or corporate welfare money, or you might have used skills gained via public education to perform "your" work). For taxation to be theft (one entity taking assets that belong to another) under the libertarian definition pre-tax income must exist and it must have moral legitimacy.


Why prove they have a "right" to it? I don't understand why this is necessary to avoid the theft claim; I don't have a right to the ice on Pluto, but I can still take it. In order for it to be morally wrong for you to take that ice, however, I would need to have a right to that ice. I want you to show why the government shouldn't take it since you are the one that thinks it is so bad if they do. My premise is that removing human suffering is bad; if the government taxing removes human suffering you could say "they had a right to do it" if you want but I think this is needlessly confusing.





I did have it; I have a receipt and a law that stated I officially did. In your case, the case of pre-tax income you have a receipt and a law saying you do not own it.

Legally property rights I am fine with when they are used as tools to alleviate human suffering. It is assumed moral property rights I am against, because people invoke them to argue that acts which would alleviate suffering are wrong.

So in some cases theft could be ok...at one point exactly does theft become wrong?

As an aside...What defines a "small" ammount of money? As for e) it doesn't seem clear this is important...because we could change "forcing one person to save one" to "forcing 1 million people to save 1 million". It all depends on how much good is gained by the force.

We KNOW it's not "legally" yours. Nobody is disputing what the law is.

Why do we start with the premise that one does not have a right to his pre-tax income?

The most your argument could possibly establish is that he should change his view to "an act is wrong if it is expected to have bad consequences" or "an act is wrong if it is likely to have bad consequences".

In any case, for the reasons I gave, an act being wrong because "it isn't consented to" is a much weaker moral view than consequentalism, because there are many of acts which aren't consented to which clearly aren't wrong.

Who said we did? I start with the premise that human suffering is bad.

This doesn't matter, because I never assumed that guy OWNED the knobs. The value he adds is his LABOR, not the material.

So, do you want to take another crack at this? Or look for some other technicality to wiggle out from?

So if I don't have a "duty" to the state, on what basis are taxes taken? Please tell me you've got something more edifying than "because you are too weak to stop it."

Nobody else is in possession of it.

So you don't want to demonstrate any right. It feels good, that's enough for you.

OK. As long as everyone sees where you're coming from.

Oh. OK, when I take it, I leave you a little note saying I took it. And another little note saying that you don't own it.

Now we're good?

So basically, your only criteria is "does it fit my personal, vague, subjective standards"?

How do you determine if an action "alleviates human suffering", exactly? Please show me the formula you use.

Not true. We could agree to have a procedure (such as, say, democracy) for deciding another procedure (say, legal property rights) to determine who owns things. Maybe not the best solution ever, but better than trying to determine who owns things via "self-evident axioms".

Then how did you determine that people do not have a right to pre-tax income?

BTW, I agree, human suffering is bad.

I would have no problem with this.

Because giving people a right to their pre-tax income would conflict, in some cases, with alleviating human suffering, which rules out that right.

Not true. We could agree to have a procedure (such as, say, democracy) for deciding another procedure (say, legal property rights) to determine who owns things. Maybe not the best solution ever, but better than trying to determine who owns things via "self-evident axioms". Good. As long as you then realize complete unanimity in the entire world is impossible, and in order to get anything done we need a decision rule, you are not an anarchist.

"So you don't want to demonstrate any right. It feels good, that's enough for you."

Nobody has demonstrated that rights exist at all, nevertheless certain ones exist. If you ever do, congratulations on your new status as greatest philosopher in the world.

Am i missing something big or is this phrase one of the most idiotic things ever written?

Ok...if he doesn't own the knobs, why does it matter morally if he trades them to somebody? Let's say he took the knobs from a kid on the street. Then he aids value to them and trades them to you. Why do you own them and not the kid on the street? You HAVE to presuppose the guy owned them for the transfer to be "legitimate".



No formula is needed, and everybody agrees that one isn't. What formula do you have for deciding what food would satisfy you the most at the moment? What formula do you have for choosing what present to buy your daughter? What formula do you have for deciding whom the best girlfriend for you would be? Can you show me that formula so I can see whether you made the best choice? We are talking about what actions we should take here; and nobody uses a formula to decide what actions they should take.

There is no formula for determining what moral rights people have either or how to interpret them in specific cases or what procedure would best implement them, so don't think you are on any better grounds here.

Actually, it was one of the most idiotic things ever written. See the edit it was a typo

My previous assumption still stands.

I don't need YOU to "give" that right to me, though.

And violating it increases suffering.

So far so good...

I guess. If you want to define the word that way, whatever.

You and all the people who agree that democracy is a good procedure, go right ahead and use that. Have all the democracy you want.

I gave an example earlier in which it wouldn't increase suffering, and you agreed.

The other claim is just a nit.

So how do you demonstrate that the right to pretax income is something that you can give or withhold (no pun intended)?

It's worse than a nit, it's an unsupported assumption...

And there are over 200 different decision making procedures in the over 200 different territories in the world. Have whichever one you want. Rarely does the market provide you with so many different options.

You are equivocating between legal and moral rights here. Obviously legally you don't have the right to your pre-tax income currently.

Why do I have to presuppose that? I hired a guy to repair my lawnmower. Is the transaction illegitimate because he didn't OWN my lawnmower?

BTW, I didn't withhold any taxes from the money I paid him.

No forumla is needed here, because we're only talking about ONE person's preferences.

When you say "I'm going to move resources from person A's pile to person B's pile" you assume that person B will benefit. But you ignore the fact that person A will suffer.

If your goal is a net increase in utility, then you need some sort of method for determining if person A's utility increase is greater than person B's utility decrease.

I agree. There is no formula. Which is utilitarianism is doomed. It's also why voluntary agreement is the only way to go.