Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Nilloc]

Thus far I haven't found scriptural evidence for Christian forcing socialism on non-Christians. I ask it over and over again, and every time they point to Romans 13 and Matthew 21:21. Yes, that's an argument for paying taxes. Since we live in representative democracies that doesn't mean you should vote to force it on other people.

I agree. I only mentioned it because Wright is, as I said, probably a little socialist and the fact that I don't remember him ever using the Caesar passage (it's actually Matt. 22, not 21) to say it's morally wrong for Christians to not pay taxes. He does interpret it as Jesus telling the Jews to do it, but he says nothing of Christians. I imagine he would use Rom. 13 for paying taxes (can't remember), but not socialism.

As for myself, I currently don't pay income taxes because I work odd jobs for family members and am paid under the table. I don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt over it, nor do I when I speed (which isn't very often) or watch copyrighted material online (take that SOPA!).

 

[MacFall]

I've never believed that Caesar necessarily owns whatever Caesar claims, so I don't have a problem with tax evaders.

 

[Gath]

Ok, I have a question for all fellow libertarians here:

What's your opinion on the idea that "You can't be free if you're dead" in order to justify government programs that provide necessities? (Food, water, healthcare (if you consider that a necessity)) Is it possible for such programs, assuming that their sole purpose is for the survival of all citizens, to be compatible with libertarianism?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Is it possible for such programs, assuming that their sole purpose is for the survival of all citizens, to be compatible with libertarianism?

I think so, but I've been told that's one area where I break company with my fellow libertarians. *shrug*

 

[MacFall]

It rests on a false assumption that government actually provides those things in a better manner than they would be otherwise provided in the absence of government. Volumes of consequentialist libertarian scholarship shows that this isn't the case: that in fact, the government providing those things through coercive means that are politically motivated and managed only ensures that resources that would, in a free society, produce more food, healthcare, and infrastructure only get consumed parasitically.

And also, I value freedom as a moral concept. I'm not going to dump my moral principles just because someone thinks they can show me that people's material well-being would be enhanced through means I see as being immoral. Although I know that's not very convincing to most people, so I have no problem with addressing the argument from effect.

 

[Nilloc]

Ok, I have a question for all fellow libertarians here:

What's your opinion on the idea that "You can't be free if you're dead" in order to justify government programs that provide necessities? (Food, water, healthcare (if you consider that a necessity)) Is it possible for such programs, assuming that their sole purpose is for the survival of all citizens, to be compatible with libertarianism?

The problem is that the way the government would get the money to fund such things. It would do so through taxation, which is theft. Theft is in oppostion to freedom. To say it's okay for the government to feed you to preserve freedom is itself a violation of freedom.

 

[MacFall]

I suppose that's a more direct answer to the question. Yeah, like NILLOC said it isn't strictly compatible with libertarianism, because libertarian ethics are methodologically individualist. There is no "greater good" that can excuse the violation of individual rights. One may come up with lots of reasons for such violations, but not one of them would make it excusable within the libertarian ethical paradigm.

 

[Gath]

The problem is that the way the government would get the money to fund such things. It would do so through taxation, which is theft. Theft is in oppostion to freedom. To say it's okay for the government to feed you to preserve freedom is itself a violation of freedom.

That's true, but you're looking at two opposing rights here.

The right to live vs. the right to keep what you earned.

So (in my view at least) it seems that you must choose one of the two-I choose the first.

However, this also assumes that you view life as a positive right, meaning that society is obliged to let you live, against the idea of life as a negative right, meaning that others can't take it from you.

I view life as a positive right because I'd say it's wrong to let someone die simply because they're poor. That seems to lead to a 'you work or you die' mentality, which I associate with the Soviet Union under Stalin, not modern-day America.

Thoughts?

 

[Nilloc]

So (in my view at least) it seems that you must choose one of the two-I choose the first.

I choose both. If right to life means you're allowed to force others to feed you, do property rights mean you can take others property? You have a right to life in that no one can take it from you (kill you). The only obligation that creates for others is to not kill you(if you can really call that an obligation). If they have to pay for your stuff, that creates an obligation on them to pay you, for no fault of their own.

I view life as a positive right because I'd say it's wrong to let someone die simply because they're poor.

That's assuming they would die if the state didn't steal for them.

That seems to lead to a 'you work or you die' mentality, which I associate with the Soviet Union under Stalin, not modern-day America.

So you prefer the 'pay us or die' mentality of the state?

 

[MacFall]

The right to life IS a property right, as it is an expression of the fact of self-ownership. You - your body, will, and faculties altogether - are your first and primary property. All other rights devolve from the fact of self-ownership, and if they conflict with it then they aren't really rights at all. By taking another's property by force in order to sustain your life, you are acting in violation of their self-ownership, which is a partial abridgement of THEIR right to life. This is impossible to justify, because your right to life cannot be superior to that of another human being.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

It would do so through taxation, which is theft. Theft is in oppostion to freedom.

I kinda take a Thoreauian stance on taxes. I'll pay 'em, I don't like 'em, but if I find that my taxes are directly going to pay for something I don't support, I won't pay 'em.

Thoreau did that and survived.

 

[MacFall]

True, but Thoreau lived in a day and age in which even the most ambitious politicians were only beginning to imagine a state having the scope and power of the one under which we live today. Successful tax resistance takes a lot more subterfuge than it used to. I mean, unless martyrdom falls within your definition of success.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

True, but Thoreau lived in a day and age in which even the most ambitious politicians were only beginning to imagine a state having the scope and power of the one under which we live today. Successful tax resistance takes a lot more subterfuge than it used to. I mean, unless you want to be a martyr.

Point well taken

 

[Nilloc]

The right to life IS a property right, as it is an expression of the fact of self-ownership. You - your body, will, and faculties altogether - are your first and primary property. All other rights devolve from the fact of self-ownership, and if they conflict with it then they aren't really rights at all. By taking another's property by force in order to sustain your life, you are acting in violation of their self-ownership, which is a partial abridgement of THEIR right to life. This is impossible to justify, because your right to life cannot be superior to that of another human being.

I think it was Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty who said that we really only have one right--the right to property. Freedom then is doing whatever you like with your property without violent interference. I like the way Matthew 20:15 says it: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?"

 

[MacFall]

Yep. And I read something by a libertarian Christian early on in my conversion to the ideology that the non-aggression principle is just the universalization of that Biblical principle - the recognition that if you have the right to do what you want with what is yours, then everyone else has the right to do what they want with what is theirs. And if that includes not giving you any of it, then you can't justly take any of it.

 

[Gath]

I choose both. If right to life means you're allowed to force others to feed you, do property rights mean you can take others property? You have a right to life in that no one can take it from you (kill you). The only obligation that creates for others is to not kill you(if you can really call that an obligation). If they have to pay for your stuff, that creates an obligation on them to pay you, for no fault of their own.

Well, I'd liken in to the idea of national defense. Sure, it may require taxation in order for the US to defend itself (and I certainly don't think the military should be as large as it is now) but a military is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens. I'd say that providing food for those who would die without it is in the same category-bad, but necessary to protect the rights of citizens.

I also wouldn't say that taxation is necessarily theft-if you live in a society, you agree to play by the rules of that society. And if that society says that you're obliged to pay X% of your income a year...that's not theft, that's fulfilling a contractual obligation you made when you chose to live in that society.

That's assuming they would die if the state didn't steal for them.

Right, but that's what my situation assumed-any such programs would be in place to achieve one goal: The survival of the citizens. If they wouldn't die without government help, they don't get government help.

So you prefer the 'pay us or die' mentality of the state?

In situations where said payment is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens.

 

[MacFall]

The social contract argument doesn't hold a drop of water under a libertarian paradigm. But as this thread isn't really for debate, I'm not going to argue it here. I will, however, direct you to these resources which helped me reject the social contract chimera.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/1_3/1_3_3.pdf - A very well written critique of the Socratic origins of social contract theory as developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and later by Rawls and Rand.

Anatomy of the State, by Murray N. Rothbard - Social contract theory is presented as a part of Rothbard's "anatomy of the state".

Also, reposting this since it hasn't been addressed yet:

The right to life IS a property right, as it is an expression of the fact of self-ownership. You - your body, will, and faculties altogether - are your first and primary property. All other rights devolve from the fact of self-ownership, and if they conflict with it then they aren't really rights at all. By taking another's property by force in order to sustain your life, you are acting in violation of their self-ownership, which is a partial abridgement of THEIR right to life. This is impossible to justify, because your right to life cannot be superior to that of another human being.

 

[Nilloc]

Well, I'd liken in to the idea of national defense. Sure, it may require taxation in order for the US to defend itself (and I certainly don't think the military should be as large as it is now) but a military is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens. I'd say that providing food for those who would die without it is in the same category-bad, but necessary to protect the rights of citizens.

Forcing someone to pay for something against their will is a violation of their rights. And since the free market can easily provide protection and food, it's possible to protect the rights of people and feed and protect them at the same time.

I also wouldn't say that taxation is necessarily theft-if you live in a society, you agree to play by the rules of that society.

I never agreed to any of these rules. I'd rather be left alone.

And if that society says that you're obliged to pay X% of your income a year...that's not theft, that's fulfilling a contractual obligation you made when you chose to live in that society.

My property is my property, not society's. And society is all the individuals that make it up. The way you define society is whatever the 51% says, and as a member of the 49%, my rights are violated whenever the 51% decides something. So when the 51% said it was okay to enslave a black man, it was wrong. Just as it is when they tell me to pay for their crappy military service.

 

[Nilloc]

Has anyone heard of Taylor Caldwell? I came across her name for the first time recently and someone said she's like what Ayn Rand would have been if she were a Christian.

 

[MacFall]

First I've heard of her. I'll look at what she's written when I have some more time. Right now I have to go build a(nother) chicken coop.