Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm
From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: freedom and taxes
Message-ID: <714@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 18:08:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.714
Posted: Sat Feb  9 18:08:26 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:18:58 EST
References: <327@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 56
Summary: 

In article <327@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>> BTW, Tim

I *PROTEST*. I asked Tim Sevener for an answer, and got Richard Carnes. No
fair - now I have to deal with someone who can think :-).

>Please refer to your favorite dictionary.  Therein you will find that theft
>is by definition "felonious," i.e., unlawful.  Taxation is by definition
>enforced by law.  Whether "taxation is theft" is merely a matter of
>*definition* and is not in itself a question of political philosophy.  

Sorry, but "lawful" vs. "unlawful" doesn't hold water. My dictionary is
still packed (courtesy of UCB, blast them!), but I suspect that "lawful"
will eventually wind down to "decreed by government." Hence, all cases
where the government takes property from people - whether or not they call
it taxation - are "lawful." Do I really need to list the obviously
unethical times that the government has taken property from people - and in
some of them later even admitted to doing something illegal?  Then again,
"lawful" and "ethical/good/moral" never have had much to do with each
other.

>As to the philosophical question:  When such ordinary mortals as Kant and
>J.S. Mill justified taxation, they found it necessary and advisable to
>provide arguments in support of their assertions.  Libertarians, however,
>are above such requirements.  All that they have to do is to proclaim that
>"no one ever has the right, under any circumstances, to transfer wealth by
>forcible means or by threat of force," and the rest of us will have to bow
>down to this proposition as a self-evident axiom.  Great is their
>indignation and wrath if they are asked to provide philosophical arguments
>in support of this assertion.

Contrary to what you seem to think, this has been gone over countless
times. I'll risk the wrath of McKirkian (sp?) and explain why *I* consider
such to be unethical.

Let us examine the alternatives. Either you think that using force to make
others behave "correctly" is ethical, or you think that such use of force
is never ethical. If you consider such use of force to be ethical, then you
have conceeded the right to others to use force to make people behave what
they call "correctly." If they should disagree with you about what
"correctly" is, then the person with the most force is going to control
people. Need I comment on "might makes right" as a political philosophy?

On the other hand, if you don't accept such use of force as ethical, then
it's a short step to realizing that forcing people to make donations to
charities - even highly deserving charities (as opposed to those run by
the US Government) - is unethical.

Happy now?

Note: tempting as it may be to move this discussion to net.philosophy,
*don't do it*! It's been gone over many times there over the last six
months, and those who use the group for fields of philosophy other than
political philosphy will get mad (again).