The Lord God is a jealous God, and in his Christian form he is followed by hypocrites and fools. Or at least, that’s what I was thinking yesterday after a ‘debate’ with what polite British society calls a ‘Mad Christian Socialist’. I say debate, but what I really mean of course is a verbal fight to the death.
Much of socialism draws its strength from Christianity. Indeed, you could argue that socialism is simply late radical Christianity by another name. Instead of worshipping God, its followers worship the State. Instead of donating a tithe of their income to the Church, they donate a tithe of their income to the Socialist Worker ‘newspaper’ collective. Instead of blindly following the teachings of Jesus, they blindly follow the teachings of Marx, another heretical Jew with a beard.
Even the glorious European Union, that flowering of socialist omniscience, can be seen as the latest papal plot to castrate the protesting rabble in England, to bring them under the heel of Rome. Or should I say, the Treaty of Rome. But yes, I’m getting off-topic, and straying towards Godwin’s law, so let’s get back to the central thrust of my point. This Christian socialist was railing about how the rich people of Oxfordshire are evil because they won’t give Christmas cash to the poor children of Reading, in Berkshire, whose parents are too busy jacking up with heroin to worry about their sorry offspring. Interesting, I thought. Let’s see if we can swing this round.
I tried all the usual gambits. Aren’t the evil rich people of Oxfordshire being sensible, because any cash given to these poor children will immediately find its way to the poppy fields of Afghanistan via the grasping hands of these children’s parents? Didn’t really get very far with that one. Indeed the Christian’s head nearly exploded. I didn’t want a medical emergency on my hands, so I desisted.
How about this? The reason there are so many heroin addicts out there is because fifty-eight years of welfare state socialism has sucked out all of the personal responsibility from millions of Britons, allowing many of them to indulge in the low-life extravagance of full-time heroin addiction in the knowledge that the state, i.e. me and all the other taxpayers, will be forced to pick up the pieces via the well-paid ministering of the Guardian Reader class. I got a verbal kicking for this, losing on points, and perhaps deservedly so. These children are suffering now, whatever the historical cause, and need help now. But at least I had made the point.
So to another tack. Why don’t we remove heroin’s illegality, so these feckless parents can get much cheaper and cleaner drugs, thereby draining the health and welfare state less, and creating better lives for themselves and their children? Oh, and by the way, we cut off all the welfare cheques to encourage them to work all day rather than squat in empty flats all day sticking dirty infected needles into themselves. Heroin will become a clean evening pastime, after a hard day of work, rather than a creator of slaves.
Here I hit the richest seam of all. Abolish the welfare state? Not only is the welfare state the greatest creation in the whole of the history of mankind, it should be massively enhanced and extended. These evil rich people in Oxfordshire should not only give more to Christian charities, they should have no money left to give to charity because the state should have taken all of their ‘extra’ earnings away already to help all the needy children in the world. Basically I was the devil, the personification of all evil, and a blasphemer of the filthiest water.
Now I was in a tricky corner, here, my mind forgetting all the arguments on why private charities are so much better than public welfare for cleaning up problems, rather than generating more of them. I’m not really the hottest at verbal debate. Some would say I’m not even the luke-warmest. And it was at this point that if I’d been richer I would’ve got on the phone to Michael Howard to bring him in to defend me. His politics are terrible, but his rhetoric is scaring the living daylights out of even the once indomitable Tony Blair. I needed such rhetorical help. Quickly.
And then it dawned on me, as it has dawned upon many fellow libertarians before me. But please, pray, grant me this indulgence. This was a ‘scales falling from my eyes’ moment, and another step on the road to removing state-induced institutional hypocrisy from my mind.
Hang on a minute, I said, forgetting all about the economic arguments of wealth creation and personal motivation. You’re a Christian, right? Yes, you atheist monster and whore-master of Babylon! You want taxes to go up, to the point where people like me have nothing left except just enough to exist on? That’s right. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities! But isn’t the central pillar of Christianity, its ultimate source of moral strength, the Ten Commandments of Moses? Certainly is. Thou shalt have no other gods before me! But doesn’t taxation break one of the most vital commandments of all, second only to “Thou shalt not kill”, that “Thou shalt not steal”? In what way foul demonic fiend?
Because all taxation is theft.
Bang to rights. Following the two second pause in which the mad Christian, who possesses even madder staring eyes than me, adjusted their world view to defend themselves, I had taken the field. There then followed a subsidiary argument about how this Christian willingly paid all taxes. Good for you, I said. I don’t pay a penny willingly, except perhaps a little for the Scots Guards, the SAS, and Her Majesty’s after-dinner tipples. At least ninety-five percent of what the state takes from me, I said, is taken by duress. I pay it because if I don’t, the state will kidnap me, slam me in one of its gaols, and refuse to release me until I pay off its ransom. If tax isn’t theft, I said, desperately trying to remember the correct quote from one of Uncle Murray’s books, you should try asking the UK population for state contributions, rather than taking them under duress, and see how far you get.
Let’s take a look at those five societal commandments, those relating to interpersonal human relationships, rather than those on how one should actually worship God:
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet they neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s
Let’s rephrase them slightly for modern libertarian use:
Thou shalt not kill, except in self-defence
Thou shalt not break contracts freely entered into with other people
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour’s
Now let’s rephrase them for modern socialist use:
Thou shalt kill your opponents when they’re in the way of your new political world order
Thou shalt break contracts freely entered into with other people when you want to re-nationalise or nationalise other people’s property you once said would remain private and sacrosanct
Thou shalt steal everything thou can get thy hands on, through taxation
Thou shalt spin, distort, and tell lies about everything, to protect ‘The Project’
Thou shalt covet everything belonging to thy neighbour in the politics of envy
I reckon that of all the political creeds it is libertarianism which most closely follows God’s important societal commandments. It most certainly is not socialism.
I put it to you, therefore, that God is a libertarian. Nice one, God. Merry Christmas!
Excellent!
The simplest approach is:
the most basic tenet of Christian morality is that moral acts require individual volition… The state acts via coercion, which is to say politics is the control of the collective means of coercion and tax money is taken via the threat of violence if you do not pay even if you did not give prior consent (i.e. pay up or the boys in blue drag you off to jail)…
the state cannot be ‘moral’, because not it is an institution, not an individual, and ‘Sony’ or ‘Marks & Spencer’ or ‘The Government’ can neither go to heaven or hell, only individual people can. You can have better or worse states but yiou cannot have moral or immoral states, that is just a category error as only the individual people working for a state (or not) can be moral or immoral.
Therefore state ‘charity’ is nothing of the sort because not only does the state takes money by force from people, it thereby removing moral choice from those people it taxes as to how their money is spent.
The only charity is individual charity, because charity can only be charity from a Christian perspective if it is moral, and only individuals can be moral. Christian Socialism is just as much an oxymoron as Libertarian Socialism.
Re-writing the commandments in one cute form or another, and usually to make a political point, is kind of old. But this post is fun, and the point is an important one.
I doubt He is a practicing libertarian as such (Job got a pretty raw deal, for example, hardly consensual or informed). But the notion that Christianity = radical socialism should be contested as well. I suspect it is in a minority anyway, even among the mad-eyed.
I think Jesus was quite clear on how to treat the needing, and our neighbor in general. Personal sacrifice might well be involved.
I can’t find dialectic materialism in there, though.
Oh, ramble ramble, what I am trying to say, I guess, is that your adversary was quite right to insist that we should help the needing. But where I would differ with him is, that we owe it to God and our Fellow Man directly, rather than the state as a false proxy for either.
I so do hope that God is not a libertarian but an individualist.
As I recall “thou shalt not kill” would be better translated “thou shalt not murder“. The old Hebrews had a different word for “kill”. So the libertarian rephrasing above is actually more accurate.
(Disclaimer: I’m an agnostic and not at all christian.)
At one point in the Israelites’ history I seem to remember reading, they were given moral guidance by the prophets and ‘ruled’ by judges, which seemed to work quite well. But they looked around at the other tribes and noticed that everyone else had kings and demanded of their chief prophet (I think it was Elijah or Elisha at the time) that he should appoint a king to rule them. He told them (as God’s spokesman) ‘You really don’t want to do that – you’ll end up with taxes and all sorts of nasty stuff’ but in the end capitulated.
According to a Jewish friend, 40% of the laws in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) are concerned with the protection of property rights.
Protestant Christianity was one of the founding pillars of individualism and limited government.
Isn’t “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” pretty much a direct command from Jesus to pay taxes levied by whichever government happens to be in charge?
The Old Testament quotes are relevant for Jews – but as far as Christians go, this seems to be the end of the debate.
Disclaimer: I’m an atheist who hasn’t picked up a bible for some years…
One of the Ten Commandments contains a translation error. It is the first, which is correctly rendered: “Thou shalt not MURDER.” (‘kill’ is incorrect, and probably very deliberately so.)
Reference on request.
profwalker.
I’m a Christian and a libertarian. Here, very briefly, and in no particular order are some of the reasons why:
– The free will argument Perry used. (I’m pretty sure he’s not a Christian but he put it very well.)
– Matthew 7: 12 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I don’t recall any bit saying, “unless, of course, you are in the government, or in a majority in which case you can use force to get your way.”
– John 13:34 “Love one another” and Matthew 22: 39 “Love thy neighbour as thyself” It’s not loving to push people around.
– individuals will live forever. States won’t.
– and like you said, tax is theft.
If I had more time/ knew all the answers I might discuss some of the complications and difficulties of Christian Libertarianism. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” is an easier one to deal with than the episode when Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple. But I’ll leave that to other commenters.
Sorry, but taxation isn’t theft. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying taxation is a good thing. But, while taxation and theft are both bad things, they are not quite the same.
As I understand it, there is a misinterpretation error when reading The Ten Commandments in English, because modern English, annoyingly, doesn’t distinguish between the singular and plural form of “you”. “Thou shalt not kill” means that you singular, an individual, must not kill. While some Christian sects have taken this as an absolute prohibition against all killing, the usual interpretation by Christian theologians (no doubt heavily influenced by the Romans) is that it is a prohibition against any one individual being judge, jury, and executioner. The Christian thinking about soldiers is that they may kill, because no one soldier has taken it upon himself to judge and execute a particular enemy soldier for reasons of his own, but is, rather, acting in accordance with the wishes of his community. Singular you, the individual, shalt not kill, but plural you, the community at large, may choose to — and when the community wishes to kill, the individual member of that community who actually does the killing is not necessarilly fully personally responsible for the death. Hence the legality under most forms of Christianity of both war and capital punishment.
Anyway, the difference between theft and taxation is basically the same.
I’m sure that lots of well-informed Christians and Jews disagree most strongly with that interpretation — they’ve been arguing about everything else in their books for millenia, so why not this? — but I think, regardless of whether one accepts that the distinction is built into The Ten Commandments themselves, one can understand and appreciate that the distinction should exist in any sensible moral code.
The best Christian argument against Socialism is that forcing people to act charitably takes away the virtue they would have gained by doing so voluntarily.
In total agreement with Natalie, and as a Catholic/libertarian myself I only wish to address the “render unto Caesar” comment:
This had really nothing to do with paying taxes as much as it was an admonishment to obey the first Commandment — Thou shall have no other gods before me. In fact, Jesus was cooly evading a trap laid for him by the Pharisees (who were questioning him) by basically telling them that Caesar should get what was due him under Talamudic law (nothing, or in some interpretations death). Moreover, by telling them to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, Jesus was implicitly telling the Pharisees that they were also doomed to Caesar’s fate by not standing up to him and enforcing God’s law. On explanation can be found here
Render unto Caesar, yes, but what is Caesar’s? It was a tricky answer to a trick question. Saying “refuse it” would have annoyed the romans and got him dead post haste. By saying “pay it if it’s theirs”, he bypasses the danger. He could have as easily said “pay them” unambigiously, if that was what was meant.
Actually it is the institutionalization of Jewish ghetto culture.
I’ve heard “render unto Caesar” as Jesus pointing to the Roman currency the Pharisees were carrying and basically saying “You want a govt, you clearly support the one we have, you cough up for it.”
Matthew 17, New Living Translation:
24) On their arrival in Capernaum, the tax collectors for the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the Temple tax?”
25) “Of course he does,” Peter replied. Then he went into the house to talk to Jesus about it.
But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, “What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the foreigners they have conquered?”
26) “They tax the foreigners,” Peter replied.
“Well, then,” Jesus said, “the citizens are free!
27) However, we don’t want to offend them, so go down to the lake and throw in a line. Open the mouth of the first fish you catch, and you will find a coin. Take the coin and pay the tax for both of us.”
The best Christian argument against Socialism is that forcing people to act charitably takes away the virtue they would have gained by doing so voluntarily.
I would have thought the best Christian argument against Socialism is that forcing people to do things is wrong. Period.
Squander – I am fascinated by your argument that the Ten Commandments does not apply to theft, murder, lies, etc. done for the greater good or on behalf of the community.
Keep in mind that the “community,” the “state,” the “tribe,” whatever, cannot act directly. Corporate bodies can act only through agents. The community does not collect taxes or “steal”; rather, an individual member of the community collects taxes on its behalf. If the Ten Commandments prohibit an individual from stealing, then they would seem to prohibit that same individual from stealing on behalf of the community.
Your argument seems to be that it is OK for an individual to steal (and murder and lie, etc.) on behalf of the community. How are we to know which theft or killing is prohibited, and which is permitted? One wonders if this exemption for acting on behalf of the community must be ratified in some way by the community, and if so how, or whether I am free to rationalize my crimes as being for the greater good all on my own.
For example, one can scarcely respect a moral system that says you may not steal or kill on your own behalf, but it is perfectly alright to do so on behalf of some blood-soaked tyrant who claims to speak on behalf of the community.
Regarding Perry’s point, which I wholeheartedly agree with, this post makes a similar point.
Eller (and Jacques Ellul) are Christian socialist anarchists (if I read them right, they’re pacifists who want people, in a perfect world at least, to voluntarily live in communes but oppose having the State enforce that – or anything else). I don’t agree w/ them up and down the line (being ancap myself), but they do have some interesting things to say against the standard state-supporting interpretations of the Bible.
Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy Over the Powers
by Vernard Eller
Damn good post mate, agree with it 100%. One of the best things to appear in blogdom for many a moon.
May I second Andrew Dodge’s comment. Bravo, great piece and gives one a lot to think about.
My two-penny’s worth – I think Christianity can be of great support to the individualist perspective, particularly considering the Thomist tradition with its stress on free will. As even Ayn Rand, an ardent atheist, accepted, the blending by Aquinas of Christian faith and Greek rationality was one of the early staging posts for the Englightenment.
Of course, some socialists have tried to use the Christian faith to show that we should give away our possessions to the poor, eshew material gain, etc. But a proper reading of the Bible makes it clear that such action is only moral if it is voluntary.
I am a lapsed Anglican, as I have problems with the logic of religious belief. But there is no denying the positive impact of Christianity when it is fully understood in all its parts.
Well done Andy and, to coin a phrase, God bless.
Andy – So how did the argument end? How convinced was he?
I don’t see anything particularly libertarian about Christianity. A god who punishes people for what they cannot help but do, knowing full well what they would do long before he made them is much more like a socialist tyrant than a liberal king. I can’t help but think “free will” in the context of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator is a farce.
Thankfully, that farce, even in the face of the simple philosophical deduction that no such thing can exist if there is a Christian god, helped to take religion out of the hands of the state and place it in the hands of individuals. That paved the way for people like me, who don’t truck with gods or spirits, to live peaceful lives and not be attacked for treason. For that, I’m thankful.
As to what John Harrison said, the chief prophet when the first king of Israel was crowned was Samuel, and the king he crowned was Saul. Anyone who wants to read the passage can turn to I Samuel 8. Before that, Israel was a theocracy under the “judges”, the chief prophet of the time. Samuel was the last judge, Moses being the first. However, whether any of that is historical is questionable.
– Josh
In wars, each of the adversaries claims God is on his side. That’s standard practice.
Could we please leave God out of our ideological battles ? He deserves a rest.
Natalie Solent writes:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I always worry slightly, about this ‘golden rule’, especially when masochists put it into action. I prefer Uncle Murray’s moral stance, that we should harm no others or their property. We shouldn’t do anything to them at all, unless we’ve come to some mutual agreement.
Squander Two writes:
But, while taxation and theft are both bad things, they are not quite the same.
I beg to differ, Squander Two. Taxation and theft are exactly the same thing. One is made to seem more palatable than the other by the use of a different word, ‘taxation’, rather than ‘theft’, just as the word ‘government’ is made to seem more respectable than the phrase ‘dominant armed mafia’, but I agree with Professor Hoppe. There is no definition of tax which is not also a definition of theft. Money taken from you against your will by an outside body. Is that tax or is that theft? I really can’t tell the difference.
Jonathan Wilde writes:
Andy – So how did the argument end? How convinced was he?
I believe the phrase is ‘agreed to differ’, though I’m hoping I’ve got them thinking. But I’m not holding my breath.
For the moment I’ll just assume that I’m not on the Christmas dinner party invitation list! 🙂
Though you never know. Some people like a bit of conflict over their spag bol, to liven up the 5.99 pinot noir! 😉
1 Samuel 8
Israel Asks for a King
9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD . 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
That makes the LORD sound positively democratic. The people have spoken, and want to be oppressed!
Take a look at the Conservative Christian Fellowship’s social justice AND personal responsibility webpage.
This group still seems to be housed in 32 Smith Square, and used to be run by the chap who Iain Duncan Smith appointed to be his Political Secretary after having taken IDS on a tour around the Glasgow and Liverpool slums.
“Social Justice” is a euphemism for socialism and does not actually exist in any practical form. It basically is a code word for the redistribution of wealth and power by the state. I have never been impressed with what the CCF has had to say.
It is good to see the mention of personal responsability, so often left out.
Andrew,
There was a reference in their website to this report: RENEWING CIVIL SOCIETY that for some reason did not have a weblink.
There are also some links to some interesting but obsolete reports from the Hague era.
Allowing generations to be on welfare (socialism) is not Christian as it produces people with self-destructive habits. In all countries that provide long-term welfare, the effect is always despair, personal destruction, and death.
Socialism does not help people, it destroys them.
Regarding the ‘Golden Rule’, I like the Talmudic formulation in Shabbat 31a: “What is hateful to you, don’t do to your fellow”. Hillel says that this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary.
The implied message behind “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is that Caesar must not take that which belongs to the individual or to God.
As far as the God-human relationship is concerned, God is an absolute monarch. Regarding human-human relationships, I wouldn’t call Him a libertarian, but all those verses about accountability and servant leadership suggest that He’d want us to govern ourselves with many layers of checks and balances and not under autocratic regimes.
The subject of the original post was how one argues in favour of libertarianism with a Christian. The argument I set out is part of the Christian philosophical tradition. If the Christian tradition draws a moral distinction between taxation and theft (which it does, even if you or I don’t), then using the Christian prohibition against theft as an argument isn’t going to get you too far.
R. C. Dean,
“Your argument seems to be that it is OK for an individual to steal (and murder and lie, etc.) on behalf of the community.”
If The Commandments are taken as an imperative to personal responsibility for your actions (and the singular form of “you” in the original implies that they are), then acting on behalf of the community doesn’t make you morally unaccountable; rather, it makes the whole community accountable.
“one can scarcely respect a moral system that says you may not steal or kill on your own behalf, but it is perfectly alright to do so on behalf of some blood-soaked tyrant who claims to speak on behalf of the community.”
Let’s bear in mind here that The Ten Commandments were aimed specifically at the Children of Israel. They certainly don’t imply that it’s OK to do the bidding of the Saddams of this world, because the community to which they implicitly refer is one that is led by a moral God, not by tyrants. (Personally, I think their God was a bit of a tyrant, but, again, that’s not an argument that’s going to cut much ice with Christians.)
But, that aside, I disagree with you anyway. If your blood-soaked tyrant is lying when he claims to speak on behalf of the community, then yes, he should be ignored. But what if he really does speak on behalf of the community? And what if he’s fairly and democratically chosen? Do you believe that any British soldier who has killed a Fedayeen, a Talib, or a Ba’athist over the last couple of years should be tried for murder? Or can you, despite your protestations, see the perfectly clear moral difference between killing for your own selfish reasons and killing to fulfill the will of your people? The followers of The Commandments were escaped slaves; they knew that they might need to defend themselves from people with swords and whips from time to time.
Andy,
“There is no definition of tax which is not also a definition of theft.”
You may think that. I disagree: I think there’s a subtle difference, and could cite the definition you claim doesn’t exist. But that’s beside the point. The point is that Christianity and Judaism have maintained for a few thousand years that there is a difference, so just telling them that they’re wrong isn’t going to help you in your quest to persuade socialist Christians that Libertarianism is moral.
Squander Two writes:
You may think that. I disagree: I think there’s a subtle difference, and could cite the definition you claim doesn’t exist. But that’s beside the point.
No, it’s exactly the point. Cite it. If you want to hide behind such enigmatic smoke and mirrors, which no-one but yourself and other higher thinkers than myself can understand, fool yourself if you want to. But don’t try to fool me, a simple man, someone who is made to pay something he is incapable of understanding, with such higher teachings, and murky apologies for state rapacity. You may choose to call a spade an inevitable instrument for turf re-adjustment, I call it a shovel. Theft is taxation. And as long as the grey-faced crooks of the Inland Revenue keep stealing it off me, against my will, with menaces, to pay for things I don’t believe in, such as the NHS and the welfare state, taxation is theft. Let them persuade me taxation is a good thing, and then let them ask me for financial contributions to the government as freely given gifts. Maybe then I shall reconsider my opinion. Until then, may all of the bastards rot in a truly deserved hell.
Jesus, calm down. No need to be so fucking rude, is there?
“No, it’s exactly the point.”
It’s exactly the point in a debate about taxation or a debate about Libertarianism, yes. I was trying to steer away from those debates, though, in order to stay on the topic which you started with your post, which was a post about how to persuade Christians away from Socialism and towards Libertarianism using arguments that are based in Christian thinking. I thought that was a brilliant subject for a post, myself. Libertarianism stands a serious chance of becoming a strong political force in this country over the next few years, so discussing how to convert people is a good idea.
Now, you know how, when Christians present their ideas in a reasoned manner, you realise that they have lots of sensible things to say? But you know how, when they start screeching “Heresy!” at anyone who disagrees with them about anything and just shouting louder and louder that they are right and opposing opinions are wrong, you tend to become less willing to listen to them? Ever occur to you that non-Libertarians might view Libertarians in the same way? I mean, really, look at your last response to me. Do you think that a Christian Socialist, faced with that, would think “Hmm, good point. Maybe I should abandon Socialism.”?
To address your other points, since you ask…
“If you want to hide behind such enigmatic smoke and mirrors, which no-one but yourself and other higher thinkers than myself can understand, fool yourself if you want to.”
I don’t claim to be a higher thinker. What on Earth are you talking about? And I’m not fooling myself. I’m doing something called “disagreeing”.
“… murky apologies for state rapacity.”
See, this is where Libertarians can look like extremist lunatics. What I said was that taxation is a bad thing which is very similar to theft. But, because I didn’t agree with you that taxation is literally exactly the same thing as theft, you accuse me of supporting taxation and apologising for statism. Frankly, this is the dogmatic and uncompromising attitude one usually expects from religious extremists.
“You may choose to call a spade an inevitable instrument for turf re-adjustment, I call it a shovel.”
Again, what on Earth are you on about? Really, tell me where I’ve used deliberately over-complex language in order to look intellectual.
“… grey-faced crooks of the Inland Revenue …”
Look, I know a woman who works for the IR, and she’s not a crook. She’s an employee, and a nice, kind, generous, fun person. How many converts do you think Libertarianism is going to get if you keep insulting people? If taxation were theft, the thieves would be the government, not the tax collectors.
“Let them persuade me taxation is a good thing, and then let them ask me for financial contributions to the government as freely given gifts.”
I agree with this absolutely. So why the animosity? Becase I agree with you for the wrong reasons? Grow up.
“Cite it.”
I will, but I’ve just got to go and carry some heavy objects. Back later.
Love & kisses,
jo
It turned out to be coiling a load of cables, not carrying big lumps of metal. Which was nice.
“Cite it.”
OK, the difference between theft and taxation boils down to persuasion. In a dictatorship, I agree that theft and taxation are the same thing. In a democracy, however, it is possible to start the Low Tax Party and campaign on a platform of lower or voluntary or even non-existent taxes and persuade people to vote for you. If you get enough votes, you get to abolish taxation. In effect, citizens have the collective right to lower taxes. It may not be easy for them to do so, but it’s possible. Now, I am well aware of the fact that a majority stealing from a minority is still theft, but there is a difference here. Firstly, there is a mechanism whereby taxation may be stopped simply by asking politely. If you think burglars can be stopped by being asked to stop by a majority of their victims, you are wrong. This first point, in my opinion, makes taxation marginally better than theft (though still, before you jump down my throat, a Very Bad Thing). Secondly, taxation can only take place in one direction: an electoral majority can tax an electoral minority, but not vice versa. A minority can commit theft from a majority, but not taxation. This second point I don’t think makes taxation better or worse than theft; it’s just a subtle difference. (Yes, I’m aware that, for this to work properly, we need electoral reform in the UK, ideally US-style federalism. Which is why I’m a federalist.)
Another difference is the ability to claim money back. From tomorrow, I will be unemployed for a few weeks, and I have every intention of signing on and getting back some of the money that’s been taken from me over the last few years. Thieves don’t give you your money back when they think you need it.
“Taxation is theft!” is OK as a bit of rhetoric, but ask someone who’s been mugged how it compared to paying VAT.
Squander Two writes:
Frankly, this is the dogmatic and uncompromising attitude one usually expects from religious extremists.
Errr. Squander Two. Have you checked the side-blurb for Samizdata recently?:
“We are also a varied group made up of libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cyberpunks, cypherpunks and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalis$ Australia and Europe.”
Put me down as most of the above, though mainly put me down as a wild-eyed anarcho capitalist, of the Austrian school. Uncompromising attitude? Samizdata is SUPPOSED to be uncompromising. It’s its purpose. Anyway, personally, I’m still a big girl’s blouse, and a long way from possessing a fully coherent ideology. When I’ve done my degree in economics, at the University of Nevada, under Professor Hoppe, then I’ll be REALLY uncompromising! 😉
Look, I know a woman who works for the IR, and she’s not a crook.
Err. No. She is. She works for the Inland Revenue. Therefore, she is a crook. There can be no finer definition.
Anyone who chooses to work for the Inland Revenue is beyond saving anyway. Sod them.
If taxation were theft, the thieves would be the government, not the tax collectors.
Hmmm. You’re not really getting the hang of this libertarian thing, are you?
In a democracy, however, it is possible to start the Low Tax Party and campaign on a platform of lower or voluntary or even non-existent taxes and persuade people to vote for you. If you get enough votes, you get to abolish taxation.
No, I’m afraid the above is impossible for many reasons, not the least of which is the incompatibility of democracy, or the rule of the mob, with individual freedom. The mob will always seek to tyrannise the minority, and mooch from them. The best you will get from your solution above is, in the UK, the Conservative Party, and in the US, the Republican party. It is only when we remove politicians and their powers from our lives that they will become unable to steal from us. Trying to use other politicians to do this will fail for the same reasons that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. You may wish to read Professor Hoppe’s book on Democracy, to see why Democracy goes wrong, so easily, and why it has caused us to end up in the political mess we’re currently all suffering from, in the ‘democratic’ west.
Secondly, taxation can only take place in one direction: an electoral majority can tax an electoral minority, but not vice versa.
No, again, this is too simplistic. We’re all in various majorities, and various minorities. Some are in, say, a smoking minority, while also being in an alcohol drinking majority. Some are in a high-paid minority, while also being in a married majority. The trick of politicians is to get all the various multi-faceted interest groups, to compete against each other, in a process of divide and rule. Sometimes we even compete against ourselves. Ask highly-taxed city traders how they make money off the British government by fast-moving currency trading. They’re stealing off themselves, as taxpayers to the British government, and some will even admit it. But they still do it because they feel on balance they’re better off. That’s one up to the politicians.
You might want to read P.J.O’Rourke’s “Eat the Rich”. We’re all mooching off each other, and he describes how, and why. Except government workers, of course. All their lives are just pure mooch.
Another difference is the ability to claim money back.
Being bribed with your own money is the politician’s favorite way of getting your support. Simple, though apparently still incredibly effective.
Of course the government spend lots of money on client groups, to gain their support. All the government needs is few percent off the plate. Of the 400 billion the UK government currently takes of the UK’s private-sector taxpayers, it probably ‘gives’ 350 billion back, though obviously in an incredibly wasteful way. What they’re really interested in is the 50 billion they keep for themselves and their friends. But without buying back this 350 billion worth of client group support they would be out on their ears. And they know it.
You’ll notice the classic film, The Godfather, starts with Vito Corleone doing favours for his clients, the same ones he hits with percentage off-the-take protection rackets. He knows that he needs to do such favours, to keep local support, so he can continue to reign in his area of control. But it still doesn’t stop him being a crook. In fact, it is such a powerful effect, this giving back of favours, that you may even come to love the old crook by the end of the film, for doing them. The same way many of us come to love governments, when they do favours for us via welfare, the NHS, that cushy number as a tenured University lecturer with a fat government pension. Same story as loveable old Vito Corleone. Bigger picture.
Again, I agree with most of that. You still seem to be convinced that I’m defending taxation. No I’m not.
One thing that really pisses me off is the way Libertarians are determined to remain as unelectable as possible. Libertarianism is one of the best political ideologies in the world today, and, if presented properly, should appeal to millions of people. But Libertarians like yourself are determined to present it in such a way as to guarantee that it will never become mainstream. You complain that the nearest we can get to a Libertarian political force in the UK is the Conservative Party. You’re right, but the reason for this is not a flaw of democracy itself; it’s most Libertarians’ own attitudes towards the very people we need to appeal to. It’s all very well complaining about how the best system would have no politicians in it, but, back in the real world, it would be nice to make our current system more Libertarian. Insulting people and refusing to ally with people who largely agree with you simply ensures that you remain outside while the Statists have the run of the mill. Great.
So you believe that God is a libertarian?! You’ll be telling me next that you wrote a letter to Santa to make sure that you got a new 4×4 for christmas 😉