We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow – and quite rightly – to take every advantage which is open to it under the taxing statutes for the purpose of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue.”
– The Lord President Clyde, 1929
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Unfortunately it is far from clear whether this is the Law of England any longer.
I think it is still quite valid, provided one understands that “astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue” does not mean “permitted to illegally evade paying tax.”
AFAIK it’s always been the case that taking lawful measures to avoid taxation is quite in order, but evading taxation is an offence.
EG
I’m afraid to inform you, Euan, that this is no longer the case. The Inland Revenue is entitled to recover tax from people’s investments if they deem that ‘the scheme exists solely to avoid tax’. Notice that it’s the Revenue who decide.
You may also have noticed that the Inland Revenue has been merged with the Customs and Excise. This was done to give the Inland Revenue the same enforcement powers the Customs have, namely the power to kick your door down and steal your property if they decide that you owe them some money. Or ought to owe them some money. Or if they don’t like your views in politics, or something.
Let the law say what it will, but always remember that the moral obligation is to resist the predations of the state as best you can.
Lie, cheat, mislead, whatever you must do, just don’t get caught. The law has force on its side, you have morality on yours. Always remember that far more people get away with tax evasion than get caught.
Never hesitate for a second to lie to the representatives of the state if you can get away with it. Smile and nod in agreement if anyone who can harm you tells you that it is “bad” to lie and it is “wicked” to break the law. They are fools and they are wrong. Just resist, that is what matters.
I can’t be bothered searching today, but maybe you can point out where they say this (specifically, “avoid” rather than “evade”) & I’ll read it.
I think you’ll find it is more to do with the hideous incompetence and mismanagement of HMC&E, coupled with the declining perceived need for Customs now we’re in the EU and have free trade and what not.
That’s what I love about Samizdata – a balanced and rational view, free from hyperbole, distortion and paranoia.
To state it simply on tax:
If you enter someone’s house, you obey the rules of that house or, if you don’t want to do that, you leave. If you wish to remain in the UK – and nobody, not even Tony Blair, forces you to – you obey the rules of the UK and that includes paying tax. If you don’t want to, or if you think tax is too high, feel free to move somewhere where the rates are lower. Taxation is not theft, it is the fee you pay for living in a country. Different countries have different fees, so you pays your money and takes your choice (or to be pedantic, you takes your choice and THEN pays your money).
You want a free market in such things, with competing tax jurisdictions and levels. You have it already.
Try Somalia, I hear they have low rates of tax. Then again, you need to pay the feudal warlords, but that’s the price of not having a functioning state. Or do you expect the comforts of a more or less ordered society and functional infrastructure without the inconvenience of having to pay for it?
EG
Well at least those of you who aren’t Americans have the ability to shop tax jurisdictions. We don’t, or rather, the US Govt. reserves the right to double-tax you for up to 10 years after you leave the country. Even if you renounce citizenship, if they feel that it is ‘primarily to avoid taxation’.
Even if you are, say, broke the first 5 years overseas, and then happened to not be, they will still claim their piece for the time you made any money.
Not that many places make it easy for Americans to legally work there. Most decently industrialized (and many not!) seem to have more stringent immigration requirements than the US. And no ‘pop out a baby on our soil, get residency and they’re a citizen’ rule, either.
Seriously, where the hell can an American bug out to on a severly restricted budget legally and work? A perpetual 6 month tourist visa in Mexico and grey market consulting is the closest I can find.
Euan
I did not enter this house. I, and my ancestors, for as long as we have records, have been citizens (or subjects – a topic that Perry discussed not long ago) of the United Kingdom by birth. I still do not like the way successive governments find more and more devious ways to steal the money I earn. I want choice as to what my money pays for and I do not have it. You seem to suggest that I should move somewhere else. This is my home and a bunch of self important holier than thou statists are taking more and more of my freedoms away. AND YOU SAY RUN AWAY IF I DONT LIKE IT? What kind of person are you?
Nick:
The best word I’ve found for Euan is vile. Euan worships at the temple of the state. And how dare you complain that you’re being ill treated! Now put those chains back on and be grateful, damnit.
Well, I for one think Euan has a point – albeit one that needs to be put in perspective.
He’s right that the state can’t function without funding – and society can’t function without the state, so it’s only fair that the state charge a fee for its maintenence. That this fee cannot be negotiated with each individual separately should be obvious.
That said, the fee should not be arbitrary, or subject to the private whims of legislators. We should not be charged for things like diversity programs and public healthcare that have no obvious connection to the preservation of the state’s ability to secure individual rights. It is taxation for these things that amounts to stealing. Taxation for maintenence of the military, the police, the jails, and the court system is, however, absolutely necessary to the preservation of the state and its ability to secure your rights – and it is your duty as a citizen and beneficiary of such protection to help pay for these things.
I would feel a lot more comfortable with what Euan said if there were some acknowledgement in his comments that taxation can go too far. And not on account of merely pragmatic effects – like the negative effect an overly burdensome income tax obviously has on investment and spending, etc. I mean a real, principled, individual-citizen-respecting acknowledgement that taxation that goes too far is not just bad for the economy, it’s also a violation of said citizen’s rights.
Taxation exists to preserve the state, and the state exists to protect individual rights. Anything that steps over that line is unjust. But up to that line, sorry, but taxation is both necessary and justified.
In the USA, about a half century ago Judge Learned Hand (well known to objectivists for his unfortunate Alcoa monopoly decision) stated that no one is under any obligation to pay any more tax than the minimum they legally must. It is interpreted generally that loopholes and mistakes in writing the tax code are fair use.
Example, there is a part of the code that grants exemption to ‘trucks’ over a certain weight intended to be used by small business owners for service and delivery trucks. But we now have gazillions of small ‘business’ owners deducting ultra big super luxery SUVs of the Cadillac and Lincoln variety.
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-break4.htm(Link)
I’m afraid we may lose the right to deduct legitimate small business trucks. Or have their personal uses severely restricted or eliminated.
All the same, government should never have arbitrary power over any citizens (or subjects). At all. They should write the code exactly as they enforce it.
This reminds me of the other thread on the 90 days, etc. Why expect officialdom to get it right the first time. Just give them as many ‘do-overs’ as they want.
Dollars to donuts Euan Gray isn’t self-employed or trying to build a business.
GCooper? I was addressing Alex Singleton’s original post. I’ll leave it to you to answer Euan’s arguments.
That you cannot see an obvious connection does not mean there is in fact no connection. I’m not defending any specific taxation arrangements, but rather a principle.
I think there is a case for state expenditure on healthcare as a help towards individual rights, but it depends on whether you view the right not to pay tax as more important than the ability to enjoy your other rights. It has to be recognised that not everyone can afford their own healthcare, and that this can lead to people not being able to enjoy their other, arguably more important, rights because their illness or their crippling expenditure on healthcare prevents them from doing so. I don’t think it’s in principle objectionable to assist the less fortunate, but I equally don’t think a resort to charity would be enough to cover it. Having said that, in the UK the NHS is hopelessly inefficient and wasteful, but the NHS is not the only possible model for state assistance with healthcare costs.
I would have thought this went without saying. Patently not, so I’ll say it – taxation can get too high and it can then become a problem.
Exactly how far taxation can go before it is bad for the economy is not obvious. Most Scandinavian countries have very high taxation but don’t have the economic problems that, say, France does with lower taxes. I suspect the maximum “safe” tax rate depends a great deal on the culture of the country, the expectations of the people, the source of the tax and the precise structure of the economy, and therefore I think it may be impossible to say that in principle taxing more than an arbitrary percentage of national income is an inherently bad thing.
I’m not aware of any generally accepted right of the people not to pay tax, so I don’t see how high taxation is in theory a violation of right. Just because you don’t want to pay doesn’t mean that your rights are being infringed if you are required to pay. It does not and cannot work that way.
As for the notion that if you don’t like it, leave. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Nobody chooses where they are born, but once you reach majority you can make a decision to leave if you don’t like it for whatever reason. What I don’t think you can reasonably claim is the right to live where you are and at the same time get to avoid paying the charges that society levies. People do leave for exactly these reasons, and for many others. You need to make the determination whether or not the cost/benefit ratio is acceptable to you, but you don’t have the right to decide everyone else is wrong & if you don’t like it you can do what others do and go.
Some people leave the UK for the US because they feel tax and career prospects are better there. Other leave the US for the UK because they think the US model is callous and uncaring. There is no general right or wrong in this, these are purely subjective views & you must decide what is more important for you.
I’d also point out that we do have a more or less representative democratic system and it is perfectly in order to remain and make your case for lower taxes and reduced state intervention. But since we are a democracy, you do need to accept that if most other people don’t agree then you aren’t going to get your way.
EG
Euan,
I’m afraid I can’t remember which issues of Private Eye I learned these things from. If I rightly recall, there were several articles devoted to this new power, the general gist of which was that the Revenue weren’t using it enough to clamp down on tax avoidance.
The Eye was also the place we all learned about the Customs’ habit of seizing people’s cars on their return from France on the grounds that they were smuggling (liquor and tobacco), without producing a single speck of evidence and entirely illegally.
By the way, chaps, Euan is expressing a view that a depressingly large number of people hold, and although I disagree with him, I don’t think there is any call for language like ‘vile’.
EG does enjoy stretching his point out to a considerable length!
I would argue this has the advantage of clarity, but then, as Brian notes, we see comments like ‘vile’ and ad-hominen arguments which then makes me think that Euan’s arguments are actually far from clear to some.
Well, sure. I would expect that that’s an empirical quesiton – and one that economists and policymakers will be wrestling with for many years to come. But that was rather the point of making the second part of my statement – namely, that I think it’s not enough to show a prospering economy to justify a particular tax policy. It is worth recognizing that enforcing paying taxes involves separating a person from some of his (legitimately earned, in almost all cases) wealth at a rate to which he might not agree – indeed, at a rate which might not even be necessary to pay for all the things taxation is supposed to pay for. Any society that values property rights – as your country and mine both claim to – should seek to minimize an individual’s tax burden. Not merely for economic reasons, but also out of the recognition that forcibly separating people from their property is something to be avoided, that it is, in principle, a bad thing to do. We have to justify it to a certain extent to keep the state that protects property rights in business, but we also recognize that taking it too far destroys the property rights we set up the state to protect.
It is not unlike other things associated with government, actually. We recognize that banning certain actions (e.g. murder, theft) is absolutely necessary to the maintenence of an ordered state in which individual rights are respected. It is also nearly universally agreed, however, that there should be limits to police power and that there is such a thing as an “oppressive” law. Up to a certain point, police use of force is necesary to maintain society. Past that same point, it becomes a threat to maintaining the kind of society we want. Keeping it in balance is a tricky and difficult but TERRIBLY important endeavor. It is not enough to show an orderly society to justify a given legal code. There is another relevant question: that of individual rights and freedoms.
That was all I was saying for taxation. Like police force, the fact that taxation is something without which society cannot function is not sufficient to justify any old tax policy that happens to be “working.” A society that respects property rights will seek to keep its taxes low, just as a society that values individual self-determination will seek to keep its police interventions in people’s afairs minimal.
Anyway – you’ve answered my question. You do not seem to have an adequate respect for property rights vis a vis abusive taxes since you didn’t ever concede that there could be such a thing as an “abusive” tax. (You said that taxes could go “too far” without specifying your criterion for “too far.” If you’d care to ellaborate on that, please do so.) It seems our perspectives on this issue are different after all – which is rather how I expected it would turn out.
I had hoped you meant some statement of law or policy, rather than a comment from a satirical magazine. In case you’re not aware, there’s a difference between avoiding tax (legal) and evading tax (illegal), and AFAIK there always has been.
I prefer to think that such arguments spring up because the comfortable and simplistic ideas often presented as some strand of libertarian “thought” tend to get shown up for the vapid and self-obsessed witterings they are. Could be wrong, of course.
Are you seriously suggesting we could have a taxation system where people contributed only what they felt like? Tough luck if you don’t agree with the rates – others would agree with you, but still others might think they should be higher. It has to be a compromise, something few of a libertarian bent seem capable of recognising (unless the compromise suits them, of course).
Define abusive. It’s not enough to use emotive words like that, you need to explain what you mean by them – so what is an abusive rate of taxation?
EG
GCooper, my apologies for my terse reply yesterday. I have developed a knee-jerk, spasmodic reflex whenever someone mentions the commentor you mentioned.
Reading your remark more carefully this morning, I have a theory. I think his secret identity is as the Blair administration’s Senior Advisor on Actions to Preserve Freedom and Liberty. 😉
Are you seriously suggesting we could have a taxation system where people contributed only what they felt like?
This method seems to fund religious activities, clubs, and societies. What most people on this site find objectionable is the use of public monies for what should be private concerns. The correct avenue of ‘protest’ against this is not to take one’s bat and ball and leave, but to agitate through democratic representation, ‘free press’, and personal choices, and, in the meantime, minimise one’s taxable income and assets as one feels comfortable doing.
Joshua, earlier you said
Based on observation I have a theory that everything’s purpose is to perpetuate itself. All associations from the association of one (the individual) to corporations, to governments, all exist to perpetuate themselves.
Therefore, all relations with governments must, by nature, be at best symbiotic, and at worst, direct conflict of interest.
Midwesterner writes:
“GCooper, my apologies for my terse reply yesterday. I have developed a knee-jerk, spasmodic reflex whenever someone mentions the commentor you mentioned.”
Good grief – it gets fiercer than that on Samzdata. There was really no need for an apology. And yes, I know exactly what you mean.
Euan writes:
Obviously not since I also wrote (in an earlier post):
IN addition – there is a definition of “abusive” up there too if you can be bothered to read it (I clearly stated that we should not be taxed to fund things that are not obviously connected with the state’s needs in discharging its duty to defend our rights and freedoms. There was even a list of things I felt acceptable to tax for – though there may be items on the list I left out.)
So Euan – in future – kindly read my posts before responding. Thank you.
By the way, Euan – one can’t help but notice that you’re choosing not to answer a question that I directly put to you – namely what you would consider an abuse of the government’s taxation authority. I suspect this is because you don’t have a clear answer – or that if you do it will make ample reference to democracy, rule of the majority, etc. – in which case you sort of define the problem out of existence.
But let’s hear it all the same. Since you (say you) think taxation can go “too far,” what, for you, would constitute “too far?”
Joshua,
It doesn’t make sense to rail against the exaction of tax at a rate greater than the individual might agree with, and at the same time to state that some degree of tax is inevitable and that it can’t be negotiated on an individual basis. Thus the conclusion that some people will think tax is too high, others that it should be higher and nobody is going to be completely happy.
I did read your comment fully, I just don’t think you’re making a coherent argument, hence my question.
As for your comment about what constitutes abusive tax, the issue here is that people don’t agree on what is appropriate for state funding and what is not. Furthermore, I pointed out that just because you might not see a connection between taxation, certain forms of state expenditure and personal liberties does not mean there is no connection there.
I didn’t answer your question on what constitutes abusive taxation levels because you hadn’t said what you mean by abusive. You might think that abusive taxation is anything more than that which personally benefits you, or which funds anything you don’t personally use. Unfortunately, that isn’t on the table and it’s not going to be, so it’s somewhat pointless demanding it. You need to define your idea of “abusive” more closely.
I think there is no set rate of taxation beyond which the term “abusive” would necessarily apply. As I stated above, some cultures accept and even seem to desire high taxation in return for greater equity in society. Others don’t. Obviously, what one calls abusive the other might simply term reasonable, or even low.
Even for things most agree should be state funded, such as defence, there may be little agreement. Do you want local defences only, or do you want a global power projection capability? Do you want nuclear weapons or not? If you do, do you want only tactical weapons or do you seek a strategic reach? The answers to these questions make a huge difference to how much the state needs to spend on defence, and in turn how much it needs to exact in taxation.
Well, yes. That’s how it works, after all. Unless you want to impose a dictatorship implementing your ideas, you need to accept that others also have a point of view, that it may differ markedly from yours, and that you may be heavily outnumbered.
Since you insist on one, and ignoring for the moment the want of any meaningful definition of abusive, the best answer I can give for what is a reasonable non-abusive tax level is that level which, in no particular order of priority, (a) is broadly acceptable to the majority of the people, (b) funds the social objectives the majority of the people more or less desire, (c) meets state requirements for defence of the nation and its interests and (d) doesn’t create a depressive effect on the economy greater than the benefit it brings. Unfortunately, this is really a country- culture- and economy-specific calculation and isn’t amenable to an answer of the type “not more than 33%”
American taxes are low by industrialised nation standards, at some 35% of GDP. British taxes are higher, but low by European standards at around 43%. In Denmark, it’s about 65% to 70%, IIRC. What constitutes “abusive” in these countries would likely yield three different answers.
EG
OK, so you read my post, you just didn’t understand it. When I said that bit about individuals not necessarily agreeing with the rate at which they were being taxed, I did not mean that to imply that the individual should be able to opt out of taxes he doesn’t like. I said it to illustrate that taking taxes from people is a disagreeable thing. A principled government will therefore aim to keep it at a minimum.
Well yes, but neither does my not seeing it mean it is there. These things have to be justified by more than just “the majority wants it that way,” which was my point. The burden of proof is on the government. A majority vote in Parliament does not constitute such proof.
Thank you for answering my question. The reason I was asking it (as should have been clear from my posts) was that I was trying to fish out whether you have a view of taxes and rights in general that can be divorced from what a majority wants. It’s not clear that you do.
One could, at this point, trot out all the examples from history where the majority wanted things one way and that way was nevertheless an egregious violation of the rights of some minority (and therefore unjust). Democracy will not solve the problems of the world. You and I clearly have different views on what would make a “just” society – across the board, I imagine – not merely applying to taxation.
But the whole point of democracy is that it IS “the majority wants it that way” that more or less decides things. I’ve often though that the low tax, minimal government model espoused hereabouts could not be instituted through democracy, for the simple reason that the majority of people don’t want it. I think if you want libertarianism, you need dictatorship to impose it (certainly to preserve it), which rather defeats the point of the exercise.
If you’re going to object to a more or less democratic system because it tends to give results you don’t like, what’s your alternative and how do you plan to prevent the people overturning it if/when they decide they don’t like it?
Then what does? A plebiscite? Some benevolent dictator deciding what is right and wrong?
Taxation should be that necessary to achieve the ends desired by the state (in the case of defence of nation and interests) and the people (in the case of social objectives). There is no hard and fast rule as to what that level should be. I do have particular views on certain types of taxation, and don’t approve of capitation taxes such as the late Poll Tax or a flat (as opposed to flat-rate) tax because I think they are manifestly inequitable.
Rights are social constructs and vary over time and between societies. There is no point in trying to nail down absolute rights, since there has never been such a thing and no-one can agree what it would be in any case. Everything changes, and everything is relative. What works at the time and in pursuit of the ends desired at the time is good enough, and if your society chooses to and can afford to grant further right beyond that, that’s up to your society.
EG
Euan writes:
Just so we’re clear on this – you can’t think of a time in history when it would be reasonable to say that the rights of a minority were violated at the behest of a majority?
Interesting.
Probably every time in history up to and including the present. This doesn’t alter the fact that rights are social constructs, though – nobody says rights are or have to be agreed by 100% of the population. In fact, I don’t think it’s even feasible to have a system of rights that attracts complete approval by every member of society, or which apply always to everyone.
That’s even less likely when one considers that philosophers, moralists and jurists have been arguing for centuries about rights, are still doing it today and show no sign of giving up. What are the chances of the general public reaching unanimity if the specialists can’t?
EG
I’m sorry, I’m not following this. If “rights” in a given society are a social construct which is built by general (though not universal) consensus – then by what standard do you judge that the “rights” of a minority in the society were violated if the majority does not think, by its actions, to have violated anyone’s rights?
Or – are you perhaps talking about cases where the majority knowingly violates what it considers to be the minority’s “rights?”
If it is this latter – then by what standard did the majority construct the rights that it knowingly violated (presumably because they stood in the way of its interests)?
Generally by selective and self-serving application of right. For example, all have the right to be free, except black people who are slaves. All have the right to vote, except women. All have the right to life, except Jews, gypsies, slavische untermenschen, etc. All have the right to free speech, except communists or – these days and if some people could get away with it – moslems. You get the picture.
Admittedly, this looks at it subjectively. I happen to think that skin colour, religion, sex, whatever makes not the slightest difference and that for a right to mean anything it must apply to all. I therefore don’t approve of the idea of special group rights. However, for most if not all history it has generally been the case that right has been applied somewhat selectively, and IMO this naturally results in the violation of right for some (usually powerless) minority.
That too. Selective application of right is quite often intentional.
The standard that serves the majority interest, of course, or the interest that happens to have a grip of power. For example, America being created on the principle that all people are created free and equal – except slaves and women, naturally. But then, it wasn’t the slaves or women making the rules or declaring the right, was it?
EG
The standard by which you judge that a minority’s rights have been violated by the majority is:
So consistency seems to be the standard. If a “right” is enshrined as such, in order to be meaningfully called a “right” for you it has to apply to all denizens (or just citizens?) equally. I would agree so far.
This, however, raises an interesting question. Would you also say that restrictions on the right to “free speech,” provided they apply to everyone equally, could ever constitute a violation of “rights?” Say, for example, we decided to place a ban on public speech calling for the overthrow of the government (there is such a law in Germany). Would you say that this law constituted a violation of the right to “free speech,” or would you say that the right to “free speech” had merely been redefined by society so as to exclude such speech as called publicly for the overthrow of the government?
(Remember, this applies equally to people of all political persuasions – for the sake of the example.)
In response to the question of by what standard the majority constructed the rights that it later violated in cases where it willfully violates the rights of a minority:
Here I was asking – in cases where a majority knowingly violates the rights of a minority, by what standard it constructed the rights that it ended up violating – not by what standard it “justified” its later violation of those rights. I think you might have misread that part, given this answer, so I’ll wait to say anything about this until you confirm that that’s, in fact, what you meant.
There is also such a law in America. It is illegal to advocate the forcible overthrow of the US government, and first amendment rights are no defence. The US federal government is a state like any other, and if you read the constitution – all of it, not just the bits giving YOU rights – you’ll see it has some pretty serious rights of its own. One of these rights is the right to forcibly suppress insurrection & sedition.
I’d say it is a prudent and sensible restriction on the right, provided always that it applies to every citizen irrespective of political persuasion. You can’t have absolute freedom of anything, and that includes speech. I see no difficulty in principle with restricting rights in cases like this, provided the restriction applies to all people.
No, I didn’t. Since rights are social constructs, it is reasonable to expect that the bits of society doing the construction are the ones that stand to benefit from it, or who are already in a position of power and can thus dictate what rights will and will not be granted, to whom and in what circumstances – for example, white male landowners and commercial interests in late 18th century America.
The post hoc justification may well be something quite different – blacks are naturally inferior to whites, the female brain overheats if it is educated like a man’s, homosexuality is a disease, whatever. These are simply attempts to find a rational justification for the prejudice of the beneficiary group.
EG
Forcibly supressing insurrection is not the same thing as punishing public advocation of the overthrow of the government. The Supreme Court, if I’m not mistaken, has upheld the right to publicly call for overthrow of the government (of course, they failed to do so before they did so – there were some cases in the 1920s restricting this type of speech – but to the best of my knowledge those were overturned in the late 1960s). “Sedition” is not banned by the Constitution that I know of – only “insurrection.”
Well, OK – under your definition of “rights” as I understand it so far, that certainly makes sense. What my question was getting at was, however, this:
If the consensus that sets up “rights” in a society is (more or less) the majority that later can be said to have violated some minority’s “rights” (within that same society), and we’re clear that it is in fact a majority that participates in or otherwise supports the violation of the rights of said minority, then it seems, under your system, as though no violation of “rights” can be said to have occurred since it is, after all, the majority that gets to define such things. So either there is a violation of the minority’s “rights” in some meaningful sense in your system (in which case the majority needs some kind of post hoc justification, as you put it, because it does not feel justified by numbers/consensus alone), or there is no meaningful sense in which the minority’s “rights” were violated after all (since it is “general consensus” that grounds “rights,” and since we have a majority supporting said action, etc.).
So it sounds like a contradiction that needs to be resolved. That’s why I thought you had misread that last part of my question. However – since you say you haven’t, then I suppose there is an answer to this seeming paradox.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 provides for penalty against anyone who “knowingly or wilfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States.” The supreme court has forced the amendment of this legislation to cover only specific insurrectionary activities or the encouragement thereof (which can cover sedition), but it remains in force and it remains the case that advocating the overthrow of the US government is an offence.
I’m wrong about sedition being specifically mentioned in the constitution.
I don’t see why.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying my argument is that if a set of rights are defined by a majority, and if that majority goes along with the denial of the rights to a minority, then there can by definition be no violation of the minority’s right since the right wasn’t extended to the minority in the first place. I’m not arguing that, since I believe that a right can only be meaningful if it applies to all, and thus any denial of right to a minority at the same time as a grant of the same right to the majority, even if the majority wishes it, is in principle wrong.
However, a denial of right to all people need not be in principle wrong. I think what’s important here is the concept of the rule of law, namely that the law applies to all people. If a given society decides that no individual has a right to do a certain thing, that’s better than saying only a certain group has a right to do it. This obviously does not and cannot apply to such things as the right of the police to arrest people, the right of armies to bear weapons, etc., which rights might not apply to the private individual.
EG
That answers my question, yes. In fact, I thought you were being inconsistent – but as it turns out this is a consistent view of rights – just not one that I happen to share.
This is all true, yes, but it is not the whole story. When I made reference to the 1960s I was referring specifically to Brandenburg v. Ohio – was just too lazy to look it up. A quotation from the summary:
So the situation seems to be that the Alien Registration Act is still on the books but can only be applied in cases where a person (a) is publicly advocating something illegal (e.g. insurrection), (b) intends by his words to actually incite said action immediately and (c) it is actually likely that his words will have an effect.
In other words, merely advocating insurrection is protected speech under the US Constitution. Advocating insurrection with the serious intent to eventually overthrow the US government is protected speech under the US Constitution. Advocating insurrection with the serious intent to overthrow the government immediately is even protected if no one takes you seriously. Only advocating insurrection if it’s likely to be immediately effective is a crime.
I think it’s fair to say that this is probably the most liberal protection of political speech in the world. Whatever else the US gets wrong – it got this right.
Now we’ve got that bit sorted, let’s get back to the justice of taxation.
Earlier, you said that a simple vote in Parliament is not enough to justify state expenditure on a given thing, but you didn’t say what is. So what is sufficient?
Given that we live in a representative democracy, what alternative means do you propose for deciding what is or is not reasonable and justifiable taxation? How do you maintain such a system, whatever it is? How do you prevent the people overturning it and seeking the institution of what they want?
EG
Brian,
This was done to give the Inland Revenue the same enforcement powers the Customs have, namely the power to kick your door down and steal your property if they decide that you owe them some money.
That may be so, but as yet they do not have merged powers, and the reason it was done we can only speculate about. At the moment it is just joint management: they can only exercise Customs powers through customs officers, and Revenue powers when acting as revenue officers. They are now invited to tip one another off systematically, which is probably in itself legitimate, but given the greatly increased fierceness of tax law, and scope of powers that have accrued to both branches, of late, more than a little scary.
Actually – I did say. Taxation is only justified when necessary to fund (adequately) the continued existence of a state which protects individual rights and secures its borders. Taxation which bears no obvious connection to this enterprise is unjust. That includes taxation for schemes like public health, diversity education, whatever.
Under our current system, a republic, tax laws will be passed by a majority in Parliament/the Congress, as you say. My point of departure from your position was not opposition to the mechanism but opposition to the idea that a passed law was the end of meaningful discussion on the matter. The fact that Parliament passes a law does not make it just – merely makes it enforceable.
As is often pointed out on Samizdata, a democracy does not guarantee a free society, nor does it guarantee a just society. “Tyranny of the majority” is a meaningful phrase. I am not aware that anyone has come up with a better suggestion for government, so I’m happy to continue with the democratic model. In principle, however, I would not be opposed to living under a dictatorship-like arrangement if said “dictatorship” had a suitable consitution with an independent judiciary and did a better job securing everyone’s rights than the current republic. It is not even dificult for me to imagine such an arrangement.
Under the current system in this country, it’s clear that some sort of overhaul of the labrythine and meddling tax system is long overdue. One can hope that in my lifetime proposals will be made, and we’ll have an opportunity to perhaps clear up the question of income tax on a constitutional level (there is wide speculation that our current system is not even legal) – placing limits on how much tax Congress is allowed to levy and for what so that it no longer is, in ethical or in legal terms, merely a matter of majority vote.
There is no way, in a representative democracy, to prevent people from overturning the current system and “seeking the institution of what they want.” This is one of the flaws in the system. But given that this system has worked out better than any in history, I’m not eager to undergo the risk of replacing it with another. As much as I dislike the prospect personally, changing tax reality will mean going through a long process of changing (or trying to change) people’s thinking on the matter – changing the terms of public discourse. This is primarily why the distinction between a just law and a law which passed Parliament/Congress is important to me. Without this concept in the public mind, prospects for change are bleak. Fortunately, you seem to be in the minority on that one. Most people speak meaningfully of a difference between democracy and justice, so I am optimistic that things can improve in the future.
Fine, but you’re not answering the obvious questions. What is adequate? Who defines adequate? What rights are to be defended? Why them and why not others? Who decides which rights qualify? What happens when people disagree? What happens if a large majority disagrees – do you just insist on your way and do what is “best” for the poor ignorant people who don’t know any better?
And how is that any improvement on what we have now?
It’s not enough to glibly say that taxation should be only that adequate to protect rights and borders. That means nothing unless you define and justify the rights and explain how your system would work and how you would override the public opposition to it.
EG
Euan,
I’m terribly sorry, but, like most people who have to earn a living, I cannot be an expert on taxation law in my spare time. Tolley’s Tax Manual has expanded, apparently, to 6,000 pages (source – I read it somewhere but an inspection of Tolley’s should resolve any dispute). It is abundantly clear that nobody (not even tax professionals) can be intimately familiar with all this, so I see no reason to assume that nobody can have an opinion on tax issues unless they are.
Guy
Thank you. I stand corrected. But, as you say, it won’t be long….
Brian
The electorate, in a democracy. Their representatives, in a republic.
Rights that have some independent philosophical justification based on the concept of what it is to be a member of society – crucially, based on the idea that society is an association of individuals. It’s hard work, but we (libertarians) will have to set about convincing the electorate to adopt our view of what it means to be a member of society.
The Founders, originally. Large majorities of the electorate expressing itself through the legislature and subject to judicial review after that (talking here only, of course, about questions involving rights – not implementation of policy – for which simple acts of the legislature will suffice).
Yes – which is not substantially different from what you do, by the way. Your system differs only in that it places some kind of magical importance on the number 50% – and this as a substitution for reasoned justification! If 49% of the participants disagree with a course of action under your system, it is still somehow “justified,” regardless of the content of their objections.
I haven’t spelled out any particulars, since I thought we were having a philosophical discussion – but let’s say the prohibitions I’m talking about are something like a provision in the Constitution. So – new laws on taxation are subject to judicial review. Also – there is a mechanism for overriding the existing system – it is just prohibitively difficult to activate. Notice that under such a system if a “large” majority objects to something it will change. The drawn-out process of getting this change will also force discussion on the issue, etc. This is a means of protecting the integrity of law against the whims of a simple majority. Anyway – something like that – whereby a “large” majority can still have its way, but not necessarily a “simple” majority – and where even a “large” majority needs a cooling period.
It is simply a fact that majorities often vote what they perceive to be comfortable for them rather than what is right – and this often leads to fairly ridiculous distortions. Any reasonable government will have protections against this.
Well, since I need more than a simple accurate vote count to call something “justified,” answering this question obviously goes a bit beyond what the others would probably like us to do with their space here. I will be happy to take this up with you via email over a longer period of time.
Because people’s property, for example, means more than just “50+% said you could have it until such time as they change their mind and/or need it for something else.” Right to self-defense means that you can defend your life from attack regardless of the moral prescriptions of the legislature about how to behave yourself in such situations. Etc. It is a much more secure foundation for the sorts of things that actually matter to real people.
Nick Timms:
Nick, if you’re going to hark back to ancestry to call taxation in the society in which you currently choose to participate “stealing” and justify your rights to a personal fiefdom without constraint in “your” land, you’d better be sure that your ancestry is entirely pure of blood, and ignore any evidence pointing to the waves of invasion that preceded your ancestors’ possession of those lands. Are you sure you don’t have some murderous Anglo-Saxon blood in your veins, some conniving invading Norman genes lurking in your family tree? For that matter, if you’re a pure Celt, are you sure you didn’t supplant and murder a previous northern tribe before you?
You’ll of course understand I’m not trying to impede your rights to disagree with different forms of taxation or judge some to be abusive as debated above. But harking back to bloodline isn’t the way to argue it. Why would it make any difference if your father were an immigrant?
Arguments for freedom from societal constraints such as taxation that amount to “they can’t tell me what to do, because it’s my native land” trip at the first hurdle. You happen to have been born there, that’s all, and you can move if you don’t like it, or stay and try to change it. It’s pointless to rail against it as unjust because you supposedly got there first. Woody Guthrie, who I’m not sure would be seen as a vanguard of individualism and libertarianism (or would he?), was entirely wrong when he sang “This Land Is Your Land”. Unless he meant everyone’s and no-one’s.
Which is what we have now and what you are complaining about. It seems your proposal is for a supermajority vote rather than a simple majority?
The trouble with this is that there is no agreement on what rights with such a philosophical justification actually are. You can come up with a list of such rights, but I can come up with a different list and we can each attack the other’s philosophical justifications. All you’re really demanding is that your view of rights be accepted as the legitimate one, and that’s the thing that needs justification. Unfortunately, that’s been debated back and forth for centuries with no lasting conclusion reached, so forgive my scepticism if you think that now you have the true and definitive answer.
Society is indeed an association of individuals, but it is at the same time more than that. In the same way, a company is just a collection of individuals, but at the same time something more. You cannot look at it ONLY on an individual basis. Equally, you cannot look at it only on a collective basis. These are the failings of, respectively, (some forms of) libertarianism and socialism & each of these posits simplistic answers to complex questions (& are thus very unlikely to be useful).
Fair enough, but then you need to justify why you think assumptions on government, society and commerce prevailing in the late 18th century are still valid in the vastly different 21st. Your justification needs to take into account industrialisation, massively increased population, increased urbanisation, increased travel and communication and the greater impact of global issues, opportunities and threats, and it needs to explain why these effectively don’t matter.
So now what you’re proposing is not only that your idea should be adopted now, but that it should be entrenched permanently. What changes in the future might happen which would make this unwise? If society has changed enormously since 1776, what might it do between now and 2176, and why would that not matter?
And thus pointless to incorporate.
It means that society cannot get what it wants if that desire conflicts with the Holy Writ of constitutional taxation. What, if anything, is the philosophical difference between this and the forcible imposition of any other supposedly immutable system? Why is your system better? Why would it always be better?
And that comes down to a straight fight between what you think is right and what someone else thinks is right. You can justify your position, he can justify his, and you both think you’re right. You cannot both be right, but you can of course both be wrong.
Please do.
That is one view of property. It isn’t the only one, and it isn’t necessarily and always correct (neither is any other view necessarily and always correct).
No it doesn’t. It means you have the right to defend yourself and property, but within the wider bounds of the rules of society. It isn’t absolute.
I don’t agree. Firstly, it addresses the things that patently matter to YOU, but may be less important to others. If they don’t have the right to impose their will on you, so you don’t have the right to impose your will on them, which is really all you’re seeking to do in practice.
Secondly, because it is a system based on a highly ideological and dogmatic view of right, property and money, it sets itself up to fall when the ideology is proved flawed or unworkable.
Thirdly, it prevents for all practical purposes the people choosing some different way, and this is a recipe for disaster because at some point they WILL want another way. Because your system would deny them the ability to peacefully change things, the only route is violent overthrow, and it would in time be certain to happen.
Eg
I think this argument runs close to “tax is too complex for me to understand, therefore it cannot be understood.” People do understand it, or at least the parts they specialise in, and indeed are paid to do so. I don’t think anyone anywhere is expected to understand the whole thing, which is why you get specialists in personal taxation, corporate tax accountants, inheritance specialists, etc. That you can’t understand the whole thing means nothing.
You should also note that a 6,000 page tax code does not apply only to the individual. It will cover personal taxation, but it will also cover corporate taxation, excise, administration, penalty, etc. Many of these are technically complex issues and although they could certainly be made simpler the fact remains that some degree of precision and detail is necessary in the rules. This tends to produce lots of pages, as does any other technically complex subject.
Nobody is saying you can’t have an opinion on tax issues, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that you might want to base your opinion on something more solid than comments in a satirical magazine.
EG
I hope if you both do decide to take this offline that you still make the ensuing discussion public. It was this thread that made me stop and stay when I first came across Samizdata yesterday. I’d like to read on.
Ah – the usual straw man interpretations of Libertarianism. It’s true that we believe in individualism and limited government – but I don’t see how you get from there to the conclusion that Libertarians beleive in no kind of collective reality at all. Society is at its basis a collection of inviduals – and there can be no meaningful talk of society without addressing the blindingly obvious fact that people come in individual packages with individual interests to pursue. Any society will ask members to make sacrificies in their pursuit of these interests for the greater good – and Libertarianism is no different here. I think what you mistake for “simplicity” on these issues is actually “clarity.”
What I was complaining about is the idea that a simple majority constitutes moral justification for anything. Morality is not a question of majority vote. I concede now, and have always conceded in the past (on separate threads) that actual implementation of government means that one can’t always have his way. In actual practice, majority votes will have to decide policy – not because this is ideal, but because there seems to be no better alternative. On some questions of “rights,” yes, I am calling for a supermajority vote rather than a simple majority vote – a system which has been implemented with great success in the United States resulting in the protection of rights against a meddling government on several occasions – free speech being the specific example given above. Notice that democratic process resulted in the systematic violation of the speech rights of communist and immigrant minorities in the 1940s (an example you gracefully supplied). It was Constitutional writ and judicial review that restored this right to those people.
No – you’re missing the point. I wrote “It is simply a fact that majorities often vote what they perceive to be comfortable for them rather than what is right.” Meaning that a majority will often help itself to the cookie jar if people have convinced the population – as you are apparently trying to do – that a simple majority is all that is needed in the way of justification.
Regarding my mechanism for change being “prohibitively difficult to activate:”
No – again – since I made it clear that the process for Constitutional change in the US was a model I would be willing to accept, and since there are several examples of the Constitution changing in American history, then no, I don’t think it would be pointless to incorporate. Also please keep in mind that I was talking here about questions involving rights and not questions involving policy. The question of, to use the earlier example, whether the military is receiving adequate funding is a policy question and would be decided by a simple majority in the legislature. Exactly the way it is in both our countries now. The reason questions of rights need extra protection against a majority’s whim is because rights, by definition, are guarantees. You can’t very well be guaranteed something if it is always and at any time easily taken from you! Since this is the real world we live in and circumstances, as you point out, can and do change, interpretations can and do turn out to be wrong, etc. – we can’t give an absolute guarantee.
But I think it is fair to make the process for changing rights involved – so that rather than voting its whim, a majority will have to stop and discuss what it is doing before it violates such guarantees. We want to discourage certain things from changing. But I never said that these things should be impossible to change, so I think this statement on your part is a bit of a misinterpretation.
Insofar as it is a right, one’s right to self-defense can’t come under microanalysis by the legislature, sorry. The UK’s laws on self defense, as well as those of several US states (Massachussetts springs to mind) are, for example, completely unacceptable for a civilized society – necessitating, as they do, all sorts of moral considerations on the part of the person under attack. First and foremost, people have a right to try and preserve their own lives in situations like this. Now – this doesn’t extend to their violating the rights of innocent bystanders (those people also having a right not to be threatened, etc.) – but requiring, for example, that someone try their best to flee rather than counterattack? That, simply put, is monstrous, and it has no place in civilization. And indeed, this is something that matters to all people who happen to be in situations where they are under attack and fear for their lives. It doesn’t matter to ME because I have never been in such a situation. But I am moral enough not to try to second-guess the motives and micromanage the lives of people who have been and will be in those kinds of situations.
No – it is, to continue with this example, the British government that is seeking to impose its will on people here. In a default state, a person is allowed to defend hmself when attacked – period. This is by default – not by assent of the law. The law comes in and, in the case of the UK (and several states in the US, to be fair) requires all sorts of behavior on the part of the (presumably law-abiding) person under attack. I would consider that a case of imposing will on someone else.
IN fact, this whole line of argument of yours is sort of beside the point, since systems based on the magic 50% number also involve imposing the will of some (those in the group with numbers above the arbitrary threshold) on the will of others (those actually in the situations being regulated). Rights exist to protect people against such impositions – so in a real sense I think my system involves a great deal less of imposing its will than yours does. That, indeed, is the point of my system – to keep such impositions to a minimum. Yours doesn’t seem to feel one way or the other about it.
Now you’re burning straw men. I have already talked about the mechanisms for change in my system, and none of them involved revolution.
No more than you need to justify why you think the nature of man has changed in fundamental ways since the 18th century. The basic concerns of people have not changed in a very long time – including what we want from society. People still primarily want freedom from attack, security, the right to keep what they produce, the freedom to express themselves without fear of the government, freedom to practice their religion and freedom from others imposing religion on them, etc. etc. The basic political concerns of people in the 18th century have proven remarkably robust – and probably because those concerns were philosophically founded, not arbitrarily legislated – which has been my point all along. Good government does not come from voting your comfort at the moment – it comes from voting what is right.
You define the problem away by conflating the two: for you, “what is right” seems to be “what a majority wants.” But this is an unworkable model. People do not argue with each other on those terms. People argue with each other in the langauge of morality – of what is right or wrong. I have never in my life heard an argument stop with the words “but we had a vote and it was decided!” When people argue, they appeal to higher principles than “the majority wants it that way.” Majority rule is simply a practical way of deciding which of these views to enforce – but conflating it with moral rectitude is a philosophical error.
Honey-
I’m sorry – I didn’t notice your post earlier this morning when I put up my latest.
Euan and I have yet to make arrangements for continuing the debate offline. I have no objection to including you on the cc list (or even putting up a temporary blog) to continue this. It’s an interesting debate for me too.
One of the nice things about having Euan around – frustrating as I find his opinions personally – is that those of us willing to take him on really do get our debating skill sharpened, as well as an opportunity to look at the foundations of our belief systems.
For my part – it will be more convenient if we can continue the debate in December as I’m rather busy right now, and the philosophical nature of the debate means that it is likely to get involved. But if Euan insists on finishing it while it’s still fresh, I’m willing to do that too.
Apparently the UK government has announced that as part of the council tax re-evaluation programme, officials will be required to enter peoples’ homes to make their valuations of additions and renovations. What is legal standing on this? Are tax officials allowed to enter your property if you refuse them entry?