amok wrote:amok wrote:Seth wrote:
In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others. Only if I make use of the services of a police force can I be compelled to pay for that service. Otherwise I may simply do without a police force and provide for my own protection at my own cost (including by hiring people to do it for me)...or not...at my own expense, if I have a need for such services. I must, of course, do so within the constraints of the law. I may not therefore take the law into my own hands and render justice to a criminal, but I may defend myself, apprehend the criminal, and bring him before the court...for which I'll have to pay, but for which I'm entitled to compensation from the criminal if I prove my case of initiation of force or fraud.
Now, this does NOT mean that I am not subject to the law or that I'm immune from a police force or judicial system acting to prevent or redress an initiation of force or fraud by me against another. Libertarians are not anarchists and they do believe in the rule of law and the authority of the government to enforce the law. They simply do not require that everyone contribute to such systems unless and until they choose to voluntarily make use of them in some way, therefore binding themselves contractually to pay for the services rendered. This applies to the person who initiates force or fraud just as equally, and he may be compelled (after proper judgment) to pay for the services required to investigate, prosecute and punish the wrongdoing.
I honestly don't see how that can work (perhaps with the exception of areas with a very low population density), because it doesn't take into account establishing the infrastructure
before an individual makes a decision to make use of a service, even if they fully intend to pay for the specific service on an as-used basis.
Seth, and perhaps others of libertarian bent, I understand that my post might have been missed, but I'm very curious about this.
Thanks to anyone who can answer.
You see, I'm personalizing this and trying to see how it could possibly be positive for society. Let's say when I'm a very old woman, with no family, and I'm attacked and murdered (even taking into account the armed for self-defence situation - say I'm 90, and didn't manage to pull out my legal gun fast enough in face of a surprise attack, or whatnot) - if I'm dead and hence not able to bring the perpetrators to justice at my own expense, and I have no living family to do so, wouldn't that just eventually become an open invitation for criminals to target the old and weak? Doesn't there have to be a certain degree of "common good" taxation to provide infrastructure for policing/investigating?
And rational self-interest is enough to persuade reasonable and rational people to support a police force without coercive taxation.
For example, a community in need of a full-time police force can advertise to persuade the members of the community of this need, just as they do in small towns nationwide when it comes to volunteer firefighting companies, and then it can provide a system whereby people sign up for police protection that is organized and supervised by the local government elected officials, but which is ENTIRELY funded by voluntary donations and assessments for services rendered. Those who subscribe to the service will not need to pay extra if they require police services, while those who do not, are billed for those services as they are rendered. To serve the indigent who are unable to pay, politicians would lobby citizens (rather than vice versa) to provide enough extra funds to deal with the "free rider" phenomenon.
In Libertarianism, because the power to tax is very strictly limited, if it exists at all, the power structure is reversed and returned to where it ought to be: The People are the power, and elected officials have to ASK THEM to fund government services, which means that politicians, instead of being arrogant bureaucrats with the power to tax at will to whom the public must appeal for tax relief become true servants of the public and in essence they become salesmen for government programs, and the People become consumers of government programs who may purchase or not purchase those programs as they see fit.
If a government project or service is truly a "common good" then there should be little difficulty in convincing the community of the need and persuading them to sign up to pay for and receive the service.
The problem with the "common good" argument as things are is that it is politicians who drive the "need" for a "common good" and all that they have to do is convince their fellow legislators to vote for a tax to fund that project or service. They rarely have to actually go to the voters and ask for their democratic approval to levy a tax, much less accept that only those who actually approve of and are willing to fund the project can be asked to pay for it. This system inevitably leads to pork, pandering to special interests and all manner of corruption because politicians seeking votes will always promise more largess from the treasury to their constituents, even if the program they are proposing benefits no one but a few select members of that community. I found one example of this in the recent defense bill, where some politician inserted language that made it impossible for the Navy to close a ship-repair facility in one particular community even though the class of ship that facility was built to repair has been decommissioned.
When "common good" means "pork for special interests and votes for the representative" things get distorted very quickly. Imagine the salutary benefits of you, the individual, being able to "earmark" your taxes on your return so that they can only be used for specific programs or services government offers. Don't like the way the Housing Council is doing things, then don't give them a check-off that will grant them a portion of your taxes. Like what the dog catcher does, then you can earmark ALL your taxes for that service and none for anything else. What a fantastic boon that would be to controlling the size and scope of government. Direct democracy through the power of the purse.
In Colorado, we have TABOR, the "Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights" which requires that any change in any tax that increases the amount of money collected by the political unit involved must be approved by a majority vote of those affected by the tax. This law has been very successful in keeping Colorado from going down the path to economic ruin that California, New York and other big, liberal cities are facing. It's not perfect in that it only requires majority approval to levy or increase a tax when it should (by Libertarian principles) require universal approval or exempt those who disagree with paying it, but it's been a godsend for Colorado and has kept us far more economic stable than many other states.
It's now being attacked by Progressives and Democrats in court, who are arguing (ridiculously) that the taxing authority of the state is a fundamental power of government and that by constraining the state legislature from imposing taxes at will TABOR unconstitutionally prevents the legislature from fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated duties and powers.
The problem with this argument is that it forgets two things: First it forgets that all political power emanates from the People, and is merely on loan from them to the government, a lone that may be revoked at will, which is demonstrated by the fact that the state's voters have full authority to repeal a tax the legislature enacts by petition, and therefore TABOR merely avoids the expense and trouble of doing so by requiring the legislature to ask permission first; and second it forgets that the law does not prevent the legislature from enacting any law it wants, it just prohibits it from collecting taxes that haven't been authorized by the people.
To reiterate; if a service or project proposed by bureaucrats or politicians is actually a "common good" then politicians should have little trouble convincing the public of the need for a tax to fund it. Again, in Boulder County, taxes to acquire and preserve open space show up almost every year on the ballot, and the voters of the county have NEVER TURNED ONE DOWN since the program began back in the 70s. Boulder County and the City of Boulder now own more than 100,000 acres of public open space, all bought with tax money specifically and expressly approved for that use by the voters.
No tax should EVER be levied without at a minimum a majority vote by referendum of those to be taxed.
Hard Libertarianism would hold that no tax may be levied on anyone if they do not agree to pay it first.
But just because taxes cannot be levied and collected coercively does not mean that "taxes" (by way of regular voluntary assessments) cannot or will not be agreed to by members of the community out of rational self-interest, charity, altruism or simple community recognition of the desirable results of such a tax, like the Open Space taxes in Boulder.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Libertarianism doesn't posit "no government." I think Libertarianism as a philosophy interposes some general principles, and as a general philosophy advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals, whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.