A Statist Uses Intellectual Dishonesty to Justify Taxation

Once, long ago, when man was still living in filthy huts in tiny communities while he barely survived from hunting and gathering, there lived a caveman named “Ug”. Now Ug was not like the other caveman. He was always thinking about things beyond his everyday survival needs. On day when the other hunters were preparing to leave for the day to forage for game and food, Ug elected to stay behind and “think”. He sat under a tree all day contemplating the circumstances of life and all that he had to do to survive. He had to spend time gathering wood for a fire or else he would freeze to death. He had to search for game and other edibles out in the dangerous wilds so that he would not starve. He had to take water from the stream back to his hut so that he would not thirst. “Nature is oppressing me! If I do not labor, it will kill me!”

Now most reasonable people would find Ug’s conclusion to be irrational and just plain wrong. How could unconscious factors of our natural environment oppress us? Oppression, in the way we seek to define it as, is when one sentient person forces their will upon another sentient person in order to extract something of value from them by force. Scarcity (the reason Ug must labor) is just a fact of living in the environment we live in and categorically different from one person seeking to dominate another for their own gain. But when you talk to statist, particularly on the legitimacy of taxation, you will hear all kinds of weird mental gymnastics in their attempts to justify the initiation of violence against others. Recently, this happened to me.

This person asked me “Where do we draw the line?” I responded by telling them that anything should be permissible so long as we do not violate the person or legitimate property of others. Doing so would be coercion or the initiation of violence and by doing so, we would then bear the risk of having defensive force used against us. To this, they responded with something rather strange. “What if someone does not want to voluntarily exchange anything or has nothing to exchange?” To this I again said that if they refuse to exchange property that is legitimately theirs (property gained through homesteading, mixing one’s labor with unclaimed resources, voluntary trade or gifting) than that is their prerogative to abstain from trade. If another party used violence to coerce them, they are attempting to dominate this other person and use force against them which is a violation of their personal autonomy. This is unjustified and the person being coerced would then be justified in defending themselves from their aggressor with force in kind. As far as not having anything to trade, there is always labor which can be traded in exchange for a wage.

The statist then asked “What if they do not want to labor?”

“They starve and die” I said.

From this point, they made the illogical jump to saying “So one must contribute or die.” I can see how if you are working backwards from the false premise that taxation is justified and moral, that you could make such a false logical jump. This only highlights the importance for working from philosophical axioms and synthetic a priori propositions. But this point brings us back to the story of Ug. There is a difference between being forced to work because nature and the scarcity that comes along with it will kill you, and working under threats of force from another human being who has no extra special rights beyond yours. Conflating the scarcity of nature with the coercion of one person against another is just improper and a false comparison. This is because one is a factor of existing (the scarcity of nature) and the other is one human trying to dominate another for the scarce means the other has legitimately gained. Under such horrible logic, there is no difference between loving sexual relations between a man and woman and man raping a women. This is a harsh example, but like the statist I spoke to, under their logic, legitimate. This is because the rape example, like the nature/taxation example, ignores consent. I know for a fact that the statist I spoke with would find rape abhorrent and consensual sex fine, but why say line of logic regarding consent is valid and another is not? Isn’t this contradictory? Are not theft and rape both unjustified because both violate the person of someone else?

So I asked this statist if they are saying that nature oppresses them. “Keep on point” they said. But this question is on point. They are saying that being forced to work by the natural scarcity of our environment is that same as being forced to work for a governing authority. This makes the assumption then that either governments are natural, that unconscious forces of nature should be given the same moral agency as individuals, or that individuals, like nature, can be absolved of all moral agency all together. Neither of these conclusions line up with reality for reasons beyond the scope of this post though I hope that all three sound profoundly absurd regardless. No, the only conclusion is that nature is categorized as something all together difference from acting man. Therefore, such a comparison is all together false. We can plainly see that there is a difference between saying “If I do not labor I will starve to death in nature” compared to “Bob will kill me if I do not labor against my will for him.” But this statist wants to say that these two ideas are exactly the same therefore taxation is justified.

I hope the stupidity of such an argument is abundantly clear.


The Logical Anarchy Podcast LIVE Episode 37 – Encryption


The Logical Anarchy Podcast – The Logical Anarchy Podcast LIVE Episode 37 – Encryption

What is encryption and why is it useful for freedom lovers today? How can we use it to create spheres where the state has no hold on our lives? On this episode we find out by interviewing Matthew Tanous about the subject. Matthew is a contributor at Altar and Throne as well as an admin for the We the Individuals Facebook page.

We the Individuals FB Page

Coding Anarchy Facebook Page

Matthew’s Short Story on Amazon Kindle

Altar and Throne

Logical Anarchy Merchandise

Find us on Stitcher!

Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will recieve an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!

http://shoutengine.com/TheLogicalAnarchyPodcast.xml

Bitcoin!

Logical Anarchy Today Episode 147 – Conservatives Are Not Really Conservative


Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 147 – Conservatives Are Not Really Conservative

Sorry for the sporadic issues with releases. This time, it’s a problem with the service that hosts our podcast. I have been having uploading issues. But alas we have last weeks episode up! It’s about how conservatives are not really conservatives.
Logical Anarchy Merchandise

Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will recieve an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!

http://shoutengine.com/LogicalAnarchyToday.xml

 


“You Can Leave” is an Argument for the Lazy

You find yourself engaged in conversation with a friend, co-worker, family member or even a stranger. Perhaps it’s at a bar over a few drinks or maybe it is online in one of those infamous Facebook political debates. No matter the context, the outcome is still the same. As an anarcho-capitalist you lay out the arguments, as you always do, to demonstrate that government is illegitimate and that taxation is indeed theft. Perhaps you use argumentation ethics coupled with estoppel or you just get them to agree that the Non-Aggression Principle is an objective moral standard. They may even agree that the NAP should be followed in our everyday lives! But once you mention how taxation is fundamentally theft and the initiation of violence against others, the conversation falls apart. You can see it in your opponents’ eyes: that look of fear as the nagging idea that everything they have been taught about government is wrong. Hastily, they blurt out: “Well, if you don’t like it, you can leave!”

They have already admitted defeat. You have already won the debate. But why is that?

First, what makes theft wrong? It seems like a stupid thing to have to ask but clearly with statists it must be brought up. Let’s think about self-ownership first. If we own ourselves, there is no other person on earth with a better claim to our bodies than us. If we are the only ones with a legitimate claim to our bodies, we are the only ones that have a say in how our bodies are used and what actions we take. If this is true, we have the right to contract out our labor to an employer for a wage. Stealing the fruits of our labor or using violence to make us work is fundamentally unjustified because, as we said, no one but ourselves has a better claim to our bodies than us. So when you steal something from someone, you are claiming ownership of their labor or the fruits of their labor. If this is true, you are claiming ownership of their bodies and at that point, you are now a slave master. Theft is wrong because it violates self-ownership. If no one but the individual has a right to decide how the fruits of his labor are used, theft is wrong because coercion of some kind has been used to dominate that person and override his personal sovereignty. Taxation falls into this same idea, and if you do not believe this idea, try not paying your taxes one year (or multiple years).

To this, the statist often says: “Well, you know that this is what the majority has decided so you can still leave. No one is making you stay!” This falls flat for four reasons:

  1. It ignores the main critique of taxation by appealing to the majority. This is, in a way, an appeal to authority logical fallacy. This kind of fallacy is like saying, “Well this person says ‘X’ and they are an expert on the subject so I’m right!” Likewise, this fallacy is saying, “Well the majority has decided and the majority obviously knows best!” What the collective decides is not always moral and this is made true by observing Germany circa 1933 to 1945 (the Jewish Holocaust). So this “argument” (and I’m being generous by calling it such) completely ignores the argumentation put forward by the anarcho-capitalist by just defaulting to the position that your ideas are wrong because a group of us says so. This does nothing to refute the legitimate critiques brought up by anarcho-capitalists about the legitimacy of taxation by government.
  2. This kind of logic means a whole host of horrendous things can be justified so long as the majority bestows its blessing upon it. Let’s use an example to illustrate this. Say there is a neighborhood that is well-known for being “rough”. Carl lives in this neighborhood and while he was walking home one night from a late shift at work, he gets mugged by one of the gang members that exercises violence over that neighborhood. By the logic of the statist above, it’s actually Carl’s fault because he knew that by living in this neighborhood, the gang would be harassing him and stealing from him. If he didn’t want to be stolen from, he should just move from the neighborhood (regardless of the economic barriers that may prohibit him from doing so). The “argument” ignores the core of the anarcho-capitalists’ argument that taxation is fundamentally unjust and instead seeks to blame the victim of the crime. Another example we can use is that of saying to a young girl getting gang raped by frat boys that she didn’t have to stay at the party. She knows that these guys rape people, so it’s her fault she’s continually being raped because she never left (this argument will drive the SJW leftist INSANE).
  3. This “argument” also assumes that the collective is “real” in the same way individuals are real. But the collective (or society) is just an abstraction whose abstract existence rests solely on the existence of individuals interacting with each other. Once the individuals disperse, the collective ceases to exist. Therefore, it seems like logical gymnastics to argue that the individual must take a lower priority to the collective which relies on the individual’s continual existence for its own existence. How can something that relies on the individual to exist take priority and gain rights above and beyond that of the individual which it relies upon? This makes no sense.
  4. How can this abstraction make rules regarding the fruits of others’ labor when it did not produce them or labor? For this, I default to my ugly sweater example. Say at my house I have an ugly sweater rule. Anyone that is a guest on my property must wear an ugly sweater at all times. If you do not like it you can leave. This is legitimate because I own the property (I either homesteaded it, voluntarily traded for it, or it was gifted to me). Because the property is the fruits of my labor I am the only one (like my body) to make rules regarding its use. Now let’s say you invite me to your house. When I arrive I bring out my ugly sweaters and tell you, “You have to wear an ugly sweater and if you don’t like it you can leave”. This would be absurd because your property is not my property. It was not gifted to me nor did I voluntarily trade for it and I did not homestead it. You did. Therefore, you are the only one (like your body) that has the right to make rules regarding its use. So when the mob arrives demanding payment of our “fair share”, they are illegitimately laying claim to property and wealth they did nothing to earn. Is this not theft? The mob is coming onto property it did not homestead in order to make rules regarding the property itself and wealth that property produces even though none of the individuals that compose the collective homesteaded it, traded for it, or were gifted it. These demands of the mob are made under threats of violence as well.

So the stupidity of saying, “You can always leave,” is just a poor attempt at trying to justify the initiation of violence against others and their legitimate property. Such ideas should be repugnant to us, yet statists viciously defend the bandits in power that steal from everyone else. The irony of it all is when it is directed at an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalists have rejected the initiation of violence and will only use force to defend themselves; meaning, you don’t really have to worry about them anymore. Why does the individual that has rejected violence and is merely pointing to an injustice have to leave? Shouldn’t government be the one to leave since it is the institution that is perpetrating the crime? Shouldn’t the statist that is defending the unjust initiation of violence also leave since they clearly condone such horrible actions? So the only person that can legitimately tell another to leave if they do not like it is the individual defending his property from government and statists that seek to coerce wealth from him “for his own good”.


Logical Anarchy Today Episode 146 – More Left Anarchist Nonsense


Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 146 – More Left Anarchist Nonsense

Episode 15 of our live show about mutualism has brought many ancoms out of the wood work to challenge us. I feel like I end up repeating myself but I wanted to share some further problems I have with Anarcho-Syndicalists. They accuse Voluntaryists of not being true “anarchists” because they do not adhere to the same collectivists ideology as them yet call themselves “anarchists” anyways. This “argument” ignores the real and valid critiques anarcho-capitalists bring up regarding “left anarchism”. Today’s episode further clarifies these issues.

Logical Anarchy Podcast LIVE Episode 15 – Mutualism Vs Anarcho-Capitalism

Logical Anarchy Merchandise

Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will recieve an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!

http://shoutengine.com/LogicalAnarchyToday.xml