[Iain]

In a Libertarian world, how would we be dealing with the tragedy around the Indian Ocean?

Presumably the governmental action we are seeing, with millions being put in, would not be possible and right now the region would be waiting for private charities to raise enough money to start serious relief work.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It would be none of the government's business. Private citizens are free to provide aid if they choose.

[Iain]

Indeed - and how many thousands would suffer and die in support of that ideological stance?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Government in a libertarian society doesn't provide any foreign or military aid.

[Iain]

Exactly my point. Because we have non-libertarian societies, governments were able to act far faster and better than NGOs could have; saving many lives in the process.

A system of governance that leads to far greater suffering and loss of life isn't one that seems particularly attractive to me. Which is more important : the ideology or the human lives?

To put it another way - how do market forces cope with this sort of situation?

[Todd D.]

So, even with the Millions of people that are dying, not enough money is being put towards tsunami rescue efforts, as we are still seeing the death toll escalate. Why don't we just make a temporary 100 percent income tax so all American income can go to saving lives? I mean after all, why let people die when a silly thing like ideals or morals gets in the way?

What you fail to understand, or rather what we disagree on, is that no matter how noble the goal, Libertarians feel that theft of property is wrong. If you were in a dark ally, and a thug robbed you at gunpoint, but told you that he or she was taking the money to a soup kitchen, would that make you feel better about being robbed? Theft is theft, no matter what the ends are that it serves.

As far as the situation goes with the tsunami, yes there's a lot of government aid going to these countries, but there's also a lot of foreign private aid as well. Remember, under a Libertarian society, people would have significantly higher disposable incomes, and there is nothing to suggest that they would not donate a similar if not higher percentage of their income to the charities that they are already supporting.

[Iain]

What you fail to understand, or rather what we disagree on, is that no matter how noble the goal, Libertarians feel that theft of property is wrong.

No, that isn't what we disagree on. We disagree on whether government taxation is theft, not whether theft is right or wrong.

As far as the situation goes with the tsunami, yes there's a lot of government aid going to these countries, but there's also a lot of foreign private aid as well.

Absolutely; but that money would have to be donated before it could be spent and delays of a fews days can be critical.

Remember, under a Libertarian society, people would have significantly higher disposable incomes,

Perhaps, but they would have a lot of additional costs to meet from that disposable income, such as paying for the roads they drive on, the schools their children attend and so on. There would also be a lot more charitable needs that would be drawing on that money, such as giving to the poor. There's doubtless a legitimate debate over whether private enterprise and/or charity can provide these things more efficiently than governments, but to class all that tax money as extra spending money is a fiction.

[nach0king]

I'll be donating £20 as soon as my cheque clears. Small amount, but then again, I'm a low earner I imagine in a Libertarian society that NGOs and charities would be even bigger than they are now.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

To put it another way - how do market forces cope with this sort of situation?

In the UK, all 20 Premiership football clubs are donating money. People are being urged to use their credit cards to donate money.

None of these are related to the state! What's stopping private donors from providing aid?

[Noumenon]

Ever notice that natural disasters are much more disasterous in poor countries? What is needed is more free market capitalism. That would increase the wealth of these nations, making them better able to deal with natural disasters and eliminating the need for government assistance.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You're dodging the issue again.

When you *do* have a disaster, under capitalism or no, what are you going to do about it? And what is a libertarian who is looking for the coming of his free-market Messiah going to do before it comes?

The answer seems to be - delude himself.

And yes, Todd D., I would be much happier if when I was mugged I knew the money was going to charity.

[| I, CWAS |]

Todd d.

If you were in a dark ally, and a thug robbed you at gunpoint, but told you that he or she was taking the money to a soup kitchen, would that make you feel better about being robbed?

Depends on how he takes it, is he contrite, because it must be done? Had I been light on my donations i would feel better about it. Being robbed for human greed, is not the same as being robbed in a robin hood scenario

[futuristic]

In a libertarian society no foreign aid would be needed, as insurance companies would pay. The same insurance companies would be interested to provide extra aid for survivors to eliminate additional medical bills caused by deceases. Also, insurance companies would in advance invest into a tsunami alert system.

[Todd D.]

Being robbed for human greed, is not the same as being robbed in a robin hood scenario

Yay for bullshit relative morals. So if stealing is ok "under certain circumstances", when is rape ok? Theft is theft is theft, it doesn't really matter what the crook uses the money for, the end result is that you had your money stolen from you without your consent.

But hey, have fun in your world where things are relative and it's ok to compromise your morals if it's convenient for you.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Todd, it's nothing to do with relativism. It's about having some understanding of nuance, reasons, ethics and results.

The legal system which you tout perhaps as being somewhat 'absolute' recognises these factors. It recognises, for instance, that violent pack rape is more serious a matter than sexual harrassment. It recognises that premeditated murder is worse than a crime of passion, even if they both result in someone dying. It recognises that stealing money for the thrill of it or for personal gain is worse than for altruistic reasons.

But even outside the law, most sane people recognise that a thief who spends the money on drugs DOES provide a very different result than one who gives the money to an appropriate charity. The end result of the first is that you lose money and he gains something to fuel a habit. The end result of the second is that you lose money and some child doesn't die.

It's not about 'relativity' at all but about having a less than reckless approach to personal ethics and understanding moral cost-benefit analyses. Not to mention that most don't accept your 'theft' premise at all anyway.

But, if we're to start on what's wrong with your argument, you should first realise that you're not really talking about relativism at all.

[PhilosoFlea]

Not related but taxation isn't theft. If you want to join a club and that club charges a fee for membership in order to join you pay the membership, you don't claim that the club is stealing from you. Same with a country. If you don't want to contribute, well there are other countries which have little or no government where you could get by with out paying any taxes. How come libertarians understand the free market up until when it deals with taxation?

[Noumenon]

Morals are subjective and based on emotions. If you don't "feel" that theft is inherently wrong, theres nothing I can do to convince you of that. However, I also believe that the absolute protection of property rights can be justified from a cost/benefit utilitarian perspective. What happens if "robin hood" stealing is permitted? Well, what is seen as that one person loses a little money and another is relieved from poverty. What is not seen is the dependency that this "welfare" creates, and the harm it does to society's overall prosperity. The poor person may come to expect support from the robin hood, and if that support is greater than what they could get with an entry level job (as is often the case with welfare in America), many will simply choose to not work and advance themselves. So instead of being a temporary "helping hand," this robin hood theft takes money money that could be used for productive uses, and uses it to subsidize non-production. This decrease in productivity decreases real wages and perpetuates poverty. In addition, the money that is actually stolen might have been used for saving and investment, so robin hood theft usually harms economic growth in that way also. Of course, these negative economic effects might be small if you're only talking about one person robbing another and giving to the poor. But if you institutionalize robin hood theft with government welfare programs, these effects are quite significant indeed. They are why after 40 years and $3.5 trillion invested in the war on poverty, we are no closer to winning it.

Not related but taxation isn't theft. If you want to join a club and that club charges a fee for membership in order to join you pay the membership, you don't claim that the club is stealing from you. Same with a country. If you don't want to contribute, well there are other countries which have little or no government where you could get by with out paying any taxes. How come libertarians understand the free market up until when it deals with taxation?

Okay, how about I form a club where you pay dues and in return, you receive bananas. I'm including you in this club because you live in the US. If you don't like it, move to another country where they don't have this club. The annual fee for this club is 40% of your salary, and you go to prison if you don't pay it. But you are a member, so you can't complain that that we are stealing from you. And besides, you get all these great bananas. It would be immoral for you to not pay for all these bananas we are so generously giving you. What, you don't want our bananas? You would rather buy bananas in a supermarket because it doesn't cost you 40% of your salary, and you get to choose between different bananas? Heresy! In a free market, poor people couldn't afford bananas. So we are doing the wonderful service of providing everyone with bananas for free! So sit down, shut up, and eat your bananas.

[PhilosoFlea]

Okay, how about I form a club where you pay dues and in return, you receive bananas. I'm including you in this club because you live in the US. If you don't like it, move to another country where they don't have this club. The annual fee for this club is 40% of your salary, and you go to prison if you don't pay it. But you are a member, so you can't complain that that we are stealing from you. And besides, you get all these great bananas. It would be immoral for you to not pay for all these bananas we are so generously giving you. What, you don't want our bananas? You would rather buy bananas in a supermarket because it doesn't cost you 40% of your salary, and you get to choose between different bananas? Heresy! In a free market, poor people couldn't afford bananas. So we are doing the wonderful service of providing everyone with bananas for free! So sit down, shut up, and eat your bananas.

Come on you can do better Noumenon. You didn't even address the point: taxation is not theft. If a government requires you to pay a percentage of your income to allow you be a citizen, well how is that different then any number of other federal laws you must obey to be a free member of society? I'm amazed you believe that a government can even exist in a free market economy with out taxation in the first place.

I believe "taxation is theft" to be a highly emotional argument and one that hurts libertarianism in general, its irrational in fact. A government can only exist when it can purchase goods and services to maintain governance, goods and services are purchased with capital, where does that capital come from? Perhaps you advocate a purely debt based government? That won't work because the increased supply of capital in circulation will devalue the worth of the currency and raise inflation.

And given the fact that you are free to move amoung countries that will accept you, you are not being forced to pay taxes anymore then you are forced to obey any kind of law in the country you stay in. You are free to move elsewhere.

I can understand small government with minimal taxes, I can't understand no taxes.. It's utopian.

[Noumenon]

Come on you can do better Noumenon. You didn't even address the point: taxation is not theft.

My argument is that you have a double standard when it comes to government. If I formed a club and forced you to pay dues or leave the country, you would say I was extorting you. But if the government does this, it is not extortion. How do explain this double standard?

The fatal flaw in your argument is that government is not like a club. It is not voluntary. Does anyone really think that 1) they could renounce their citizenship without being forced to leave the country and 2) they could survive in society without being a citizen? Government basically forces you to be a citizen in order to get a job, drive a car, etc. In a free market, citizenship would not be necessary.

I would agree with you that taxation is not theft if one could renounce his citizenship without undue punishment from the government. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Renouncing citizenship is not as simple as "now I don't pay taxes and I can't receive government services." Government forces you to be a citizen in order to survive in society. So it is not unlike me forming a club and holding a gun to your head to make you become a dues-paying member.

If a government requires you to pay a percentage of your income to allow you be a citizen, well how is that different then any number of other federal laws you must obey to be a free member of society? I'm amazed you believe that a government can even exist in a free market economy with out taxation in the first place.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that 99% of federal laws are violations of your rights. The connection between the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, and the war on poverty is that the are all wars on individual rights. Most federal regulations are violations of individual rights and are unconstitutional. What does that leave? Very little actually. As a general rule, you have no moral obligation to do anything the federal government tells you to do. I personally wouldn't mind if the federal government was done away with. The states are more than big enough to provide the essential services of law and order. The laws that you do have to obey are the ones against murder, rape, fraud, theft, etc. having to obey those rights is not a violation of individual rights. That is because getting the consent of murderers is not necessary; it is okay to use force against them. They didn't bother to get the consent of their victims, so why should they expect any different treatment from society?

I believe "taxation is theft" to be a highly emotional argument and one that hurts libertarianism in general, its irrational in fact.

All moral arguments are at the root based on emotion, not reason. I think what libertarianism needs is more emotion, not less. We too often turn people off with obscure economic arguments that people don't understand. Emotional rhetoric like "taxation is theft" is perfect for expanding the influence of libertarianism.

A government can only exist when it can purchase goods and services to maintain governance, goods and services are purchased with capital, where does that capital come from? Perhaps you advocate a purely debt based government? That won't work because the increased supply of capital in circulation will devalue the worth of the currency and raise inflation.

What are you talking about? The funds for a truly libertarian government come from voluntary means, like donations. Government deficits would be constitutionally banned. And the only significant cause of inflation is the printing of more government fiat money, which would be banned.

And given the fact that you are free to move amoung countries that will accept you, you are not being forced to pay taxes anymore then you are forced to obey any kind of law in the country you stay in. You are free to move elsewhere.

You are simply repeating the argument that I already addressed with my satire. If forcing you to either pay taxes or leave the country is "voluntary," then forcing you to either pay dues to my banana club or leave the country is also voluntary. There is no essential difference between the government and the banana club that makes the actions of one voluntary and the other involuntary. So again, please explain your double standard.

[PhilosoFlea]

My argument is that you have a double standard when it comes to government. If I formed a club and forced you to pay dues or leave the country, you would say I was extorting you. But if the government does this, it is not extortion. How do explain this double standard?

Because a government has jurisdiction over it's people, a private club does not have jurisdiction over non-members. This is nothing new: you must obey the laws of the country you live in or deal with the justice system. Leaving the country is merely an option, if you decide to stay and act in violation of the countries law you will be fined or thrown in jail.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that government is not like a club. It is not voluntary. Does anyone really think that 1) they could renounce their citizenship without being forced to leave the country and 2) they could survive in society without being a citizen? Government basically forces you to be a citizen in order to get a job, drive a car, etc. In a free market, citizenship would not be necessary.

No the analogy still holds, I'm not legally allowed to go play golf at the country club with out being a member, in the same way a person is not allowed to dwell in the country with out being a citizen (or having a visa of some sort--which is limited citizenship). This may be different under pure libertarianism (I don't know) but still without citizenship what would give a government the authority to legislate and detain you if you were a threat to the rest of society?

I would agree with you that taxation is not theft if one could renounce his citizenship without undue punishment from the government. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Renouncing citizenship is not as simple as "now I don't pay taxes and I can't receive government services." Government forces you to be a citizen in order to survive in society. So it is not unlike me forming a club and holding a gun to your head to make you become a dues-paying member.

I have a friend who decided he wanted to live in Japan, so learned Japanese, moved and after a few years of work is now a citizen of Japan. It is possible to gain citizenship to another country, although not necessarily easy.

No one is forcing you to be a citizen of the United States, you can reject your citizenship and move elsewhere if you so desire. You are correct though, you can not reject your citizenship and stay here.

All moral arguments are at the root based on emotion, not reason. I think what libertarianism needs is more emotion, not less. We too often turn people off with obscure economic arguments that people don't understand. Emotional rhetoric like "taxation is theft" is perfect for expanding the influence of libertarianism.

To me, government is only good if it is practical. I believe a government with out taxation is not pratical. Thus I believe "taxation is theft" being highly emotional and not pratical is dangerous, for instance the US government as it stands now has cut taxes yet increased debt based spending because of the populist idea that taxes are not necessary, we have been able to finance the inflaction from our debt by selling government securities to foreign government banks but I do not believe it to be a stable system.

What are you talking about? The funds for a truly libertarian government come from voluntary means, like donations. Government deficits would be constitutionally banned. And the only significant cause of inflation is the printing of more government fiat money, which would be banned.

Well, whether or not this sytem will work or not is beyond the scope of my argument. I am merely saying that is entirely with in a government's rights (and is necessary) to legislate taxation on its people. If an all-voluntary libertarian government exists in future perhaps I will change my view.

You are simply repeating the argument that I already addressed with my satire. If forcing you to either pay taxes or leave the country is "voluntary," then forcing you to either pay dues to my banana club or leave the country is also voluntary. There is no essential difference between the government and the banana club that makes the actions of one voluntary and the other involuntary. So again, please explain your double standard.

Again if you are a citizen of a country you are required to follow it's laws. This is nothing new.