5 ms·

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

joshuacc 11y ago
> Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation Most people don't regard taxation as a violation of property rights.
hyperpape 11y ago
Knock yourself out: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/... http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781 http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000... (Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).
_ak 11y ago
> Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation? Because these people are not egotistical, anti-social assholes, but contribute their share to society instead.
distances 11y ago
"Property rights" aren't any natural rights. It's a societal agreement, and that agreement comes with strings attached. In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).
- jnbiche 11y ago
  > In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation). Except that's...not happening, in one of the largest, and without doubt the most powerful, "democracies" in the world. Police do take away your property willy-nilly in the USA without trial. Does this mean we get to stop paying taxes?
merpnderp 11y ago
Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.
- bmelton 11y ago
  Rousseau's social contract, while a fine piece of work, would almost certainly advocate a monarchy for a state the size of America. Its use here seems to be an appeal to authority, which seems odd as there are no mentions to it anywhere within our governing documents, upon which a less spurious legitimacy is bestowed. Beyond that, categorizing anything as "inherently legitimate" is fraught with peril. One could perhaps surmise that all things are legitimate within a democracy, but so long as the favors of the majority come at the expense of the minority, that claim is disputable. Beyond that, I don't really know that Rousseau's contract would invalidate a North Korean government as it exists, and North Korean citizenship precludes the option of defection. The biggest flaw I see with the assertion that "if you want to live here, you agree to pay taxes" is that there's no opt-out policy in America as it is. If you object to the taxation, and wish to opt out, your only path is expatriation, with its associated expatriation taxes.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    I'd say that the tautology of what the system agrees is legitimate is what is legitimate (no less useful than gravity pulls things together because it pulls things together). Laws promoting racism were broken in the US, and the law-breakers were quickly recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some types of tax dodgers might be considered legitimate. The beauty of a democracy is that if you can convince enough people that something should be legitimate/illegitimate, they can make it so. And yes "inherently legitimate" was a poor phrase to choose. And I believe many founders leaned heavily on Rousseau's work. Hamilton and Madison particularly in the Federalist Papers.
    - 11y ago
logfromblammo 11y ago
Indeed. Logical consistency would dictate that you should either be for both or against both, but not for one and against the other. But humans are notorious for allowing emotional concerns, religious beliefs, and simple self-interest override logic. Maybe they just don't like the reverse-lottery aspect of funding the government. Rather than a lucky person getting a windfall from the government, an unlucky person loses everything to it. You can avoid the lottery by not buying tickets, but the only way to avoid the anti-lottery is by not having anything to steal. For most people, that would be a pretty miserable existence. People want to believe that their government exists to serve their interests. They may be more upset that the government is spoiling the illusion of fairness--that the government is doing all this publicly--than the fact that the government is doing it at all. Because as bad as they might have it now, if there is a rebellion, the new boss might, in fact, be worse than the old boss.
vacri 11y ago
"property rights" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist without government in the first place.

joshuacc 11y ago

> Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation Most people don't regard taxation as a violation of property rights.

hyperpape 11y ago

Knock yourself out: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/... http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781 http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000... (Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).

_ak 11y ago

> Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation? Because these people are not egotistical, anti-social assholes, but contribute their share to society instead.

distances 11y ago

"Property rights" aren't any natural rights. It's a societal agreement, and that agreement comes with strings attached. In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).

jnbiche 11y ago
> In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation). Except that's...not happening, in one of the largest, and without doubt the most powerful, "democracies" in the world. Police do take away your property willy-nilly in the USA without trial. Does this mean we get to stop paying taxes?

merpnderp 11y ago

Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.

bmelton 11y ago
Rousseau's social contract, while a fine piece of work, would almost certainly advocate a monarchy for a state the size of America. Its use here seems to be an appeal to authority, which seems odd as there are no mentions to it anywhere within our governing documents, upon which a less spurious legitimacy is bestowed. Beyond that, categorizing anything as "inherently legitimate" is fraught with peril. One could perhaps surmise that all things are legitimate within a democracy, but so long as the favors of the majority come at the expense of the minority, that claim is disputable. Beyond that, I don't really know that Rousseau's contract would invalidate a North Korean government as it exists, and North Korean citizenship precludes the option of defection. The biggest flaw I see with the assertion that "if you want to live here, you agree to pay taxes" is that there's no opt-out policy in America as it is. If you object to the taxation, and wish to opt out, your only path is expatriation, with its associated expatriation taxes.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  I'd say that the tautology of what the system agrees is legitimate is what is legitimate (no less useful than gravity pulls things together because it pulls things together). Laws promoting racism were broken in the US, and the law-breakers were quickly recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some types of tax dodgers might be considered legitimate. The beauty of a democracy is that if you can convince enough people that something should be legitimate/illegitimate, they can make it so. And yes "inherently legitimate" was a poor phrase to choose. And I believe many founders leaned heavily on Rousseau's work. Hamilton and Madison particularly in the Federalist Papers.
  - 11y ago

logfromblammo 11y ago

Indeed. Logical consistency would dictate that you should either be for both or against both, but not for one and against the other. But humans are notorious for allowing emotional concerns, religious beliefs, and simple self-interest override logic. Maybe they just don't like the reverse-lottery aspect of funding the government. Rather than a lucky person getting a windfall from the government, an unlucky person loses everything to it. You can avoid the lottery by not buying tickets, but the only way to avoid the anti-lottery is by not having anything to steal. For most people, that would be a pretty miserable existence. People want to believe that their government exists to serve their interests. They may be more upset that the government is spoiling the illusion of fairness--that the government is doing all this publicly--than the fact that the government is doing it at all. Because as bad as they might have it now, if there is a rebellion, the new boss might, in fact, be worse than the old boss.

vacri 11y ago

"property rights" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist without government in the first place.