Thus Madison would have understood that libertarian minarchism without taxation is incoherent.While it is unclear what Washington may have thought or said, he did lead the army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to put down an insurrection over refusal to accept a tax.
Free Association
Madison on Government and Force
Sheldon Richman
Sheldon Richman
4 comments:
The big lie of libertarianism is that membership in the State and any collective mutual advantage insurance agreements it establishes is not voluntary, when everybody knows that there is a market in State memberships, and if one does not like to be a member of the Canadian commonwealth one can purchase membership in the Monaco Principality.
Having Canadian state membership and paying the related fees to be a member of the related insurance schemes is a voluntary exchange of mutual advantage, and if one does not like that bargain, they are entirely free to buy a different bargain from some other state membership fee provider.
Libertarians are like people who coffee at Starbucks is too expensive and they don’t want high prices for a cool cafe` atmosphere; they are entirely free to buy they coffee somewhere else, instead of arguing that Starbucks infringe their liberty to have a cheap coffee in a cheaper looking place.
Libertarianism is about freedom of contract, and that does not include the *effective* right to be offered a deal one likes; it only includes the *legal* right to refuse any deal one dislikes.
The libertarian answer to someone complaining that their job does not pay them a living wage is "if you don't like that, resign, nobody is forcing you to work for a wage you don't feel adequate - "if nobody is offering you a wage that you find adequate, tough luck sunshine".
In a similar way, as long as a state does not forbid leaving it, staying means accepting a freely entered into bargain, whatever the terms are. Self ownership includes the right to do a deal with the state that includes giving it an equity stake in it :)
If you don't like a state offering you a deal involving an equity position in your self-ownership, "leave it and find a better deal, and if no state offers you a better deal, tough luck sunshine" is the only possible libertarian answer.
Membership in a state, as long as leaving it is allowed, is a voluntary bargain of mutual advantage.
So from a libertarian perspective paying USA taxes is entirely voluntary -- people have chosen not to pay them, and that is working out fine. They have chosen to pay taxes somewhere else where they think they get a better bargain.
Paying taxes in the USA is a freely entered contract, where you get the benefits of USA citizenship, and you pay a yearly membership free. Many in the third world would pay much for this.
There is no slavery -- you work to pay the membership fee for a housing association that you have freely chosen to be a member of.
Just as working for Wal*Mart: you think that their wages are too low and health-care and pension deductions too high? Then find a better paying job, working at Wal*mart is a free choice, and you can quite anytime you want. There is a long queue outside of people eager to take your job.
You think that the USA "housing association" is not offering good value for its membership fee? Nobody is forcing you to be a member, you can always quit it, sell your flat/house there and buy one in another "housing association".
TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
A short note: US position is incorrect
Actually even that is incorrect from an MMT viewpoint.
For example, libertarians wouldn't have got the assets or income in the first place but for government investment.
Government is special in that it effectively has a stake in all entities in its economy and all transactions that take place.
Therefore it is appropriate to create as many transactions as the economy can withstand - tailored of course to create as much real worth as possible.
So nobody is TAKING ANYTHING AWAY. The system is just being cooled down so it doesn't overheat because libertarians weren't thrifty enough and didn't tax themselves sufficiently (aka saving aka voluntary taxation.)
We will get nowhere until we get it across to people that governments are about deploying people and stuff to achieve a vision that all of us have signed up to via the democratic process. And by doing that we have given our government sovereign authority to bring it about.
I also don't buy the libertarian position that where you were born shouldn't limit where you can go. Unfortunately that fails on the logical point that we can't all fit into the same square mile in London.
So there is a limit, and if there is a limit you either manage it, or you leave it to 'natural forces' or 'market forces.'
Indeed freedom of migration can be a gross violation of liberty, because it implies the ability to force a deal on an unwilling party, in the case of an immigrant that wants a deal to live in a particular state.
Libertarianism is about the right to refuse deals, not the right to impose them on others.
So libertarianism includes the freedom to refuse an offer of membership of a state by an individual, but also the freedom of a state's members to refuse an offer of membership by any other individual.
So libertarians can't coherently oppose the right to *emigrate* (once all existing membership dues are paid, of course), but they must oppose coercing existing members of a state to accept new members, as under libertarian principles nobody has the right to force others to offer them a bargain, any bargain or a specific bargain.
Tom more gold standard context here... they "needed the money!!" the way they were then thinking...
Post a Comment