Monday, June 23, 2014

How Gene Callahan Justifies Taxation

He just starts in the middle, assumes that things didn't start with private property, that all property was first controlled by "a civil order," a civil order that gives you your property as a "gift." Did Callahan talk to cavemen with clubs about this?  I think not. Private property came well before "civil order."

Further, he is making a hidden assumption that "a civil order," equates with coercive government. This is certainly a gigantic stretch.

Here's Callahan:
Let us say I have a mansion in the Hamptons. I'm feeling generous and decide to give it to you, but on a condition: I may have the use of it 10 weekends a year.

Certainly there is nothing unjust about me coming to use the house on those ten weekends, correct? In fact, if you try to deny me the use of the house, it would be you who is in the wrong, and I would be justified in using the law to make you to meet your obligation to me. And it would be utter nonsense if you claimed that in doing so, I was "stealing" your property "at the point of a gun."

Well, property rights are a gift to all of us from the civil order that we found pre-existing us upon our birth. As Rousseau notes, outside of civil society, property rights do not exist, and all we could have is mere possession: we have a good in the same way an animal has its kill, until someone stronger comes along and takes it from us.

The gifts we have received from the pre-existing civil order come with an obligation, and that is that we do our part to support it, by, for instance, paying taxes. As Clint Eastwood noted in El Dorado, failing to pay your taxes is the same thing as stealing. And if you steal, you shouldn't be surprised if men with guns get involved in your life.
-RW

9 comments:

  1. On a related topic, It never seemed to dawn on the The Great Philosopher Callahan that under AnCap, there might be non-violent sanctions to induce cooperation such as refusals to deal or ostracisation.

    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would agree that we are lucky to have been born into a society that maintains a system of private property and protections for personal integrity as much as it does. But Callahan is fudging together two scenarios:

    A. An express contract regarding possession and ownership of real estate; and

    B. An ALLEGED IMPLIED agreement to pay taxes as defined by the winner of elections and who cannot be compelled to keep their election "promises". What AnCap proposes is to make scenario B operate just like scenario A pursuant to express enforceable contracts.

    Like the rest of them, Callahan is an obfuscator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Well, property rights are a gift to all of us" If they are a gift why do I have to pay taxes then? If I pay taxes for the "gift" of property rights, then I am not getting a gift, I am paying for a good or service. And if I must be involved with a good/service provider why do I have to necessarily contract with a monopoly provider, the beneficiary of the taxes I pay? Why can't it be to a firm that competes for its resources as opposed to one that steals?

    ReplyDelete
  4. outside of civil society, property rights do not exist, and all we could have is mere possession: we have a good in the same way an animal has its kill, until someone stronger comes along and takes it from us

    And what is so wrong with STRENGTHENING civil society by STRENGTHENING the protections of private property via the NAP (which,of course, can only be accomplish through civil society)?

    What an obfuscator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. property rights are a gift to all of us from the civil order that we found pre-existing us upon our birth

    Fine. Via AnCap and the NAP, we want to EXPAND the scope of the gift. There would be a vast number of additional activities you would be able to engage in without the rest of us pillaging your land and/or dragging you off to a cage.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rousseau is right, Callahan is wrong.

    While Rousseau is correct (If he indeed said it) that outside of civil society, property rights do not exist, and all we could have is mere possession, it does not follow (and is either a purposeful sleight of hand or weak thinking) that civil society must therefore be the provider of said property rights.

    Civil society PROTECTS property rights, but that does not give it claim to the property being protected. To lay claim on property simply because one provides protection of the property is actually the modus operandi of the mafia, or any other entity running a protection racket, which is a fitting comparison

    The same line of reasoning (and we hear it often, even from "conservatives") argues that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, provides us our rights, when those rights are endowed on us by "our Creator," and the Constitution is supposed to protect those rights by restraining government.

    As such, the only entity that has claim to those property rights is God.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder to what extent he would assert that non-payment of taxes to "civil order" should be "theft?" Would he say the same rule applies in North Korea, for example? At what point does it change from "theft" to a legitimate (in his eyes) response? Or are there no cases of this transition?

    ReplyDelete
  8. More anti-nature claptrap. "Civic order" is non-existent in the natural world of other, non-human, animals, but ownership of both physical property and territory is universal. When two creatures of other species contend for a particular piece of property, the original "owner" wins more often than not, all without any "civil order" stepping in.

    ReplyDelete