Pretty interesting discussion of these issues at a fundamental level, presumably occasioned by the storm AOC has kicked up with her proposal for a 70% marginal tax rate on income over 10 million:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/01/ ... or-slavery
Why Taxation is Neither Theft nor Slavery
-
negative potential
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:45 am
Re: Why Taxation is Neither Theft nor Slavery
I think that 70% rate is a sensible proposal myself--though I'd much rather see the imposition of land value taxes than takings that are indifferent to what was actually earned by the taxpayer and what was a just a function what George called "privilege." (And Mill called making money in your sleep.)
I'm afraid, though, that the first paragraph of that article would be easily batted down by libertarians. The author is comparing the slave to the non-disobeying tycoon: one is in a horrible condition, the other is golfing in Scotland. But this comparison has to be between slaves and the condition of one who absolutely refuses to pay the tax. So it's a function of the allowable penalties, which aren't mentioned. If they were to involve prison, e.g., the comparison might not seem so silly. And If, OTOH, the money owed were simply confiscated by the government, even if the scofflaw were otherwise left alone, the libertarians would make the (I believe confused) analogy to theft. So they'd argue that at least some of the rich person's property was no better protected than a slave's trinket. That, however, is bullshit, of course--and the author does get into the nature of private property rights in later graphs.
I actually published a couple of (somewhat more detailed) papers whacking the Lockean and Nozickian (also Rothbardian and Coaseian) arguments for private property in land a long time ago. The citations are here--if you're interested you probably can get them free if you have access to JSTOR.
https://philpapers.org/rec/HORLAP
https://philpapers.org/rec/HORLAP-2
https://philpapers.org/rec/HORCTA-5
I do recall getting very cogent criticisms from an economist on the Coase paper at one point, however. It may even have been from someone who at least used to post here!
I'm afraid, though, that the first paragraph of that article would be easily batted down by libertarians. The author is comparing the slave to the non-disobeying tycoon: one is in a horrible condition, the other is golfing in Scotland. But this comparison has to be between slaves and the condition of one who absolutely refuses to pay the tax. So it's a function of the allowable penalties, which aren't mentioned. If they were to involve prison, e.g., the comparison might not seem so silly. And If, OTOH, the money owed were simply confiscated by the government, even if the scofflaw were otherwise left alone, the libertarians would make the (I believe confused) analogy to theft. So they'd argue that at least some of the rich person's property was no better protected than a slave's trinket. That, however, is bullshit, of course--and the author does get into the nature of private property rights in later graphs.
I actually published a couple of (somewhat more detailed) papers whacking the Lockean and Nozickian (also Rothbardian and Coaseian) arguments for private property in land a long time ago. The citations are here--if you're interested you probably can get them free if you have access to JSTOR.
https://philpapers.org/rec/HORLAP
https://philpapers.org/rec/HORLAP-2
https://philpapers.org/rec/HORCTA-5
I do recall getting very cogent criticisms from an economist on the Coase paper at one point, however. It may even have been from someone who at least used to post here!
"Freedom of thought and speech without available means of gaining information and methods of sound analysis, are empty. Protection and security are meaningless until there is something positive worth protecting." E.W. Hall