Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

Government provides services (like roads) that people choose to benefit from. And services (like law and defence) that people benefit from without any choice being involved. And non-services that a given individual does not benefit from (there are non-defensive wars in this category, and vanity projects, and others).

It seems a philosophical error to think that an argument by implied consent which justifies hypothecated taxation to pay for infrastructure also justifies taxation for the other two categories of government spending.

Put another way, people can think that all taxation is theft, or some taxation is theft, or no taxation is theft. We agree that there is a good argument against the "all" version of the proposition. But the "some" version is very much still out there.

[Lagayascienza]

I agree with you and would add only that, in democracies, electors are free to lobby and campaign against particular spending measures and to vote against governments who spend on projects electors may not agree with. Democracy costs tax dollars to run and it's clunky, but it does give the electorate a measure of control. And if a person doesn't want to be part of a democracy then let them emigrate to N. Korea or Iran or wherever. They'll still be taxed there but at least they won't have to put up with democracy. The only other option is to go start their own country in whose constitution will be a clause stating that governments may not levy taxes unless by formal agreement with each elector.

[LuckyR]

Government provides services (like roads) that people choose to benefit from. And services (like law and defence) that people benefit from without any choice being involved. And non-services that a given individual does not benefit from (there are non-defensive wars in this category, and vanity projects, and others).

It seems a philosophical error to think that an argument by implied consent which justifies hypothecated taxation to pay for infrastructure also justifies taxation for the other two categories of government spending.

Put another way, people can think that all taxation is theft, or some taxation is theft, or no taxation is theft. We agree that there is a good argument against the "all" version of the proposition. But the "some" version is very much still out there.

Several things.

First there is a difference between "unjustified" governmental expenditures and the idea that taxation is "theft".

Secondly citizens (and Presidents) don't have a line item veto, meaning the idea of a society effectively running where citizens individually earmark their taxes for specific purposes exists only in the Libertarian mind, not unlike a shrink-ray or a scroll of invisibility.

Taxation as "theft" would be paying in a jurisdiction where one doesn't live, nor carries out business nor earns income.

If one believes that the candidate with the most votes wins and thus the candidates without the most votes loses, then there is no expectation that every single piece of legislation and governmental policy will be to anyone's preference. Thus the lack of coherent logic to suppose that one has no obligation to fund group decisions that an individual happens to disagree with.