2 thoughts on “Morality, taxation and coercion”

  1. Posted 15/06/2016 at 15:22 | Permalink

    I generally like the author’s articles but this time there’s a lot of bad with the good. For starters, the author has mentioned morality without defining some sort of ethical principle, such as the non-aggression principle (NAP) built on property rights, that defines right or wrong…..After all, either you believe in the NAP based on property rights or you don’t….If you accept the principle that the state can use violence to take a % of people’s income then any increase in tax from that point is just another random % and is just as moral. Immorality doesn’t just kick in above 20%. Any number above 0% is immoral because it involves the use of force and thereby a violation of the NAP….Also, prices come from the bid/offer process and a billionaire would pay the same price as a beggar for a particular good in the free market. Security/Protection should be no different and should be provided (if at all) only up to the point that even the poor can afford to pay for it. A basic level for all and richer people are free to top-up by paying for additional security if they need it…. Something I’ve realized is that people who don’t need to please their customers to get their money are basically bureaucrats and the state exists above all to provide jobs (with final salary pensions) for its bureaucrats…..Lastly, no one is entitled to another person’s income/labour. Hence no one is entitled to some basic standard of living. I strongly believe in helping those worse off than myself but that is done through private charity, which is voluntary, and not through the coercive actions of the state.

  2. Posted 16/06/2016 at 08:59 | Permalink

    @KP – I only had 5 minutes, but I could,l of course, have expanded in the written version. In fact, I don’t believe in the non-aggression principle trumping everything. I think that, due to human frailty, the state has to break that principle – firstly for the protection of property itself and, secondly, where we do not provide enough through charity to ensure that all can live in dignity (I don’t see this as a very significant role – the vast majority of people in a free society would be capable of looking after themselves or they would be looked after by charity). But, I do believe in God and I do believe that every person born in the image of God has the right to live in dignity and that this trumps other rights (that is, they should have food, shelter, clothing and so on). I should add that most of the things that we need to live in dignity CANNOT be provided by the state (companionship, for example).

Comments are closed.