How Many Makes Stealing OK?

[firefox]

Ok, here's the age old question:

How many people need to be involved before stealing from someone and/or forcing him to do something is legitimized? This can apply to taxation, various civil laws, etc- basically whatever you want in the realm of politics if you take it all the way.

[Drocket]

51% of the population.

[AlonzoMourning23]

If its from libertarians then it's always ok.

[Buck Laser]

If its from libertarians then it's always ok.


Right, because libertarians have a really strange definition of force!:P

[NortheastCynic]

Just as a point of order, libertarianism advocates some degree of government and taxes.Â*Â*As firefox is of the voulentaryist persuasion and I of the minarchist [who want the government's capacity limited to defense, infrastructure and security, i.e. the "night watchman" state] ilk, we disagree on just how little gov't there should be.Â*Â*That having been said, libertarians in general believe in some degree [albeit very small] of taxation.

-NC

[Professor]

and/or forcing him to do something is legitimized?


Stealing is never okay but it is accepted when there is a force behind you that is strong enough to counter any resistance on the victim's part. It is legitimized when it's continued acceptance becomes a matter of course.

[firefox]

Good discussion so far. I tried to edit the poll to include a 'it's never OK' option but I can't figure it out >:( Sorry if that confused things. This is something of an 'academic' question, but to NortheastCynic, how do we keep minarchy minimal? The only real problem I have with it is that government does tend to grow, and I feel that leaving any seeds will enable something big and nasty to grow again. A well educated population (aka private competing schools, no state run ones!) is key, but is there anything else that would be helpful?

Professor: I see what you mean in terms of 'legitimized', but I meant it more interms of morality rather than popular acceptence, if that makes sense. Whether or not there is universal morality is an entirely different epistimological question for another thread though! ;)

[Disenfranchised]

I think we need to define "steal' before we discuss it.

In a Democracy we all have to obey the law of the land or it won't work. We can't cherry pick which laws we will obey and which we will disregard. Taxation, theoretically, is used for the common good. It comes from legislation starting in the Congress, which represents the majority of the population. So I don't consider it stealing.

There is no benefit to the victim form theft where someone, or group, takes for their own benefit and doesn't use what is taken for the common good. So it doesn't matter how many people are involved in theft. It is never ok.

[firefox]

In a Democracy we all have to obey the law of the land or it won't work. We can't cherry pick which laws we will obey and which we will disregard. Taxation, theoretically, is used for the common good. It comes from legislation starting in the Congress, which represents the majority of the population. So I don't consider it stealing.

Is it OK if the majority passes a law that says that all people going by the handle "Disenfranchised" get 50% of their earnings taken every paycheck? If you're disenfranchised, you can't do anything about it... ;)

[Nathan Brazil]

I think we need to define "steal' before we discuss it.Â*Â*

In a Democracy we all have to obey the law of the land or it won't work.Â*Â*We can't cherry pick which laws we will obey and which we will disregard.Â*Â*Taxation, theoretically, is used for the common good.Â*Â*It comes from legislation starting in the Congress, which represents the majority of the population.Â*Â*So I don't consider it stealing.


Wrongo. In this country, it's practically a certainty that the Congress represents a minority of the national population.

1) Congress is typically split roughly 55/45 at best, and lately it's been much closer. So only a bare majority of Congress is presented by the vote.

2) Even in elections with "high" turnout, only about 60% of eligible voters vote. eg, 2006 (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm)

So at best, 55% x 60% means that 33%, or just 1/3 of the people eligible to vote are represented on most issues. Typically issues like taxation are split along party lines, this approach is reasonable.

And now we come to taxation. There's two kinds of taxes. Voluntary and involuntary. A volutnary tax is a tax you can choose not to pay. You don't have to buy cigarettes or drink beer, and if you don't buy these products you don't pay the taxes on them. These are libertarian-approved taxes, pretty much.

Then there's the involuntary taxes, like "income" taxes which gives the government first cut at your paycheck, taking it's slice before you get yours, estate taxes (unless people choose successfully to not die, they're involuntary taxes), etc. Having the ability to impose so many involuntary taxes (Britain's Stamp Act that fueled the American Revolution was intended to raise only L60,000 from the colonies) enables the government to create so many unnecessary, wasteful, and unconstitutional programs, thereby creating a demand for even more taxes.

EVERYONE would do well if they viewed taxes as theft and fought them at the ballot boxes.

[Cameron Mineral]

Its not about numbers its about amounts. If you steal a little you will go to prison, if you steal a lot you will be respected.

[Labrocca]

You can't fight taxes even at the ballot box. Taxes are money...money is power...politicians crave power...corporations now buy elections for politicians. It's a vicious circle.

Before we can fight taxes we need to break this cycle. Which basically would mean election reform (McCain's main theme). Then from there you can hopefully get fair minded politicians that are there to do a job not just get power and paid.

I am glad I live in Nevada now where there is no state income tax. NY state and city raped me every year.

[NortheastCynic]

is something of an 'academic' question, but to NortheastCynic, how do we keep minarchy minimal? The only real problem I have with it is that government does tend to grow, and I feel that leaving any seeds will enable something big and nasty to grow again. A well educated population (aka private competing schools, no state run ones!) is key, but is there anything else that would be helpful?While the answer to that question is very, very complex, it does, IMO, boil down to one issue.

Respect for the Constitution.
Our politicians don't have it, our Supreme Court doesn't protect it and our fellow citizens don't demand it. In a situation such as this, it is impossible to have a minarchal society.

Realistically, I know that libertarianism will probably never be completely accomplished but I will support what I can to get bits and pieces of it implemented, but I'm not optimistic.

-NC

[Labrocca]

is something of an 'academic' question, but to NortheastCynic, how do we keep minarchy minimal? The only real problem I have with it is that government does tend to grow, and I feel that leaving any seeds will enable something big and nasty to grow again. A well educated population (aka private competing schools, no state run ones!) is key, but is there anything else that would be helpful?While the answer to that question is very, very complex, it does, IMO, boil down to one issue.

Respect for the Constitution.
Our politicians don't have it, our Supreme Court doesn't protect it and our fellow citizens don't demand it.Â*Â*In a situation such as this, it is impossible to have a minarchal society.Â*Â*

Realistically, I know that libertarianism will probably never be completely accomplished but I will support what I can to get bits and pieces of it implemented, but I'm not optimistic.

-NC


Summed up very well sir.

[Disenfranchised]

Wrongo. In this country, it's practically a certainty that the Congress represents a minority of the national population.

1) Congress is typically split roughly 55/45 at best, and lately it's been much closer. So only a bare majority of Congress is presented by the vote.

2) Even in elections with "high" turnout, only about 60% of eligible voters vote. eg, 2006 (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm)

So at best, 55% x 60% means that 33%, or just 1/3 of the people eligible to vote are represented on most issues. Typically issues like taxation are split along party lines, this approach is reasonable.

And now we come to taxation. There's two kinds of taxes. Voluntary and involuntary. A volutnary tax is a tax you can choose not to pay. You don't have to buy cigarettes or drink beer, and if you don't buy these products you don't pay the taxes on them. These are libertarian-approved taxes, pretty much.

Then there's the involuntary taxes, like "income" taxes which gives the government first cut at your paycheck, taking it's slice before you get yours, estate taxes (unless people choose successfully to not die, they're involuntary taxes), etc. Having the ability to impose so many involuntary taxes (Britain's Stamp Act that fueled the American Revolution was intended to raise only L60,000 from the colonies) enables the government to create so many unnecessary, wasteful, and unconstitutional programs, thereby creating a demand for even more taxes.

EVERYONE would do well if they viewed taxes as theft and fought them at the ballot boxes.


Everything you said above is true. So by your reasoning no law ever passed by Congress and the Senate and signed into law by the President is legal and needn't be obeyed. Right?

[firefox]

I dont know all of us are probably breaking dozens of federal statutes as we speak. There are so many, none of them have any meaning/enforceability really... I think that we need not more campaign money restrictions, but rather a completely restriction free system where everyone has the equal chance to get $ from any potential donor. Think about it: Who writes these campaign laws? The incumbents. Would they ever vote for something that took away their advantages and gave them to newcomers? Of course not.

[Disenfranchised]

I think that we need not more campaign money restrictions, but rather a completely restriction free system where everyone has the equal chance to get $ from any potential donor.
[quote]

That's about what we have now. A system that allows the richest to give enough to buy the influence of lawmakers. I think that is why so much is done that helps them at the expense of the rest of us and so little is done that really helps the masses the most.

[quote]
Think about it: Who writes these campaign laws? The incumbents. Would they ever vote for something that took away their advantages and gave them to newcomers? Of course not.


About that, I couldn't agree more. Not until there is a MASSIVE grassroots movement that will scare the hell out of the lawmakers will they do the right thing and make the playing field level for us all.

[firefox]

Nathan, I would argue that by definition, all taxes are involuntary. That said, "user fee" type taxes are better than ones you are forced to pay no matter what. Another that wasn't mentioned is property taxes. They tax you for something that is YOURS, and that doesn't do anything but sit around for 99% of the time you have it (ie, no transactions taking place after you buy/sell). If a government forces you to pay tribute on penalty of confiscation, who really owns your house, car, etc?

On a similar note, how many here are schooled enough in economics to know what elastic and inelastic goods are? "Sin Tax" items like cigarettes are inelastic, meaning that people will want to buy them at almost any price. That said, they are a great source of local and state revenue. No matter what the politicians may say, they know very well that it won't make people quit, and a reduction in smoking is really the *last* thing they would want.