A lot of comments on taxation yesterday. When I mentioned taxation for healthcare or education being violence many disagreed.
You can say taxation for these program is worth it, you can say it’s our duty, you can talk about the greater good or your own moral code or whatever….but one simply cannot deny that taxation in and of itself is violent.
Yes, taxation is unquestionably a violent act — if someone comes to you and says “Give me your property or I will send men with guns to forcibly take it and cage you.” that’s violent…plain and simple — just because the person saying so is in government or says its for the greater good doesn’t make it less violent. Just because this is the way we’ve done things for ages or in some cases most people think it’s okay doesn’t make it less violent.
To have an honest conversation about these issues we must first admit that the nature of government is force and violence and it’s mandates are accomplished through threats. Otherwise they would not be called laws but suggestions and there is no problem with suggestions.
Once we admit that this is violence we can develop clearer thoughts about when it is acceptable to use violence or ask others to. Violence is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances: when someone attacks you or to bring justice to someone who has stolen from or harmed another.
It seems that most people who support the concept of education or health care being a “right” have not focused on the other side of this: the dark ugly fact that you can’t have these things be a “right” without doing violence to others (in order to seize their property to pay for them). You simply can’t.
Most proponents of these government programs will argue that taxation is somehow not violent – this simply isn’t true. One reason for this is because these people mean well and are compassionate and are uncomfortable supporting something that does violence against a peaceful person. If someone wants to be the Rosa Parks of taxation and simply say “I refuse” and refuses to have her property and wages taken, refuses to comply with State demand letters and refuses to pay fines then she will, at the very least have an armed contingent of men come to her home, break down the door and take her property. If she still peacefully refuses to comply she will be caged and if she resists she could be killed.
This is an uncomfortable fact but a fact just the same. Once we are honest and admit that taxation (and therefor government healthcare and government education) are violent then we can honestly discuss what level of violence is worth engaging in for these programs. Aside from the fact that government health care and education programs do little other than to make health care execs much richer and drive up education costs – let’s pretend they worked. What violence is moral and reasonable to give people the “right” to health care and education? If I can guarantee that everyone in my state can go to school what price of violence is that worth? A few people being jailed for a few days? Capital punishment? Once people think about this and start to quantify it they sometimes reconsider whether any violence is acceptable or moral against those who have harmed no other.
It’s key to think these things through and have a moral code that explains when you are willing to do violence to another. My personal moral code says that I won’t do violence or support others doing violence against any person unless that person has harmed another’s life, body or property or in defense. That’s it, simple. If someone supports government health care and government education they can’t use that moral code. Sorry – there is no way to do both.
If you do support government health care and government education then you owe it to yourself to make a clear statement about what levels of violence you feel are acceptable against non violent people and under what circumstances. Doing so just might shift your opinion on the moral use of force.