This is a statement the average S’porean might readily agree with, and not without justification. He enjoys a higher income than the average Indian, and probably better healthcare, education, and housing. On top of that, take into account the massive inequality in India, and we might conclude that the average S’porean appears to have better opportunities and something of a headstart in life. The freedom to fulfil one’s potential, and thus become a more productive member of society, is not to be underestimated; it might even outweigh the value of some political rights.

A major problem arises, however, when a person views political freedoms and economic growth, and hence the rights gained from economic growth, as mutually exclusive. And yet many Singaporeans suffer from this malady, the result of years of indoctrination through the media and schooling system. The blind acceptance of this argument espoused by the government is a symptom of the rigid thinking which has led to the frequent view that Singaporean are mere automatons. The average Singaporean probably has no idea, or a very poor one, of the political freedoms that he would be entitled to in true democracies, and is often inclined to toe the line drawn by the government. Contrast this with the vibrant democracy in India, where the average Indian has the latitude to express his views and choose a party or candidate he thinks will adequately represent his interests. The Indian government is accountable to its people, whereas the S’poreans seem to be accountable to their goverment instead. In terms of independence of mind and opinion, the average Indian is probably freer than the average S’porean.

On balance, it is difficult to decide whether living in S’pore or India would be better. But that is not the question at hand, because happiness is not the equivalent of freedom. But speaking purely in terms of freedom, I believe that the Indian is freer. As opposed to the S’porean, who lives in semi-ignorant bliss, the Indian is fully aware of what he deserves as an individual and is free to think as an individual.

Other people are not your property. …They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of.

It doesn’t matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you’d like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them – nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf. …

Nor is this requirement lifted merely because you happen to be a police officer, or an elected legislator, or a member of a majority of citizens casting their votes.</blockquote

Would all those of you who don’t want to pay income taxes please move to a country that doesn’t have them and STFU…..

This argument is circular. It assumes that the imposer of income taxes (the government) is the legitimate owner of the geographic territory that is called United States and has carte blanche discretion to impose whichever policies it pleases. This legitimacy is entirely what is in question; it cannot be shrugged off with a “like it or leave it” bromide without begging the question.

Look, you nitwits–we’re living in a democracy. A DEMOCRACY, capisce? If you don’t like the level of taxation that’s imposed get together with enough of your neighbors and vote to a) cut the programs, and b) cut taxes. If you can’t get enough of your neighbors to vote the way you want them to do, then tough noogies–go back to the drawing board and get better arguments.

Again, this is circular argument question begging. You are trying to justify the legitimacy of democratic decision making by appealing to… democratic decision making. Democracy does not justify itself.

What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.

Correct. The central libertarian insight is that Other People Are Not Your Property. They are not yours to boss around, even if you win an election.

“Would all those of you who don’t want to pay income taxes please move to a country that doesn’t have them and STFU…..”

Ah, the classic “If you don’t like President Bush why don’t you move to China” defense, beloved of brain dead redneck warmongers across this great land.

“What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.”

Well, yes. This is what any political group or ideology in a democratic country that does not currently have its program in place is “bellyaching” about. What antiwar activists are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of war and militarism as they do. What socialists are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government ownership of industry as they do. What members of the organization Stop Prisoner Rape are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of stopping people from being raped in prison as they do. Do you have some sort of point beyond “People who disagree with me should shut the fuck up”?

Look, you nitwits–we’re living in a democracy. A DEMOCRACY, capisce? If you don’t like the level of taxation that’s imposed get together with enough of your neighbors and vote to a) cut the programs, and b) cut taxes. If you can’t get enough of your neighbors to vote the way you want them to do, then tough noogies–go back to the drawing board and get better arguments. Or demonstrate on a local scale that you have a private program (with checks and balances against corruption) that can provide the same benefit as the governmental program–then go back and have another vote on the process.

What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.

If I robbed you *and* raped you, that would surely be regarded as more coercive than if I had merely robbed you. I hope this is obvious.

Okay, now suppose I robbed you yesterday, and then I robbed you again today. That’s more coercive than if I had robbed you only yesterday (assuming the amount I took yesterday is the same in both hypotheticals). I think this follows directly from the same principle as robbery + rape above.

But does the interval between the two robberies matter? What if I robbed you an hour ago, and then I rob you again right now? You can see where I’m going. Keep shortening the interval until it’s zero. Unless you think the crucial difference is how many times I flip open your wallet, I think we must agree that the taking of a greater amount of money is more coercive.

I think some confusion is arising from failing to distinguish between absolute dollars and percentage of income. Say you have $200 in your wallet, and I have $100 in mine. Someone steals $10 from each of us. I would say we have been coerced equally, but that the significance of the coercion might be less for you (supposing the money in our wallets is reflective of our incomes).

The amount of coercion depends, I think, on the absolute amount taken, but the significance of the coercion depends on how much is taken *relative to your income or wealth*. This line of thought leads, I think quite reasonably, to the conclusion that rich people are coerced more than poor people by a progressive (or even proportional) income tax, but that the significance of the coercion might well be greater for the poor.

The government taxes in order to fund programs. Those programs, in general, decrease liberty, instead of increase it by undermining the market and presenting citizens with perverse incentives. Many people try to decrease taxes, not because of a fundamental aversion to taxation, but in order to “starve the beast”.

Just making an observation…

Even if your premise were true — and I don’t concede that point — a higher tax gives the government more resources, enabling it to be more coercive. IOW, a 5% tax allows the government to fund the FDA; a 50% tax allows it to fund the FDA, Social Security, and Medicare. Each of those is a separate act of coercion.

Couldn’t we think of “coerciveness” like density of coercion? If I rob 10 people, that’s not meaningfully “more coercive” than if I rob one, but I have effected more coercion. Similarly, if I steal ten dollars from you or one hundred, the coerciveness has not altered but the total amount of coercion has.

Similarly, if someone applies social pressure to get what they want, that is absolutely less coercive than stealing, but can still effect different amounts of coercion depending on how often it is applied.

Another way of thinking about it is that “how coercive” refers to the effort on the coercer’s part. It would be more difficult — require more effort — to enforce compliance with a 95% income tax than with a 5% tax. Coercion would have to be used more often, and in a stronger form, in the first case than in the second. At the limit, a zero percent tax rate would require no coercion at all. We should expect some non-zero increase in the amount of coercion necessary to enforce any finite increase in tax rates. This, I think, is more along the lines of your suggestion that coerciveness needn’t be in direct proportion to harm, but permits talking about comparative coerciveness.

I think both these ways of speaking are common.

Umm, cuz they’re full of crap. Was the question supposed to be hard? Libertarians and Conservatives don’t like to whine about taxes because they believe taxes are coercive, they believe taxes are coercive because they like to whine about them.

First, we tend to view taxes as confiscation of our time. The more we’re taxed, the more we feel that we’re working for the Government. Thus, we don’t just feel like we’re being mugged—we feel like we’re being mugged every day until Tax Freedom Day, which meant every day until last April 23 for the typical American.

Second, most people don’t feel that a mugger is entitled to ANY of their money, but most libertarians believe that the Government is entitled to SOME of our money, usually for the few legitimate functions of the state: defense, courts, police. Some libertarians would add roads and environmental protection. Some would add more. I think most libertarians would admit that there’s no divine dividing line that delineates what is an appropriate government function and what is not. At some point on the spectrum of Government powers, it becomes a matter of argument and policy. It’s hard to know what’s absolutely right.

When the Government takes our money for welfare—pure redistribution—it feels completely illegitimate. When the Government takes it for roads or school—something we might actually benefit from, it seems less illegitimate. When the Government takes our money for national defense, it seems completely legitimate. But then again, when the Government uses our national defense for an unjust war, again it seems illegitimate.

If a mugger takes my money, it’s coercive force. But suppose the mugger is someone who I hired to paint my house for $100. Maybe I feel that he did a lousy job and won’t pay him, but in my heart, I know he’s owed something for his work. If he pulls me aside in a dark alley, shows a gun, and takes $50, I might feel he deserved it. If he takes $80, I might think that’s more than he’s really owed. But if he takes $200, it clearly feels wrong—there’s no good argument on his side to suggest that he’s entitled to the $200, and it feels a lot more like theft than if he took $50 or $80. The difference between the mugger taking $80 and $200 isn’t just a matter of damages; the difference is in the nature of the transaction.

Libertarians want lower taxes because we know that we owe the Government something, but we feel like it’s taking a lot more than we owe it.

In the comments above, Will notes: “So, suppose the just functions of the state require a 10% tax rate. The rate goes down from 45% to 30%. That’s no change in freedom, right?” But again, it’s hard to know what the legitimate functions of the state are. I also know, despite my strong beliefs, that I could be wrong about some of them. I know that 30% is closer to what I think is right that 45%. And I know that I’m less certain about the impropriety of 30% than I am 45%. It’s like the house painter example—if the guy takes $50, I probably think he’s entitled. If he takes $80, it’s a closer question. If he takes $200, it’s clearly wrong.

Now, I suppose Will could reply, what if a tax rate of 99% were dropped to 98%. Okay, I suppose we would probably agree that neither rate is anywhere near an appropriate rate for supporting the essential, minimal functions of the state that we want. But I’m still more certain that 99% is wrong than I am that 98% is wrong.

We could, as Will suggests, just look at the nature of the threat against us, whether it’s kicking us in the shins or throwing us in jail. But again, we judge the coercion based upon the circumstances surrounding the use of force. If I throw you in jail for killing a man, that coercive force seems fine; if I throw you in jail for insulting me, not so much. If I’m holding your baby and won’t give it back, then kicking me in the shins is fine. If I kick your shins to take your money, it’s not. But if you owe me some money and won’t give it to me, maybe I shouldn’t kick your shins, but if I do, it’s different than if I have no right to that money.

On 2, politically recognized rights are irrelevant to actual freedom, because the government will just “interpret” them in whatever way happens to suit the government. All that really matters is how free people are in reality.

For example, here in the US it’s a politically recognized right (under the highest law of the land) for me to walk down the street with a machinegun. In reality, if I tried to do that here in LA I would certainly be murdered by the government almost immediately, because in the US the politically recognized right to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the way things actually are.

That question is unstated in these past two posts and the responses, almost as if this were a cross-examination in which eliciting an admission would make other arguments easier. The admission doesn’t seem to be forthcoming (from anyone) so why not move on to the later substantive argument(s)?