Judge Andrew Napolitano: "I believe that ALL taxation is theft."

[AutonomousLiberty]

YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano: "I believe that ALL taxation is theft."

"I believe that ALL taxation is theft ... If the government can take the fruits of your labor against your will, it can take anything."
~Judge Andrew Napolitano

"If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists."
~Lysander Spooner, excerpt from a letter to Grover Cleveland, 1886

[ClayTrainor]

You're god dam right it is, Judge!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I love Judge Napolitano very much.

[slothman]

So they are both for anarchy?
You can't run a country with 3*10^8 people with only
criminal fines.

Regardless, what district is he in, a federal judge?

State and local gov'ts don't work well either.
They would have to raise speeding and parking ticket fines.

[low preference guy]

Lack of taxation doesn't mean anarchy. Ayn Rand was for voluntary government funding in the long term, and she was no anarchist.

You can charge for services. For instance, if you engage in a contract with your employer to work for a year, to have the government recognize your contract you have to pay 5% of your wage. Enforcing contracts is a service of the government

If two parties want to work together without a contract, they could make arrangements to do it effectively, by paying the worker daily for example. Then the government is not involved and they won't pay anything.

[Kotin]

The Judge is the man.. get this guy on the supreme court!!

[BuddyRey]

That's the spirit, Judge!

[ChaosControl]

He kicks ass, nominate him for the SC now!

[Expatriate]

Lack of taxation doesn't mean anarchy. Ayn Rand was for voluntary government funding in the long term, and she was no anarchist.

You can charge for services. For instance, if you engage in a contract with your employer to work for a year, to have the government recognize your contract you have to pay 5% of your wage. Enforcing contracts is a service of the government

If two parties want to work together without a contract, they could make arrangements to do it effectively, by paying the worker daily for example. Then the government is not involved and they won't pay anything.

+1000. I wish more people realized this.

[Fox McCloud]

Lack of taxation doesn't mean anarchy. Ayn Rand was for voluntary government funding in the long term, and she was no anarchist.

You can charge for services. For instance, if you engage in a contract with your employer to work for a year, to have the government recognize your contract you have to pay 5% of your wage. Enforcing contracts is a service of the government

If two parties want to work together without a contract, they could make arrangements to do it effectively, by paying the worker daily for example. Then the government is not involved and they won't pay anything.

this would very quickly dissolve into "why should I have to pay the government? I want to pick my own courts", and the corporations would do the same, very likely---the minute private courts/arbitration crops up to fill this market, it's all over.

[low preference guy]

this would very quickly dissolve into "why should I have to pay the government? I want to pick my own courts", and the corporations would do the same, very likely---the minute private courts/arbitration crops up to fill this market, it's all over.

many would argue, including me, that the use of force should not be a competing business, but there should be a monopoly. after all, there shouldn't be a debate in principle: only aggression, theft, and breaking contracts should be punished. i'd say making sure that only those activities are punished is easier to do with a monopoly on force. competing violent agencies would just end in massive death.

[Fox McCloud]

many would argue, including me, that the use of force should not be a competing business, but there should be a monopoly. after all, there shouldn't be a debate in principle: only aggression, theft, and breaking contracts should be punished. i'd say making sure that only those activities are punished is easier to do with a monopoly on force. competing violent agencies would just end in massive death.

if you give one entity a monopoly on theft then that entity will exceed its bounds one day and you'll slowly march towards what we have today.

[low preference guy]

if you give one entity a monopoly on theft then that entity will exceed its bounds one day and you'll slowly march towards what we have today.

my entire point was that believing all taxation is theft does not imply one is an anarchist. i'm an example of that. i didn't mean to start an anarcho-capitalist debate.

[Sentient Void]

low preference guy... you obviously haven't read much Rothbard or David Friedman.

Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion to minarchism.

But until society reaches that point, we shall of course work together

[low preference guy]

low preference guy... you obviously haven't read much Rothbard or David Friedman.

Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion to minarchism.

But until society reaches that point, we shall of course work together

I read both Friedman and Rothbard. Disagree with both of them.

I disagree with Friedman's argument that the best ethical system should be found through market competition. I already have an ethical system that I think is the best.

I disagree with Rothbard in that there is need for competition for courts and law. I already know what is wrong: physical aggression, theft, and breaking contracts. If any court or enforcement agency disagrees with that and performs aggression by attempting to enforce their immoral laws, it should be violently disbanded.

But you anarchists are just trying to distract from my point: Knowing that someone believes that government should be voluntarily funded does not imply that that person is an anarchist. Showing that there are tons of people who believe that is enough evidence. A few instances: Me, Ayn Rand, and hundreds if not thousands of Objectivists.

That was the only point that I wanted to make.

[South Park Fan]

I read both Friedman and Rothbard. Disagree with both of them.

I disagree with Friedman's argument that the best ethical system should be found through market competition. I already have an ethical system that I think is the best.

I disagree with Rothbard in that there is need for competition for courts and law. I already know what is wrong: physical aggression, theft, and breaking contracts. If any court or enforcement agency disagrees with that and performs aggression by attempting to enforce their immoral laws, it should be violently disbanded.

But you anarchists are just trying to distract from my point: Knowing that someone believes that government should be voluntarily funded does not imply that that person is an anarchist. Showing that there are tons of people who believe that is enough evidence. A few instances: Me, Ayn Rand, and hundreds if not thousands of Objectivists.

That was the only point that I wanted to make.

Does it not require physical agression to make people use a monopolistic government court or police service, even if they wish to use a more attractive private alternative?

[low preference guy]

Does it not require physical agression to make people use a monopolistic government court or police service, even if they wish to use a more attractive private alternative?

The private alternative can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't initiate force. If it does, the monopolistic force agency I support, government, will take that aggression as a thread to me and other voluntary payers and destroy that agency.

There will be funds to pay for government because people need long term contracts to achieve major goals, and that money will be enough to fund a small government.

So the "more attractive private alternative" would not exist, because as soon as it attempts to use force to enforce anything it will be wiped out.

[Expatriate]

//

[Fox McCloud]

The private alternative can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't initiate force. If it does, the monopolistic force agency I support, government, will take that aggression as a thread to me and other voluntary payers and destroy that agency.

There will be funds to pay for government because people need long term contracts to achieve major goals, and that money will be enough to fund a small government.

So the "more attractive private alternative" would not exist, because as soon as it attempts to use force to enforce anything it will be wiped out.

the problem, again, with your model is that the minute the courts see that they can seize and use their monopolistic power to their advantage, they will--there's no incentive for them to remain ethical, pure, or hold true to their original founding documents; in the private sector, this would, indeed be the case.

Even if they didn't user their power to their own advantage (They will), corporations and other individuals will seek the highest quality service at the lowest quality cost--which will very likely not be from the government; what, then, happens to the courts once they have no further voluntary funding? They disappear in their entirety and you're left with only private courts.

the same exact thing would happen with the military.

[heavenlyboy34]

this would very quickly dissolve into "why should I have to pay the government? I want to pick my own courts", and the corporations would do the same, very likely---the minute private courts/arbitration crops up to fill this market, it's all over.

Harry Browne practiced it successfully, so I don't see why it would be a problem for others.

[tremendoustie]

many would argue, including me, that the use of force should not be a competing business, but there should be a monopoly. after all, there shouldn't be a debate in principle: only aggression, theft, and breaking contracts should be punished. i'd say making sure that only those activities are punished is easier to do with a monopoly on force.

Do you believe you have a right to defend your home if someone breaks in? Does that not make them, no longer a monopoly?

And how exactly is this "easier"? "Making sure only these activities are punished" would mean holding those who use force accountable, correct? If there are competing agencies, any one of them can be held accountable. If there is a monopoly, and that organization becomes abusive, they're practically unstoppable.

Even if you're suggesting that the people themselves get together and stop them, that would again make them ... you guessed it ... not a monopoly.

The only way to have any accountability at all is competition -- especially when it comes to force. Just think about it in a smaller context. Which arrangement is more likely to protect liberty, a village of twelve guys, who each of pistols, or a village of twelve guys, 11 of which are unarmed, and one guy who has an uzi?

competing violent agencies would just end in massive death.

Why? Suppose we agree on the reasons for using force, as described above. There are still questions of who provides better service, at a better cost. Why should there not be competition?

Let's go back to our arrangement, in the village. Don't you think "an armed society is a polite society"? Don't you think the villagers will be able to solve their disagreements without resorting to massive shootouts? It is the fact that everyone is armed that protects liberty -- one guy with all the power leads to tyranny, not peace.

[tremendoustie]

The private alternative can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't initiate force. If it does, the monopolistic force agency I support, government, will take that aggression as a thread to me and other voluntary payers and destroy that agency.

There will be funds to pay for government because people need long term contracts to achieve major goals, and that money will be enough to fund a small government.

So the "more attractive private alternative" would not exist, because as soon as it attempts to use force to enforce anything it will be wiped out.

You're confusing aggressive and defensive force. No one should use aggressive force. To enforce a contract is defensive.

Suppose two individuals agreed to a contract. They wrote it all out, and both signed it. But, suppose they consider the government fee too high, so they contract another organization to enforce it.

Now, suppose one party breeches the contract, and the organization enforces it -- it makes the party who breached the contract pay restitution.

Again, suppose that everyone agrees the contract is clear and legit, as written. Would you support the government coming in, violently, to prevent the enforcement of what it agrees is a valid contract, simply because it was not registered with them, and they want to enforce a monopoly? That's tyrannical behavior right there.

[low preference guy]

Do you believe you have a right to defend your home if someone breaks in? Does that not make them, no longer a monopoly?

it's pretty well known that people can self-defend themselves. the monopoly is for retaliation when one's safety isn't threatened. so it's still a monopoly.

Do you believe you have a right to defend your
Even if you're suggesting that the people themselves get together and stop them, that would again make them ... you guessed it ... not a monopoly.

I guessed? Funny.

If the Government stops doing the right thing, there is not a monopoly, there is a complete absence of a proper Government. Then people can take action to restore a proper Government monopoly which protects individual rights. At that point of course the use of force is legitimate.

Again, my whole point was to show that not believing in compulsory government funding does not imply that someone is an anarchist. If there are examples of such non-anarchists, I proved my point, so I just need to provide a few examples: me, Ayn Rand, and thousands of Objectivists. I did not want to derail the thread. I didn't intent to start an anarchism debate. Do you disagree with my intended point?

[tremendoustie]

it's pretty well known that people can self-defend themselves. the monopoly is for retaliation when one's safety isn't threatened. so it's still a monopoly.

Oh goody. I was afraid we were going to allow free choice, I'm glad it's a monopoly after all -- we know how good they are.

If the Government stops doing the right thing, there is not a monopoly, there is a complete absence of a proper Government. Then people can take action to restore a proper Government monopoly which protects individual rights. At that point of course the use of force is legitimate.

if you rely on the people to hold this organization accountable, why not just trust the people to begin with?

What precisely do you fear about competition? If the people demand the protection of individual rights, as your model requires them to, would the institutions they choose to support not also respect these rights?

Which is an easier way for the people to apply their will, to stop an abusive organization?

1. Revolution against an enormously powerful central state
2. Choosing to subscribe to a different protection agency

What's more, your model requires the people to accept aggressive violence when it is used by the central state -- to provide this one, magical organization an exception to rules for basic moral decency. Do you not see that this is a recipe for disaster?

Again, my whole point was to show that not believing in compulsory government funding does not imply that someone is an anarchist. If there are examples of such non-anarchists, I proved my point, so I just need to provide a few examples: me, Ayn Rand, and thousands of Objectivists. I did not want to derail the thread. I didn't intent to start an anarchism debate. Do you disagree with my intended point?

I do disagree, actually. If I were to say, "From now on, I will shoot anyone other than myself who sells automobiles". That would be compulsory funding, and theft.

Also, please stop using the term "anarchy", because the generally understood definition of that word is not what I believe in, and it's not the only alternative to an aggressively violent, monopolistic state.

Look, I definitely consider you an ally, and I would love to change the current society into the one you envision -- it would be far, far better. I think you have an irrational attachment to the idea of a central government, however.

P.S. Why don't you respond to the example, with the village? Do you think everyone being armed would lead to chaos? Could not the people use arbitration, etc, to settle disputes, just as competing protection agencies could? Would not the fact that the power is distributed actually cause the village to be more peaceful?

[low preference guy]

I do disagree, actually. If I were to say, "From now on, I will shoot anyone other than myself who sells automobiles". That would be compulsory funding, and theft.

And please stop using the term "anarchy", because the generally understood definition of that word is not what I believe in, and it's not the only alternative to an aggressively violent, monopolistic state.

I can reword my statement to reflect what I mean. I mean that if some person Mary doesn't believe that everyone who works and makes money but does not fund the government should be put in jail, that doesn't imply that Mary is an anarchist.

And I'm not going to stop using the word "anarchist". I think it's a well accepted term, and in my mind it refers generally to what Rothbard and Walter Block think. Even Walter Block calls himself an anarchist. If you persuade him to stop using the word, I might consider using whatever you suggest.

I don't respond to your other arguments because my intention was to state the point of the above paragraph. This is a hellish busy week for me and the debate of anarchism would take pages. I can't do that right now.

[tremendoustie]

I can reword my statement to reflect what I mean. I mean that if some person Mary doesn't believe that everyone who works and makes money but does not fund the government should be put in jail, that doesn't imply that Mary is an anarchist.

That would just mean that Mary opposes the income tax, right? I mean, Mary might even support a national sales tax on nonessential goods, and she could fit this description.

However, I suppose most would not call the arrangement you describe "taxation" per-se, so I suppose in that sense your point is legit.

In the three categories nepolitano described, though, it would definitely include a large component of the third.

And I'm not going to stop using the word "anarchist". I think it's a well accepted term, and in my mind it refers generally to what Rothbard and Walter Block think. Even Walter Block calls himself an anarchist. If you persuade him to stop using the word, I might consider using whatever you suggest.

Shouldn't we consider for ourselves whether the term is accurate? I believe we should have order, and enforce rules. Does that sound like "anarchy" to you!? What's more, you should at least recognize that the term is far too broad to be useful. There are downright communists, who don't believe in property rights at all, but call themselves "anarchists". There are those who are happy to use aggressive violence, but simply oppose established authority, who call themselves "anarchists".

I don't respond to your other arguments because my intention was to state the point of the above paragraph. This is a hellish busy week for me and the debate of anarchism would take pages. I can't do that right now.

Fair enough. I hope we can discuss this at some point. I think your fears of "mass death" are unfounded, to say the least. As I say, we should have established order, and enforce rules -- it's not necessary to use aggressive violence to accomplish these things.

[low preference guy]

That would just mean that Mary opposes the income tax, right? I mean, Mary might even support a national sales tax on nonessential goods, and she could fit this description.

I see I didn't state it correctly again. Let me try again.

I mean that if some person Mary doesn't believe that everyone who works, makes money, and spends it buying one or more product or service but does not fund the government should be put in jail, that doesn't imply that Mary is an anarchist.

What about now?

About words. I do not want to start a crusade for anarchism. I would first start a crusade to call people like myself liberals, to stop calling progressives progressives, to destroy the stupid words "left" and "right". As I said, I would consider changing my use of "anarchy" once you convince Walter Block to do it.

[tremendoustie]

I see I didn't state it correctly again. Let me try again.



What about now?

You don't have to define it perfectly, I understand what you're getting at. Going after everyone who tries to compete with me, and so enforcing a monopoly for myself, is not really taxation, per-se. It is definitely in Nepolitano's third category, however -- and when the monopoly is on something as essential as contracts, it really has the same effect as taxation.

About words. I do not want to start a crusade for anarchism. I would first start a crusade to call people like myself liberals, to stop calling progressives progressives, to destroy the stupid words "left" and "right".

I agree with gradualism, certainly. Working to make things better, but perhaps not perfect, is a worthy goal.

As I said, I would consider changing my use of "anarchy" once you convince Walter Block to do it.

Why do I have to convince Walter Block? Isn't it also possible that Walter Block is wrong to use that term? You have your own mind, can you not consider the question, yourself?

Language is about accurate and effective communication. When you say the word "anarchist" do you think any significant number of people will hear, "One who believes in a well ordered society, with established rules protecting persons and property, which are enforced by institutions which do not use aggressive violence"? Will they have any way of knowing you are not referring to a person who wants workers to grab pitchforks and run factory owners out of town, and who spends his time throwing bricks through Starbucks windows?

It's simply a very poor word to communicate the idea. Frankly, it seems to me that you use it precisely because it's loaded, and it's convenient to use that fact to make the views of those who disagree with you appear less palatable. If I'm wrong about this, and you do believe people think primarily of my views when they hear the word "anarchy", I'd love to be corrected.

[low preference guy]

I use it not because it's loaded, I just don't know what else to use. Do you think Dr. Block use it because it's loaded? Out of curiosity, which word you want?

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh goody. I was afraid we were going to allow free choice, I'm glad it's a monopoly after all -- we know how good they are.



if you rely on the people to hold this organization accountable, why not just trust the people to begin with?

What precisely do you fear about competition? If the people demand the protection of individual rights, as your model requires them to, would the institutions they choose to support not also respect these rights?

Which is an easier way for the people to apply their will, to stop an abusive organization?

1. Revolution against an enormously powerful central state
2. Choosing to subscribe to a different protection agency

What's more, your model requires the people to accept aggressive violence when it is used by the central state -- to provide this one, magical organization an exception to rules for basic moral decency. Do you not see that this is a recipe for disaster?




I do disagree, actually. If I were to say, "From now on, I will shoot anyone other than myself who sells automobiles". That would be compulsory funding, and theft.

Also, please stop using the term "anarchy", because the generally understood definition of that word is not what I believe in, and it's not the only alternative to an aggressively violent, monopolistic state.

Look, I definitely consider you an ally, and I would love to change the current society into the one you envision -- it would be far, far better. I think you have an irrational attachment to the idea of a central government, however.

P.S. Why don't you respond to the example, with the village? Do you think everyone being armed would lead to chaos? Could not the people use arbitration, etc, to settle disputes, just as competing protection agencies could? Would not the fact that the power is distributed actually cause the village to be more peaceful?

The fact that anarchy is misused is a poor reason for us to stop using it. "Capitalism" is also misused and widely misunderstood, but we still use it. Where will we stop if we allow the uneducated masses to determine our "proper" vocabulary?