Not all libertarians believe in self-ownership

Before discussing whether or not the libertarian concept of self-ownership is contrary to Christianity, it should be made clear that regardless of the answer, Christianity and libertarianism needn’t be in conflict.  If self-ownership and Christianity are in conflict (and I do not believe they are) this still would not mean a libertarianism based on something other than self-ownership is in conflict with Christianity.

It is true many libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership and work from there to a philosophy of man and his relation to a state; but not all.  Libertarianism is a set of beliefs of about what role, if any, government should play in society.  A belief in self-ownership is not required to conclude that the state should be minimal or nonexistent.  One can advocate a libertarian society based on its ability to achieve any set of desired ends, like prosperity or happiness, regardless of whether or not self-ownership or any kind of rights exist.

Libertarian self-ownership does not contradict Christianity

What about the majority of libertarians who do believe self-ownership is the logical and ethical basis for their ideology; does this stand in contrast with Christian doctrine?  It does not.

It is true, Christians believe that man is not his own, but a creation and servant of God.  In this sense, he does not ‘own’ himself any more than he can own a galaxy.  However, this is not the sense in which libertarians speak of self-ownership.  Libertarianism is only a political philosophy.  It only concerns the proper relationship of man to man in regards to force.  It does not concern authority or submission in general, so long as they are voluntary.  It has nothing to say, for example, about how wives and husbands ought to submit to and serve one another in a voluntary relationship.  Nor does it concern man’s cosmic place in the universe and whether or not he must be obedient to supernatural powers.

Most trouble with libertarianism comes when we ask it to be more than a political philosophy.  In this case, forgetting that self-ownership is merely about the proper relationship of man to man can cause us to assume it defies the authority of God.  Many libertarians wrap these ideas together, but libertarianism itself is mute on questions of theology.

Libertarian assertions are few; man ought not to use violence against man if at all possible.  The typical exceptions are self-defense, or for tax collection for very limited cases of “public goods” (the latter of these exceptions falls apart under any serious scrutiny).  Those who base these assertions on the principle of self-ownership are merely saying, “Do not coerce another because you do not own another”.

There is nothing in that doctrine which is inimical to Christianity.  The idea that you do not own any other person is not only inoffensive and perfectly permissible to a Christian, but the proper mindset to have in relation to your fellow man.  We are not to coerce.  We are to love and to serve.  And if we are coerced by another, we may be obligated by our conscience to submit at times, and may at other times be permitted to resist.

On earthly authority

A common Christian objection is that God has established authorities on earth that we are to submit to, and the idea of self-ownership flies in the face of these God-ordained authority structures.  I am willing to accept that men are unequal and uniquely stationed in life; some to lead and have authority.  It is also plain that at times we are called to submit to others.  These facts do not pose any problems to the libertarian idea of self-ownership.

First, though God may call some to lead and some to follow, who is able to discern the particulars?  To accept that God may ordain authority on earth is one thing; to discover where that authority is is another.  Are we to obey any person who claims to have authority?  Our Christian duty is to seek God’s will and obey it, but only the individual can decide for himself when he is right in relation to God’s will.  In other words, only the individual can own the decision of whether and when to submit to another.

Second, the mere use of the word ‘submit’ is an affirmation of the idea of self-ownership.  Submission is a conscious choice.  “Be coerced by the governing authorities” certainly has a different meaning than “submit”.  The advice in scripture is to engage in an act of self-sacrifice when we are so called.  A person can only sacrifice something they own.

On owning property

Some Christians have a similar objection to the idea of property ownership, which is the logical offspring of self-ownership.  If God created the world, who are we to claim we can own it?  Aren’t we merely stewards at best?  Indeed, if we cannot claim to own another human created by God, how can we claim to own any animal, vegetable or mineral created by God?

This matter is rather easily resolved; it doesn’t matter.

That is, it doesn’t matter if you ‘own’ or are a ‘steward’ of property.  That may be an interesting question metaphysically, but it doesn’t change the ethics of the institution of private property.  If a person is willing to admit that any use or consumption of physical matter whatsoever is permitted on earth (and if they are not, it means they believe the only moral life is death and that breathing oxygen itself is a sin), they must answer the question of how finite resources can justly be used by people with competing demands.

Private property has emerged universally as the best means of settling this problem throughout history, and there is nothing anti-Christian about this.  Though God owns all matter in the cosmic sense, the institution of private property is a moral and practical means for settling disputes about its earthly use by humans.  Christians ought to applaud and defend this institution because there is no other logically possible means of coordinating the competing demands for scarce resources, and every attempt at creating one has resulted in severe poverty and violence.  Private property is as natural as breathing.

In summary

Because God owns us it does not follow that any other human owns us.  Indeed, recognizing God’s ownership and lordship makes the idea of a human owner ridiculous.  We may voluntarily submit to others, but in the act of submitting we are showing who the real owner is; one can only submit oneself if one owns oneself.

And that’s where the really powerful stuff is revealed:  Even He who does, in material fact, own us chooses not to coerce us.  The only One with a legitimate claim on us chooses not to enforce it but by persuasion.  If the God of the universe rejects coercion in his efforts to bring a soul to Truth, what possible justification could we have for coercing each other in our efforts to establish useful social institutions on earth?

Libertarian self-ownership recognizes our free-will, our place in relation to our creator that no human could fill, and it also serves as a valuable foundation for social mores and institutions.  It poses no threat to Christianity and creates no conflict with it.  I cannot love my neighbor by owning him and I cannot submit to another unless I own myself.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Christianity and Self-Ownership

Isn’t that fantastic? Share it with your friends, maybe you’ll be able to teach them about liberty soon…

By the way, the Executive Director is Jason Rink, author of Disciple of Liberty. He is a great friend of mine now and I am trying really hard to get him to start writing for LCC. Maybe some comments here would convince him?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Who Owns You? I sure don’t…

There is some controversy over the proposed construction of a $150 million Noah’s Ark theme park on 800 acres near Interstate 75 in Kentucky. The theme park – to be called Ark Encounter – is a joint venture between Answers in Genesis and Ark Encounter LLC. The former group already opened a $27 million Creation museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007.

The proposed park, to be completed by 2014, will feature live animals, event venues, a children’s play area, a replica of the biblical Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special effects theater, a reproduction of a first-century Middle Eastern village, an aviary, and a 500 by 75 foot wooden ark to replicate the biblical Noah’s Ark. The project is expected to create more than 900 jobs, attract 1.6 million visitors in the park’s first year, and have an economic impact of $214 million in the first year alone.

As expected, religious groups generally hailed the project even as other groups that focus on church-state issues had a problem with the project. Contrary to critics of the theme park who think the educational message of the park is “unscientific” and “embarrassing for the state” or that any jobs created would be “low-paying” and “transient,” Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, seemed to raise two main arguments against the proposed park: First, Lynn pointed out that when Noah launched the Ark the first time, he was not looking for government funding. Second, he said that while the Constitution doesn’t prevent someone from putting up a water park, it does prevent people from putting up a religious one, such as Noah’s water park.

But both of Lynn’s points are misguided.

Under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act, which exists to bring tourist attractions to Kentucky, up to 25 percent of the cost of an approved project can be recovered by developers via the state’s refunding to them a portion of the sales tax paid by visitors on admission tickets, gift sales, and food. Up to ten percent of the tax incentives can be refunded per year for up to ten years. It is a common thing for states to use various tax incentive measures to lure new businesses to the state. The tax incentives here involve rebated sales tax money collected that would not even be available if Ark Encounter never opened its doors. No government funding will be used to construct the park. And not only will no money be taken from the state budget, the project will generate millions of dollars of government revenue in the form of increased federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and local real estate taxes. Like any for-profit business, Ark Encounter will be forced to be a tax collector for the state. And like any for-profit business, Ark Encounter is a legitimate candidate for Kentucky’s tax incentives.

Libertarians would, of course, argue that states shouldn’t collect sales tax (the states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon have no general sales tax), force businesses to be tax collectors, or take money from people in the form of sales taxes (or any other kind of taxes) and redistribute it to private businesses – for any reason. But Rev. Lynn is not arguing against the sales tax incentives on libertarian grounds.

Lynn’s second argument is a veiled reference to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The principle of what he seems to be saying is true: governments shouldn’t fund religious construction projects or business operations. But this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The reception by religious-oriented businesses of refunded sales tax collected is not establishing any religion. And neither does it violate the prevailing broad view of the federal courts on the First Amendment. Two groups that are not normally on the side of religion, the ACLU and American Atheists, agree. The ACLU of Kentucky said that so long as giving tax incentives to religious groups is nondiscriminatory, it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. American Atheists stated that giving tax incentives to religious groups is only actionable when there is a demonstrable bias in the sort of religious groups who benefit.

From the perspective of libertarianism, the real issue is not one of religion, but whether governments should fund private construction projects or the operations of any business no matter how it obtains the money to do so. But not only should the government not do these things, it should not have its own construction projects or operate any business. The purpose of governments, should they exist at all, is to protect their citizens’ life, liberty, and property from the violence or fraud of others. Governments shouldn’t build sports venues, run liquor stores, pick up garbage, or operate a bus service. These goods and services should be left to the free market.

Whether Ark Encounter or any other business – secular or religious – should accept tax incentives of this nature is another matter.

First of all, there are always strings attached to deals like this and there is no exception here. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear insists that “Kentucky’s contract with developers of the theme park will bar tax incentives if there is discrimination in hiring based on religion.” Mike Zovath, Senior Vice President of Special Projects for Answers in Genesis, “pledged to be mindful of ‘green’ building standards and to use local contractors.”

And second, there is the moral aspect since businesses that accept refunded sales tax collected can be said to be receiving stolen funds. However, some businesses may look at receiving a sales tax incentive as a return of money confiscated from the business in the form of state corporate income tax, unemployment tax, gross receipts tax, or franchise tax. Thus, they might accept state money up to the amount of the taxes they have paid.

So what does all of this have to do with private property? Plenty.

There are many principles to be noted here that relate to the sanctity of private property. In a truly free society, there are a number of things that a property owner should not be prevented from doing.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property as he sees fit. That means no zoning laws, building codes, eminent domain, or environmental regulations to strip someone of his property or limit its use.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from constructing whatever he chooses on his property. That might mean building a home, a business, a monument, or a nature preserve.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from promoting any religion with his property. That might be accomplished by putting up a church, a mosque, a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, or a statue of Darwin.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from operating any business on his property. That might be a hospital, a bar, a retail store, or a theme park.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using whatever hiring practices they choose or making any compensation agreement with employees in the course of operating any business on his property. That might include low-paying jobs, transient jobs, immigrant workers, non-union labor, out-of-town and/or non-licensed contractors, and discrimination in hiring based on religion or any other criteria.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property for any educational mission. That might be promoting evolution or creation, free love or celibacy, or ‘green’ building standards.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property to promote something that people disagree with. That might mean something considered stupid, immoral, unscientific, or embarrassing to the state.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from doing whatever he wants on his property. That might be erecting a cross or flag, burning a cross or flag, or creating or filling in a wetland.

Controversy over a Noah’s Ark theme park – or the construction or operation of any other business – vanishes when the property rights of the park, its patrons, its critics, and the taxpayers are all respected.

Originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation on January 11, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Noah’s Ark and the Sanctity of Private Property

Not only were the physiocrats generally consistent advocates of laissez-faire, but they also supported the operation of a free market and the natural rights of person and property.

John Locke and the Levellers in England had transformed the rather vague and holistic notions of natural law into the clear-cut, firmly individualistic concepts of the natural rights of every individual human being. But the physiocrats were the first to apply natural-rights and property-rights concepts fully to the free-market economy. In a sense, they completed the work of Locke and brought full Lockeanism to economics.

Quesnay and the other physiocrats were also inspired by the typically 18th-century-Enlightenment version of natural law, where the individual’s rights of person and property were deeply embedded in a set of natural laws that had been worked out by the creator and were clearly discoverable in the light of human reason. In a profound sense, then, 18th-century natural-rights theory was a refined variant of medieval and postmedieval Scholastic natural law. The rights were now clearly individualistic and not societal or pertaining to the state; and the set of natural laws was discoverable by human reason.

The 17th-century Dutch Protestant, and in essence Protestant Scholastic, Hugo Grotius, deeply influenced by the late Spanish Scholastics, developed a natural-law theory that he boldly declared was truly independent of the question of whether God had created them. The seeds of this thought were in St. Thomas Aquinas and in later Catholic Scholastics, but never had it been formulated as clearly and as starkly as by Grotius.

Or, to put it in terms that had fascinated political philosophers since Plato: did God love the good because it was in fact good, or is something good because God loves it? The former has always been the answer of those who believe in objective truth and objective ethics, that is, that something might be good or bad in accordance with the objective laws of nature and reality. The latter has been the answer of fideists who believe that no objective rights or ethics exist, and that only the purely arbitrary will of God, as expressed in revelation, can make things good or bad for mankind.

Grotius’s was the definitive statement of the objectivist, rationalist position, since natural laws for him are discoverable by human reason, and the 18th-century Enlightenment was essentially the spinning out of the Grotian framework. To Grotius the Enlightenment added Newton and his vision of the world as a set of harmonious, precisely if not mechanically interacting natural laws.

And while Grotius and Newton were fervent Christians, as was almost everyone in their epoch, the 18th century, starting with their premises, easily fell into deism, in which God, the great “clock-maker,” or creator of this universe of natural laws, then disappeared from the scene and allowed his creation to work itself out.

From the standpoint of political philosophy, however, it mattered little whether Quesnay and the others (Du Pont was of Huguenot background) were Catholics or deists: for given their world outlook, their attitude toward natural law and natural rights could be the same in either case.

Mercier de la Rivière pointed out in his L’Ordre naturel that the general plan of God’s creation had provided natural laws for the government of all things, and that man could surely not be any exception to that rule. Man needed only to know through his reason the conditions that would lead to his greatest happiness and then follow that path. All ills of mankind follow from ignorance or disobedience of such laws.

In human nature, the right of self-preservation implies the right to property, and any individual property in man’s products from the soil requires property in the land itself. But the right to property would be nothing without the freedom of using it, and so liberty is derived from the right to property. People flourish as social animals, and through trade and exchange of property they maximize the happiness of all.

Furthermore, since the faculties of human beings are by nature diverse and unequal, an inequality of condition arises naturally from an equal right to liberty of every man. In this way, property rights and free markets, concluded Mercier, are a social order that is natural, evident, simple, immutable, and conducive to the happiness of all.

Or, as Quesnay declared in his Le Droit naturel (Natural Law), “Every man has a natural right to the free exercise of his faculties provided he does not employ them to the injury of himself or others. This right to liberty implies as a corollary the right to property,” and the only function of the government is to defend that right.[1]

Many rulers of Europe were either entranced or intrigued by this fashionable new doctrine of physiocracy, and endeavored to find out about it from its major theorists. The dauphin of France once complained to Quesnay of the difficulty of being a king, and the physician replied that it was really quite simple. “What then,” asked the dauphin, “would you do if you were king?” “Nothing,” was the straightforward, stark, and magnificently libertarian answer of Dr. Quesnay. “But then who would govern?” sputtered the dauphin. “The law,” that is, the natural law, was Quesnay’s accurate but no doubt unsatisfying reply.

A similar reply was certainly unsatisfactory to Catherine the Great, czarina of all the Russias, who sent for Mercier de la Rivière, jurist and at one time intendant (governor) of Martinique, to instruct her on how to govern. Pressed as to what the “law” should be grounded on, Mercier answered the empress, “On one [thing] alone, Madame, the nature of things and of man.”

“But how, then, can a king know what laws to give to a people?” the czarina continued. To which Mercier replied sharply, “To give or make laws, Madame, is a task which God has left to no one. Ah! What is man, to think himself capable of dictating laws to beings whom he knows not?” The science of government, Mercier added, is to study and recognize the “laws which God has so evidently engraven in the very organization of man, when He gave him existence.” Mercier added the pertinent warning: “To seek to go beyond this would be a great misfortune and a destructive undertaking.”

The czarina was polite but was definitely not amused. “Monsieur,” she replied curtly, “I am very pleased to have heard you. I wish you good day.”

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. See Murray N. Rothbard’s article archives at the Mises Institute.

This article is excerpted from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith (1995). An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

With or Without a God: Natural Law and Property Rights

Actually, I have been lax about answering some of the Libertarian FAQ Questions submitted lately, and here are three worth noting… Remember that you can submit your own questions whenever you want! Curious about some weird aspect of libertarianism and/or Christian theology? Ask away!

Q: Do you reject theonomy, and if so why? Why shouldn’t the Old Testament Law be enforced by human government?

A: Theonomy, strictly defined, is the notion that God is the sole source of human ethics. There is an element of truth to this: ethics do find their root in the character of God. However, many theonomists add that ethics are rooted only in the witness of Scripture, and hence declare that natural law is false. Some take it even further and say that human government exists to enforce biblical law. These elements of theonomy I reject. First, I take a concordance view of ethics, that natural law and Scripture coincide and support one another rather than oppose. I would point Scripturally-inclined readers to Romans 1-3 as some of the prime evidence for this. I also believe very strongly that the State is the enemy of God, existing as a result of man’s sin rather than as part of the original created order and the destiny of man on earth. God is the true King of the Universe, and all power and glory belong to him, never the State.

Q: Norman, what is your theological persuasion? Are you protestant? Evangelical? Calvinist? Baptist? What is your confession of faith?

As of 2010, I am a member of the University Avenue Church of Christ in Austin, Texas. The Churches of Christ come from the Stone-Campbell Restorationist tradition of the 19th century. I think it’s safe to say that the Churches of Christ are congregationalist in nature, believing that local churches should be independent and thus there is no hierarchy/synod/etc. that specifies creeds or confessions that identify us. If anything, we believe in the Apostle’s Creed because of its simplicity and essential nature to our shared faith. In the past, the Restorationist tradition has said things such as "No creed but Christ!" in order to make clear that our interest is in the unity of believers, rather than the dispersity of belief sets.

Rapid fire answers: Protestant? Yes. Evangelical? Sort of. Calvinist? No. Baptist? I’m a big fan of baptism. Confession? I like confessing, but not to you.

Q: Is voting a violent act?

Voting is not rooted in property rights at all, in fact, it is merely an entitlement. As such, voting is not an act of aggression. However, we should not think of voting too highly. It certainly does not deserve the sacrosanct status that it has in America today. We cannot expect that via mere vote totals that we will change the world in the direction of more liberty. Moreover, it certainly puts one in an awkward moral position to be voting for people who have directly stated that they will be acting in aggression over others, such as promotion of never-ending war and spending, so even though voting is not violent one must recognize the tertiary effects thereof.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Theonomy, theology, and voting

The government and special interest groups working through the government claim they are “here to help” you. But no matter how good their intentions, usually they end up violating your rights. For instance, most people would agree that substance abuse is bad, whether that substance is heroin or over the counter sleeping pills. Most people would also agree that the doctor, the lawyer, the nutritionist, the hairdresser and the contractor you do business with should know what they are doing. Yet, the essence of natural rights is that self-ownership and freedom of association are not contingent upon man-made legislation but are inherent in each individual. The real question then, is not whether substance abuse is bad, or whether it is good for a person to have the proper training in their chosen profession, but if anyone should be able to tell you what you can or cannot consume, inhale, drink, inject into yourself, or with whom you can contract. The answer is NO — you are the only one who has the right to make this decision. Any coercion exerted by the government violates your individual rights, grossly misallocates economic resources, and distorts the market. It’s a simple yet powerful concept: you own yourself.

Restrictions or bans on substances violate property rights. In many countries, governments (or as some have called them, “food Nazis”) have taken to banning all sorts of items, such as trans-fats, foie gras, and the smoking of cigarettes — a clear violation of property rights. If a restaurant owner believed her patrons would prefer foods without trans-fats, she would be smart to prepare foods without those fats. A bar owner who sees that many customers would rather have an adult beverage without smelling of smoke would ask his patrons not to light up. But, even if the property owner made a decision that others disagree with, or one that goes against market trends, that is his prerogative. Consumers are always free to spend their dollars elsewhere.

Restrictions or bans on substances are inefficient and impossible to enforce. The war on (some) drugs is a war that cannot be won. After a group of people (i.e. the Drug Enforcement Administration, legislators trying to appear “tough on crime,” etc.) deem a particular substance “illicit,” money is taken from productive members of society to fund what is now a $40 billion per year anti-drug campaign. With 25% of those in state prisons and 55% of those in federal prison incarcerated for a drug-related offense, this failed government policy means the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest number of individuals behind bars in absolute numbers. Not exactly the “land of the free.” Further, making substances illegal does not lessen demand for them but only moves them to the black market where purity is questionable, where contractual disputes are resolved through violence rather than in court, and where the price is artificially high. This allows organized crime to thrive and pushes desperate users into crime to pay for their addiction.

Occupational licensing violates your right to voluntarily make contacts. It is no secret that those who oversee licensing requirements have an incentive to limit their competition. By buddying up with legislators to create and score the tests required for a license to “legally” work in their profession, plumbers, hairstylists, contractors, doctors and others claim to act to “protect” the public from shoddy workmanship or services. This serves only to protect them from competition, which drives up prices for the consumer. By denying consumers the right to hire who they want for a particular job it violates their right to voluntarily reach a contact with another person. And it violates the rights of an individual to choose their profession. If the free market forces of competition were allowed into these professions, it would drive down cost and raise quality because those who do a bad job or defraud people will be exposed for doing so, and cannot hide behind a government-issued license.

The regulation of pharmaceuticals violates individual rights and distorts the market. The Food and Drug Administration, another agency created under the auspices of “protecting us,” is responsible for countless deaths due to the barriers (in terms of time and money) it puts between a drug and the market. In a true free market, consumers would have the right to buy and consume drugs at their discretion. For determining the safety and efficacy of a drug, they will likely turn to their doctors, Consumer Reports-type associations that rank drugs, and other reviews for advice. And if a drug fails to deliver on its promises it will gain a negative reputation and will be avoided, possibly causing the manufacturer to go under. This is your life, not some bureaucrat’s.

Previous | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Who Owns You?

According to the Tax Foundation, Americans will spend about 30 percent of their income on taxes in 2008. For comparison, in 1900, it was around 6 percent. Put differently, for almost four months out of the year you work just to pay for government. In the current system most types of income are taxed, sometimes twice, and often progressively. These are just some of the taxes levied by government: federal and local income tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, vehicle sales tax, utility tax, marriage license tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax, etc. On top of that, you pay to compensate for taxes levied on others. For instance, you, as a consumer, pay higher prices for goods and services because of the corporate income tax levied on businesses. The government, if it is to exist, should protect people from force and fraud. Therefore, at most, government should tax only to maintain a national defense, a police force and law courts. But instead, legislators seek to fulfill the so-called “needs” of the constituencies and special interest groups that put and keep them in office. So, the government has tasked itself with providing cheaper prescription drugs for seniors, improving education for children, supporting for farmers by keeping food prices high and paying them for any product they fail to sell, covering the living expenses of the poor, paying for medical research, and so on. The result is not a system that protects our individual rights but a system that provides benefits to some at the expense of others. Typically there will be concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, which makes organizing resistance difficult and leads to even larger government interference.

Taxes violate individual rights. Specifically, it violates your property rights. By using taxation to benefit some people, the government says that you have no right to keep what you have earned or how you spend it, as long as there is someone else who needs or wants it, and that it, the government, has the right to seize your property in order to provide it to the person or group they see fit. That’s damn close to making you a slave. As John A. Pugsley stated, “How does the IRS agent who collects our taxes differ from the gunman? He does not. You are forced to pay under threat of imprisonment (the gun). Your money is taken without your voluntary consent. It is used by other people who claim that their need is a just demand of your property. The process is justified because a group of people (voters) decide as a group that you should be robbed and that the money should be used for whatever purposes they deem proper.”

The current tax system creates winners and losers. The government does not create wealth, but only usurps and redistributes it. The winners in this redistribution are legislators and the special interest groups that pander to them. Also, foreign producers win because the taxes levied on businesses increase prices on domestic goods. Tax accountants win because they garner more business due to the complicated the tax codes. And, people who are the least productive win because their income tax is lowest; some do not have to pay income tax at all. The losers are clearly productive individuals, those who have created wealth by providing goods and services to others, who have chosen to voluntarily patron their business. But more than that, everyone who pays income tax loses because they have to spend time and money to complete complicated income tax returns. As Mark Skousen penned: “Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, ‘Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.’ But isn’t the opposite really the case? Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned and totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.” Taxes trample the idea of virtue. Forcing individuals via taxation to pay for the “needs” of others (often determined by a bureaucrat) does make them benevolent or charitable. What makes people charitable and benevolent is realizing that there are persons in true need and causes well worth while contributing to. Many people do realize this, which is why they give voluntarily. Moreover, excessive taxation discourages charitable giving because people have less money to give, or figure that their taxes already pay for helping the needy.

Taxation is frequently “progressive.” That means that individuals who earn more are forced to pay more. But why? They do not derive any greater benefit from the government by doing so. The underlying assumption of progressive taxation is that wealth is a like a fixed pie from which some people get to take a larger piece, thereby decreasing the share of others. Accordingly, income inequality is the expression of unfair wealth distribution and should be decreased by reallocation from the top to the bottom. Hence, those who make more should pay more because they have to give back in some way what they have taken from others. This depiction of the economy is inaccurate. More production generates more economic progress which leads to an increase in wealth for everyone (at least in a free market system), so that the pie does not remain a fixed size.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Tax Slavery Sucks

Originally by Stacy Litz:

Sometimes I cannot tell when I see movies if the ideas of liberty are always on my mind or if they are starting to make their way into the mainstream. However, while watching Iron Man 2, it was quite obvious that the government and its supporting forces were “the bad guys.” Throughout the movie, the amount of poor decisions and actions made by the government, especially that of the senate and armed forces, were made perfectly clear by the amount of destruction that took place after their unnecessary meddling. Iron Man 2 even touched on the media and how it often blatantly distorts the truth – and how easily it can change public sentiment. Other liberty-oriented themes are present in the movie, including private v. public security, competition, intellectual property and free markets.

Photo Credit: 3PH.org

In case you know nothing about Iron Man, here’s the run down: Tony Stark is the creator of the Iron Man technology and mainly, the Iron Man suit. This suit can be used as a weapon, but of course, which is the government’s argument on why they should possess ownership of such a valuable asset. Stark argues, however, that the world has been at peace for the longest time in American history since the Iron Man suit has been created, and kept privately owned, and all attempts to replicate the suit have been failures. The government continues to argue, in standard, unjustified accusations, that they could use the Iron Man technology to create a super power army to “protect the American people.” As Stark announced in the Senate hearing, “You want my property you can’t have it! But I did you a big favor – I have successfully privatized world peace!” the movie theater roared in excitement. The common man (or a billionaire master of technology) beat the government at its own game. This scene in the movie was by far the most humorous – displaying a “circus act” of government – and the crowd loved it.

Soon after his hearing in the Senate, Stark runs into a bit of trouble when a Russian man named Ivan Vanko, whose father originally helped craft the Iron Man technology along with Stark’s father. The United States v. Russia arms race representation was quite reminiscent of the Cold War era. Vanko hopes to seek revenge on Stark for taking complete credit for the invention. After Vanko makes an unsuccessful attempt at killing Stark using his own creation of a makeshift Iron Man suit, the government goes into the usual panic mode as after any crisis. Even though he is obviously a threat to American security, Vanko’s death is faked and he is taken under the wing of Justin Hammer, who is Stark’s rival and in cahoots with the government as an arms technician and supplier. The goal of removing this extremely dangerous man from jail and collaborating with his intelligence was to use him to create military drones for America – although Vanko’s personal agenda takes precedent. The government goes through all these avoidable means simply because it does not trust the “privatized peace” that Stark has instituted and the military-industrial complex must continue to thrive.

Stark’s personal life begins to take a downward spiral as he foresees his ailing health and possible death from a dilemma caused by the compatibility of his physical body and use of the Iron Man suit combined with palladium poisoning (remember, this is fiction). The media, depicted by CNN, is shown slandering Stark’s image and is shown in real time reporting on the opposite of the truth. Because of these reasons, Stark’s “friend” Lieutenant Colonel James Rhodes finds it “necessary and proper” to steal an Iron Man suit, Stark’s private property, and bring it to an Army base for personal military use and for collaboration with Hammer. Thankfully, there exists a “private security” force titled SHIELD, and the organization collaborates with Stark to protect both him and the people from the evils of Vanko, Hammer and the government. Stark finds a solution to his health ailment, regains control of himself and ends up defeating his enemies – but never regains his stolen property from Rhodes – who eventually becomes known as “War Machine,” but don’t let me get too far off topic with my embarrassingly vast knowledge of comic book characters.

So, what did Iron Man 2 prove to viewers? Government intervention results in a lot of unnecessary explosions. When striving to “protect the country,” those in power will go through “any means necessary” to achieve a sense of security, even by faking deaths, working with the enemy and stealing Iron Man suits. Mass media should often be ignored because it blows the truth out of proportion and downright lies to the public. Private security is a reliable asset while public law enforcement is less than trustworthy. While based on a work of fiction, could aspects of Iron Man 2 parallel the real world? See the movie, read up on history, seek out trustworthy news stories, and find out for yourself!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Libertarian Overtones in Iron Man 2

Smoking bans have gone into effect in many jurisdictions, mostly indoors (bars, restaurants, workplaces, casinos, even apartments and condos) but also outdoors (beaches, in front of public buildings, parks and stadiums). Under the auspices of “protecting people” the government tries to discourage individuals from smoking by levying “sin taxes” on the cigarettes they buy and prohibits smokers from lighting up in places they share with non-smokers. To dissuade people—especially young folks—from starting to smoke, the government has banned cigarette advertising from TV and radio.

Why we oppose anti-smoking legislation:

Smoking bans violate property rights. By legislating against smoking, the government initiates force. It initiates force against property owners—owners of bars, restaurants, private workplaces, apartments and condos—by prohibiting them from deciding whether to allow their employees, customers, guests and tenants to smoke. By contrast, none of these people are violating anyone’s rights because they are not initiating physical force. Smokers are not forcing anyone to endure their smoking; people are free to leave a smoky environment. No employer is forcing anyone to work in a place where many people smoke. More importantly, those who choose to work in establishments where smoking is allowed did just that—choose. There is no right to a job, and the employee freely weighed the pros and cons prior to taking the position. The government also initiates force against cigarette manufacturers and broadcasters by banning them from advertising on TV and radio even though an advertisement does not force anyone to smoke. So, the government is unjustly violating citizens’ rights by legislating against smoking.

Smoking bans violate self-ownership. The government does not have the right to protect you from doing what you want with your own body. Smoking may be unhealthy, but acknowledging and taking that risk is your choice. The government uses a gun to prevent you from harming yourself—now that is irony!

Smoking bans only further entrench the Nanny State. Anti-smoking legislation is a blatant example of the government using force to arbitrarily prevent people from doing things that the government deems harmful. Consider, for example, that the government does not prevent you from consuming alcohol, bungee jumping, becoming a fireman or a coal miner, or sky diving all activities that are potentially damaging to one’s health.

Smoking bans distort the free market. Many people realize that smoking can be a nuisance to nonsmokers. Hence, many restaurants had voluntarily become smoke-free absent of government coercion simply because of customer demand. Many workplaces had already made rules about where to smoke to address the needs of their nonsmoking employees. Many home owners ask guests not to smoke in their homes, and many smokers do not smoke in their home because they have nonsmokers living there. Many parents, even those who smoke, are perfectly willing to limit their children’s exposure to smoke if they believe it is harmful; no law is needed when a mother’s protective instinct is already operative.

Smoking bans aren’t supported by science. As for the dangers of second-hand smoke, while it is unpleasant, most studies investigating its effects looked at people who are exposed to it on a daily and prolonged basis, such as individuals who live with smokers, not people who go to bars, restaurants or are outside in the immediate vicinity of a smoker. Those studies did not always find that second-hand smoke harmed anyone.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Smoking is Healthier than Fascism

Congratulations, Daniel, on being the first Libertarian Longhorn to have contributed to Mises Daily! May it be the first of many intellectual contributions that our members make to the libertarian movement. Join me in giving him a hearty round of internet applause… [clap clap clap]

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“The Fallacy of Intellectual Property”