"Brian Holtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5) Here in California, my monitoring of all the major libertarian > LPC-related electronic forums over the last 4+ years suggests that > zero-taxation radicals are not a majority.
An opposition to taxation is not the same as an opposition to government revenue. First, voluntary user fees can finance many government services, such as tuition for education. Secondly, we should distinguish between taxation in substance from taxation in form. A tax in substance is an arbitrary levy, such as taxes on income and sales, unrelated to any specific benefits or penalties. A tax in form is a payment to government that is in substance a payment for a service, benefit, or penalty. For example, taxes on pollution are in substance compensation to society for the damaged cause. Whether you consider this a penalty payment or a fee, libertarians can support a "pollution tax" because it is justified as restitution. But libertarians should not support taxes in substance that are merely an exercise in coercion. Government can get sufficient revenue from fees and taxes that pay for benefits, so there is no moral justification for taxes in substance. Fred Foldvary
