Henry Haller wrote: HH> all members of the Libertarian Party sign a statement saying that they do not believe in the initiation of force. Since "coercive" is by definition initiation of force, then either people who join the party are opposed to coercive taxation, or else they are confused about what they have signed. <HH
It appears you are underinformed about the origin and available interpretations of the pledge. See http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html#Pledge. HH> the attendance at the 2004 convention was the lowest of any recent convention, and so may well not even be a representative sample of the membership. <HH Indeed, conventions surely attract a more radical slice of the LP membership than the overall rank and file. HH> Harry Browne's statement still sounds to me like his ultimate goal is the elimination of all taxation. He is simply saying that until that goal can be achieved, some form of taxation may be necessary. I expect that our other Presidential candidates were saying something similar. <HH On the contrary, I've never heard Badnarik go as far as even Browne did, and Hospers, MacBride, and Clark are all now infamous among Rothbardian radicals for their heresies against zero-state anarcholibertarianism. You have failed to deny that our presidential candidates have apparently all conceded that coercive taxation will be necessary indefinitely. We all wish that taxation were not necessary and that every child had a pony, but the Platform is not a place to record mere wishes. HH> Taxation goes far beyond "restrictions on the use of property." <HH The justice system -- i.e. the system for "protection of valid rights" -- could be financed by collecting less than 1% of GDP in taxes. It's just not credible to say that a 1% tax aimed solely at rights protection "goes far beyond" what the 1972 Platform described as "restrictions upon the use of property which do not have as their sole end the protection of valid rights." Do you consider taxes on negative externalities -- e.g. pollution taxes -- to be theft? What about a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax? We could sidestep this whole issue if we all subscribed to geolibertarianism, but unfortunately its axioms don't fit on a bumper sticker. HH> Taxation is included in the term "confiscation." <HH Saying taxation is a form of confiscation is like saying assault is a form of murder, in that only 100% taxation qualifies as actually confiscating the object of the tax. Would you claim that "taxation is theft" is not merely an axiological truth, but a lexicographic one as well? If so, please point me to a single native speaker of English who could possibly fall for this sleight of hand. Bob Capozzi writes <http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/001783.php> : BC> in the state of nature, there is no "property." [... the institution of property has been established by governments. [...] Without this mechanism, we are in a state of nature, where "property" doesn't exist. <BC Very few libertarians will be convinced by an argument that property rights are created ex nihilo by governments -- a thesis that contradicts the Declaration of Independence. A better argument is to point out that the definition of "theft" consists not merely of the taking of property without the consent of the owner. Instead, the definition includes value-laded terms like "rightful owner", "wrongfully", or "without right". Thus certain forms of taxation simply do not meet the lexicographic definition of "theft" for a minarchist like me who considers the need for property rights to be no more fundamental than the need for a reliably-financed framework for protecting those property rights. Alas, such an analysis cannot fit on a bumper sticker, and so will never satisfy those who require that their political philosophy be no more complex than my three-year-old's favorite catch-phrase from Dora The Explorer: "swiper, no <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiper#Swiper> swiping!".
