# Taxation is no different than extortion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704 "2013-05-07T15:08:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/402 "2013-05-22T01:26:16Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > And if they lose? What if the U.S. lost the Whiskey Rebellion? I don’t know what you’re getting at here, that voluntary defense forces don’t count as a system to deal with bad people, or if they’re just an ineffective system that’s doomed to fail. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/403 "2013-05-22T01:35:18Z")
That’s the heart of why I put no stock in the video you linked to. If you conclude that volunteer self-defense forces would be inadequate to maintaining order in the face of organized, evil people, fine, that could be. But the video’s explicit approach, and seemingly yours as well, was to posit that this problem _had never occurred_ to any anarchist libertarians, so they must not have _any ideas_ on how to deal with it. That’s just silly. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/404 "2013-05-22T01:57:58Z")
Well, I’m certain there are people who have not come across those concepts before. I’m sure they were once foreign to you as well. Actually, I didn’t know what the reversal to that would be since I don’t see things from that point of view. So, I was simply looking for some clarity. What I am getting at is that it is better to have democracy across all the world. So that we all have a vote and a say, and we don’t have to leave it to fighting. In this way, the good people will outnumber the bad in a peaceful manner. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/405 "2013-05-22T02:06:42Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > Well, I’m certain there are people who have not come across those concepts before. I’m sure they were once foreign to you as well. Actually, I didn’t know what the reversal to that would be since I don’t see things from that point of view. So, I was simply looking for some clarity. That’s fine, I was just explaining why I thought it was a fairly weak argument against anarchist libertarianism. > [@panaccione](#): > > What I am getting at is that it is better to have democracy across all the world. So that we all have a vote and a say, and we don’t have to leave it to fighting. In this way, the good people will outnumber the bad in a peaceful manner. Ultimately, though, we do have to leave it to fighting. Force is the foundation of every system, it is the source of all power. When your democracy is challenged, fighting will be the result. When an anarchist society is challenged, fighting will be the result. I agree that a government monopoly on lawful force is more conducive to peace than one maintained by a wide array of private firms, but that doesn’t mean the private firms wouldn’t work, I just don’t think they would work as well. ETA: And note that democracy isn’t without its flaws or dangers either. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/406 "2013-05-22T02:18:55Z")
I’ve never thought of it that way, but I do see what you are saying about force. So why do Libertarians clutch onto their non-aggression principle so tightly? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/407 "2013-05-22T02:21:28Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > I’ve never thought of it that way, but I do see what you are saying about force. So why do Libertarians clutch onto their non-aggression principle so tightly? I have never heard of a Libertarian “non-aggression” principle. Do you maybe mean non-initiation of force? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/408 "2013-05-22T02:24:29Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’ll let you reassess this sentence. Huh? If you disagree, say so. > [@](#): > > Doves are defenseless against hawks. Largely, yes. Not entirely, and, by virtue of cooperation, enclaves of Doves have a competitive advantage over Hawks, who (in the model) don’t cooperate well. To a certain degree this is how Jews survived for so long in places that were bitterly hostile to them. > [@](#): > > Moral people are not defenseless against immoral people. There’s your difference. You made a false analogy. No, you made a mistake: I never said that moral people were defenseless. I said (and stand by it) that in a community dominated by immoral people, moral people will have certain (limited) advantages, and that in a community dominated by moral people, immoral people will have certain advantages. Classic game theory. > [@](#): > > The concept of a voluntary society is not a utopia. What characteristics of the concept of a voluntary society make it utopian to you? I believe such a society would not be stable; it would be susceptible to undermining from a small subpopulation of rotters and stinkers. I also do not see any meaningful pathway to get to such a society from here. In contrast, I see lots of pathways to local improvements of the general basic model of representative government possessing real power of enforcement. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/409 "2013-05-22T02:24:43Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > 13 minutes is not very long. I don’t know why people have an issue with that. I actually like when people post interesting videos relevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, the video does a much better job at explaining the concept than I can. > > But, ill give it a shot. It’s basically saying that “bad” people will always exist, and you can’t expect them to follow the non-aggression principle. Without government, these people would rise up, form gangs, and basically run shit. It sort of shows how that basically progressed to the system we have today consisting of nation-states and their armies. Slightly off topic, I know. But, I consider it relevant when you take into account the purposes for taxes as social services. > > Happy? I’m aware that bad people will exist. That’s why I have mentioned private protection services. Does the video address why the state must have a monopoly over protection services? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/410 "2013-05-22T02:27:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I2. Anarchist libertarianism has such a method: voluntary associations of mutual defense, or voluntary contracts with others to defend you. This is a fairly simple concept with historical precedent, such as militias. I have no doubt that in the face of roving bandits, like-minded people would gather together to defend themselves. Wait–what? You can point to historical militias that were purely voluntary? As in, “come on down to fight off the bad guys if you want, but if you don’t, no biggie”? With no support from compulsory taxation, either formal (income tax, e.g.) or informal (looting and pillaging)? I’d love to see the evidence of this. > [@](#): > > 1. There are bad people ready and willing to exploit all human systems, and yet many of them function all the same. Yes. The argument against anarchism and libertarianism in this regard isn’t that they are uniquely subject to infiltration or subjugation by bad guys. It’s that they’re especially weak at resisting such infiltration or subjugation. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/411 "2013-05-22T02:29:36Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > I’ve never thought of it that way, but I do see what you are saying about force. So why do Libertarians clutch onto their non-aggression principle so tightly? This is, of course, highly general (I’m a libertarian, though not of the same type as the OP): because they believe that individual freedom is the highest political end, meaning that the best political system is one that protects individual freedom, both from itself and from other individuals, above all other concerns. Aggression, defined as attempting to deprive someone else of their life or property, is a violation of that freedom. Given that protecting freedom is the highest aim, preventing or at least managing aggression is a key part of the philosophy. That can mean a small government that’s still strong enough to protect your freedoms from other people, or not state and various voluntary arrangements to see to that protection. It’s not much different from most people’s moral stances (you can only harm others in self-defense), really, at core. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/412 "2013-05-22T02:32:12Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’m aware that bad people will exist. That’s why I have mentioned private protection services. Does the video address why the state must have a monopoly over protection services? No. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/413 "2013-05-22T02:34:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I have never heard of a Libertarian “non-aggression” principle. Do you maybe mean non-initiation of force? Yeah, pretty much. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/414 "2013-05-22T02:36:57Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Aggression, defined as attempting to deprive someone else of their life or property, is a violation of that freedom. > … > It’s not much different from most people’s moral stances (you can only harm others in self-defense), really, at core. Well, libertarianism privileges private property a lot more than most folks’ moral stances do. The stealing-medicine-to-treat-a-sick-child scenario has one answer for libertarians and a very different answer for most other folks. That same dynamic applies to a lot of other real-world scenarios, such as public education, public health care, and, yes, taxation. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/415 "2013-05-22T02:39:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I have never heard of a Libertarian “non-aggression” principle. Do you maybe mean non-initiation of force? Same thing, it has [several names.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Wait–what? You can point to historical militias that were purely voluntary? As in, “come on down to fight off the bad guys if you want, but if you don’t, no biggie”? With no support from compulsory taxation, either formal (income tax, e.g.) or informal (looting and pillaging)? I’d love to see the evidence of this. I can point to historical militias that were wholly independent of the state, which is what I was trying to illustrate: non-state, emergent methods of fighting off brigands when the need arose, that were largely voluntary. As to _purely_ voluntary, meaning that you didn’t have to go fight but still got your home protected, I can do a bit of research, but again, that’s not exactly what I meant. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Yes. The argument against anarchism and libertarianism in this regard isn’t that they are uniquely subject to infiltration or subjugation by bad guys. It’s that they’re especially weak at resisting such infiltration or subjugation. Certainly not uniquely so; look at Communism. “Infiltration by bad guys” is its whole miserable history, the bad guys just came from within the society instead of conquering it from without. I would also posit that minarchist libertarianism isn’t especially vulnerable to subjugation or infiltration. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/416 "2013-05-22T02:42:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Well, libertarianism privileges private property a lot more than most folks’ moral stances do. The stealing-medicine-to-treat-a-sick-child scenario has one answer for libertarians and a very different answer for most other folks. That same dynamic applies to a lot of other real-world scenarios, such as public education, public health care, and, yes, taxation. It’s not identical, no, but there is major overlap, especially when it comes to physical attacks rather than property crimes. Hence, “not much different”. Compare to, say, colonialist morality, which was fine with physical harm being done to lesser peoples. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/417 "2013-05-22T02:44:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I can point to historical militias that were wholly independent of the state, which is what I was trying to illustrate: non-state, emergent methods of fighting off brigands when the need arose, that were largely voluntary. > > As to _purely_ voluntary, meaning that you didn’t have to go fight but still got your home protected, I can do a bit of research, but again, that’s not exactly what I meant. At the point where they’re not voluntary, though, they seem functionally equivalent to a state to me. > [@](#): > > Certainly not uniquely so; look at Communism. “Infiltration by bad guys” is its whole miserable history, the bad guys just came from within the society instead of conquering it from without. > > I would also posit that minarchist libertarianism isn’t especially vulnerable to subjugation or infiltration. Well, if you’re happy putting libertarianism on the same footing as communism, I won’t stop you :). Seriously, though, I agree that they both suffer from the same sort of utopian failures: they’re systems that work a whole lot better if your citizens are a whole lot better. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/418 "2013-05-22T02:51:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > At the point where they’re not voluntary, though, they seem functionally equivalent to a state to me. There’s no bright-line difference between state and de facto state, correct. Whoever has the guns and the numbers gets to be the de facto state. Which gets back to my rejection of anarchist libertarianism. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Well, if you’re happy putting libertarianism on the same footing as communism, I won’t stop you :). Seriously, though, I agree that they both suffer from the same sort of utopian failures: they’re systems that work a whole lot better if your citizens are a whole lot better. There was a time when democracy was sneered at as “mob rule”, and the notion of every adult getting an equal say in how the nation was run was unthinkable. Now, running our nation any other way is unthinkable. Did the citizens change for the better in the interim? Perhaps, perhaps not. I don’t think it’s out of the question that a stable, free, prosperous libertarian nation could emerge over the next century or so, but if we started it all tomorrow, it would be a disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/419 "2013-05-22T02:59:55Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Do you own yourself? Well then you own the product of your labor. I do own myself! Sweet, I own whatever the fuck I do! It is work breaking windows, entering homes, and carrying TVs. That shit is heavy! ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/420 "2013-05-22T03:06:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Huh? If you disagree, say so. I do. As I’ve demonstrated, government merely applies the veneer of legitimacy to otherwise immoral acts. > [@](#): > > Largely, yes. Not entirely, and, by virtue of cooperation, enclaves of Doves have a competitive advantage over Hawks, who (in the model) don’t cooperate well. To a certain degree this is how Jews survived for so long in places that were bitterly hostile to them. Ok doves would be free to form enclaves in a stateless society. > [@](#): > > No, you made a mistake: I never said that moral people were defenseless. I said (and stand by it) that in a community dominated by immoral people, moral people will have certain (limited) advantages, and that in a community dominated by moral people, immoral people will have certain advantages. Classic game theory. These same advantages exist in a government controlled society. What about our society today makes it superior at curtailing any advantage immoral people have in our mostly moral society? > [@](#): > > I believe such a society would not be stable; it would be susceptible to undermining from a small subpopulation of rotters and stinkers. Again you must show why a stateless society would be worse at curtailing evildoers. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/421 "2013-05-22T03:58:28Z")
There’s a lot of talk about how an anarchist society is vulnerable to some sort of infiltration by bad guys. Is it too much to ask for some specific examples of how a stateless society could be undermined in a way a democratic republic could not? For example, I see a democratic republic vulnerable to executive overreach. An executive could, oh I don’t know, have dissenters incarcerated. This has happened many times in history as far as I can tell, even if I’m not as up on my history as others would like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704.md?page=22)