The first and most fundamental of a Libertarian's arguments against federal aid (and other government programs, excluding military functions for the purpose of this discussion) is that taxing is essentially stealing, therefore federal aid or wealth redistribution is wrong because you're just taking money from one person and giving it to another.

But what about people who actually want to support the government and its programs? When you argue that taxing is always stealing, and you act on that argument by supporting politicians who want to get rid of all taxes and government programs, are you not potentially taking away another person's freedom to choose to pay the government to help people and help themselves?

Why not simply make citizenship voluntary, then the government will only support its remaining constituents? Allow the "public" and "private" sectors to truly compete, then people will finally and truly have a choice in which system they want to be a part of.

The libertarian objection to federal aid or wealth distribution isn't the "from one person to another" part, it's the taking part of it that's objectionable.

Nothing stops anyone from giving more than their required amount on their taxes, so essentially what you're suggesting is already in place (not that many people, including the people pushing progressive taxation, ever really use it).  There's even a space on all tax forms for additional contributions.

The problem with making ALL taxes voluntary is that there are some government functions that everyone benefits from, and part of being a citizen is contributing to it -- roads and bridges, law enforcement, the court system, military and national defense.  Even if someone decided they didn't want to pay, they'd still reap the benefit of these services by living in the country.  Of course there's also a way to opt-out of all U.S. tax liability, and that's to not be live in the U.S.

GreyWolf, to address your point, U.S. charitable contributions topped $306 billion in 2007 in spite of economic concerns and on top of the taxes already being paid (Source).  Are you saying that lower taxes, meaning more money retained by individuals, wouldn't result in even more (and vice versa)?  Private citizens in the U.S. give FAR more than any other out there (Source), but it's still given based on one's means.  More means = more charity; Less means = less charity.

Hmm, here's the direct link to the first source: http://www.givingusa.org/press_releases/releases/20080622.html

As to whether contributions would be as high without the tax breaks, I never said we should take them away.  Now, if we reduced the size of government to only cover legitimate functions that can't be effectively done by private industry, I wouldn't think the tax breaks would be necessary, since tax liability itself would be sooo much lower.

As to comparing per capita donations, orly?

Well, if you made taxes entirely optional, then anything people did contribute would be the equivalent to an "additional contribution" in our current lexicon, but I get your point.


The problem with these scenarios has to do with an economic concept called the "free rider problem."  Basically, the funds required for the creation and maintenance of the services outweighing the relative frequency of their use.  You may only need law enforcement a handful of times in your life, but you benefit from their presence ALL the time.  Same thing with the court system.  You enter contractual agreements all the time, whether obvious ones like renting an apartment or less obvious ones like buying groceries, but they're all contracts in the eyes of the law and you have remedies available if the other party doesn't do their part.  You receive the benefit of the legal system's backing even if you never have to go to court your whole life. 

The only way to resolve the problem in a non-governmental fashion would be to raise the cost of the service to a level that could sustain it given the amount it's used, supply and demand and all that.  That would make going to court prohibitively expensive and cause all kinds of social breakdown.  If I know you're down on your luck or didn't pay your "law enforcement bill," can I break into your house and rob you blind?  Can I kill you?!

THESE are the kinds of functions that government is legitimately needed for, the real concept behind the "good of society."  All these other government programs that private industry can do much better -- education, health care, the postal system -- are there because some people believe they know better what to do with your money than you do, and see no moral problem with getting the government to violate your rights to do it, especially if they have already determined in their infinite wisdom that you don't need all that money you have.  (Interestingly enough, however, ask them if the government should be able to stop you from smoking pot or decide what goes on in a gentlemen's club, and many of them tend to sing a different tune)

Is there an ism for being anti-ism?

Well, that's another part of it -- the Constitution itself demands establishing a court system among other things, in addition to authorizing levying taxes to pay for them.  Not only is there the prohibitive cost that would be involved in a pay-as-you-go system, but right now criminal law enforcement doesn't require you, as someone needing their services, to pay ANYTHING.  And like I said, you benefit from them whether you actually go to court or call 911, so why should you be allowed to "free ride" off the unlucky few that do?


GODDAMN IT you beat me to it, it's exactly what I was going to suggest (but of course, it's an -ism too)

Let's address the tax issue again real quick:

After the Articles of Confederation, the "government" realized that 1) there was no way for the government to actually make any money other than forcing people to give, and 2) that there was no actual way to force people to give.

My point is, taxation is the ONLY way our government makes money. To say that it is merely a redistribution of wealth is to deny the fact that it is only INDIRECTLY a redistribution; we're not taking money from the upper 10% and directly (*DIRECTLY*) handing it to the bottom 1%. Sure they get some liquid cash, but that's after thousands of regulatory agencies (of an admittedly broken system) get there hands on or around it first. And then after that it's mostly distribution to public services that a vast majority of the public benefit (or have the option of benefitting) from.

By saying that I disagree with taxation, this is to say that I disagree that my government should have any income, and therefore that I really don't think I should have a government. That's a pretty stupid line of thought.

But doesn't Nihilism go against any kind of belief?

Curious though.  If some of these well-off individuals are so in favor of income redistribution, why don't they just bypass the government and redistribute their own wealth themselves?

For instance, why isn't Obama writing checks and just mailing them or giving them to needy families directly?