Why Re-Distributive Taxation is Justified in Libertarianism
It is a common in arguments made by Libertarians to find immoral the taxation of a State’s citizens for the purpose of redistribution. I, personally, consider myself a strong, though potentially modified, Libertarian. I think that ensuring personal liberty is one of the most important roles of government. Given that, one might conclude that I support the Libertarian point of view, that re-distributive taxation is inherently wrong.
In truth, it is my belief that taxation in any form is highly desirable. I believe that the State is in a much better position to know which responsibilities are best for the population as a whole, that it can overcome the short-sighted tendencies of the common man, and that it has more power to increase personal liberty than any organization in any particular society. How can I justify this?
In <citation needed>, <the guy I’m talking about> states, in my opinion, logically correctly, that, in affect, taxation is slavery. I would disagree in only one minor way. Taxation, unless at 100%, would only be partial slavery. If the State taxes at the rate of 33%, that person would only be 1/3 slave. In all likelihood, that third is too much for most, so how can even partial enslavement of the citizens of a nation be justified?
My reading of Libertarianism is that the goal is to have all persons able to control all aspects of their lives. If that is, in fact, the goal, then taxation to redistribute to those with less is a primary moral obligation of the Libertarian. Are Libertarians so devoted to personal liberty that they cannot think of those who are enslaved, not by the State, but by the free market, doomed to nothing existences for the sake of corporate big-wigs to have their personal liberty?
I say to my reader that a true Libertarianist would want personal liberty for all, not just themselves. If that is true, then it follows that a Libertarian would want the State to provide that Liberty to as many of its citizens as possible. The way the State would do this is to tax the wealthy to provide for the poor.
In effect, I’m saying, “It is ok to partially enslave some of the population in order to provide liberty to those who cannot provide it for themselves.”
I foresee a ton or disagreements. I will start with the most prevalent I have heard. It is that providing for the disadvantaged’s personal liberty is in the purview of charity. The difficulty of this argument many-fold. First, one is potentially removing the personal liberty of the poor person by the edicts many charitable organizations indoctrinate upon receiving aid. While homeless, I experienced this first hand. In order to receive food from a local church, I had to sit through a prayer offer by the church. I am not a Christian, so this was a direct affront to my personal liberty.
Second, it might be argued that a charitable organization could be required to not infringe of personal liberty. It is still in the purview of charitable giving that the unfortunate should be provided for. The problem with this argument is that I don’t think charities could provide for the poor if this were codified. Perhaps Joe, rich person number one, decided not to give. It would be his right. Margret, rich person number two, sees that Joe isn’t giving, so decides not to give herself. This would continue until the only who are giving are those who feel kindly towards their fellow humans. How many rich people fit into this category? If all who can afford it are compelled to give, the burden (enslavement) would be lesser for the many, and the disadvantaged would be freed to the maximum extent the State could provide.
A third argument that could be made against my justification for re-distributive taxation would be that there is no explicit requirement that one must provide for another’s liberty. I cannot, straight out, say this is wrong. If one is greedy and selfish, a tax to help others would be hated. But I don’t believe most humans are in this vain. Most, if the question is whether a small amount of slavery is worth greater liberty for more people, I believe, would say, “Yes.” To think that the individual would be so narcissistic as to think that only their own personal liberty mattered, that person would find their personal liberty infringed upon by all the moral people in this world who consider that hog wash. It is true at face value that giving what one considers the greatest right to another is a good thing, though it is important to reiterate that I cannot say that it is universally true that all persons would agree with my prima facie proof, only those with some moral center.
A fourth argument against my view would be that the poor are exercising the Libertarian rights by not working. If the poor were only those who did not work, then this might be a valid argument. Consider, however, the crazy person who cannot hold a job. Consider the artist, who creates beautiful things but has yet to find a buyers. Consider the poor dad, who works at McDonald’s to try to support his daughter because that was the only work he could find. Are these truly people who the Libertarian would say are truly free? Most poor people I have met don’t want to be poor. Most are not lazy. Most have been dealt a bad hand by society, or have experienced bad luck, or have made horrible decisions. Many poor are dumb. Many more are not mentally stable, but who can say that dumb crazy Joan is not entitled to liberty simply because she is dumb and stupid? There are dumb crazy rich people. Why are they entitled to liberty when the poor person is not?
The final argument I will cover in this composition is one of utopia. In a truly Libertarian society, at birth a state of true Tabula Rasa would exist. No individual would have greater wealth or privilege or opportunity and thus there would be no reason to redistribute wealth. Those who were talented or tenacious or lucky would raise and those who were not would fall. There is no reason to redistribute wealth because the cream always comes to the top of the glass of milk. The problem with the argument is that this simply is not the state of affairs in today’s world. If the world were fair, there would be no need to redistribute wealth though taxation, but we don’t currently live in the world. This argument holds no sway on May 28, 2013, because it is simply not fact.
A Great Society where the best get rich and the worst swelter in financial obscurity is the utopia we should aim for. This is a world where anyone can truly pull themselves up by their boot straps. This is a society where one’s own choices create themselves, where society stays out of people’s lives in all but extreme cases. This is not the society in which we live, and, unless or until we can achieve that State, a true moral Libertarian should not disparage taxation to help out those who have been provided with an unequal footing. Instead, they should embrace reasonable tax so that they might live in a world more perfect, with greater freedom, and with a sense of profound gratification that taxation is right.