But enough of the lovefest with Facebook. As a result of one such discussion I’ve thought of some analogies for taxation and theft and would appreciate your comments on them and any other analogies you care to add.

In introducing these analogies, I must point out that the key similarity between taxation and theft is the involuntary nature of it. From there, the argument becomes one of whether taxation is voluntary or not. This is the only productive argument one can have in casual circumstances. To argue whether taxation is beneficial or not is generally not productive except for scholars who are doing hardcore research. Leave it to them to make that argument. For you, the only point you want to make is that taxes, if involuntary, are a crime.

As another precondition of this debate, you and the person you are discussing the matter with must agree that the use of force by humans, except in self-defense, is immoral. If your discussion “opponent” believes there is nothing wrong with one person forcing another to do something, then the entire discussion is a non-starter.

Now, onto the analogies.

1. Slavery. I’ve found that with people who not inclined to be open-minded but are merely arguing to be right that any mention of slavery is non-productive. Of course if they’re not open-minded then what would be productive? Good question. But because slavery is such an inflammatory subject it is probably better to avoid it wherever possible so as to not distract from the real point you are trying to make. That said, let us assume the people you are talking with are completely rational and merely look at whether or not an analogy makes sense, as opposed to the potentially emotionally charged nature of it, and let’s explore the analogy.

Taxation is like slavery in that in both situations one does not fully receive the fruits of their labors. Granted, in the case of black slavery in the United States, slavery was also sometimes accompanied by rape, murder, torture. But technically speaking, slavery is wherein Person A forced Person B to perform certain actions, and the beneficial results of those actions become the property of Person A, and all that is returned to Person B is what Person A chooses to give to Person B, if anything. In the case of slavery the benefits are effectively “taxed” at the rate of 100%. In the United States of 2012 that rate might be 0%, or it might go as high as 50%. There are times when it went as high as 90% on certain individuals.

The other factor in slavery is the matter of physical imprisonment of the person. Slaves cannot merely leave the farm, so to speak.

The technical difference between pure slavery in general (as opposed to any specific instance of slavery and the crimes that typically accompany it) and taxation is one of degree. That degree is quite large, but it is not large enough to say that one bears no resemblance to the other. 100% vs. 50% is not a large difference. If the largest tax anyone in the United States had to pay were 1%, then that would be more of a stretch, although the analogy would still be valid on technical grounds, excepting for degree.

With regards to the physical imprisonment of the person, the difference is also one of degree. Yes, slaves are imprisoned and cannot leave the “system”, but it is virtually impossible for most taxpayers to leave the system they are part of, if only because of mental barriers. For most US citizens, to tell them if they don’t like taxes they should just leave the country is to request of them something nearly as impossible to them as if you told a slave they should just leave their master’s property and go live somewhere else. I would agree the real difference is quite a large one, but the mental barrier is something to be considered.

Again, this analogy is rarely productive, so I would use it sparingly, if at all. In other words this is usually not a useful analogy, but worth bringing up so as to avoid it, or only use it selectively. But it is probably better to just avoid it altogether, because the following analogies are much more effective, and less emotionally charged.

2. The Mafia. The stereotypical mafia operation employs the “protection racket”. “Trust me, this is for your own good. You pay us an insurance fee, and we make sure nothing bad happens to you…” What’s the underlying message? Don’t pay us, and we’ll break your knees and take your stuff. How is the government message to taxpayers different? Mostly in degree and specifics, although not always. If one does not pay their taxes there is the threat of violence. If you resist sufficiently to protect your property, to the point of armed resistance, the government reserves the right to kill you and say that you are the criminal, not them.

Many would scoff at such an analogy, but why? Is it because the mafia is admittedly full of criminals and the government is full of good people who only want to help? Even if I believe the latter part of that sentence, and even if it were true, the results are similar. An organization that uses force to take your property, even ostensibly for your own good, is still using force to take your property, and if that’s not your definition of theft, what is?

3. The provocatively dressed rape victim. “If she doesn’t want to get raped she shouldn’t dress like that.” some insensitive cad might say. But would that same bloke ever make the claim that a woman who was raped while provocatively dressed, and perhaps in a bad neighborhood known to be occupied by rapists, and perhaps even after she was made known of the peril of entering into such a neighborhood, was not raped at all, but that she was merely engaging in consensual sex?

And yet this is the more or less the argument those make when they say “If you don’t like it here then you can leave.” Yes, I can leave the country and renounce my citizenship if I don’t want to pay taxes, but does this make any difference as to whether taxation is theft? You could make the case that if a woman does not want to be raped she should avoid dressing provocatively and going into bad neighborhoods, but this does not minimize the crime that is committed when she is raped.

4. The house in the bad neighborhood. Similarly to the last analogy, is the idea that if someone elects to live in a bad neighborhood where burglaries are known to occur, then it’s their own fault. Imagine I move into a bad neighborhood. I have been warned that if I move there, my house will get robbed. I have no reason to doubt this. It happens to everyone in this neighborhood all the time. Perhaps it happens every two weeks on the dot. I do not have any reason why I have to live in this neighborhood. I have the means to live in a neighborhood where there is no crime. But for whatever reason I still choose to live in this neighborhood. And then, two weeks after I move there, my house is robbed. Am I the victim of a crime? Who would argue that I am not? Sure, I might be a fool. I may have made an unwise choice. You could even say it’s my fault. But you would not claim that no crime was committed, nor that if we had to means to prevent such crime we should not employ it.

And yet when the “taxation is theft” argument is broached, this is the logic many use. “It’s your own fault, if you don’t like being taxed than leave the country.” How is this different than saying “If you don’t like being robbed, move out of that neighborhood.”? And perhaps you would say that to a friend, but you would never claim the robbery was not a crime. If your friend said “I’m living in the neighborhood because I’m planning on doing things to clean up the place and I have a plan to eventually stop the robberies from taking place and the whole neighborhood is going to be awesome when I’m done,” you might call him crazy, but you still wouldn’t deny that a crime ever took place.

So is taxation a crime or not? If one agrees that it is a crime for Person A to force Person B to give up their property when Person B has done no wrong, then I do not see how one can avoid reaching that conclusion. It is only by making the case that Person B has effectively entered into a voluntary contract to give up their property that one can make that case. And yet the analogies above show that in other situations with similar circumstances the logic does not fly. At least I don’t see how it can. If you feel differently, let me know.

I’ve found that with any discussion regarding anarchy, it is helpful to define what the term means for the purposes of the discussion, otherwise we get bogged down in matter of semantics rather than substance.

The word “anarchy” comes from the Greeks. “An” means without (as in “not having”, not “outside”), “arch” means something that is over, above, or ruling, and therefore an-arch-y is literally “without rulership”. It comes from a period in Greek history when the society went for approximately 10 years without anyone in charge of the Greek government. The first definition given to us by a modern dictionary is “a state of society without government or law.” However, most people seem to associate the word anarchy with chaos, terror, molotov cocktails, and death. None of this is how I define anarchy. For my definition, I turn to libertarian scholar and anarcho-capitalist Murray N. Rothbard:

In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” – that is, an anarchist society – might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism.

This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.

– Murray N. Rothbard, from a speech given to the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974

To summarize, anarchy, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is the absence of an official “State”, that State being defined as an organization having the dual powers to; 1) collect taxes, and 2) to enforce a coercive monopoly on defense services for a certain territorial area.

It is worth mentioning that this definition of anarchy does not mean there is no law, nor that there is no government. With anarchy there can be ample laws and ample government to enforce those laws, even though there is no State to enforce it. How can this be? A simple example will suffice for now.

If you and I come to a business arrangement and write a contract then we have created a law. If one of us breaks this law, then the other may enforce it as stipulated per the terms of the agreement. Hypothetically this enforcement might even include the death penalty. Thus laws can exist, and even the ultimate punishment for breaking those laws can exist, without the existence of any State. Could problems arise from a society based entirely upon this mode of administration? Most certainly. No anarchist has ever credibly made the claim that anarchy leads to a perfect, utopian society where all live in complete harmony. It is merely looked on by many anarchists as the only moral form of society, regardless of the results, although most anarchists do seem to believe it would also lead to better results.

This last point could be debated ad nauseum but is not the main point of this post, so if you disagree on this point only and no other, let’s leave the debate for another time and place unless you feel the debate to be germaine to the larger question.

At this point you probably have not been convinced to become an anarchist yourself, but for the sake of the argument let us assume you are. And let us assume you, like me, am a Mormon. Consider then, this excerpt from the Doctrine & Covenants, a book considered as divine scripture by members of the LDS Church, otherwise known as Mormons:

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. D&C 134:1

Let us add to this the official LDS Church Articles of Faith which state “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” And finally we will also include this statement by Elder Erastus Snow, a high-ranking officer in the LDS Church:

Anarchy—shall I say, is the worst of all governments? No: Anarchy is the absence of all government; it is the antipodes [opposite] of order; it is the acme of confusion; it is the result of unbridled license, the antipodes of true liberty. The Apostle Paul says truly: “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” At first this is a startling statement. Even the monopoly of the one-man-power as in Russia [the Czar], or the monopoly of the aristocracy as in other parts of Europe, or the imbecility and sometimes stupidity of a republic like our own, is far better than no government at all. And for this reason, says the Apostle Paul, “The powers are ordained of God,” not that they are always the best forms of government for the people, or that they afford liberty and freedom to mankind but that any and all forms of government are better than none at all, having a tendency as they do to restrain the passions of human nature and to curb them, and to establish and maintain order to a greater or less degree. One monopoly is better than many; and the oppression of a king is tolerable, but the oppression of a mob, where every man is a law to himself and his own right arm, is his power to enforce his own will, is the worst form of government. (In Journal of Discourses, 22:151.)

Taken together, D&C 134, the 12th Article of Faith, and this quote would seem to completely obliterate any chance that a good Mormon could also be an anarchist. There are a few problems with this conclusion, however.

First, regarding Section 134 of D&C, this “scripture” was not revelation given to any prophet, as an excerpt from the official LDS Church Doctrine & Covenants Institute Manual points out:

A general assembly of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was held at Kirtland, Ohio, on 17 August 1835 to formally accept the collection of revelations to be published as the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. After the priesthood quorums and then the congregation unanimously accepted the revelations, “Elder William W. Phelps arose and read an article prepared by Oliver Cowdery, on marriage. This was on vote ordered to be published also in the volume with the revelations. Then President Oliver Cowdery arose and read an article, ‘Of Governments and Laws in General,’ and this likewise was ordered by vote to be published with the book of revelations. Neither of these articles was a revelation to the Church.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:30.)

Then, with regards to the 12th Article of Faith we just ask whether or not we believe in being subject to some kings, some rulers, and some laws, or to all of them. Inasmuch as there are bad kings, bad rulers, and bad laws, it does not seem that a good Mormon must be obedient to all of them. The governments of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao and the laws they passed come to mind. And if we are not required to be obedient to all of them, then to which?

Finally, with regards to Elder Snow’s statement, we are not even talking about the same thing when he and I use the word “anarchy” since as I stated above my definition does not preclude government and law.

But is there divine sanction or approval, of any sort or on any level, for the State as I have defined it? It would still appear so. In the Bible we see the existence of a State established more or less by God, with kings such as Saul, David, and Solomon chosen directly by God to rule. The US Constitution, which creates a State, as well appears to bear the mark of divine approval:

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

– D&C 98:5-6

To add to this, another Church leader has stated:

One of the most important things that we can do for the Church is to stand behind the Constitution of the United States. That does not mean, and no reasoning person would suppose that it meant, that that Constitution may not from time to time be changed as the needs of the people would seem to require. But it does mean that that Constitution should be changed only under the urge of great necessity, and then only in accordance with its great underlying concepts. It does mean that the great fundamental elements of the Constitution are God-given, for he said so. It does mean to me as an individual that the Constitution of the United States and my adherence to it and support of it is a part of my religion. – President J. Reuben Clark Jr., General Conference, April 1935

So let us take the conservative route and assume that Section 98, Section 134, the 12th Article of Faith, the quote from Elder Snow, those sections of the Bible dealing with kings, and any and all other such statements be taken to mean that yes, God approves of the State, at least in some instances. Does that leave no room for anarchy?

This is the conundrum I have struggled with. There are two extremes of government I can accept as being moral, the first being anarchy, and the second being a valid theocracy. From a purely rational and logical point of view I have trouble justifying anything but 100% voluntary self-rule as a moral form of government. On the opposite side of things, when God enters the picture everything changes. If our rights are God-given, as I believe they are, then men do not have inherent rights but rather only those rights and privileges that are temporarily granted unto men while in this their earthly state. Those “rights” are not to be violated by other men except where approved by God, but God himself cannot violate those rights, since He owns those rights. Therefore while it is wrong for one man to decide how and when another man dies, it is not wrong for God to make this decision. Indeed He makes this decision for each and every human being. And if God commands one man to kill another, or take by force the property of another, then that man does nothing wrong in performing those acts since he is only carrying out that which God has commanded. Thus, while still appearing gruesome, the acts of the Israelites in destroying entire cities including men, women, and children were not sinful. Of course if a man claims to be acting for God as he kills, but in fact does not have divine sanction, that’s quite another matter. I can dwell comfortably with either of these extremes, it’s the in-between area that has confused me in the past.

If the Constitution is inspired of God, it does not appear to follow that everything done by the State which was created by that Constitution has divine approval. I do not think it necessary to dispute this point. If anyone believes every single action of every single President of the United States has been 100% God’s will then…I wish you well. But if the Constitution, nor the US government, are 100% to God’s liking, then where does that leave us Mormons when it comes to obeying, upholding, and sustaining the law?

Perhaps the Bible can show us the way. As mentioned above, God established kings in the days of Samuel the prophet. But He didn’t do so with full enthusiasm. In fact it is quite obvious from reading the book of Samuel that God would have preferred that His people be ruled by a prophet, rather than by a king. I think it is worth quoting the relevant scripture in its entirely. From Samuel, Chapter 1:

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.

22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

What I find of interest in this verses is that while God sanctioned a king, it was clearly not the best form of government. It would seem correct to me to state, based on these verses, that one could support the divinely-chosen king, and yet still be in favor of government by a prophet. Would God have considered it traitorous for people to have gone about in the days of David, saying that the people should shape up and go back to having a prophet and not a king? It would seem that is what God himself would have liked.

Then, can we at least consider that perhaps anarchy is a higher form of government than that created by the US Constitution, and that one can support the Constitution while simultaneously working toward anarchy? Is this any different than believing that when Christ comes and rules, that the government He will institute will be better than that of the US government? For those anarchists who might be in doubt, could we not say that Constitutional government lies between us an anarchy, and that moving toward Constitutional government is merely a step on the path toward anarchist self-government?

The principle of government was given of the Lord, but He did not institute all forms of government. Smith and Sjodahl noted that “the Lord in the very beginning revealed to Adam a perfect form of government, and this was ‘instituted of God for the benefit of man;’ but we do not hold that all governments, or any man-made government, was instituted of God although the Lord holds a controlling hand over them. It was not long after the Lord established His government with Adam, and had commanded him to teach correct principles to his children, that men began to rebel and turn away. [See Moses 5:12–13.]

“From that time forth the authority to rule was usurped by men and, with few exceptions ever since, the governments in the earth have been and are the governments of men, and the guiding hand of the Lord by revelation and authority vested in his servants has been ignored. The day is to come, and is near at hand, when the Lord will come in his power and make an end of all man-made governments and take His rightful place as King of kings, and Lord of lords.” (Smith and Sjodahl Commentary, pp. 852–53.)

It seems to me that if we were to place the various forms of government in order from best to worst, it would be:

1. Christ/God/prophet as ruler, or in other words a valid theocracy.
2. Anarchy.
3. Good king (except that good kings tend to give way to bad kings at some point).
4. Constitutional republic.
5. Democracy.
6. Bad king/tyrant/dictator.

I would assume that virtually all Mormons would see #1 above as a better form of government than that set up by the Constitution. I see no conflict for a Mormon to state that they honor, uphold, and sustain the Constitution, even as he or she recognizes the existence of a better way. Likewise, I see no conflict in my saying that I honor, uphold, and sustain the Constitution, even as I see anarchy as a higher, more perfect form of government.

Agree, disagree? Let me know.

Was it the fault of Ron Paul supporters? That’s a harder one to pin down, since many of them stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul’s name and nobody knows how many. Perhaps we’ll know in a few weeks if Ron Paul supporters made the difference between victory and defeat.

But even if Paul supporters could have made the difference, that’s not the real reason Romney lost. I think this short blog post give us some potential insight into the real problem Romney and the GOP had. That’s right, it appears that at best, the total votes cast for Romney will match those cast for McCain in 2008. But Romney may actually come in behind McCain.

Recall where we were at in the 2008 election cycle. Yes, Obama was seen as bad news which should have gotten Republicans out, but McCain failed to inspire the Republican base because he was seen by many as too liberal and too much of a politician. And Republicans were running against the man who would become the first Black president, against a country tired of war and corporatism, and against hope, as cheesy as that may sound. Yes, McCain was probably one of the worst nominations ever, but you could have brought Lincoln back from the dead and even he probably would have lost. It was simply a tough election cycle for Republicans and I’m not sure any GOP nominee would have had a chance.

2012 should have been different for Republicans. The economy is bad. We have more war. There have been more bailouts and favoritism for large corporations. Foreign policy is a shambles. Health care costs are still going up. Hurricane Sandy showed that FEMA under Obama is no better than FEMA under Bush. Democrats control the Senate. If there ever were a time that a Republican, any Republican, should have been able to win the Presidency, now was that time. Romney seemed to have it all going for him. No scandals. Squeaky clean image. Nice hair. Great organization. Plenty of cash. Decent to good debate performances. And yet Romney didn’t even get as many votes as McCain got. The problem is not that Romney didn’t get slightly more votes than Obama, it’s that he should have won by a landslide. He should have gotten 10 million more votes than Obama. Why didn’t he?

Part of it was within Romney’s control, and part of it wasn’t. The problems that are Romney’s along are as follows:

1. Sincerity, or lack thereof. Romney has control of who he is and the policies he supports. Unfortunately for the GOP, Romney has a history of being a liberal, then a flip-flopper, which adds up to him assuming the role of a consumate politician, which isn’t a compliment. Whether he has principles or not, he didn’t come across that way. He wasn’t believable enough to win over skeptics. Even if people agreed with what Romney was saying, they didn’t believe he meant what he was saying.

2. Lack of clarity. What was Romney’s big message? I pay attention to these things and I’m not sure myself. The economy perhaps? National defense? There was no big call to action, other than “not Obama”.

3. Negative, not positive. Romney didn’t give us any clarion call to vote for him other than “I’m not Obama.” It’s tough to win elections that way. Especially when a lot of people, in comparing Romney’s policies to those of Obama’s felt like there actually was quite a bit of similarity.

4. Policy. Many simply didn’t like what Romney was saying, if they were able to figure it out and even if they believed he meant it. What Romney was peddling seemed to be more of the same of what we got from Bush and Obama the last 12 years. More war, more bailouts, more corporatism, more inflation, more government. For those calling for an end to wars with no apparent purpose in countries that are no real threat to the US, those who want a separation of business and state, those who want their money to hold its value, and those who just want government to leave them alone, Romney didn’t even seem to be making a pitch to them.

Romney could have been better in each of these areas. Would that have been enough? I’m not so sure this election was within Romney’s control. Here are reasons Romney lost that weren’t within his ability to overcome.

1. What people want. There happen to be a lot of people who want more government, more bailouts, more welfare, and who actually buy into what Obama’s selling. Until these people change their minds about what the role of government should be then we’ll keep getting politicians who give them what they want in exchange for votes.

2. Bush. People still hate Bush. They don’t understand that Obama is just more of the same, but they do feel that Romney would be more of the same and they’re right. It would have been tough for Romney to convince them otherwise. Ron Paul might have fallen victim to the same perception, merely by virtue of being a Republican. Bush may have cost Republicans the presidency for yet more election cycles to come.

3. Romney. Who Romney is as a politician didn’t start a year or two ago. To have won in this cycle, it’s likely Romney would have had to have been a different person, with different policies, starting 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Flip-flopping in your life as you find yourself, finding yourself, and then holding steady for a decade or two projects integrity and sincerity. Romney simply couldn’t do that, even if his positions were sincere. His history of having different positions was too close in time, and he did not have a strong track record of holding to other positions over the long-term.

Not that Obama offered an alternative to any of this. That’s the point. People looked at Obama and said “Well, that stunk just as much as Bush.” Then they looked at Romney and said “Well, that’s just more of the same.” And they simply stayed home. Obama didn’t win because he inspired people who wouldn’t normally vote to get out and vote. This wasn’t a race about who would win, but about who would do the best job avoiding losing. Romney’s best asset was Obama, and Obama’s best assets were Romney and Bush. Unfortunately for the GOP, Obama’s assets trumped Romney’s.

Parts were admirable, such as when Romney talked about John Deere and how the company created new, affordable farm tools and machinery that allow farmers in Africa to use their resources more effectively.

Private enterprise is having a greater and greater positive impact in the developing world. The John Deere Company embarked upon a pilot project in Africa where it developed a suite of farm tools that could be attached to a very small tractor.  John Deere has also worked to expand the availability of capital to farmers so they can maintain and develop their businesses.  The result has been a good investment for John Deere and greater opportunity for African farmers, who are now able to grow more crops, and to provide for more plentiful lives.

But then Romney immediately followed with this statement:

For American foreign aid to become more effective, it must embrace the power of partnerships, access the transformative nature of free enterprise, and leverage the abundant resources that can come from the private sector.

At first blush this sounds like a good thing. And then this:

There are three, quite legitimate, objects of our foreign aid.

First, to address humanitarian need.  Such is the case with the PEPFAR initiative, which has given medical treatment to millions suffering from HIV and AIDS.

Second, to foster a substantial United States strategic interest, be it military, diplomatic, or economic.

And there is a third purpose, one that will receive more attention and a much higher priority in a Romney Administration. And that is aid that elevates people and brings about lasting change in communities and in nations.

Again, this doesn’t sound bad on the surface. But one question–where in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide foreign aid?

For those who believe the Constitution should be followed by the federal government, this is the end of the matter. If Romney understands the Constitution, why is he promoting using foreign aid to more effective ends, rather than stating the obvious fact that it is illegal and should be ended immediately?

But moving on from that, let’s take Romney on his points. First, is it a helpful, let alone legitimate, use of government foreign aid to provide humanitarian assistance? Ignoring the Constitutional issues, let us consider some evidence here, here, and here showing that foreign aid often does not provide the desired humanitarian benefit. I’m sure there are some who could point to foreign aid programs that appear to have done some good, and I’m sure there are some foreign aid programs that have done good, although one must still ask at what cost. A foreign aid program may provide a $10K/year income for a poor farmer in Africa, but if it took $1M in aid to create that $10K/year income this can hardly be called a “good” program.

Second, is it in the United States’ interests to use foreign aid for strategic interests whether military, diplomatic, or economic? The US government has given billions in foreign aid to nations of the Middle East for decades. How is that working out for us? Can the case be made that things would be worse if the US government had stayed completely uninvolved in the Middle East and had simply allowed the Middle East to choose its own course while allowing American entrepreneurs and businesses to trade freely with the people of those countries?

Third, what is the likelihood that foreign aid, given by the US government to foreign nations, will elevate people and bring about lasting change in communities and nations? Has this not ostensibly been the objective of all foreign aid for the past 50 years? Is there any evidence that it has worked? Why should we believe the same entity that has given us the current situation will suddenly give us different results?

Some claim that Romney is a good, honest, and wise man. I believe he is probably a good and honest man. I am not so sure he is wise. Wise can mean knowledgeable as well as the ability to rightly apply knowledge. It takes a matter of minutes to read the Constitution and see that nowhere in it is the federal government authorized to provide foreign aid. With Romney’s resources and advisors it should be adequately clear that the history of US foreign aid is largely one of failure, not just in that results have fallen far short of expectations, but in many cases been disastrously harmful. Can a man who plans on taking an oath to uphold the Constitution but who appears completely ignorant of it on a point of importance such as this be considered knowledgeable in those areas relevant to being President of the United States? Can a man who believes foreign aid will provide the benefits he has put forth be one who knows how to rightfully apply the knowledge he has?

Most importantly, Romney’s comments show an ignorance of the immorality of foreign aid. Foreign aid is wealth. That wealth does not appear out of thin air, but comes from the American people. It is taken from you either in the form of taxes or via inflation by the Federal Reserve. Either way it is an involuntary transaction and immoral. Even were foreign aid to be declared Constitutional it would still be immoral and it would behoove Romney to not speak of ways to improve the process of giving foreign aid, but rather to speak of how we might end it.

A Better Model of Foreign Aid

The only legitimate and moral form of foreign aid is that given voluntarily by individuals. Thousands of private organizations engage in foreign aid using voluntary donations from private citizens. These citizens could and many would give more if they weren’t already giving so much to the government through taxes.

One form of “foreign aid” that a President Romney could certainly endorse that is Constitutional and moral would be that part of Section 8 of the Constitution which reads that Congress has the power to “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…” The word “regulate” in that time period did not mean “to control” as it does today, but rather to “make regular” or make common or facilitate. A President Romney could declare that the US will engage in 100% free and open trade with any country that will pledge to do the same with the United States. He could then pledge to work to end all subsidies, farm subsidies included, within the Unites States. This would do far more to help poor farmers in Africa than any foreign aid program who would finally be able to compete on a level playing field and could then find new markets to whom they could export goods. This would cost the government nothing, in fact it would save the government money, while it would also remove existing incentives for Americans to engage in unproductive work. Some painful adjustments would be required for some, but within a few years everyone would be better off, and in the long run quite a bit better off.

Trust me, I’m no closet fan of Mitt Romney, but barring acts of God and alien invasions Ron Paul will not be the next President of the United States. Not that winning elections was ever the most important thing. What non-supporters of Ron Paul have never seemed to understand is that we Paul supporters never saw the election of Ron Paul as an end in itself, but merely the means to an end. What is the end goal? Liberty. The freedom to do what I want, unmolested, as long as I’m not physically hurting anyone else nor doing damage to their property. A step on the road to that goal is to change peoples’ opinions about the role government should play in our lives. I saw a Ron Paul presidency as a great teaching opportunity. I never harbored illusions that Paul would sweep into office and suddenly fix everything. But I believed it would be a great opportunity for him to explain the principles of liberty to the world, and perhaps one day, decades down the road, this would lead to real change. But is this a simplistic view of the situation?

The other day I had lunch with a friend. My friend works for one of the largest ecommerce companies in the world. The CEO of this company is a certifiable genius, especially when it comes to math. Even those who don’t like him would never claim he’s a dunce. This CEO recently made the prediction to my friend that whoever wins the White House in 2012 is going to preside over the collapse of the dollar and the American economy. Peter Schiff has been saying as much for at least this year if not longer. So here’s the question–if the economy is going to collapse, do we want Ron Paul as President?

I’m leaning towards no. First, Paul would not be able to fix things unless he had a 100%  compliant Congress and a good percentage of the US population on board, and then it’s still kind of iffy. Second, who would listen to or understand Paul’s explanations of what’s happening? Sure, more than are listening and understanding now, but how many more? Double, triple, quadruple? That’s not enough. It’s almost certain Paul get the blame, especially since the media and both major political parties would see it as an opportunity to make sure someone like Paul never gets elected again. Nothing gets fixed, hardly anyone gets educated, and Paul’s message gets a bad rap. Not exactly a panacea for Paul supporters.

On the other hand if Romney gets in nobody can blame Paul for ruining Romney’s candidacy by writing in Paul’s name, voting for Gary Johnson, or staying home. When things go bad, Paul will look prescient. Sure, the left will blame Romney, and Romney will blame Obama just as Obama blamed Bush. But for many Republicans it will be too much of a stretch to believe that Obama could have caused all this in just four short years without some help. And they’ll be wondering why Romney, the supposed numbers guy with the good business acumen, never warned them. The Republican and conservative laity will be searching for answers, and they’ll find them as they are reminded that Ron Paul told them this was coming. It will be a teaching moment like never before.

If Obama gets in, the opportunity isn’t there. The economy will fail, Obama will get blamed, and Republicans and conservatives will assume that had Romney been elected everything bad could have been avoided. And they’ll blame Paul supporters along with Obama. So, if our goal is to convert people to Paul’s message, and assuming a financial crisis will happen prior to 2016, should we perhaps be relieved Romney won the nomination, and not only that but support his bid for the presidency?

“Of course.”

“What is stealing?”

“It’s when you take something that isn’t yours.”

“What if you take something, but the person it belongs to is ok with it.”

“That’s different, you’re not really taking it, they’re giving it to you, so it’s not stealing.”

“Are taxes stealing?”

“Of course not.”

“Why not?”

“I’m ok with taxes. I like roads, firemen, policemen, and schools.”

“So it’s not stealing because you’re ok with the government taking your taxes to pay for those things.”

“Yes.”

“But what if you weren’t ok with it? Would it be stealing then?”

“No, it’s the price you pay to live in a civilized society. If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

“So let’s say you buy a house. After you buy the house the guy next door breaks into your house and takes all your money. When you complain, he tells you that he’s taking your money to make the neighborhood better and you should be grateful. It’s the price you pay for a civilized society. If you don’t like it, you can leave. Is he not stealing?”

“That’s a ridiculous analogy. Of course that’s stealing.”

“How is that different than taxation by a government?”

“Your neighbor is breaking the law, the government isn’t.”

“So it’s ok when the government takes your money, because it’s legal?”

“Yes…”

“What if the government said what your neighbor was doing was legal?”

“That’s a dumb hypothetical argument that has no basis in reality. Why would the government say that my neighbor breaking into my house is legal? It would never happen.”

“What if your neighbor gets a job at the IRS? He’s not breaking into your house, but every time you get a paycheck part of it is missing, and your neighbor is the one receiving it, if only in a manner somewhat more indirect than if he broke into your house. How is this different?”

“Because it’s legal!”

“So the government has said that it’s legal for your neighbor to take your money?”

“Errr…yeah. But it’s different!”

“How?”

“Because he’s not doing it for himself, he’s doing it for the government, and the government uses the money to do good things!”

“So it’s ok for someone to take money from someone else as long as they’re doing it on behalf of a government and the government is doing good things with it?”

“If I approve of what they’re doing, then yes, it’s ok.”

“But we said, for the sake of the argument, that you don’t approve. This isn’t hypothetical, do you approve of everything the government does with the taxes you pay?”

“No.”

“So the government is taking your money and doing things with it that you don’t like?”

“Well, yeah.”

“So since you don’t like what they’re doing with it, does that make it stealing?”

“No, I don’t control everything. We live in a democracy so sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but if we didn’t have taxes we’d all lose! Nothing would get done.”

“So taxes aren’t stealing because sometimes your side wins and the money gets spent the way you want it to, and that’s enough for you to approve of taxation overall, even though sometimes it isn’t spent the way you want it spent? You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?”

“Right.”

“Ok, but let’s assume you…or to make the discussion easier, let’s assume you have a friend, and he doesn’t approve of anything the government does with his taxes–ever. This isn’t an impossible hypothetical question, there are plenty of people who think all taxation is wrong and so they disapprove of it even when it’s spent on things they like. If your friend thinks all taxes are wrong, then when the government takes his money is it stealing?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because he chooses to live in this country. If he doesn’t like it he can leave.”

“I think we’ve been here before, but I’ll go along. So…you’re saying that since he chooses to remain in the country, he has effectively agreed to a contract to be taxed, and as long as he remains a citizen he is party to that contract?”

“Yeah.”

“Doesn’t one have to sign something to be involved in a contract? Or at least shake hands,    state that they agree, or perform some sort of action?”

“That’s what he’s doing by staying here.”

“But what if he was here first?”

“What do you mean?”

“For the sake of argument, let’s go back 200 years or so. Your friend is a resident of the old US, but he decides to leave. He moves west to Indian territory. The Indians tell him ‘Here is some land, it’s yours.’ and he sets up a home, a farm, and starts working the land. Does that land belong to him?”

“Sure.”

“30 years later, the US government annexes all the land around him and turns it into a state. The federal government comes and tells him he now needs to start paying taxes. He says he doesn’t want to. They say he has to or he’ll be fined. He refuses to pay. They fine him, but he refuses to pay the fine. They put a lien on his property. He still doesn’t pay. They threaten to seize his property. He still refuses. They come to seize his property to sell it off to pay the fines and taxes. He defends his property with a rifle. The government agents kill him, take his home, and sell it to pay the fines and taxes. It’s all legal. Is this not stealing? Is this not murder?”

“But that doesn’t happen today. I can’t argue a ridiculous hypothetical like that.”

“Things like that don’t happen today?”

“Those people were obviously crazy.”

“That may be, but you have to admit it sounds a lot ‘like’ the hypothetical example I gave, does it not?”

“Somewhat. But they weren’t there before the government. The government had been around for years. They chose to live there when the rules were already in place.”

“What about a child?”

“What do you mean?”

“Does a child choose where it lives and grows up?”

“Of course not.”

“If a child doesn’t make that choice, but as soon as that child starts turning into an adult and gets a job they start owing taxes, does that mean those taxes are stealing?”

“No, they’re still choosing to live here.”

“Do you think many 16-year olds are aware they can exempt themselves from taxes by leaving the country and renouncing their citizenship? And even if they were aware, is that a realistic option for many 16-year olds?”

“No, but that’s the way it is. If they don’t like it they have the option to leave, even if it isn’t easy, or they can work to change the law.”

“Ok, let’s take that second option. If I understand you, you’re saying that anyone who is here in the country is voluntarily paying taxes, because if they don’t want to pay them they can change the law, and since the law hasn’t been changed, that means they’re staying here voluntarily?”

“Yes.”

“What if 25% of the people want to change the law, but they can’t get the other 75% to go along with it?”

“Then that’s tough.”

“Tough indeed, but is it stealing?”

“No, it’s a democracy.”

“So in a democracy it’s ok to steal as long as a majority of voters say it’s ok?”

“I didn’t say it like that. If the majority vote for something, then it’s probably a good thing.”

“So you think every single President we’ve ever had has been a good President?”

“Well, not exactly. But that’s the choice of the people. It’s what they chose. We don’t always get what we want but we don’t have to get rid of the whole system. Like I said earlier, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

“Let me try a slightly different approach. I’m living here in the US, I’m paying my taxes, and then one day I think ‘Good heavens, why am I paying this stuff?’ I decide I don’t want to pay anymore. Let’s assume I accept that I’ve been under some sort of contract, unbeknownst to me, but that’s the way it is. But now I want out of that contract. I don’t want any of the goods and services the US government provides, not even defense. Let’s assume I’m able to live on my own property and be completely self-sustained, cut off from the world, with no need to interact with anyone else. If the government still taxes me and threatens to take away my property, is it stealing now?”

“No. Even if you don’t want defense services you’re still benefitting from them because you’re property is located within the country.”

“Alrighty, but what about everything else I’m not using?”

“If you want any of it, you have to pay for all of it.”

“But I don’t want any of it.”

“But you’re benefitting from part of it and you can’t pick and choose what you pay for.”

“Ok, fair enough. Let’s try another approach. Where does the government get the authority or right to tax?”

“From the Constitution.”

“Who agreed to the Constitution?”

“The states.”

“When?”

“Whenever each state joined the Union.”

“Which was before I was born. So a contract was made before I was born, and I’m a party to it based on the fact that I was born into one of these states and choose to remain here? And that contract stipulates that the federal government can tax me and use force to collect those taxes?”

“Yes.”

“If I choose to leave the country I may be liable to pay an exit tax due to the HEART Act of 2008. So even if I want to leave, the US government taxes me on the way out the door. Is this stealing?”

“No, until you’re actually out the door you’re still subject to the contract.”

“Let’s say you’re born into a country with a king. From your parents you inherit 100 acres of land. When you’re 30, the king states that he is passing a law whereby he will tax all wealth and commerce at the rate of 100%. In other words, he’s taking everything you own now or ever will earn in the future. You are free to leave the country, but must pay the tax first. In other words, you give up everything whether you stay or leave. Is this stealing?”

“Of course.”

“But it’s legal. And by your reasoning didn’t you effectively agree to this contract?”

“But he’s surprising people. They didn’t have a chance.”

“I’m surprised every time I look at my paycheck and see how much has been taken out. But in all seriousness, do children born here have a chance? Are they not ‘surprised’ when they start working and learn about taxes? And what about the adults who were here when the income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes were instituted. Were they not ‘surprised’?”

“But this is a democracy. They can change it if they want to.”

“All rulers rule by the consent of the governed. Those living with a tyrant king or dictator are also free to rebel and overthrow him. Does this mean that if they don’t, they are volunteering to everything the king sees fit to do to them?”

“Of course not, but that’s not the situation we live in.”

“If not, then is it a difference of anything but a matter of degree? Some governments–or really we should use the word ‘state’ by which I mean an official entity acting in a governing role as opposed to a bunch of people getting together to organize how they’re going to get something done–are more tyrannical than others, but all use force or tyranny to one degree or another. And while we are not taxed at 100%, we are taxed at some rate between that and zero. So if being taxed by a king at 100% is stealing, why is being taxed at 50%, 15%, or 1% by a Congress and President not stealing?”

“Because they represent us. We vote them in. We don’t choose a king.”

“As I said, all rulers rule by the consent of the governed. By your own reasoning if we do not overthrow or escape from the rule of those who govern us then we are consenting to live under that rule. A Congress and President are more representatives of the people than a king only by a matter of degree.”

“Mmmm…”

“Since you’re speechless at this point, allow me to explain my thoughts on the matter. In my opinion, a transaction is not theft only when it is completely voluntary. I go to Wal-Mart, I buy milk, I leave. If I do not wish to buy milk no one can force me to. If I do not wish to buy my milk from Wal-Mart no one can force me to. I need jump through no hoops to avoid purchasing products from Wal-Mart. I need not move to a different country or renounce my citizenship. There is no difficulty involved in not shopping at Wal-Mart. The State does not deal with me in this manner. The State does not treat me as an equal, but as a servant or something worse. Anything short of a completely voluntary transaction is, in my opinion, force, stealing, theft, slavery, etc.”

“But wait, what do you mean you aren’t forced to shop at Wal-Mart? They’re all over the place. A lot of other businesses have gone under because Wal-Mart has moved into town and people have nowhere else to go. If there’s nowhere else to buy milk, then you have to go to Wal-Mart, isn’t that force?”

“It would still be easier and more realistic for me to drive from New York to Los Angeles to buy my milk than it would be for me to renounce my citizenship and live in Mexico in order to avoid paying US taxes. If you want to call that force you may, but it’s nothing compared to the force being used by the State. And of course no one does have to drive across the country if they want to buy milk somewhere other than Wal-Mart. I’d be surprised if there is a Wal-Mart anywhere in the country without another supermarket within 10 miles of it.

In addition, I could always choose to not drink milk, but the State doesn’t give me any such option. If I don’t want to buy one of the State’s services, like Social Security, I have no ability to opt-out. Perhaps I can refuse to consume the service, but I cannot refuse to pay for it.”

“Alright, alright. I don’t know how to debate this anymore, but if there were no taxes how would we pay for anything? The country would be a disaster! What about roads, firemen, police, the army, and all that? Don’t you use those services? Don’t you like that those things exist?”

“I do like that those things exist, but I don’t see the State as necessary to the existence of such things. Roads, better roads than we have now, could exist without the State. I believe the same goes for firemen, police, education, and yes, even national defense. One of my favorite quotes on this comes from the book The Law by Frederic Bastiat.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

I can’t debate every issue here for the sake of brevity, after all the roads issue alone justified the writing of an entire book on the part of at least one author. Suffice it to say for now that I don’t see why we couldn’t have all these things you see your taxes paying for, even in the absence of the State. And I think they would be better and less expensive as well, just look at how poorly the State does with everything else it produces, regulates, or touches, compared to those things that are largely left alone by the State.”

——————–

And thus I draw this argument with myself to a close because I don’t know how to argue with myself further. If you wish to continue it, please do so in the comments section below. I welcome a vigorous debate with anyone who believes they can prove to me that taxation is not theft. I leave you with this relevant statement by the anarchist lawyer Lysander Spooner:

It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other….

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

– Lysander Spooner, No Treason, p. 19

Let’s assume you and a friend live on an island, which you have agreed to divide in half, with each of you owning whatever is on your half. On each half of your island you have a spring of fresh water, which is your only source of fresh water since you’re on an island in the ocean.

One day, your spring dries up. No more water. You go to your friend asking for water, offering to trade with him, but he refuses. You’re in a bind. If you don’t get water, you will die. You plead, you beg, but your friend refuses. For the purposes of our question, you have no other option for getting water, other than from your friend.

Is your friend engaging in an act of aggression? If so, are you justified in engaging in an act of aggression against him in order to obtain that resource to save your life?

As a follow-up question, does intent matter? That is, if your friend says “Well, I’d actually like you to die, so I’m purposely not going to give you water,” is that different from him saying “I’m sorry, I’d love to give you water but I’m afraid that if I do I’ll die so I just can’t do it.”?

Obviously it is different–in one case your friend is a total jerk, at a minimum, and in the second he’s perhaps not acting charitably, but he at least has something of a logical case he’s making.

Questioning everything is not a benefit in and of itself, but it can bring many benefits for when we question, we learn, and when we learn truth, we benefit thereby because it has the power to make us happy. Of course one may take almost anything to excess, and it is not productive to continuously question that which we have verified beyond reasonable doubt to be true or we would never do anything, but I have certainly been benefitted by questioning what, to some, is not worth questioning, and which I myself had never questioned before.

Up until 2008 I was of the species known as the common American conservative. I listened to Rush Limbaugh, as I had since 1990 when I was 15. If it had an R in front of its name it was good, if it had a D in front of its name it was bad. The United States was good and everything it had ever done was good, even some of the things done by people who had a D in front of their names.

The problem came in 2008 when, in the presidential election of that year, someone with a D in front of their name ran against someone with an R in front of their name, and it was difficult to see how they were different. For the sake of the establishment, well did Ronald Reagan state “Thou shalt not speak evil of thy fellow Republican” for that is the beginning of doubt. Unfortunately for the establishment many Republicans did speak ill of John McCain, and so many of us common American conservatives began to question. The first question was “Can someone be a Republican and yet not be good for the country?”

This question led to others. After all, if not everyone with an R in front of their name is good for the country, what else might not be as we’ve been told? Could it be that some people with a D in front of their names are good? (Answer: No, not so much, the truth is that pretty much everyone with either an R or D in front of their names is bad for the country)

Then, thanks to Glenn Beck, ironically, I was introduced to libertarianism. At first I didn’t know where to start. I remember stumbling onto an article on Mises.org once and then emailing the author asking for a list of books I might read to learn more about these “Austrian economists” but received no response. I remember someone sending me an article from LewRockwell.com, but as a professional web designer I didn’t give this libertarian website with its plain-text aesthetic a chance. A friend recommended I look into Ron Paul, but I didn’t at that time. But the numerous opportunities meant it was inevitable that I would learn more, and finally I read End the Fed by Ron Paul. Then I read The Revolution. Then I started reading LewRockwell.com in earnest and listened to every single one of the 100+ podcasts at the time. I read For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard (free), Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block, and eventually many more books of the libertarian strain. I was hooked. I started asking many questions. Some of them were as follows:

• Are the US government and the people of the United States the same thing, or two different things? When one talks about “our country” are they really talking about both things, or one or the other?
• Was WWII a “good war”?
• Were the Founders right about everything?
• Was Ronald Reagan right about everything?
• Should drugs be illegal?
• Should I be in favor of using force to get people to behave the way I think they should?
• Should the government have anything to do with marriage?
• Is there any morally qualified reason for the existence of nuclear weapons?
• Should government (as defined as “the state”, not the act of “organizing and getting things done”) even exist?
• Are taxes moral?

And so forth.

My questions led to answers, but answers commonly led to more questions. This was fine, because the more I questioned, the more I learned, and the more I learned, the more I came to understanding and found satisfaction in it. Not just satisfaction, but hope.

Others who have had their eyes opened by libertarianism might find “hope” to be a strange word to associate with it. True, upon understanding something about libertarianism, Austrian economics, and the state one can become quite depressed about the general state of things. One realizes how bad things really are. But the great thing about libertarianism is that it provides detailed, believable, and elegant (in the computer programming sense of the word) solutions to the problems we face. Because of the work done by those who have gone before us the primary problem is not how to fix the problems, but merely how to convince enough people that libertarianism is the way such that we can begin to apply the medicine. The job of our day is not so much research, but education, or spreading the news about what the research has discovered. And we need not convert 100% of the population, or even 50%. Historians estimate the American Revolution had perhaps only the strong support of 20% of the population. We may not even be there yet, but we’re within striking distance, and the ranks of those who are questioning the status quo is growing quickly. That is why I have hope.

Despite all my study I still do not know if I want to call myself a libertarian. I’ve come to question all labels and am hesitant to adopt any one when it comes to political/economic thought. I typically tell people that I “lean” libertarian. But regardless, to libertarianism I give a grand “thank you”. I do not know where the path I’m on will take me, except that since it involves asking more questions, it will certainly lead me to more knowledge, and therefore more hope for the future and happiness therein, which is the ultimate end.

The city of Draper, Utah is where I live. Residents of the city will vote on June 26th on a ballot measure to decide whether the city should build a $29 million-dollar recreation center. It will be financed by a 20-year bond, or debt, which will cause property taxes in the city to rise by roughly $80-110 per year.

The recreation center is clearly favored by the Mayor Darrell Smith, who states:

“We have come to the conclusion that the only way Draper will ever get a recreation center that meets our needs, is to build it ourselves…We as the Mayor and City Council strongly support the building of an indoor recreation center in Draper. We believe now is the right time to do it and we believe this is what is best for our community.”

The recreation center is also clearly favored by a majority of Draper residents, as evidenced by a recent survey which found that 73% were in favor of the city building it.

I am all in favor of having a new recreation center in Draper, especially if it included a 50-meter lap pool (I’m a triathlete and there is no 50-meter pool within a reasonable driving distance). My kids would also enjoy an indoor pool close by. But I am not in favor of the new recreation center being financed/built by the city. Here’s my reasoning:

1. Mal-investment. As the mayor states, “We have come to the conclusion that the only way Draper will ever get a recreation center that meets our needs, is to build it ourselves.”

The logical question in response to the mayor’s statement is “Why wouldn’t anyone else build it?” If no private entity is willing to step up and finance  the project, we can come to only one conclusion–the recreation center will lose money. If it were going to be a highly-profitable venture then a private company would have already built it. A venture that loses money does so because it does not do a good job of providing what people want or value. This means it is a bad investment. But since governments are not so directly tied to the will of the people as are private businesses, they can insulate themselves from poor business decisions by making up for the difference in taxes. But is this what we want Draper City doing? If no private entity is willing to build a recreation center, isn’t that a good indicator that it shouldn’t be built?

2. Detrimental to private industry. If built, the recreation center will harm existing private businesses and prevent others from coming into existence. We already have a gym in town, the Treehouse. It has a pool. It has exercise facilities. There is quite a bit of overlap. Granted, the recreation center will provide things the Treehouse doesn’t, but again, there’s a reason the Treehouse or some other entity isn’t providing those things. The new recreation center may very well put the Treehouse out of business since it will be difficult for the Treehouse, which deals with real costs which it passes on to its customers, to compete with the costs of the public recreation center, which are artificially covered up and not completely passed on to the consumer because of tax subsidies.

I would very much like to see some competition for the Treehouse in Draper. I’d love for Lifetime Fitness to build a gym in town so I don’t have to drive over to Sandy. But if the city builds a recreation center, this makes this less likely to occur, since Lifetime will have to compete not only with Treehouse, but with the public recreation center. Since Lifetime Fitness would, at least for me, probably provide a superior exercise facility compared to either Treehouse or the recreation center, I am at least theoretically being limited in my options due to government interference in the marketplace.

3. Higher taxes. The new recreation center will cost me about $80 a year, even if I never use it. Sure, it’s only $80/year, but hey, I’d rather spend that $80 on something else. And of course this is how every spending matter gets passed. “It’s only $5/month!” or “It’s only $1 per person, per month!” Soon everyone is paying out $100/month and there’s no reversing it.

4. Benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Curiously, there is no mention anywhere that I can find of how much it will cost to use the recreation center. But let’s use neighboring Sandy, Utah as a guide, since they already have a recreation center and post their prices. If we can assume the prices for the Draper recreation center will be similar, then an annual family membership will cost around $300. Would I pay that much? Sure, maybe. But there are certainly people in Draper who will find that too expensive for their already strained family finances. We’ll call these people “the poor”. They may not be living in squalid poverty, but they are cash-strapped enough that they don’t feel they can afford to use the recreation center. And yet they are paying for it with their property taxes. Who can afford to use the recreation center? Those with more money. These folks may not be filthy rich, but they have enough money that the $300/year fee is no biggie.

The thing is, if it weren’t for the tax subsidy, the real price of the annual pass might be $900. But because of the tax subsidy, the city can offer it for just $300. Who benefits? Those who can pay $300. Who loses? Those who can’t afford the $300, but are still required, by law, to pay the property tax. In other words, the “rich” get a discount to the recreation center paid for by the “poor” who can’t afford to use the facility.

5. Immoral nature of taxation and democracy. A quote frequently misattributed to Benjamin Franklin is “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.” Is it right that 73% of a community can vote to impose a tax on the 27% of the community opposed to the measure?

For these reasons, and perhaps some others, I am opposed to the Draper City recreation center. In summary, here’s a tear-jerking, fictional story to drive the point home.

Bob and Molly moved to Draper five years ago. Bob had just graduated from college and Molly was expecting their first child. Bob had just landed a good job, and the real estate market was booming. Bob and Molly felt like they couldn’t afford to let the real estate market pass them by, and Bob’s income was good with the promise of looking much better in the near future, so they bought a modest house on Draper’s South Mountain area for $400,000. These types of houses had been going for $300K just a year before, and if that rate of appreciation kept up, Bob and Molly would be sittin’ pretty real soon.

Then the economy tanked just a year later. Bob’s employer came and told him that he couldn’t give him the promised raise, because they weren’t sure they could even keep everyone employed. But that was ok, at least Bob was still getting paid the same amount, and even though making the house payment was tight, especially with their child who was now a year old, they could handle it. Although it did make Bob a bit nervous that their neighbor had just sold his house, which was identical to Bob’s, for $350K, $50K less than what Bob had paid just a year earlier. But that was ok, Bob was sure it was a temporary dip and the real estate market would come back soon.

A year later, Bob and Molly had their second child. This made things really tight financially, and they decided to sell one of their cars at a loss just to get rid of a high payment. They bought a used-car instead. Another house on Bob and Molly’s street sold for just $300K that year.

A year after that, one of Bob’s neighbors was foreclosed on and the bank sold the house for $250K. Bob and Molly sold their other, nicer car, which Bob felt helped him in his sales job but which they simply couldn’t afford anymore. Things were tighter than ever, and the couple had to sell a bunch of their electronics and other things on Craigslist. Neither Bob nor Molly had bought a single article of new clothing for themselves in two years. If it weren’t for hand-me-downs from relatives their kids wouldn’t have any “new” clothes either. Their house was completely underwater and even though they were able to keep up with the payments the house was a constant reminder that their money was going into a black hole they might never dig out of. Worst of all, Bob’s employer wasn’t doing well, some people had been let go, and Bob was afraid he might be next. The stress was taking a toll on Bob and Molly as parents and on their marriage. They talked about walking away from the house and declaring bankruptcy, but they didn’t feel that was the right thing to do and they hoped things would turn around soon.

Then Bob got a copy of the Draper City Journal in the mail, telling him about the the new recreational center the city wanted to build. “This sounds great,” Bob thought “But there’s no way we can afford to spend $300/year right now on a family membership.” As he read more about it, he realized like it or not, he was going to be paying for the recreation center. Not $300, but at least $80. Bob fumed as he told Molly about it. “After everything we’ve been through the last few years, now I have to pay $80 for a rec center we can’t even afford to use? And some rich guy up on the hill is going to be there with his family every weekend and only paying $300 per year instead of $600 or $900 because I and other guys like me are subsidizing his fun time?”

“Bob, it’s just $5 a month, it’s no biggie.”

“When’s the last time you were able to buy yourself a pair of pants? I’m trying to do my sales job with these scuffed up shoes because I can’t afford a pair of new ones. Would you rather have a rec center you can’t use, or a pair of pants? I for one would rather buy you a pair of pants or myself a pair of shoes. I don’t see how the rec center benefits us.”

“Bob, it’s not decided yet, just vote against it.”

“What good will that do? 73% of the city wants the rec center, so I guess they’re going to force us to pay for it whether we like it or not. We can’t sell our house, I’m about to lose my job, I can’t support my family, and now this?!”

The End

Well, that’s my perspective on the matter. Not that I’m closed to other perspectives on the matter. If you see things differently I’d love to hear what you have to say.

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/

If a liberal is willing to discard traditional views, and a conservative is averse to change and holds to traditional values, then we must recognize that what liberals and conservatives represent must change, since traditions are unstable and new traditions are constantly arising. And so let us ask–what are the dominant traditions of the past 100 years of the United States government? Here are a few:

1. War
2. Entitlements
3. Regulation
4. Prohibition
5. Taxation
6. Debt
7. Growth

War. Whether or not you support the wars the US government, which I refer to as an entity separate from “the country” or “the US”, has entered into, what is undeniable is that the US government has been involved in a lot of wars during the past 100 years.

Entitlements. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, farm subsidies, welfare, public education, and bailouts for “vital” industries have been with us for the greater part of the past 100 years, making them part of the status quo. By the way, prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the price of health-care grew only slightly faster than overall inflation. Since then, medical inflation has risen 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Medicare was projected to cost $12B annually by 1990, but instead came in at $90B. But what’s $78B between friends?

Regulation. 40,000 new laws were added in 2011 alone. If there is any legacy of the last century, it is that every aspect of our lives is dominated by one law or another, or more commonly–by more than one law. Regulation, another word that has lost its original meaning “to make things regular” or in other words “common”, has become the standard by which the success of a politician is measured. Just look at how, come election time, those politicians who “haven’t been able to pass any laws” are denigrated.

Prohibition. Prohibition of alcohol was short-lived, but prohibition of other substances has been widespread for some time under the pseudonym The Drug War, which has been a failure by any measure other than its ability to get politicians elected.

Taxation. Many US citizens don’t realize there was a time when there was no federal income tax, no payroll tax, etc. Today, you might see several hundred or even a few thousand dollars taken from each of your paychecks. 100 years ago or so you would have received your full paycheck. Even those who supposedly pay no taxes still pay sales taxes and pay taxes indirectly in the form of higher costs for goods and services, the prices of which must be raised by their suppliers in order to cover the taxes they pay. We all pay taxes, and quite a lot of them.

Debt. Rapidly closing in on $16 trillion. And that’s just what the government tells us they owe. Throw in the unfunded liabilities (political speak for “money we’re going to have to pay out but which we know we won’t have the money for”) and it’s closer to…oh, around $60 trillion.

Growth. Of government, that is. In 1913 the US government spent around 7% of US GDP. Today it’s closer to 30%. And of course GDP is quite a bit larger than it was in 1913, meaning our government takes a much bigger piece of a much bigger pie than 100 years ago.

If these are the traditions that have dominated US government policy over the past 100 years, then can we not say that a conservative would be someone who is in favor of maintaining these traditions, or averse to any change in the status quo?

Liberals claim to be anti-war, but apparently only when a Republican is President. Democrats/liberals/progressives and even those who claim the anti-war label as their primary objective have been strangely silent since Obama came into the White House, even as he expanded the current wars and added a few of his own.

Those who call themselves liberals have never been averse to entitlement spending or greater regulation at the federal level.

You might think liberals are in favor of relaxing the war on drugs, but what evidence do we have of this? Obama has shown no desire to change things on this front.

Taxation, debt, growth of government? Liberals want to double down on these time-honored practices.

And so can we call liberals anything but conservatives? But then the obvious question is what do we then call conservatives? This question is easy enough to answer, because we can still call them conservatives, since they are also in favor of all of the above. All one need do is look at history, and you will see that based on results, Republicans as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, have joined hand in hand in every one of these areas. They are all conservatives.

There is that small but growing group who want none of the above. They are the ones who want change. If history is any guide, they’ll soon have their own label. Libertarians? New liberals? Classical liberals? Will the label be accurate? Will the label stick? Or perhaps more importantly, will that group stick with their label?