I need to write a thesis and I want to do it on the ethic of taxes, basically to piss as many people of as possible that demand that “Business Ethics” should be part of a Economics/Social Sciences curriculum.
Does anyone have literature suggestions?
In this case google is not really my friend.
The below is an excerpt from Murray Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty,” on taxation and voluntary action. It will be rejected out of hand by nearly anyone who doesn’t take an anarchist position on the matter.
For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation,” although in less regularized epochs it was often known as “tribute.” Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State�??s inhabitants, or subjects.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The below is an excerpt from Murray Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty,” on taxation and voluntary action. It will be rejected out of hand by nearly anyone who doesn’t take an anarchist position on the matter.
For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation,” although in less regularized epochs it was often known as “tribute.” Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State�??s inhabitants, or subjects.
[/quote]
You state the problem yourself.
There are only three answers to the question “Is tax-evasion unethical?”
Always, Never and “It depends”.
The Anarchists view is quite clear but what about other positions?
Is a progressive tax ethical from a Kantian/Utilitarian/Jewish/Christian/Muslim point of view?
If you withold taxes, how much can you withold and for what reasons?
Meaning, can a Christian be taxed to fund abortion clinics? Can he really only pay part of his taxes when some of it will still finance abortions?
Can you government use your money to fight a war on drugs/poverty/brown people?
A great book I found so far is Bertrand de Jouvenels “The Ethics of Redistribution”.
This could be an interesting thesis. I love to piss people off out of self-entertainment. Unfortunately I have nothing really to add here.
Let us know what you come up with.
[quote]orion wrote:
Is a progressive tax ethical from a Kantian/Utilitarian/Jewish/Christian/Muslim point of view?
[/quote]
Under any religious perspective theft is wrong. If one considers taxation theft then the answer seems quite clear.
Under the utilitarian perspective taxation would seem to be ethical; however, there is still the issue of voluntarism. Besides this, under utilitarianism who gets to decides what is best for everyone?
I am not familiar with the Kantian perspective of ethics.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Is a progressive tax ethical from a Kantian/Utilitarian/Jewish/Christian/Muslim point of view?
Under any religious perspective theft is wrong. If one considers taxation theft then the answer seems quite clear.
Under the utilitarian perspective taxation would seem to be ethical; however, there is still the issue of voluntarism. Besides this, under utilitarianism who gets to decides what is best for everyone?
I am not familiar with the Kantian perspective of ethics.[/quote]
Not so fast, there is a thesis that claims that, if you are an orthodox Jew you need to pay your taxes. I think the main argument is that a Jew ought to obey the laws and that it is hard to follow Jewish rituals behind bars, but don´t take my word or it.
The Kantian main question is quite simple: Can we fit it into any kind of version of the Categorical Imperative.
Answer: At least when it comes to progressive taxation you can´t.
The utilitarian perspective is not so easily determined either, Ludwig von Mises was a utilitarian liberal, not someone with a natural rights position.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This could be an interesting thesis. I love to piss people off out of self-entertainment. Unfortunately I have nothing really to add here.
Let us know what you come up with.[/quote]
Here is the general idea, so far:
From an anarchian or natural law kind of view, a progressive tax i.e redistribution is out of the question.
Unless you argue with religious ideas, that could support almost any kind of tax, your argument must be utilitarian.
That however leads to the usual problems of utilitarianism; what is the best for the most, how do you measure the consequences if you are only utilitarian and so on.
To avoid that, re distributors flee into a kind of economic redistribution, where they make the following argument:
If someone earns 100000 his marginal utility per dollar is lower than someones who only earns 1000. Therefore, let´s give the additional income of the first to the latter and raise overall utility that way.
That is of course BS because value, and therefore utility as well as marginal utility, is strictly subjective and cannot be commensurated.
Meaning, while it is true that the 100001 dollar buys A less utility than the 100000, or 90000, or 10000 dollar, it is not necessarily true that it buys him less than it would buy B who has less.
This is an error out of ignorance for economic basics. (which by the way gets still made at Cambridge for example. No kidding)
But let us say that were true?
We would have to fix all people at the same income. That would mean that we would have a production that reflects that, we would only produce what could be purchased with a then average income.
This means no more luxury goods and that not only implies expensive cars and espresso machines, but also art, science and higher education.
If the utilitarian was willing to accept that he would still be wrong (see above), but the very moment that he argues that the state would then have to sponsor art and sciences and so on he kills his own assumption that an equal distribution of income is desirable, because he, as an utilitarian, is obviously not prepared to accept the consequences of his proposal.
[quote]orion wrote:
This means no more luxury goods and that not only implies expensive cars and espresso machines, but also art, science and higher education.
[/quote]
Do utilitarians argue for equal redistribution? It would seem that their argument is, in fact, anti-utilitarian. It seems pretty obvious that under this kind of system there could never be any capital accumulation that wasn’t directed by government – there would be virtually none of the things we take for granted every day.
The utilitarian perspective must be rethought using non-subjective qualifiers. How do we know what is best for everyone? It seems like it would be an exercise in futility to determine that. At best I can only imagine a group of individuals would be “more happy” with out my interference in their lives. In the end this is not utilitarianism but rather individualism.
Progressive taxes can only provide an illusion of utility – they are, in fact, a dis-utility.
The problem I see with Utilitarians is thier misconception of the human species. Ants and Bees are the ultimate Utilitarians, everyone pulls thier weight as hard as they can for the greater good of the colony. There are limited roles to play, besides a Queen, there are 2 or 3 or possibly 4 at the most different jobs to be done, and those are decided by birth.
Ants for example, Some colonies have warriors, wich are larger and have massive jaws, they protect the colony from predetors. Then they have workers, who go out and gather food and resources, they are accompanied by the warrior ants. Then they have males that stay back and tend for the young of the colony and help fertalize the eggs. The queen Lays eggs, that is her only job. She does not rule the colony, they take care of her because if they don’t and she dies, thier colony is at risk of extinction.
A new queen is born every so often, but if the current queen is healthy, the new queen leaves with a couple other ants to start her own colony.
People are not ants or bees. People have great individualism and thrive in a semi chaotic environment. Some people prefer stability, they are more like the ants, they thrive when they can do the same thing every day, and provide a humble existance for thier family.
Some people have no similarities to an ant or a bee, A movie star, a politician, A high paid lawyer. These people need more than the basics to thrive. I don’t know if they are born into those roles or are born pre-disposed to fill those roles, but somehow, they have adapted so that that is what is best for them. Utilitarianism would be great for the people who thrive off a meager existance of little change and steady resources. The rest of the people who thrive off chaos would literally go insane and go underground to get the chaos they need. Most likley this would manifest as undergound crime syndicates.
V
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
This means no more luxury goods and that not only implies expensive cars and espresso machines, but also art, science and higher education.
Do utilitarians argue for equal redistribution? It would seem that their argument is, in fact, anti-utilitarian. It seems pretty obvious that under this kind of system there could never be any capital accumulation that wasn’t directed by government – there would be virtually none of the things we take for granted every day.
The utilitarian perspective must be rethought using non-subjective qualifiers. How do we know what is best for everyone? It seems like it would be an exercise in futility to determine that. At best I can only imagine a group of individuals would be “more happy” with out my interference in their lives. In the end this is not utilitarianism but rather individualism.
Progressive taxes can only provide an illusion of utility – they are, in fact, a dis-utility.[/quote]
The whole problem for utilitarians is that utilitarianism is highly subjective.
They try to make it objective by using bad economics. Something along the lines of: If utility was cardinal and we could build a thing like aggregate utility, how could we maximize it?
So this already is an attempt to use non subjective qualifiers.
The economic consequences are something I also plan to point out, however you would not need to go so far if you can show that their very assumptions are flawed.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
The problem I see with Utilitarians is thier misconception of the human species. Ants and Bees are the ultimate Utilitarians, everyone pulls thier weight as hard as they can for the greater good of the colony. There are limited roles to play, besides a Queen, there are 2 or 3 or possibly 4 at the most different jobs to be done, and those are decided by birth.
Ants for example, Some colonies have warriors, wich are larger and have massive jaws, they protect the colony from predetors. Then they have workers, who go out and gather food and resources, they are accompanied by the warrior ants. Then they have males that stay back and tend for the young of the colony and help fertalize the eggs. The queen Lays eggs, that is her only job. She does not rule the colony, they take care of her because if they don’t and she dies, thier colony is at risk of extinction.
A new queen is born every so often, but if the current queen is healthy, the new queen leaves with a couple other ants to start her own colony.
People are not ants or bees. People have great individualism and thrive in a semi chaotic environment. Some people prefer stability, they are more like the ants, they thrive when they can do the same thing every day, and provide a humble existance for thier family.
Some people have no similarities to an ant or a bee, A movie star, a politician, A high paid lawyer. These people need more than the basics to thrive. I don’t know if they are born into those roles or are born pre-disposed to fill those roles, but somehow, they have adapted so that that is what is best for them. Utilitarianism would be great for the people who thrive off a meager existance of little change and steady resources. The rest of the people who thrive off chaos would literally go insane and go underground to get the chaos they need. Most likley this would manifest as undergound crime syndicates.
V [/quote]
I would not give up on utilitarianism too early.
Most people are in fact utilitarians, they choose to believe whatever makes them feel good ;-)…
There are some clever argument from utilitarians, I just don´t like them when they dabble in bad economics.
Utilitarianism only has any meaning in terms of ethics. Bees and other colony species cannot be said to follow any ethical system. They live in colonies because the highly specialized bodies they have adapted are only suited to that lifestyle.
Human beings do not have any specialized body parts. Our hands while being diverse tools are what make us able to manipulate our environment to suit our needs. This means we are capable of highly erratic behavior with them so we require some sort of principles of acceptable behavior (ethics) in order to cooperate more effectively.
Utilitarianism attempts to recognize cooperation as an important aspect of human survival but it goes about it by purely subjective means. By considering only the group we forget the individual and without the individuals that makeup the group there can be no group. That is the ultimate paradox of utilitarianism.
As far as the social structure of ants and bees goes, they are much more than little robots carrying out tasks to achieve one common goal. I mean it’s not like they are the replicators from Stargate SG1. I used to work on a bee farm so I have more than a cursory knowledge of the little buggers. There are actually certain types of nectars that when a worker bee consumes they become physically drunk.
As in the fly in completely asymetric patterns back to the hive, then bumble around and interfere with other workers bees and have even been known to mess with things in the hives. It has also bee whintessed that when they come back to the hive if they are identified by other types of bees, dubbed “bouncer bees” they are actually physically removed from the hive untill the effects of the nectar wear off.
Another aspect which makes thier society very complex is when a new hive must be chosen. Several scout bees will fly around looking for a suitable replacement area. When they fly back the dance, and this dance tells others where to go. Then the others come back and upon thier approval dance as well, whoevers dance reaches a fever pitch in the hive wins and they hive flies off to that new location to start over. These are some very human characteristics, getting drunk and being disruptive and competing.
V
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Utilitarianism only has any meaning in terms of ethics. Bees and other colony species cannot be said to follow any ethical system. They live in colonies because the highly specialized bodies they have adapted are only suited to that lifestyle.
Human beings do not have any specialized body parts. Our hands while being diverse tools are what make us able to manipulate our environment to suit our needs. This means we are capable of highly erratic behavior with them so we require some sort of principles of acceptable behavior (ethics) in order to cooperate more effectively.
Utilitarianism attempts to recognize cooperation as an important aspect of human survival but it goes about it by purely subjective means. By considering only the group we forget the individual and without the individuals that makeup the group there can be no group. That is the ultimate paradox of utilitarianism.[/quote]
I would also just like to correct one thing. It’s not our hands that make us highly adaptable, Primates all have an opposing thumb. Some have more useful hands than humans due to the strength in thier hands. I believe our most highly adapted body part would be our brain.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I would also just like to correct one thing. It’s not our hands that make us highly adaptable, Primates all have an opposing thumb. Some have more useful hands than humans due to the strength in thier hands. I believe our most highly adapted body part would be our brain.
V[/quote]
There is no question that our brain is important but I was only trying to point out that the human body has no specialized body parts that serve a function of immediate survival; for example a long neck to eat the top leaves of a tree. This lack of specialization is what requires adaptability in all aspects of nature. It’s good thing we have a brain and a pair of hands.
I would say our vocal-cords and tongue are highly specialized for enunciation which makes elaborate communication and specialized cooperation possible – for example, planning strategy – but they do not serve an immediate purpose for obtaining food or warmth.
Looking at the human body from a functional perspective it would seem that we have three very specific requirements that other animals do not: the safety of a group because we have no natural defenses; an ability to create a warm environment to live because we have no adequate body hair; and the ability to plan and cooperate because we don’t seem to be driven by an instinct for hunting – nor do we have a naturally capable body to do it with.
All human culture is prisoner to these facts. Civilization grows out of every technological innovation that improves man’s capacity for survival. I look at ethics as a sort of “technology” that attempts to improve our conditions through correct behavior. They are a consequence of man’s unpredictability.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I would also just like to correct one thing. It’s not our hands that make us highly adaptable, Primates all have an opposing thumb. Some have more useful hands than humans due to the strength in thier hands. I believe our most highly adapted body part would be our brain.
V
There is no question that our brain is important but I was only trying to point out that the human body has no specialized body parts that serve a function of immediate survival; for example a long neck to eat the top leaves of a tree.
This lack of specialization is what requires adaptability in all aspects of nature. It’s good thing we have a brain and a pair of hands.
I would say our vocal-cords and tongue are highly specialized for enunciation which makes elaborate communication and specialized cooperation possible – for example, planning strategy – but they do not serve an immediate purpose for obtaining food or warmth.
Looking at the human body from a functional perspective it would seem that we have three very specific requirements that other animals do not: the safety of a group because we have no natural defenses;
an ability to create a warm environment to live because we have no adequate body hair; and the ability to plan and cooperate because we don’t seem to be driven by an instinct for hunting – nor do we have a naturally capable body to do it with.
All human culture is prisoner to these facts. Civilization grows out of every technological innovation that improves man’s capacity for survival. I look at ethics as a sort of “technology” that attempts to improve our conditions through correct behavior. They are a consequence of man’s unpredictability.[/quote]
I think we have gotten pretty far off topic now but I understand what you’re saying. I guess I just view the utilitarian mindset as foreign to human nature. I agree that “ethics” is part of human nature and one that resonates well with us, but I just don’t think the sub-type of Utilitarian suits us well.
Allthough the Sci-Fi nut in me loves the idea of all humans working together to colonize space, meeting new civilizations, etc… I can’t help feeling if we could get past all the human bullshit, we would already be doing it.
But again, it seems like either we are not ready for that, or are just in a period of development that doesn’t resonate well with that reality. I do feel however that Technology will do away with ethics.
Somewhere in the probably near future, you will be able to plug yourself into a computer and experience a VR world that for all intents and purposes is “real” and you could live out any and every fantasy regardless of societal restraints. Feel like going on a mass killing spree?
Plug into the system and do it. Feel the crush of skulls under the wieght of your axe, feel the warm blood run down your forearms. Have sex with 18 perfect 10 hotties for 3 hours straight. Go to disneyworld for free, jump out of a plane with no parachute. Shoot your highschool teacher in the face who gave you a detention.
Even if there is some regulatory agency, there will be underground programs or sites or however it works out that give people every single desire they want. Eventually, just like watching too much porn, we will desensitize ourselves.
Remember the first time you found your dads porn stash or a friend gave you a playboy? Your mind was instantly consumed with a boob or a pussy, all you wanted to do was go spend some quality alone time with your new find.
And the next day, that was all you could think of again. Now, you catch a boob in a movie and it barely registers. You need to watch a white chick take on 7 black guys, a midget and then she has to eat her own shit out of a cup. I mean and that barely works anymore.
Eventually we will desensitize ourselfs from our sensations and we will be left feeling empty. It will be at this crucial juncture where enough people feel like there is nothing left that they will start acting similar to an insect. They will join a clan or a colony and that new entity will be all that matters.
Hopefully, enough people by that time get interested in space technology, or perhaps it becomes a necessity, but I view a massive percentage of the human population turning into Vulcan like beings who are not shocked by anything, completely un-excitable but who are good at working together for a common goal.
That will be the time when the human species adopts and flourishes under a utilitarian society.
Sorry for the long and really jumpy post, Hopefully I connected enough dots for you to follow me.
V
I have been censored, I have been censored!
I was forbidden, expressis verbis, to write what I wanted to write by an agent of the state, i.e. my professor and not because it was wrong but because it was not pc enough.
I am a victim and I want some money right now.
Academic freedom is an unheard of concept in Austria?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Academic freedom is an unheard of concept in Austria?[/quote]
Of course we heard of it.
How else would I know that I am a victim of state oppression!