by Ryan Felder
Spring 2009
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand has most certainly heard the phrase "A is A." This idea is known in logic as the law of identity. The idea simply means that any act or object is itself. It seems like a silly point to make, as it appears to be an obvious redundancy. But the meaning that we can extrapolate from it is actually quite profound.
Let's take the idea of taxation. Most people dislike the idea of paying taxes but view it as a necessary evil. They see it as the price we pay for societal organization. But let's take a closer look at what taxation really is. In taxation, the government essentially reaches its hand into the individual pocket and demands money. The government then takes the money and distributes it as it sees fit, whether in the form of welfare programs or administrative expense. Often, corrupt politicians will skim off the top and keep the money for themselves. Most of the time, however, taxation is touted as a kind of forced charity which makes people do their fair share to help less fortunate people. Now, if an individual were to walk up to you on the street, point a gun at you, take your wallet, and give your money to charity, he would be arrested and punished as a thief. But if the government does the exact same thing (and it does; see what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes), it is celebrated as serving the people.
Now let's return to the idea of the law of identity. Since anything is inherently itself, it seems to follow that an act of theft is an act of theft, regardless of what you call it. Since one would normally consider an act where one agent forcibly takes property from another agent against the latter's will an act of theft, it seems that the government does this all the time. Call it our civic duty, say that the ends justify the means, but A is still A, theft is still theft. It follows that taxation is little more than theft with written words justifying and codifying it.
Ryan Felder is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a School of Arts and Sciences Freshman majoring in Psychology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
". . . to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . ."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is there are far too many people who have overly broad and eccentric interpretations of "justice" and "the general welfare." Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber) exposed Obama's radical views about redistributing wealth, his idea of social and economic justice, I guess.
Which is why we now have a trillion -- a million million! -- dollars appropriated for projects and programs and which must have the Founders spinning in their graves.
As John McCain recently said, the stimulus bill is "generational theft." We're stealing from our posterity, not securing their liberty.
An interesting perspective, however I find the argument more semantic than political. If I may extrapolate the content, rather than the syntax:
ReplyDeleteThe same government that taxes and uses that money to support what it "sees fit," subsidizes Rutgers University.
The University subsidizes the Rutgers Libertarians.
So, the Rutgers Libertarians are sucking on the same teat that they morally object to the "corrupt politicians" nursing at.
Scubaman
The first is that all (or most) of the Rutgers Libertarians pay tuition. Second of all, all Rutgers students (or at least their parents) pay their taxes, which subsidizes the University. So attacking the Rutgers Libertarians on that basis doesn't hold up that well.
ReplyDelete@Ryan Felder: You pay tax and tuition and, one assumes, student activity fees. Further, one has to differentiate between sources of subsidy. There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States for subsidizing schools of any kind. (Why the good people of Idaho should pay to subsidize the tuition of the citizens of New Jersey escapes me.)
ReplyDeleteBut if the people of the "several states" wish to create and appropriate funds for public universities in their own states, I would guess that even a majority of libertarians would struggle to find fault with it.