When you are a politically active person in the United States who doesn’t identify with the Republican or Democrat party, those in one of the two main parties have a very hard time understanding you.
People have called me everything from idealistic or impractical to stupid or crazy. They don’t understand why I wouldn’t be willing to align myself with one of the two largest parties, just picking the one that is closest to my beliefs, and get behind it 100%. I certainly wish I could, but there is one platform that both parties support unequivocally and without reservation: violence against people who don’t agree with them.
That’s right. Republicans and Democrats both believe that if you aren’t willing to do what they think is “right”, they will initiate violence against you. If you disobey them enough, you will literally find yourself with a gun aimed directly at you for disobeying them.
This isn’t some secret conspiracy or some grand revelation; this is the life we live in today. Republicans and Democrats believe in physical aggression against anyone who doesn’t abide by their laws. A libertarian believes physically aggression is never appropriate unless it is in defense of life, liberty, or property.
Is The Government Really Aggressive?
This is where I’m going to get disagreement from any non-libertarian. The government does a lot of stuff, and you do not get to choose if you agree with it or not. They decide something should be done and then force you to pay for it (through taxes).
As a libertarian, I believe in the non-aggression principle (that you should never harm another person or their property, unless you are acting in self defense).
Is the government truly “aggressive”? Well, what would happen if you didn’t pay your taxes?
First the IRS would call you and inform you of all the fines you owe for not paying. Continue to refuse to pay, and eventually the government will show up to your house with an arrest warrant and a bunch of guys with guns, coming to take you to jail for a felony charge of tax evasion.
If you resist arrest, they will do whatever it takes to get you. They will harm you physically, beat you, and they will certainly shoot you if you try to defend yourself with a firearm of your own.
Every law they pass, every program they create, and every tax they impose on you is enforceable through violent aggression.
“Good” Programs are No Excuse for Violence
As I stated before, the government will initiate violence against me if I refuse to pay taxes to support food stamps. This is not an opinion or conjecture; this is a fact.
Some might say, “Food stamps are a good cause, so you SHOULD be forced to pay for it.”
The government isn’t the only organization that helps hungry people eat. Food banks here in North Texas alone feed thousands of people with donations from individuals, corporations, and a heck of a lot of volunteers. They do a great job and feed a lot of people.
But what if their donations dried up? Should the North Texas Food Bank be able to show up at my door with guns and armor and demand that I “donate” money so they can continue their charitable work in the community? I doubt there’s a single person reading this who thinks the North Texas Food Bank should have that right, so why should the government?
Do I Agree With [insert law]?
I would encourage everyone to take a second look at certain laws or policies that you support at the federal level with the following question in mind:
“Am I comfortable with the fact that the government will initiate violence against US citizens if they are unwilling to fund this program or abide by this law?”
When I ask myself this question, I am very comfortable with the government initiating violence against murders, burglars, and rapists. These people deny someone else’s right to life, liberty, or property.
But am I comfortable with the government initiating violence against someone who doesn’t want to buy poor people food, or someone who doesn’t want to prosecute and imprison non-violent drug users? Absolutely not.
Readers: What is your guiding principle that helps you determine if you whether you agree with a law?
Kevin McKee is an entrepreneur, IT guru, and personal finance leader. In addition to his writing, Kevin is the head of IT at Buildingstars, Co-Founder of Padmission, and organizer of Laravel STL. He is also the creator of www.contributetoopensource.com. When he’s not working, Kevin enjoys podcasting about movies and spending time with his wife and four children.
I agree with you…but of course I am a Ron Paul supporter like you so we probably agree on a lot of political ideas. I don’t know that I have a guiding principal but one thing I do think is will this law take away something from someone? For example, Arlington’s new recycle bins force citizens to pay for recycling regardless of whether or not they recycle. That is wrong. If I want to recycle and want to pay for the new recycling bins that is fine, but I shouldn’t be forced to pay when I don’t recycle. Although that is an easy example, I struggle with some other things like pollution. Does pollution from let say a car, kill me? Maybe. So should we make laws to force car manufacturers put out less pollution or no pollution? Maybe. I mean if cars are killing me with pollution, that is murder and they should be forcibly made to stop. At least that is what part of me thinks, the other part of me thinks that our Earth is made to get rid of it so no one needs to worry about it. Then the other part of me says look at Fukushima, obviously there is too much pollution. Animals are being deformed, humans are getting cancer like crazy, etc. Maybe there is an acceptable level of pollution? I don’t know…this is the one area that I really struggle with as a Libertarian.
Environmental issues are one I struggle with as well. I wish I had a good answer. We all breathe the same air, but no one “owns” the air. If you ever come up with a good answer, let me know!
A law is a law. You must obey the law, or face the consequences. It is law that you must pay taxes, just as it’s law that you must not kill or harm people. If you don’t like tax laws, then you are free to break them, but you must face the consequences. If you do not like the tax laws, if you do not like paying for food stamps, write your Congressman or Senator. They make the laws.
Murdering someone and not paying taxes are on two opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to breaking the law, but if you boil it down to one common thing it’s that you broke the law. If you resist arrest, law enforcement will use necessary force to make you comply, that includes pointing a gun at your face, and if necessary, if they feel their life is threatened, kill you.
Does not paying your taxes warrant violent force? No, of course not. Does not paying your taxes, resisting arrest and threatening law enforcement warrant violent force? Absolutely, but that’s on you.
So what would you suggest as appropriate law enforcement? “Hey Kevin, please pay your taxes. No? Pretty please? No? Pretty please with sugar on top? Still don’t want to pay? OK… maybe next time?”. In a civilized society, laws are written and there are increasing levels on consequences for not obeying, with the ultimate being physical harm.
I would suggest appropriate law enforcement would only deal with issues of, life, liberty, or property.
I suggest we stop taxing people to pay for food stamps, fund the drug war, fund all of our wars and sending of weapons to other countries, the department of education, the department of commerce, the department of energy, etc, etc, etc.
I’ve made it clear before that I do not believe the income tax and liberty can coexist, so I believe that whatever taxes the federal government needs (to protect life, liberty, and property), it should be collected as a flat excise tax, as we did for the first 150 years of this country.
“First the IRS would call you and inform you of all the fines you owe for not paying. Continue to refuse to pay, and eventually the government will show up to your house with an arrest warrant and a bunch of guys with guns, coming to take you to jail for a felony charge of tax evasion.
“If you resist arrest, they will do whatever it takes to get you. They will harm you physically, beat you, and they will certainly shoot you if you try to defend yourself with a firearm of your own.”
Where are you getting this from? Can you give a single concrete example of where this has happened?
As for this: “The government does a lot of stuff, and you do not get to choose if you agree with it or not. They decide something should be done and then force you to pay for it (through taxes). and this: “I’ve made it clear before that I do not believe the income tax and liberty can coexist.” Tough nuggies, Kev, but we do have this thing called the Constitution, and it includes an income-tax amendment. If you don’t like the Constitution, well that’s too bad, but that’s the way it is. But you should be happy as a pig in s*** that House Republicans just voted en masse to cut millions from food stamps! Hey, those food banks will make up all the difference, and if they don’t, who cares? The poor are just freeloaders, and they aren’t entitled to eat!
It only took a few seconds to find someone who was sent to prison for tax evasion. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/24/ex-lawyer-sentenced-to-prison-for-tax-evasion/
And if someone refuses to go to prison, that’s what you might know as resisting arrest, where you are beaten and taken forcibly. And do I really need to find an example of someone who pulled a gun on law enforcement and law enforcement fired back? Asking for proof of things we all know doesn’t help your argument; it just wastes everyone’s time.
And maybe you don’t care about whether or not the poor can eat, but I certainly do. I only wish I could afford to do more personally to help them, which I would gladly do if the government wasn’t already taking 30% of what I make.
You said, in reference to the income tax, “If you don’t like the Constitution, well that’s too bad, but that’s the way it is.” If that’s your attitude, then I guess you’ll never complain about anything the government does, as long as today’s interpretation of the Constitution allows it. Any time a law is passed, and it is deemed constitutional by the supreme court, it would be very hypocritical of you to disagree with it. You know, like the law that reduced food stamps benefits.
Kevin, did you pay 30% of your income last year to taxes? I doubt it. Now that we know they are not doing that, every dollar you donate is actually worth more than the average dollar you make. Take life into your own hands and don’t make excuses for why you’re not donating more to charity, if you want to give more you can and the government certainly isn’t stopping you. They’re encouraging you with tax discounts for doing so.
If I want to run around naked in the streets, bothering people but physically harming no one, nobody should be there to stop me? What if my belief is that what I’m doing is fun and helps other people, so if you arrest me, I should resist because I feel like I have done nothing wrong. Does that mean that if you run around naked in the streets enough you will literally find yourself with a gun aimed directly at you? Kind of a stretch, I think.
You sound like you don’t like the laws of America or the direction it’s going in. So why not move to a country that has values more in line with yours?
My income tax alone was over 22% of my total income (including social security and medicare). When you account for sales tax, property tax, and all the other hidden taxes I paid, I’m confident it was over 30%.
Assault is not just physical. You can’t emotionally assault people with graphic images, especially children. And if you do decide to get naked and run up to me and my family screaming, you can bet you’ll find yourself with a gun aimed directly at you.
To your last point, I’d rather change this country to make it better. However, I have looked at other countries and there are problems with leaving. You can’t just fly to another country and declare yourself a citizen. Secondly, I haven’t found anywhere that is so much better I’d be willing to move. Just because we are about as oppressed as other countries doesn’t mean the oppression is okay.
As a US citizen, the base of your income tax is your worldwide income (ie even the money you make in china).
Renouncing to US citizenship is valid for the IRS only after 10 years, yes you will pay for 10 more years tax to US after you left and renounce your citizenship.
Moreover the IRS has many agreements with other first-world country, so that their IRS will recover the tax for the US IRS…..
So Daniel, you want to go to Columbia with Snowden? Se habla mexicano?
a) Yes, there are people who have been sentenced for tax evasion. There was no violence involved in the case you linked to, and your primary point has been that the government is a violent agency. You have said that “the government will initiate violence against me if I refuse to pay taxes to support food stamps. This is not an opinion or conjecture; this is a fact.” No, it’s not a fact, and you cannot point to any examples. The fact is that only a minority of tax evasion cases go to prison terms. Quoted from Slate: “The government only pursues criminal charges against a few thousand people every year. Civil tax proceedings are much more common, but they never result in prison sentences.”
b) I care enormously about poverty in this country. Poverty is increasing. You’re a man of means. You’ve bragged here before about earning a comfortable income. If you felt strongly about helping the poor, surely you could find a few more dollars a month to help them. Or you wouldn’t object to a continuation of food stamps. The problem is that because of rampant unemployment and wage stagnation, poverty is increasing at a staggering rate and all the food banks in the country can’t bear the load.
c) The Constitution is binding on all of us whether we agree with it or not. But it is a fluid document subject to amendment and re-interpretation. I do not in fact support a number of SCOTUS decisions such as the Citizens’ United decision and the recent overturning of the Voting Rights clause. These were decided by a highly split activist Court that is leaning very conservative.
d) As far as taxes go, we have no individual say in where our tax dollars go. It’s not as if you or I can say, I don’t want my taxes to fund a war or not to fund food stamps. We elect representatives to Congress, they vote their interests, and they tax as they see fit. If we don’t like a particular tax, our only recourse is to petition our representatives or to throw the bums out on Election Day. Like it or not, that’s the representative democracy we live in.
That was me above. Didn’t intend to be anonymous.
Let’s pretend I decided to draw a line in the sand right now. I decide I will never pay a dollar in income tax again. I continue working but have nothing withheld from my paycheck. I never file tax returns. Eventually the government learns of my behavior and demands money.
I refuse. They try to garnish my wages, I stop working. They try to come onto my personal property and take my things, so I decide to defend myself and my property. Would the government initiate violence against me at this point? The answer is yes.
So the government decides I owe them money (without my consenting to the agreement), they come to take it from me, I attempt to defend myself, and they are violent against me.
Take that last sentence and change “the government” for any other entity. The mob. My neighbor. The North Texas Food Bank. In any one of those cases it is extortion and assault. The violence initiator is the criminal and I’m the victim. Only when it’s the government am I the criminal and the violent aggressors are the victims.
Since you support the current government, I assume you believe the government has the right (whether they have done so or not is irrelevant) to initiate violence against anyone who doesn’t follow their rules and is not willing to pay for their programs. I do not.
If you don’t believe the government has the right to initiate violence to make people pay taxes, then how do you recommend they get their taxes from someone who refuses to pay?
This is all an elaborate series of hypotheticals. You have not, and you cannot, show cases of systematic violence visited by the American government on individuals, or even a policy as such. We’re not living in Nazi Germany of Maoist China, and the conclusion that I support acts of violence by the government has no basis in anything I said; obviously I do not support anything of the kind. In fact the 4th Amendment specifically precludes the kind of actions by the government that you complain of.
The post by “tom” above is also relevant.
I really thought you were smarter than this. but let me spell it out for you:
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7201
So we have established tax evasion is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
If someone feels they have done nothing wrong, they will resist being arrested. Here is one video of someone resisting arrest: http://youtu.be/yhpNpE0b-y4
The man was sprayed with mace, pushed to the ground, and handcuffed (all violent acts which are legal under our current government).
Therefore, not paying taxes can lead to arrest, and arrest is inherently violent (forcibly removing someone from society against his or her will). Thus, our government explicitly approves of violence against people who refuse to pay taxes.
I hope that explains it for you, because I don’t see how it can get any simpler.
If you’re going to stoop to personal insult, I won’t deal with you anymore. Yes, there are maximum sentences for tax evasion. Yes, there are cases of police violence. Happy now?
I just didn’t see how you were missing the point. While I didn’t explicitly insult you, I do see how you could take offense to “I thought you were smarter than this”. I apologize for not communicating effectively enough and straying away from the argument at hand.
“The man was sprayed with mace, pushed to the ground, and handcuffed (all violent acts which are legal under our current government).
Therefore, not paying taxes can lead to arrest, and arrest is inherently violent (forcibly removing someone from society against his or her will). Thus, our government explicitly approves of violence against people who refuse to pay taxes.”
Seriously?… how do you propose to enforce laws? Should I ask you nicely not to shoot someone? If you do shoot someone, or any other type of crime, should I ask you nicely to get in my squad car and come to jail?
Frankly, this pacifism is just ridiculous. It’s completely reasonable to expect to expect a beatdown if you are resisting arrest.
Also, did you watch that video? The guy pulled a gun on the officers. Their lives were in danger, I’d have shot him. Of course it’s legal for professionally trained officers to use violent acts to protect themselves.
Tom, I made it very clear that if someone intends to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, or property, they will be met with violent resistance. Obviously shooting someone is the ultimate infringement on someone else’s right to life, and would be met with violent force.
And I’m not saying the police officer in the video wasn’t right. I’m saying arrest is violent and gave an example.
Did you know resisting arrest is a crime in and of itself? If a police officer tries to arrest you even if you haven’t committed a crime, and you resist, you can be charged with resisting arrest and fined or jailed. That’s right, being innocent and resisting arrest is a crime in this country. Maybe you’re okay with that but I’m not.
I’m good with it. Police have the authority to keep law and order. Police don’t just go around arresting people. It’s not like they said, hey I don’t like that guy, I’m going to arrest him. They have a reason to do so. If you are innocent of the crime they are arresting you for, then you are allowed due process under our justice system.
So what do you suggest instead? Do you suggest not prosecuting any type of non-life, liberty, property crime? I’m confused at your point here. If you do not have a method of enforcement, and increasing severity of enforcement procedures, what do you suggest instead?
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. First, shrink the government so we can decrease the tax burden on everyone, ideally to 0 (taxes would come from excise taxes, as it was prior to 1913). Second, decriminalize non-violent crime. If someone wants to kill themselves with drugs, as long as they aren’t getting in a car and endangering others, let charities and churches help them instead of throwing them in jail.
“So the government decides I owe them money (without my consenting to the agreement)…” Actually, being a citizen of the United States IS your consent to the agreement. You want to live here, you have to live by the rules that we as a society have established. Don’t like the rules? That’s fine, we will let you voice your dissent and take appropriate measures to go about changing them. But until they are changed, society has decided that you must obey every law or face the consequences – violent as they may be.
My biggest problem with food stamps or any government assistance is the gross abuse the system affords. Like the 20 people in line at the convenience store using their EBT card to buy Cheetos and Twizzlers but the cash they also have goes straight for the scratch offs. Why should I have to pay for them to gamble when they could be using that cash to…I don’t know…buy real food. Why does EBT allow junk food to be purchased? I thought Michelle Obama was worried about obesity in this country. Her and Barry have a wonderful opportunity to influence the nutrition of at least 101 million Americans.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/101m-get-food-aid-federal-gov-t-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers
In my experience, most people who setlle for either side of the aisle because it’s “the way it’s done” are the same people who say, “I don’t mind the NSA watching me, it’s not like I have anything to hide.” Abre los ojos.
Exactly. If you really wanted to feed people, but you wanted to make sure the people you are feeding truly need the help, you could give money to individuals you trust. Or you could give money to a charity you trust to distribute it appropriately.
You don’t have that option with the government. They will take your money, and they will give it to someone so they can buy cheetos with an EBT card and lotto tickets with whatever cash they have, and they will garnish your wages or put you in jail if you refuse to participate.
I think you have failed to grasp he transactional nature of taxes. By choosing to live and work in the US, you agree to certain provisions, one of which is the acceptance of the politicl/legal system which mets out the terms by which we ill all live together. Fundamental to this is taxes and agreeing to pay them is part of the deal, for which you receive services. Do have a road to drive on to get to your job? Taxes. Appreciate having the fire department show up while your house is burning? Taxes. And in decent society, you do not negotiate the price of using your hose while your neighbors house is buning down. People’s lives burn down in a variety of ways, thus the large variety of services that are necessary.
Now for the most part not paying your taxes will not land you in jail. We are pretty far from debtors prison in this country when it comes to taxes (child spport, different topic). So yes, they will want you to pay, and if it goes long enough they may show up at the door of where you live. Note I did not say to your house, because at this point, it is no longer your house. You have failed to pay a debt on a transaction, and as a result you will be made to pay through fortiture of assets to satisfy the debt. In fact, at this point you are now legally trespassing, and thus in the wrong. Reaching for a weapon would not be ‘defending yourself’ but an initiation of violence against someone performing their legal responsibilities in collecting the debt owed to every other taxpayer. If you were to repect the law, you walk away and no one would harm you. You are free go about your life, and future earnings will be garnished appropriately until such time as you have fully satisfied your outstanding debt, all th while you continue to recive the benefit of all available services.
Those that do not accept that agreement are free discontinue the relationship by relocating. Those who aspire to change the system are free to use all legal means to do so.
Thank you, RC, for this mature and well-reasoned argument.
Really enjoyed reading the article and all the comments here. Thanks!
I am sure almost every American can point to some programs in the Federal Budget and talk about how they shouldn’t be obligated to pay for it because they don’t believe in it or think its necessary. I for one don’t appreciate the fact that we spend countless sums of money maintaining military bases all throughout the world. But that’s why it’s up to each individual to try and elect representatives whose views coincide with their own. As for taxes in general, we all agree to pay taxes as part of the social contract. I realize no one “likes” paying taxes, but so long as we agree to live as functioning members of society “some” taxes are a necessity. We all use roads, bridges, sanitation services, etc. My favorite argument is schools. I’ve heard so many people complain that they don’t have any kids, but must still pay local school taxes. To that I say you fail to see the bigger picture. I want kids in our society educated. I don’t want them roaming the streets with no future. Society as a whole benefits from educating our youth. Get rid of schools, and watch as crime rates soar and this country digs itself into an even bigger hole.