Don Emmerich has an open letter preaching peaceonomics to socialists of all stripes (hat-tip to Minnesota Chris):
“Dear brothers and sisters,
Why do you love the state? That’s one thing I’ve never understood. For the past ten thousand years, the state has wreaked more death and destruction than any other human institution—and yet whenever I go to an anti-war rally, I always find you guys decked out in your Che Guevara t-shirts, distributing your little socialist newspapers. The last time I went to a rally, I had to listen to a couple of you blather on and on about the Soviet Union, explaining how crop failure, and not communism, was the cause of its downfall.
My friends, I can’t take it anymore. We need to talk peaceonomics.
Let me start by asking you a question. Why are you peaceniks anyway? Obviously because you hate war. But why do you hate war? What makes war so bad? No doubt most of you will respond by saying that it’s unjust, that it inflicts violence on innocent people, taking their lives and stealing their property.
Okay, let me now ask you another question. If it’s wrong for the state to use violence against people living overseas, then why don’t you think it’s wrong for it to use violence against those living within its borders? Because, whether you realize it or not, that’s exactly what you believe. You see, violence and theft are the lifeblood of every state, even those with dovish foreign policies.
To see why this is so, consider any one of your beloved social welfare programs. Now on the surface, things like unemployment insurance and Medicaid hardly seem pernicious. After all, if someone falls on hard times, it only seems right to lend them a helping hand.
And, of course, it is right to help those in need—provided that you’re helping them with your own money. If a man decided to withdraw $100 from his savings account and give it to a homeless shelter, then he would obviously be doing a good deed. If, however, someone were to corner an old lady, stick a gun to her head and demand everything in her purse—well then, even if he proceeded to donate this newly acquired money to charity, he would rightly be regarded as a thug and a criminal.
The problem with the state is that it doesn’t have any money of its own. Everything in its possession has been extorted from others. It’s not like the man withdrawing money from his savings account, but like the one sticking a gun up to the old lady’s head…..”
On crop failure . . . years ago I spoke to a Chinese immigrant who was taught in school that the reason there is no food is because of major floods in “other parts” of China.
Years later he goes to college in America to study meteorology. Guess what he finds out? There were no floods.
This why the Separation of Education and State is important.
Well, I dont completely agree to the last part of the comment Lila.
I do allocate, interestingly, about 200 dollars a year for some cause or another – though I am not always sure that the money actually gets spent on the cause.
The thing is – taxation is like sticking a gun at your head, because you have no choice in the matter. But, if I do not think it that way, and think as if I am willingly paying the tax so that the Govt can do part of the helping work for the needy which I cannot do well enough myself, or cannot organize it with others likeminded folks on a national scale, and would much rather like the Govt to do it for me, then, in that case, it would not be like sticking a gun at my head.
Tax, I guess, is desired or not desired depending on one’s point of view. I know many folks do not like to pay tax, but same time, many folks like the services that Govt often provides, thanks to the tax regime.
I do not see it as a clear black and white case and find various shades of gray in it. For some folks, and some societies, perhaps the state should not be large and the tax should be small or nonexistent and the overall result would be much better than the other way around.
Would it be good for everyone evrywhere ? In my mind, the jury is out.
Is no Government better than a corrupt Government ? I dont know. But I know this much, most Governments are corrupt, because the system somehow encourages it. But would folks be less corrupt in absence of a Govt? I do not know.
Keep up the good work Lila – you are on episode 188 of the Santiniketan Podcast. You can find it in iTunes or at : http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=53006
Cheers
Hi Tony –
You should familiarize yourself with the classic works at the Mises blog, if you think taxation can be seen as voluntary.
It is not.
It is one thing, in a small city, to have a town hall style of government that is responsive to people and where citizens have a voice in things.
It’s another thing to have this huge, imperial leviathan…
There are few services outside defense that couldn’t be provided better by the state…and even defense, many libertarians think can be provided better by private groups.
Taxation is fundamentally immoral, because it is a taking of private property by force.
Re your argument about services,
people cannot refuse the services of the government, so arguing that their acceptance of the services constitutes acceptance of the arrangement is fallacious.
A sales tax, or better yet, user fees, could defray the cost of services much better without the predatory and social engineering aspects of taxation..
If you think taxes are voluntary . . . don’t pay them. Then see what happens next.
I just listened to the Santiniketan Podcast with Lila.
To Tony Mitra,
Muchas gracias for posting this link.
To Lila,
If there is anyone out there who can explain the libertarian point of view of real life events in clearer, simpler, and more logical terms, I am not aware of them.
A question—-
After your speech in Vancouver, will a recorded copy be made available for those of your readers who are on the lam and cannot attend?
Thanks Barry..
Sure..I’ll make certain one’s available.
And I’ll try to speak slower! And not go off on tangents