Advocates for Self Government

1010 N Tennessee St
Suite 215
Cartersville, GA
30120-8528

Phone

(770) 386-8372

Fax

(770) 386-8373

Orders & Donations

(800) 932-1776

Quick Contact

info@theadvocates.org

Member Login

Communicating Liberty - The best tips and tools for spreading freedom

Why do libertarians oppose the current tax system?

Published April 18, 2011 in Short Answers by Mary Ruwart

Question

Most libertarians oppose the current income tax system. Is this because the system is too complicated and the IRS has a poor history, or because income taxes are inherently bad? What type of taxation system would be best? What type of taxation system would be best at the state and local levels?

Answer

Libertarians do not advocate the initiation of force, fraud, or theft to achieve social or political goals. If you refuse to contribute to my favorite charity, and I took your money at gunpoint anyway, I'd be stealing from you. Similarly, if I vote for taxes to force you to contribute to that charity through taxes, I'm asking the government to take your money -- at gunpoint, if necessary.

What is wrong for me as an individual, is wrong for a group of individuals acting through 'government.' Wrong doesn't turn into right, just because the majority agrees to it. Minorities have no protection if they have to depend upon the majority for it.

As a result, libertarians believe that ALL taxation is theft. Libertarians believe that the services supported by taxes can be provided more economically and efficiently by the private sector.

Dr. Ruwart's outstanding books Healing Our World and Short Answers to the Tough Questions are available at the Advocates Liberty Store.

Showing 10 Comments

Pubilshed April 21, 2011 by Dan Brentano

Don't libertarians realize that they are the property of the United Federal State of America.

Pubilshed April 23, 2011 by Guest

HMMM? Whining from Libertarians? By far an away, we here almost everything any possible GOP candidate says, followed by what the Tea Party's reaction/position is. Punch Line--FOX & "The Liberial Media" both are showing them. As of now, those Dem's cross registering who were going to vote for Sweet Sarah now have to think about The Donald (duck that is). I might vote for Obama or SOME of the Repub's but if Sarah or Donald are the GOP Can, my vote will go to Obama, again. Yep, George made me do it.

Pubilshed April 23, 2011 by Ron

I would be all for REPLACING the income tax with a sales tax (on ALL items), after all it would be less regressive than the income tax. But you know that the politicians would just look at it as another revenue stream.

Pubilshed April 30, 2011 by CJ

If people can get something for nothing, they will. There are somethings we all benefit from, Police and military security, vaccination against disease. If taxes were not obligatory not everyone would contribute freely, many people take a free ride and eventually no one would pay at all. With no police and no military you would end up paying a price far higer than taxes. This is why a certain level of tax is necessary. To pay for goods and services that can only be, or can most cheaply de provided collectively and to which access can not be denied (the miliray can´t defend me from nuclear attach whilst leaving my neigbour exposed because ha hasn´t paid his defense bill)

Pubilshed May 01, 2011 by Matthew Mitchell

@Brent Needham No, all tax is immoral and the government can be replaced by markets and non-coercive organisations. Charities and community groups included.

Pubilshed June 07, 2011 by HTwoWhoa

Assuming you want small government and not no government, declaring that 'all tax' is theft/ immoral is unreasonable. If you DO mean 'no government', that would be another matter.

Pubilshed June 08, 2011 by Eloise

I'm impressed! You've managed the almost ismopsible.

Pubilshed June 09, 2011 by dilapidatedshack

Wow! That came out sloppy. It costs money to keep up with the enumerated powers. So, how should we fund them if not for taxes? by hoarding coinage metals?

Pubilshed July 30, 2012 by Michael

If taxes remain, they should be opt-out. If you don't want to pay, don't pay, but don't use the services those taxes go to fund.

Pubilshed September 15, 2012 by Ayhan

Re: "contracts are enforceable with or wihtuot governments".At some point, and in some situations, enforcement of a contract may require the use of force. This is true even if the violation of the contract is peaceable in nature. Now if government holds a monopoly on the coercive use of force, then enforcing the contract will require the government to take forceful action.If there is no government, then I see two possibilities when one party to a contract refuses to meet an obligation. Either (a) no person or institution has the right to the coercive use of force, in which case the contract can not be enforced, or (b) some person or institution not called "the government" HAS the right to the coercive use of force, in which case it's not clear that this person or institution differs from "the government" in anything but name.

« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Add Comment

You commenting as a guest Sign in

Get your own Gravatar