Why taxation should be voluntary

The Republicans and the Democrats disagree about the role that the government should play in providing social services. The former insist that it should be smaller and intervene less in the economy. In contradistinction, the latter maintain that the public interest would be better served by a higher degree of government involvement in our institutions.

The Republicans are more likely to excoriate politicians who pioneer inefficient government programs than the Democrats, but they stop far short from conceding that all forms of taxation constitute theft.

Even the most intransigent conservatives will staunchly assert that taxation for some government services is legitimate. Who could argue that the government perpetrates theft by taxing all citizens to build schools, roads and police departments?

The problem with this rationale is it involves an element of coercion that could be construed as a violation of individual rights. This engenders a peculiar asymmetry in our moral outlook that creates a double-standard. Both orthodox schools of political thought prohibit individuals from coercing each other in such a manner but allow the government to do so.

Suppose you're back in school and I discover that you have several college papers to write. When I solicit you offering my services, you promptly turn me down because you do not need my help. Instead of respecting your wishes, I employ hackers to gain access to all of your virtual accounts and complete several assignments for you. In return, I'll withdraw twice as much money from your bank account as was necessary to cover the market fee for the service I've rendered. Since I now know that I will always have you as a client, I'll have no incentive to meet your deadlines or make an honest effort to fully maximize the quality of my work. In this case, you would be justifiably aggrieved, yet this still seems insufficient to show that the government is culpable of the same moral transgression.

Prima facie, it appears that I am making a category mistake. It is clear that you never authorized me to render a service to you, but all citizens entered an implicit social contract with the government that grants them such an authorization. That's quite a questionable counter-argument because most citizens do not understand what the contract is about and certainly did not consciously acquiesce to it.

In effect, the argument you would be espousing is an off-shoot of Rousseau's General Will that can be summarized as follows. The government should provide the public not with the services they vocally demand but with those that reflect their true general will. In other words, the government should analyze the cultural values, attitudes and the general ethos of the nation's collective consciousness in order to determine what their unspoken "General Will" is. History is replete with examples of how such political philosophy gave rise to totalitarianism on the left and the right and there is no need for me to go into them here.

If you are going to argue that taxation is not justified by Rousseau's General Will, then there is no reason to impose criminal penalties upon people who evade taxes. If the people truly did consent to government services, they should have no problem voluntarily paying for them. Taxation constitutes coercion and that is a fundamentally immoral act and coercion begets inefficiency. In turn, the government overcharges the citizenry for the services it renders in the same manner all monopolies do. This is a very subtle, albeit a pervasive and a clear-cut form of theft.

This leaves the establishment ideology with just one defense: mandatory government services are necessary to preserve public order. This position can be defended by the premise that a strong centralized government is necessary for preservation of social order and such a politico-economic infrastructure can be supported only by coercive taxation. Indeed, an environment of complete mayhem is often pejoratively referred to as anarchy. The fear that radical decentralization leads to a disastrous pandemonium is comprehensively supported by a plethora of historical examples. In the aftermath of the emergence of the Italian state in the 19th century, the southern territory was embroiled in incessant confrontations between mafia clans. India's lack of a centralized government has historically been associated with the nation's failure to achieve stability or economic progress until the British colonization.

Although it is possible for de-centralization to completely destroy social order, that outcome is far from inevitable. History is also fraught with examples of successful de-centralization including the Ancient Greek and autonomous city-states or polises. Even the nascent United States achieved considerable freedom and prosperity in part because of decentralization. Instead of dogmatically accepting the position that decentralization either strengthens or undermines political order, it is necessary to examine this question empirically. The only way to do so is to begin experimenting by slowly introducing minor changes to our politico-economic environment by making some forms of taxation voluntary. It is possible that this practice will engender desirable results where the consumers will opt to support the centralized government services or replace them with superior private services.

In the event where the worst fears of the establishment proponents are confirmed, mandatory taxation can be restored. It would then be clear that this form of coercion  maximizes the well-being of the largest number of people by preserving public order in the only way it is possible to do so. In that case, this course of action will be supported by a robust Utilitarian argument that's corroborated by compelling empirical evidence. Although this would be a paternalistic argument with its own authoritarian undercurrents, it would be much less dangerous than the appeal to Rousseau's General Will. Here, the government would have a clear-cut rationale for financially coercing the public and it will set a precedent for future policies that will require similarly rigorous justifications for future legislation involving coercion. At the very least, intellectual honesty behooves us to understand that the current institution of taxation is profoundly immoral because it involves theft and coercion. If it truly does serve the public interest, this hypothesis is too important to be accepted on faith and it should be subjected to rigorous social experimentation. 

Decoding the Immigration Reform Propaganda

Jeb Bush proudly volunteers the fact that his wife is from Mexico and fashions himself a champion of a "comprehensive immigration reform". In his most recent statement, he pontificated ""Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity."

Decoding: America needs more low-skilled migrant workers who are not interested in achieving socio-economic mobility. This way, the nation's leading corporations can exploit their labor-power by paying them less than minimum wage. Thereby, they will gain a competitive advantage over smaller businesses who have a more restricted access to the pool of such undocumented workers.

While this would be the ideal situation for Bush III and his coterie of Rockefeller Republicans, it is taboo to openly encourage illegal immigration. Thus, he is settling for the next best thing that will place the low-skilled Hispanic workers on a fast track to citizenship.It is not a coincidence that Reagan's "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" was followed by the massive widening of wealth disparities that continued well into the Clinton Administration.

Bush and his corporate cronies do not want ambitious immigrants who will rapidly cultivate highly lucrative skills to begin contributing to our economy. This is anathema to his party because the innovative accomplishments of such foreigners can challenge the reign of the corporate lobbyists.  ""Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families,"" It is interesting that Bush cited the fertility of immigrants as one reason to reform the nation's policy on this issue. When low-skilled immigrants raise six or seven children on a minimum-wage income, is it likely that their children will become entrepreneurs, doctors or engineers?

Let's just be honest here, do the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs and Monsanto want immigrants like Sergei Brinn and Carlos Slim? Clearly, these individuals posses exquisite entrepreneurial talent that less than a million of newcomers will have.

At the very least, however, the ambitious immigrants will likely help the small businesses more than the large corporations. Hundreds of foreigners are small-time entrepreneurs who operate gas stations, convenience stores and virtual enterprises. If they do not start their own business, most of them will not settle for dead-end jobs in corporate bureaucracies. They've sacrificed far too much and have come way too far to settle for a mere mediocre living at a job they don't find sufficiently lucrative or intrinsically fulfilling. They will become the kind of workers who reward new entrepreneurs for their ingenuity, boldness and morally upstanding conduct. Clearly, most modern corporations are clearly lacking these virtues and the ambitious immigrants will likely support their competitors because of that.

Why the Democratic Political Platform Creates Poverty

While one may describe this meme as propagandistic and one-sided, it carries an important insight.

The Democratic Party has always been notorious for employing the strategy of machine politics to maximize their influence. Andrew Jackson instituted the spoils system where the government provided political privileges to voters in exchange for their support.

The Democrats were able to perpetrate such blatant fraud with impunity because this country was significantly more corrupt than it is now. However, the increased political transparency compelled them to merely refine their strategy as opposed to abandon it. In other words, they simply discovered subtler and less conspicuous methods for achieving the same objective.

Instead of explicitly handing out government positions to the most steadfast party loyalists, they reward supporters by expanding government programs that benefit them. Two obvious examples of this phenomenon include the invidious "military-industrial complex"  and the aggrandizement of welfare programs.

While both appear benevolent because they have the potential to generate income, they are problematic because they disincentivize the private and the public sector from contributing to economic growth. Today's welfare state can hardly be described as anything but a spoils system in disguise: it hands out special privileges to the underclass in exchange for their support. Although this course of action diminishes the incidence of extreme poverty, it does little to provide its beneficiaries with resources necessary to enter the middle class. In part because of this, the government has an incentive to increase rather than decrease the poverty rate. For this reason, the image cited in the opening sentence provides relatively accurate description of the frequent consequences of the Democrats' long-term political triumphs.

While government contracts for large corporations create jobs, they are fundamentally anti-competitive because they allow these organizations to thrive without outperforming their rivals in the market. As a result, economic growth is stifled because these institutions reward alliances with the government more than efficiency and innovation. As a result, higher barriers to market-entry are created and the surviving enterprises often produce fewer jobs than the genuine victors in market competition would. This clearly contributes to poverty because government contracts eliminate more jobs than they create.

Since FDR's New Deal, the appeal to pity has always been the centerpiece of the Democratic political platform. However, it is a little known fact that this rationale is fallacious and famously so: it is known as the logical fallacy of argumentum ad lazarum. It is always a mistake to assume by default that acts motivated by the intention to assist the most unfortunate are morally justifiable. While very few could reject the moral premise that it is commendable to help the poor, there is a gap between people's actions and intentions. That is why the ostensible acts of compassion that the Democrats profess to engage in frequently lead to disastrous outcomes.

Pinochet Coup and The Disastrous Consequences of American Global Hegemony

This is an informative documentary on the indictment of Chile's former military dictator, General Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. With ample financial and political support from the United States, Pinochet seized power in the September 11th coup d'etat of 1973. This event laid down the foundations of the U.S hegemonic foreign policy that subsequently led to 72 foreign interventions provoking a massive proliferation of anti-American sentiments in a myriad of underdeveloped nations where interventions have taken place. For all of the 20th century, the U.S was able to pursue these policies with nearly full impunity and minimal casualties. Nonetheless, the disastrous consequences of America's heavy interventionism in foreign countries reached this country's shores 38 years after the Pinochet coup, evincing the disastrous consequences of our hegemonic foreign policy.

Under Pinochet's aegis, Chile was transformed from an indigent Marxist state to a dynamic market-oriented democracy it is today. The junta accomplished this remarkable feat by comprehensively uprooting all political opposition through massive incarceration, torture and execution. Extra-judicial incarceration was perpetrated on over 30,000 innocent civilians, 3,000 were murdered and over 10,000 permanently displaced. Nonetheless, Chile remains the most stable, the most prosperous and the most democratic nation in South America.

Whether you applaud or decry General Pinochet's radical reforms, the relevance of this event to modern American foreign policy is worth noting. The democratization of foreign authoritarian regimes and the revitalization of their moribund statist communist economies often comes at an exorbitant cost.

The era of light skirmishes and casual conflict is over, no-one is fully immune to the threats of modern war. 

The University is the New Church

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes repeatedly expressed concerns that the Church and the University had the potential to undermine the sovereign's authority. When I first read that passage as a naive college student, I saw no reason to challenge Hobbes' position regarding the subversiveness of the University. After all, I thought that the University was home to many massive protests and it seemed obvious to me that the primary purpose of institutions of higher learning was to promote critical thinking.

Yet, I did not quite understand why Hobbes thought that the Church could be equally subversive. I was confounded by that bizarre assertion because the Church appeared to have the opposite influence upon young people from that of the University. Instead of promoting critical thinking, it encouraged its patrons to adhere to a religious dogma and instead of participating in protests, it promoted obedience to authority. Then, sobering realization dawned upon me: I've thoroughly misunderstood that passage from the Leviathan. 

Hobbes was not saying that the University was potentially seditious because it promoted critical and independent thinking. In fact, he was saying the exact opposite: the University undermined the authority of the State in nearly exactly the same way the Church did. In the "Origins of Political Order", Francis Fukuyama documented how the political power of the Catholic Church diminished the strength of the centralized governments across Western Europe. By contrast, the Orthodox Church of Russia enjoyed considerably less power and for that reason, the Tsars were able to govern with an iron-fist. He documented a similar contrast between the deeply religious medieval India that lacked a strong centralized government and the relatively secular China that has been deeply authoritarian for most of its history. 

Hobbes' point was that similarly to the Sovereign, the University and the Church had tremendous potential to inspire unconditional obedience to their authority. In so doing, they can persuade their followers to developer deeper loyalties to institutions of religious practice or "higher learning" than to the government. Unlike mere craftsmen and ordinary people who serve to provide practical benefits for others in exchange for monetary rewards, the Church and the University claim that they serve a higher purpose in society. The former generally maintains that they help people obtain salvation, find meaning in life and throughout the epochs, it has been nothing short of the vanguard of public morality. In the deeply religious Europe, it was often presumed that it was impossible for one to be moral without being religious. However, in the secular Westernized society, the average citizen clearly adheres to a different set of values more akin to those espoused by the University. Such values include participating in a democracy by voting or protesting, thinking for oneself and serving the public good. While these ideals sound great on paper, the University has only been as effective at compelling people to abide by them as the Catholic Church has been at the prequel to the Protestant Reformation. 

In light of the fundamental changes to the Western collective consciousness, the University wields far greater moral authority than the Church. The traditional Christian values are often seen as antiquated, parochial and altogether out of tune with the sensibilities of the modern society. By contrast, the University emerged as the bastion of forward looking values where all sorts of causes for social justices are championed. Thus, Hobbes' insight is quite relevant today because the University remains a politically active institution. Although most protesters on college campuses believe that their actions are driven only by their independent thought, they've been more influenced by the culture of the University than they realize. This becomes apparent in light of the fact that most students struggle to form coherent arguments in defense of their position. We all know it, only a few students are critical thinkers and even fewer base their political attitudes on facts or defensible rationales.

I think we should seriously consider the idea that the University indoctrinates students just as much as the Church used to and Hobbes' wariness of the University was quite justified. Today, his fears are becoming a reality as the University poses a more formidable challenge to the U.S government than the Church did to the governments of medieval Europe. At the outset, this seems like a good thing because the government's power must be challenged as otherwise it becomes corrupt and oppressive.

 The problem is, however, the Church and the University are not immune to this problem. The Catholic Church compromised its integrity at the heyday of the sales of the indulgences and we're beginning to see a similar problem with the modern Academia. Rampant grade inflation and the proliferation of online degree mills likens the process of acquiring a degree to that of paying priests to reserve one's place in heaven. Similarly to the Catholic Church, the University promises its students extraordinary results such as "the joys of the life of the mind" and superior employment prospects, yet they rarely honor these promises. Only graduates with a small number of highly marketable degrees tend to reap the full rewards of a college education while the majority of their peers get buried deep in debt. As for the life of the mind, I can only refer you to William Pannapacker. 

Early Feminism and Modern Misandry

Isn't feminism just another form of collectivist prejudice in the same sense that racism is? Racists make sweeping generalizations about the allegedly malevolent intentions of people of different skin color, but don't the feminists do the same thing?

Collectively, the white people have done a lot of harm to the blacks by colonizing their territories. You could argue that collectively, men have done the same to women over millennia.

Yet in both cases, the harmful actions were not caused by any malevolent intentions. The Europeans were merely pursuing their self-interest by seeking to expand their empires and patriarchs did likewise by seeking to extend their personal power.

In a lot of cases, both groups displayed callousness, myopia and even unimaginable ignorance. However, the vilification is simply unwarranted because a very small percentage of members of those groups were guided by intentions of inflicting harm upon those who suffered as a result of their actions.

I think that this is the fundamental problem with feminism itself: it unduly ascribes sinister motives to actors of history who scarcely even considered the true outcomes of their actions.

The pioneers of feminist thought such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Jane Austen endeavored to address the structural causes of gender inequity. They focused on institutional, economic, sociocultural and political aspects of the problem. By and large, the severest of problems of patriarchy have been resolved. That is evident in light of the fact that a significant percentage of prestigious professional positions are held by women.

In the absence of the grossest of gender inequality problems, the modern feminists are left with little choice but to engage in crass misandry that is quite similar to the practices of racists. Both groups focus not on the fundamental causes of injustice, but on the imagined nefarious motives of groups that they regard as their adversaries.

Open letter to Professor Fritz McDonald

Dear Professor McDonald,

As a token of my appreciation for the invaluable services you have rendered to me and will undoubtedly render to many of your future students, I am responding to your most recent publication in Oakland University's virtual newspaper.  

"This university is a wonderful place. It is amazing that it even exists. You are incredibly lucky to go to such a university."

Yes, Fritz, I completely agree with you. We are incredibly lucky to spend $50,000 on a four year degree that will leave us even worse off than we were when we started. Please remind me how you get people to major in philosophy? Oh, that's right: you lure them in with that "life of the mind" claptrap. My dear child, don't you want to be wise? Don't you want to be the beneficiary of all that the intellectual life has to offer? Don't you want to be able to think for yourself instead of having your life directed by religious demagoguery, political propaganda or arbitrary social conventions!? Oh, of course you do because you are a bright young man, so how can you not major in philosophy!?

What's the problem with this rhetoric? Academic philosophy has little to do with the pursuit of wisdom as Socrates conceptualized or even how most ordinary people see it today. Instead of focusing on the important questions of life and pursuing the life of the mind, you'll just be rehashing the views of popular modern philosophers. If you're lucky, you'll be regurgitating the ideas of the authors of the classics. Oh sure, you will be asked to analyze some of their arguments, but that task will comprise 20% of your essay or final exam, at the most. What could possibly be wrong with that and who cares if you know how to think for yourself!? On the other hand, the ability to rehash every line of Roderick Chisholm's free will defense will truly make a positive difference in your life!

Is regurgitating the views of other thinkers pursuing the life of the mind or is it just providing an account of how others have done so? So, Fritz, what's your response to that? Last time you've ducked the question by asserting that you were in class to answer questions about the upcoming exam and justifying your practices simply was not part of your job description.

Here, let me help you. I know that the pursuit of academic philosophy has little to do with the "life of the mind", I am here to teach you the skills that professors of philosophy practice in their scholarly journals. You will never be able to publish a peer-reviewed article without demonstrating a thorough understanding of the views of thinkers who are preeminent in your sub-discipline of philosophy. So, why should I set you up for failure in your philosophical career by not teaching you the skills that my academic establishment recognizes as very important? Well, your chances of becoming a professional philosopher are practically non-existent, especially since you're graduating from a tier-four school, but I am not going to advertise that, alright? 

In other words, most esteemed professor McDonald, what you're saying is that you're teaching us the skills we will need for a job that we will never obtain, correct? You're more than happy to encourage us to drown in debt obtaining skills that make us none-the-wiser and not any better off in the real world, isn't that true ?

Didn't your office neighbor, Mark Rigstad boast that he gets a dollar for every new philosophy major?  Didn't you make an argument to your 2009 Capstone class that the rigor of your program would be increased if the university was to have all of its expenses covered by the government because you would no longer have to charge tuition? Right, that would exempt you from the charge that you're enticing students to get buried beneath a mountain of debt, but it will also empower you to keep on teaching them the skills that are worthless from the intellectual and a practical standpoint. At least now, some students may have the good sense to not major in your discipline because it is financially non-viable, but then you won't even have this impediment to your objectives.

 Yes, students were incredibly fortunate to have this experience in 1962 when courses in the humanities were much more rigorous and degrees far more instrumental in the job market than they are now. So, what exactly have you accomplished other than exploit the naivete of the callow youth?

"To only go to classes is to miss out on the experience of going to college itself."

Do you mean the experience of attending over-sized classrooms taught by TAs who do not even understand the most rudimentary principles of pedagogy and trudging through curricula that impart virtually no valuable intellectual or practical skills on students? Admittedly, the OU classes are much smaller than the classes of many more prestigious institutions and are less likely to be taught by TAs, yet my last criticism stands.

"When I was in college, I wrote for my university's alternative weekly. I met friends for life."

Why don't you be a little more specific here? What year was this and where did you meet these friends? In your undergraduate program or graduate school? How many of your friends were fortunate enough to spend the rest of their career in the college cocoon? Do you have an intellectually honest way of making the argument that your experiences will be shared by the students you are writing to?

" I was a member of the philosophy club, getting a good preparation for my eventual career and discussing some deep stuff."

Again, what are you doing to help your students prepare for their eventual career and what was the "deep stuff" you were discussing? You mean the nuances of Peter Singer's argument for infanticide and Robert Kane's libertarianism? While you may have engaged in some critical thinking in your graduate level academic institution, how many of your students will ever advance beyond the very basics of philosophy? What kind of "deep stuff" will they be discussing once they graduate with $50,000 of debt with virtually no viable career prospects?

"I understand that many of you work full time, sometime many jobs"

Of course you understand that because they are paying your salary or preparing themselves for a life of paying off student debt working jobs they could have easily procured before even attending college.

" Here is my advice to you: do as little work as you possibly can outside of college. College is a full-time job."

Yes, I completely agree with you, let's set them all up for a big fall: let's keep them ignorant about how the real world works. Keep them insulated from the realities of the job-market and most importantly, discourage students from having experiences that enable them to understand the difference between preparation for a career as an academic philosopher and the actual pursuit of the life of the mind.

"Go ask your parents for more money, if they have it." Of course, what grown child in his late teens or early 20s ever dreams about being independent, let alone becoming a productive adult who makes valuable contributions to society!  Now, serving society as opposed to the narrow interests of your academic institution is something that you know a great deal about, don't you?

Feel free to dismiss me as an envious libeler, after all, I should have followed your advice to extend my college life for as long as possible, right? I just couldn't have done better than to have insulated myself from the real world for 10 full years to obtain a PhD, who could have ever questioned the precious wisdom of that proclamation!?

Perhaps your colleague, William Pannapacker would have? Have you ever considered exposing your students to an alternative point of view by citing links to his publications in the Chronicle of Higher Education? Oh, right!? He is a crank, a marginalized radical and probably even a shill for the Republican Party! He teaches in Holland, Michigan; a relatively small town that is much more conservative than Oakland University, the bastion of independent thought, forward-looking values and the pivotal actor in the progress of the Western civilization.

Forget about the thousands of PhDs in philosophy who compete with high-school drop-outs for entry level jobs. Forget about the shrill cacophony of voices from thousands of adjunct-professors who are hovering on starvation and the hordes of unemployed PhDs who echo Pannapacker's central message.

What can I say, you're a good man, Fritz: you truly have your students' best interests at heart. They don't need to grow up or worry about their staggering student debt. Forget about all of those pesky statistics regarding the plights of students with the kind of degrees that you are promoting. After all, who cares about the mundane banalities of the economic world when you live the dream of the life of the mind!

Besides, a college degree is your ticket to the middle class, right? So, what could possibly be wrong with going deeper into debt, squandering your parents' money and postponing exposure to the real world until you're well into your early 30s, like yourself? You don't even need to preach the noble lifestyle of perpetual childhood, your life is the embodiment of your teaching.  

Your Sincerest Admirer,

-Aleksey