The State need not (necessarily) contradict the Non-Aggression Principle

Taxation can be retaliatory and doesn't need to violate the NAP... Adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle does not obviate (rule out) the State... and the State can be justified if the behaviours that it punishes can be described as unfavourable to the people as a whole (such as crime)

The State (as a form of collective behavioural entity) can still exist even without violating the Non-Aggression Principle, just as individual can exist as such.

By "State" I mean a body with the (legitimate) power to use force against a person and even to imprison them.

The Principle of Non-Aggression states that it is inappropriate to initiate violence (or the analogues of violence such as force and coercion) against another person or body... but that violence can in some circumstances be justified in self-defence. So then, we can argue for a State to act only in accordance with these rules. For example, the State may seek redress from someone who has committed a violent act against the State which may be defined in any number of ways.

A (persistent) criminal can be considered to have transgressed against not only the individuals concerned, but also the State meaning that the State would then be justified in seeking redress.

Income Tax (or any punishment for a transaction) violates the NAP whereas, it can be argued, a tax such as the Land Value Tax does not do so

So how would the crime-fighting actions of the State be funded, if not by coercive taxation? Well, for one thing, part of the punishment for any crime could be to remove assets from that (criminal) person which can then be used to pay for Police and Prison and so on... But assuming that all criminals happen to be lacking in financial wealth, how else can crime-fighting be funded (assuming those people do not "work" voluntarily and that it cannot be (sufficiently) funded by voluntary donations...)?

Taxes can be accrued from those who it can be argued, have transgressed violently against the State. For example it can perhaps be argued that a person who damages the environment has acted violently and that it is then appropriate (or excusable) for the State to use force in seeking redress (which would be a form of taxation). Similarly, it could perhaps also be argued that a person who has engaged in anti-social behaviour (such as speeding on the roads) has acted aggressively and must then pay taxes.

Another (perhaps contentious) circumstance which may be viewed as prior aggression is that a person has an inappropriate (or unfair) amount of natural resources such as land or other property. It can perhaps be argued that people with an excessive quantity of property have "benefited" from past (usually State) aggression and it is just and fair for them to suffer for this past violation of the NAP (to no greater extent than they are presently gaining from it). These arguments are along the same lines as those supporting the Land Value Tax.

So if the State cannot be funded by voluntary donations or by selling the seized assets of those who have been violent, then it cannot exist (or at least be funded) without violating the NAP...

But, if we extend the definition of "violence" in this context to mean behaviours deemed inconducive to the public good then the State is able to collect revenue in a valid way.


Friday 27 March 2009

Update: Unless voluntary exchange of goods and services is a (violent) crime then Income Tax is a violation of the NAP. It is an arbitrary punishment... should there be a reason or justification for taxing someone, beyond needing to accumulate revenue? Should it matter what it is that the State chooses to tax? Or is it nothing more than an issue of pragmatism (easiest to tax) for the State?

There are plenty of rich criminals... Why tax someone for choosing to exchange their labour? Why do the Government punish "work"... what's the point, is it a crime? Why punish people for working? Why not punish activities we (collectively) dislike... such as violent and aggressive behaviour? (31st Mar'09)

Update2: If the definition of aggression (and violence) is defined by the State (since they define property rights) then why does working (selling labour) constitute violence, assume the State chooses to follow the NAP? (31st Mar'09)