Is taxation theft? Discuss with particular reference to the philosophy of Robert Nozick.
Taxation is theft. It is an infringement upon self-ownership and is essentially an act of imposing forced labour: legalized theft. (Nozick).
Who has the right to claim any of the money an individual earns through the fruits of their talents and labour? Nozick argues that if people are willing to pay an individual for a showcase of their talents – here introducing the analogy of basketball player Wilt Chamberlain charging people to watch him play – it is fair, and therefore just, if the result is that Chaberain has more money than the rest of society. No one was forced to pay. Chamberlian is a self-owner. To tax him on his earnings in order to redistribute
…show more content…
In essence, libertarians believe that they have the right to that of aforementioned self-ownership. No involuntary act of interference can be enacted upon oneself, be that by another individual or that of the state. Though theories surrounding libertarianism are cloudy, Nozick’s political beliefs can in large be attributed to that of ‘right-libertarianism’. Everyone has the right to utilise natural resources in order to better their lives. What they do with them is entirely up to them as long as they are not harming or morally maltreating another member of society. Individual moral freedom is maximised: equally (kagan). The process of taxation contravenes this stance. Natural resources that specifically belong to no one, combined with individual talents to produce an outcome that benefits the individual, should in no way be …show more content…
Nozick speaks of a minimal or ‘night watchman’ state. Such an entity would simply implement a policy of keeping the peace. No intervention would be employed. No taxes considered. Does Nozick believe that members of such a given community would elect to dip into their pools of hard earned money – raised from private transactions – to voluntarily pay others to protect them, put out their fires, risk their lives catching ‘criminals’? Perhaps volunteering to do so? Quite a gargantuan onus is placed on the autonomous nature of such a society: the altruistic nature of humanity. Without an accumulative store of money taken from everyone – taxes – collected in the aim of providing a “rights infrastructure” such as education (Zuckert) to uphold the rights of the individual to self-ownership, then how can such a system be maintained?
Nozick holds the liberal belief that everyone should be able to do as they please as long as no ones moral rights are infringed upon. But who is upholding this system? This highlights the intricate difficulties of applying such philosophy to a world in which every single person is different and, albeit perhaps small groups of individuals, are all striving to achieve different things in life. Possessing different wants and
...onstitute injustice. Nosick favors a state in which the dominant protection agency as the only form of "government" serves to protect those who chose to freely participate in the service. The individual is free to go about his life so long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the land for others. Having the right to ownership does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal property from another individual (without fear of the protection agency), how is it just for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If just acquisition arises from the just history (any form you see fit), than wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of the goods.
“No taxation without representation!” A fair tax system was what the American colonists were looking for and one that many say we are still trying to achieve. Today, while we are all represented in government and are all required to pay taxes, some still perceive the system of taxation as unfair, allowing for specialized interests, loopholes, as well as more/less taxation based on income. Should the American tax system remain the same, where individuals’ income is taxed based on how much one makes with loopholes and deductions? Should we consider a system that would eliminate progressive income taxes, taxing everyone at an equal rate through the Flat Rate Tax or should taxes be collected through national consumption of retail goods and the Fair Tax System?
Thus, for the four reasons stated above, Robert Nozick’s topics of transfer of holdings and rectification of holdings within his entitlement theory should be rejected. Not only are Nozick’s propositions inefficient and immoral, they may also create double standards as to what constitutes as an injustice.
Many centuries ago, people started thinking about the question “Who we are, where did we come from, and where are we going?” While seeking for the answers, many standpoints developed. Everyone has an opinion; when confronted with life’s decisions, even on what not to do and how to best stay away from regret. Then, another question was raised: can the individual ever be higher than the universal? Lead by the famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, many people believe that all are born selfish hedonists and get shaped by the culture and environment and eventually live for the society.
...e, Maxime, and Giuseppe C. Ruggeri. "Flat Taxes And Distributional Justice." Review Of Social Economy 56.3 (1998): 277-294. Business Source Premier. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
...hat we wish to live up to. What people want is to be perfect, to strive for their own arête, only they do not want to reach this excellence through cunning and ruthless ways. This is the belief of today...or so some would think. I say, look at politics and your beliefs would change forever.
Libertarians feel strongly that each person should have the same freedom to pursue their chosen ends and that each person is obligated to hold back from interfering with others in their freedom to pursue their ends. This is necessary to protect each individual's freedom. The Libertarians feel that having certain rights, which protect his or her liberty, are necessary to pursue a beautiful kind of life. Libertarians have three main requirements: life, liberty, and property. Property, in their opinion, does not mean only real estate; it includes anything that you can declare your own.
The quality of uniqueness and the singularity of each human being is a fundamental characteristic of humanity. In describing uniqueness, Heschel explains how man occupies a unique position of being both a natural and a human being. Though as a natural being, man is “determined by natural laws”, he, as a human, has the freedom of choice and the ability to make decisions (37). Ultimately influenced by decision-making, the course of a man’s life is subject to change and cannot be predicted. Human existence is comprised of an unlimited number of events that cannot be replicated, making it inherently unique (37). While people may come from similar circumstances, each man is an original. Every man has a distinct face and name, beliefs and experienced events that are completely singular. Uniqueness is the most constitutive trait of human existence as it reflects the fundamental nature of humanity -- that no two people are the same and that no two people will be shaped by experiences in the same way. All other attributes of humanity flow
Holistically, Kleist manages to imbue the notion that the presence of ambiguities serves as a hindrance to understanding and discovering the true nature of things as well as in defining one’s role within the constructs of a given society. In choosing to conform to society’s expectations and allowing oneself to remain incognizant about reality, people subject themselves to a sense of complacency and ignorance that can provide for detrimental results.
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
Taxation has always been a major controversy. Just like any major corporation, the government is constantly looking to raise revenue. The easiest and fairest way to do this is by taxing the people. However, how the people will be taxed is always an issue.
Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt
Humans live in a world in which every day they encounter numerous choices. The way they decide and the outcomes of their decisions define their lives. Their day to day life essentially revolves around the choices they make. As a whole, a community benefits or suffers from the outcomes of its choices. Freedom of choice is the grant to an individual or community to make its own choices out of free will and without restrictions (Pereboom,2003). This is essay will discuss that though freedom choice leads to variety in life, it does not necessarily guarantee satisfaction. It will also argue that although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less. It will then consider the implications of the paradox of choice for individuals in the market place and education, and for society in politics.
Taxation is a compulsory levy imposed on the income, value of goods and services of individuals, partners and companies by the government. It is can be said to be an approach of imposing tax on the citizen. This imposition of tax, is expected to yield income which should be utilized in the provision of both basic and substantial infrastructural amenities, both social and security, as well as creates conditions for the economic well-being of the society at large.
One simple consideration that can change the course of how people think about their approach to life is, the examination of the influences that they have on other people’s lives. An individual could also look outwards and analyze the impact that other people have on that individual’s life. One should also self-reflect and search for how their thoughts and actions craft a pathway towards their own destiny. The statement by Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” is an interesting statement that requires a considerable amount of analysis.