What Would You Give Up?

by Marco den Ouden
September 1982

In late May, Vancouver Sun financial columnist Mike Grenby hailed Tax Freedom Day, the day on which taxpayers finally finish working for the government and start working for themselves. Needless to say, some socialist wrote in and asked what people would be willing to give up for lower taxes. Mr. Grenby invited replies and the following is an edited version of the letter I wrote.

Dear Mr. Grenby,

You ask the question, originally posed by Mr. Resnick, "Which of the comforts of modern life would you sacrifice in exchange for lower or even no taxes?" The question, Mr. Grenby is a bogus one. It implies that only government can provide these many services they now provide. But that is not the case. Many (and certainly all the important services) would be provided by private entrepreneurs if not provided by government. And most would probably be provided at lower cost.

Before I get into a detailed discussion of specific government services, let me briefly explain the libertarian philosophical stand on this issue.

Libertarians hold that freedom is our most precious possession. We believe in the autonomous individual. In an nutshell, the libertarian principle is this: every individual ought to have the freedom to pursue his own interests, whatever those interests may be, so long as he respects the equal right of others to do so and so long as he renounces the use of force or fraud in pursuing his ends.

In its most eloquent statement, individuals have "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Since man lives in a material world and must work (produce) to survive, property rights are a logical extension of these rights. No one could have the right to pursue his happiness or sustain his life without the right to own the fruits of his labour.

Libertarianism may be called voluntaryism. We believe that individuals may do anything they want when interacting with others so long as those actions are undertaken by mutual voluntary consent of all those directly involved.

We believe that these are moral principles and must not be broken by any individual or group of individuals. When an individual or group of individuals initiates the use of force (or fraud) against others, that individual or group of individuals have violated a moral principle. They have abandoned the principle of reason and peace and substituted the ideas of brute force and war.

We believe that the libertarian principle, already acknowledged by most people as a just and moral principle for day to day interactions between individuals, should be applied universally. That is, no group of individuals, even the government, ought to initiate the use of force or fraud against others. For example, most people acknowledge the correctness of the moral injunction against theft (the forcible taking of another's property), but our government initiates the use of force against its citizens by taxation (legalized theft). There seems to be a double standard in our society. Actions regarded as wrong when undertaken by individuals are often upheld as correct when undertaken by government.

Libertarians don't believe in double standards. The moral principle that no one must initiate the use of force against others must apply to groups of individuals (including the government) as well as to individuals.

The only moral and proper use of force is in self-defence or in retaliation against those who have initiated force or fraud. The only moral function of government is to act as an agency of collective self-defence and retaliation against criminals.

If you look about you at the troubles of the world, you will discover that all the evils that exist stem from one basic idea, the idea that some individuals or group of individuals may legitimately initiate the use of force against others. Libertarians want a world of voluntary interaction and peace.

Socialists often charge that capitalism is the law of the jungle, dog eat dog. But, in fact, it is the opposite. The law of the jungle is the law of force and violence. Socialism institutionalizes the law of the jungle and advocates that the state use force and violence against some citizens for the benefit of other citizens. Capitalism is based on voluntary interaction and trade. If I disapprove of General Motors, they cannot use force to compel me to buy a Corvair from them or to work for them. But if I disapprove of Petrocan or the CBC or the Post Office, I cannot simply boycott them as I can General Motors. The government will send its hired guns after me and forcibly take my hard earned money from me to pay for these agencies. Which case would you call the law of the jungle, Mr. Grenby?

To get back to your original question, what would I give up for lower taxes? As I said, the question is a bogus one as I acknowledge that many of these services are useful to me. But I would like these services to be turned over to private enterprise. I would like to have the liberty to voluntarily choose the auto insurance, health insurance, and even recreational facilities that I want to patronize. I do not want some monopoly of government rammed down my throat.

Even such services as streets, highways, parks and fire protection can be provided through the free market (not to mention garbage collection which is already semi-privatized in a number of the lower mainland's more enlightened communities). Certainly private entrepreneurs would not have saddled us with a mostrous bill for BC Place or that white elephant, Mirabel Airport or sundry other monuments to some politician's vanity.

There are many functions that the government does that we could do without entirely. I would shed no tears over the demise of numerous regulatory agencies such as the CRTC, marketing boards, etc. And we certainly could do without the foreign aid apparatus, subsidies to business and to individuals, customs and import duties and restrictions, employment and immigration control, the Department of Indian Affairs and so forth.

Even for services that many libertarians regard as proper government, such as the police, the courts and national defense, the method of financing these services must not involve coercion. Taxation must be voluntary. The minutiae of financing a totally voluntary society may involve lotteries, fees from service, requiring restitution and compensation from those convicted of crime, insurance and other methods. These have been addressed in various articles and books and continue to be addressed periodically by libertarian philosophers.

We pride ourselves on being a liberal society. People ought to remember that the word "liberal" comes from the Latin "liberalis" meaning "of freedom, befitting the free". The libertarian principle is the most liberal one there is, "Anything that's voluntary!"

Let those who would but shackles on free men, who would force fellow citizens to pay for things they didn't want or circumscribe their peaceful activities (even if these activities be repugnant), justify their illiberality, be they so-called liberal or conservative or socialist. Let those who initiate force against others justify their advocacy of the law of the jungle and explain how it squares with their claims to be advocates of peace.

The only peaceful world is a voluntary one, where the use of force is abolished. Only such a libertarian society deserves to be called civilized.