In recent posts, Matt and Fernando talked about whether taxation was analogous to slavery.  I thought I’d briefly say a little about this (now that I have returned from a land of higher taxation than the U.S.).  With Matt, I think its clear that taxation is not, at core, slavery.  Indeed, I think its clear that it is not even theft.  Fernando’s point is well taken, though, and I would not deny that taxation could become theft, or even slavery.  (The latter claim is difficult to get clear about not only because not all taxation is the same, but also because there is disagreement about how best to define slavery; for example, some think “voluntary slavery” is an oxymoron and some do not.  But I won’t go into that here.)  I am not qualified to comment about taxation in Cuba.

To think all taxation is theft requires thinking all taxation is unjust (I assume that all theft is unjust taking).  But it’s not the case that all taxation is unjust.  At least it’s not necessarily the case that all taxation is unjust.  It would only be the case that all taxation is unjust if it were true that there could be no legitimate state.  Only if full anarchy is the only legitimate option would there be no entity justified in collecting taxes.  If one thinks any government is legitimate, then because governments must have resources to operate, one believes (some form of) taxation is permissible.  That last parenthetical is, of course, important.  I have some views on what forms of taxation are better and what forms worse, but I won’t get into that here.  I also have views about how much taxation is permissible and why.  My “why” there, of course, crucially depends on my views about the proper roles of the state.  Since I think a legitimate state plays fewer roles in society then, say, standard republicrats, I think less taxation is permissible then they do.

I realize that some libertarians believe there is no legitimate state and that only anarchy is permissible, but I tend to think this is a mistake.  (“Tend,” because I admit to being unsure, having always wavered between favoring anarchy and favoring the minimal state.  I have recently tended to think I can have my cake and eat it too by favoring an anarchic state, rather then a state of anarchy, but I leave that for another post. Here, I will say only that I do not think “anarchic state” is an oxymoron.)  On my own view, libertarianism is not equivalent to (unmodified) anarchism, no matter how attractive I (often) find that view.  Libertarians are statists, but (of course) minimal statists.  (To be clear, I actually think libertarians do better to focus on consent rather then minarchism; but I also think consent would only be gotten for a minimal state.)