One of INTBQ’s esteemed contributors posed the question “Is it worse to voluntarily pay more taxes or to drive upon a government road[?]” This blog will explain why voluntarily paying more taxes is worse because it is a total simp move.
1. Libertarianism background
Implicit in the question posed by the gentleman “from PA“, is that I am some kind of libertarian and I would answer the question from a libertarian perspective. The problem with trying to pin down the “libertarian perspective” is that there’s about a Baskin Robbins-full of flavors of libertarianism:
The main two schools of libertarianism as far as I care to explain are “anarcho-capitalism” and “minarchism”. (“Classical liberalism” is another significant sect that we can group with minarchism for this purpose).
Anarcho-capitalists view the State as illegitimate, in toto, because it violates the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). The State is just one entity that uses force (including threat of force) to get what it wants from people; it is no more morally justified than Stipe Miocic beating the shit out of you and taking your wallet because you can’t stop him. This brand of libertarianism is typified the Mises Institute, named for Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. (Mises’s disciple, F.A. Hayek wrote the very influential book, The Road to Serfdom in 1944.) Ancap libertarianism is the flavor that is most frequently memed about online; the ancap flag is the one composed of one yellow and one black triangle.
Minarchists, on the other hand, believe in the smallest State possible. As explored in Robert Nozick’s 1975 book Anarchy, State and Utopia, this leads to the “Night-watchman State.” This State performs limited functions—like providing police and defense protection for prevention of violations of the NAP and collecting taxes to fund those operations—that collectively benefit the whole of society, not just particular subsets. (The use of the State to non-compensatorily take from one person and give to another is derided as a “transfer payment.”) Classical liberals build upon the collective-benefit-without-transfer-payment framework to justify the State’s taking from a person whenever the State gives that person back something just as valuable, whether in cash or in kind. So, for example, classical liberals do not object to eminent domain for the use of public projects (like infrastructure) that have diffuse benefits and would otherwise face a holdout problem (think the guy in There Will Be Blood who refuses to sell his plot of land for the pipeline until Daniel Day Lewis converts), but hate the State’s taking property that would benefit a subset of the population, as in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Minarchism/classical liberalism is more along the lines of the Cato Institute and memetically represented by the Gadsden Flag.
Note that neither of these political philosophies mandates participation in any State’s political system, let alone any political party. The “big-L” Libertarian Party has a platform that is largely aligned with these philosophies, but is rife with in-fighting. Notably, the Libertarian Party agreed in its 1974 Dallas Accord to be agnostic on the question that most divides minarchists and anarcho-capitalists: whether the State needs to exist.
Further note, that neither conception of libertarianism says how individuals should spend their resources (time and money). Rather, they say that individuals are free to do so in accordance with the NAP. Libertarian/Austrian economists often stress the concept of subjective value (do yourself a favor and watch till ~1:38): that economic value is determine by people’s subjective preferences and not the amount of resources that goes into a product, which is the Marxist labor theory of value. (Holy fuck that tankie website defends the labor theory of value as correct after reassuring us that it is the “very theory [from which] flow all the other conclusions of Marx”. Incredible.)
I am not sure of the libertarian theory on the immutability of subjective value. But I do know that the general libertarian attitude is that individuals are free to criticize the preferences of other individuals. But see Charles C. W. Cooke, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson Owe You Nothing, National Review (2021-07-20) (“Conservatarian” Cooke taking a more “none of your goddamn business” attitude). The general libertarian perspective is I am free to say that indie surf rock is better than Mongolian throat singing, that my religion is better than your religion, or that you should stop playing WoW and do your C&F. This is just part of the free exchange of ideas that make up human social life. What’s prohibited is the State deciding how people are best able to spend their money or time.
So should any libertarian criticize someone more for using a public road? Or paying more taxes? Let’s start with the roads.
2. What is it with libertarians and roads?
I submit that the whole thing with libertarians and roads is not libertarians’ fault. A common dumb question directed at libertarians is how, under a libertarian ideal world, would roads even be built or paid for? “After all”, says the dumb questioner, “my local government collects taxes and then builds roads”. The libertarian response is that private firms build roads already after receiving those State contracts. And the demand for roads would not go away if there was no State; people would want roads because roads are useful. So really the State is just a middleman that should be eliminated in a downsizing:
More sophisticated questions about a libertarian world of roads is stuff like “wouldn’t this be prohibitively expensive for private parties without the tool of eminent domain?” and “wouldn’t a network system created without central planning be inherently inefficient (like Manhattan south of Union Square compared to the grid system on the rest of the island)”? This is where classical liberals differ from anarcho-capitalists. For the ancap response, see, e.g., Who Will Build The Roads?, Tom Woods Show (Ep. #316, 2015-01-09); Walter Block, The Privatization of Roads and Highways (2009-04-28).
Because the hatred of public roads differ between branches of libertarianism, I will adopt the ancap position for the next portion of the blog. So should an anarcho-capitalist criticize someone more harshly for driving on a public road or paying extra taxes to the State?
3. “Yet you participate in society. Curious!”
I submit that under even the ancap version of libertarianism, it is not actually that bad to drive on a public road in the vast majority of circumstances.
Life from an ancap libertarian perspective is basically just a unending hellscape. The State has its NAP-violating mitts on everything, and if you try to stand up to it then the State will just put you in a cage the size of a parking space. But the ancap libertarian does not need to bring suffering upon themselves to make a point. Every ancap who has paid taxes is making the choice that they would rather be shaken down by the State than put in a cage. This logical choice from second-best alternatives is something people of all political stripes engage in. For example, check out this class comic strip:
This comic was made in response to boomer memes like this:
The response of “well I’m just participating in society” is similar to how an ancap approaches public roads. The alternative to not using a public road may be costlier or even impossible because of the geography on the ground, just like the dyed-hair Starbucks girl could not participate in society without having a $1,000 blue bubble messaging machine. (I will save my extended diatribe for why the boomer meme is correct for another time).
So does this same “just participating” principle apply to a person voluntarily giving money to the State? Hell no.
4. Giving money to the State voluntarily? Simp.
Everyone thinks the State wastes some money. In the United States, most taxes are not hypothecated, meaning that the taxes you pay do not fund a discrete, identifiable function of the State. Instead, your taxes could fund the dumbest shit the State spends money on. And boy, is there some dumb shit. For a sampling, I recommend following Reason‘s “Government Waste” tag. My favorite recent example is that the United States Space Force has acquired a horse that used to belong to the Air Force.
So think about what that means about the self worth of the libertarian who consciously chooses* to give more money to the State. (*I am not referring to someone who suspects that he might not being minimizing his tax burden but decides that the cost to optimize his tax filing would be greater than any taxes saved.) Giving the State more money as a libertarian is like signing up to be a financial submissive to some dominatrix online. It would be an admission that he believes that he is unworthy of spending his own goddamn money when compared to the most undeserving AND most wasteful entity imaginable.
Even from the minarchist perspective, giving more money to the State is an admission that one thinks that whatever tiny portion of the State’s spending goes to worthwhile endeavors—policing, collective defense, disease control—is more efficient than what one can spend directly. That’s hard to imagine. There exist countless charitable organizations that one could donate to that serve those ends with the benefit that the donor has a guarantee that the money doesn’t fund Space Force horses.
Furthermore, history suggests that a State with more tax funds will decide that it needs to spend more money and require more taxes. If this kind of tax increase was self-perpetuating, the runaway spending would end up with the complete financial domination of all the State’s subjects, including libertarians. And that’s the Road to Simpdom.