Matt Bruenig on “Taxation is Theft”

Matt Bruenig on “Taxation is Theft” - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

June 25, 2017 - "The other day, while searching for new writing by my favorite progressive troll, Washington lawyer and online pundit Matt Bruenig, I stumbled across this blog headline: “Matthew Bruenig Dismantles the ‘Taxation Is Theft’ Slogan.” Always intrigued by a new Bruenig argument, I clicked on the link, and then on a second link to Bruenig’s original article.

"The argument of this article, 'Violence, Property, Theft and Entitlement,' is, like most Bruenig arguments, one by definition.

"Bruenig starts by giving his own definition of theft, which he calls “a straightforward definition of theft as a forceful taking: Theft occurs when (1) you threaten or use force against someone (2) to exclude them from scarce material resources (3) without their consent.”

"Despite the misleading headline on the fanblog, this definition does not ‘Dismantle the “Taxation Is Theft” Slogan.’ On the contrary, as Bruenig cheerfully acknowledges, “Under this definition of theft, clearly taxes qualify.'

"Like most Bruenig definitions, though, this one is not ‘straightforward.’ Condition (1) is one both libertarians and Bruenig-style progressives would deny: libertarians because by that definition both forcibly stopping a thief and forcibly recovering stolen property would be theft; progressives, because they deny that pure property crimes are uses of force: 'The scenario he described involves no force (strictly defined) because no body has been attacked.'

"Nor is this definition of Bruenig’s one ‘of theft as a forceful taking.’ In condition (2) he does not even use the word ‘take,’ opting for the much weaker  and over-broad ‘exclude’ instead; under this condition, not only taking property, but forcibly preventing it from being taken would be labelled ‘theft’, which is simply inaccurate. Armed soldiers guarding a military arsenal are not stealing the weapons, even though they are excluding intruders by military force. Property owners who post 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' signs are not acting as thieves, even though they are excluding trespassers by threatening legal force.

"Indeed, since Bruenig claims that all property ownership is implicitly based on exclusion by state violence, his definition implies that all property ownership is theft. Unsurprisingly, this is the very implication that he teases out: that, given his definition, 'A principled stand against force, coercion, aggression, and so on thus requires the conclusion that property is theft in the same sense as taxes are theft.'"

Read more: https://www.nolanchart.com/matt-bruenig-on-taxation-is-theft
'via Blog this'

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (II)

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (II) - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

June 10, 2017 - "Paleolibertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and  progressive lawyer and internet troll Matt Bruenig, would appear to have little in common; yet they both have the same idea of what a libertarian world would look like.

"In this two-part article  (Part I is here), I argue that (1) the very idea of libertarianism that Bruenig claims libertarians should be following (2) is not only compatible with, but looks like it would result in, Hoppe’s theorized libertarian society of  the future; furthermore, while (3) Hoppe’s account of that society suffers from serious flaws and errors, (4) Bruenig’s account of that future society, being almost identical to Hoppe’s, has the same flaws and errors.

(3) Where Hoppe goes wrong

"Hoppe’s vision of what a libertarian world of proprietary communities would look like seems riddled with false assumptions. Let us examine a few:

"(1) 'the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social ‘discrimination’ and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments.'

"No; there is no reason discrimination would increase sharply or drastically. Some property owners might discriminate on this or that grounds, but there is no reason to think that everyone would: no reason to think that any original community would stop people of different races, religions, or sexual orientations, from living together in it. Nor is there any reason for a community to prohibit “life style experiments,” from same-sex marriage to rock ‘n roll or hip-hop to marijuana use. Proprietary communities would be established for one reason only – to protect the residents’ property rights, and with it the division of labor – not for this other stuff.

"If there were enough people who wished to discriminate, they would be free to sell their homes, leave with their money, buy new land and set up their own new communities. However, for every one of those set up, discrimination would actually decrease in the communities those people left.

"(2) 'towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements.'

"Yes, they could; but no, they probably would not. Why would any town or village in 21st-century America do, or even care about, what towns and villages did in 19th-century Europe? In today’s America, Moslems, Hindus, Jews (both Sephardic and Ashkenazi), and Catholics (Hispanic, Italian, Irish, and more) live and own property in existing small towns and villages all over the country. Why in the world would they agree to a community covenant whereby they immediately had their real property seized and were expelled 'as trespassers'?

"If Hoppe wanted to live in a community with such rules, he would be free to join with other grumpy old white men, leave, and found his own community somewhere; but he would have no freedom or power to take over and ethnically cleanse any existing community."

Read more: https://www.nolanchart.com/when-worlds-collude-hoppe-bruenig-and-their-shared-vision-of-the-libertarian-future-ii
'via Blog this'

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (I)

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (I) - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

June 9, 2017 - "Progressive lawyer, online pundit, and internet troll Matt Bruenig has a question for libertarians: 'My first question for Cato and libertarians more generally is this: What is up with Hans-Hermann Hoppe?'

"I wish I could respond, 'Who?' Alas, I am well aware of Hoppe. Many libertarians and other readers, though, may have just that response. Fortunately, Bruenig has provided an introduction:

For the unacquainted, Hoppe is a very prominent libertarian academic, certainly well known within intellectual libertarian circles. He ironically works at the University of Nevada as an economics professor, making him a public employee. He publishes frequently in libertarian academic journals, is a Distinguished Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded the Property & Freedom Society, is frequently referenced by other libertarians as one of them, and [authored a] 2001 book Democracy: The God That Failed. It is a tad on the long side, but it’s really good, the [following] quotes especially.”

"We will look at Bruenig’s quotes later. For now it is enough to say that, while Hoppe and some of his admirers self-identify as libertarians, many if not most libertarians who know of him want nothing to do with him.

"Here is an assessment of Hoppe that I suspect many libertarians who have read him or his admirers would accept:

The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe are regrettable for two reasons: Firstly, Hoppe is a highly intelligent and well-educated economist who – for whatever reasons – fails to notice when he does damage to the values of freedom and property, which he claims to support. This is the tragic personal side of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. But it is also tragic for academic discussions: At a time when we are surrounded by ever growing welfare states we badly need thinkers like Hoppe to show us how to tackle today’s problems. But instead of doing that, Hoppe prefers to take refuge in his pipe dreams of a so-called ‘natural order’, which rather resembles the abyss of a variation of right-wing totalitarianism. For all these reasons, for all his errors and mistakes and for his wrong-headed methodology we may expect Hoppe’s ideas to remain a footnote in the history of political thought. And it may well be better this way. An effective strategy of liberation would look very different. If Hoppe continues to use the terms ‘liberalism’ and ‘freedom’ for his authoritarian and pseudo-liberal agenda, it is time for the true liberals to claim back these terms from him.

"It is only necessary to add that (1) the very idea of libertarianism that Bruenig claims libertarians should be following (2) is not only compatible with, but looks like it would result in, Hoppe’s theorized future libertarian society; furthermore, while (3) Hoppe’s account of that society suffers from serious flaws and errors, (4) Bruenig’s account of that future society, being based on his reading of Hoppe, has the same flaws and errors. Making those four points is easy enough, but demonstrating them requires a bit more work."

Read more: https://www.nolanchart.com/when-world-collude-hoppe-bruenig-and-their-shared-vision-of-the-libertarian-future-i
'via Blog this'

Income tax, rent, and coercion

by George J. Dance:

May 30, 2017 - Recently I have been reading the online works of progressive Matt Bruenig, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and sometime internet troll, who has written a great deal about libertarians. Last week I wrote on his "Grab World" scenario, but that leaves many of his articles to be looked at. Today's installment deals with a 2013 article, "Libertarians are Huge Fans of Economic Coercion."

Bruenig's article defines "coercion" by quoting economist and lawyer Robert Lee Hale: "coercion occurs when there are 'background constraints on the universe of socially available choices from which an individual might "freely" choose.'"

Based on that definition, Bruenig argues that income taxes are coercive: "Imagine I am thinking of getting a job. I have the following options in the status quo: 1. Get a job and pay income taxes on the income from that job. 2. Do not get a job." Theoretically people have a third option – get a job and do not pay income taxes – but "the state – through violent, physical coercion – has prevented them from having this option." As Bruenig points out, Libertarians would agree with him on this.

However, Bruenig also argues that rent is equally coercive: "Imagine I am looking to find housing to live in. I am presented, in the status quo, with the following choices: 1. Pay a landlord rent to live in some building; 2. Be homeless." Once again, there is a theoretical option 3 – "to move into a building and sleep in it without paying anyone anything" – however, "landlords may call [the state] on the phone and have it violently remove me from the building if I chose option three. That is, the state has – through violent, physical coercion – restricted the options that are available to me."

Since libertarians do not oppose the collection of rent, Bruenig concludes, they do not oppose, but support, "economic coercion." QED

However, in the rent example, option 3 actually consists of two different options: 3a) move into a building, and unilaterally decide to not pay rent; and 3b) move into a building, and do not pay rent, with the owner's agreement. Bruenig shows that the state forecloses option 3a; but he does not show that it has foreclosed option 3b.

In fact, the state has not foreclosed 3b. Many people live in other people's homes and pay nothing, with the owner's agreement. Some live in their parents', children's, other family members', or friends' homes. Others live in Salvation Army or other hostels. Landlords let their superintendents live rent-free. I have even heard of superintendents allowing the homeless to sleep for free in apartment boiler rooms. In all these cases, the state does not intervene at all, much less "violently" – it intervenes only in the case of 3a, when one of the parties affected does not agree, and complains to it. Which is why libertarians would "describe my choice to pay rent as non-coerced and voluntary": whether or not rent must be paid for accommodation depends solely on the voluntary agreement of the parties involved.

In Bruenig's first example, the state also forecloses option 3a. If I unilaterally decide my employer cannot deduct income tax from my paycheque, and try to take the money he deducted from the till, he could fire me, and call "the state" to remove me if I then refuse to leave. But what about option 3b, where both I and my employer agree that I can work and not pay income tax?

Employers and employees choose 3b every day. Many people work 'under the table', with their employers' agreement, and never even report that income to the state, much less pay income tax on it. In this case, though, the state does not simply let those voluntary arrangements happen; on the contrary, if its agents discovered such an arrangement, it would declare both the employee and employer to be criminals, and use "violent, physical coercion" on both of them.

Which is why libertarians would call taxes coercive, and rents non-coercive. In both cases, I have three options: 1. pay rent or taxes; 2. go without a job or a home; and 3. get a job or a home, and pay no rent or taxes, by voluntary agreement of everyone affected. In the case of rent, the state does not interfere with my choosing that third option. However, in the case of taxes, it would interfere with "violent, physical coercion" if I chose the third option. Both I and my employer are threatened with coercion if we agree to choose it.

Bruenig deals with that difference solely by ignoring it. But his ignoring it does not make it disappear. The choice to pay rent is voluntary in a way that the choice to pay taxes is not; and the choice to pay taxes is coerced in a way that the choice to pay rent is not. Therefore his argument by analogy fails.

Grab World

Grab World - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

May 26, 2017 - "Anti-libertarians have come up with many ingenious arguments to try to discredit libertarianism. Matt Bruenig’s 'Grab World' is certainly one of the most ingenious.

"Grab World (aka Grab-what-you-can World) is an imaginary world – a thought experiment – that Bruenig claims to have “first discussed here at Demos” back in January 2014; though a glance at the January article reveals that he actually grabbed the idea from libertarian philosopher Roderick Long. Here is how Long describes Grab World:

Imagine a world in which people freely expropriate other people’s possessions; nobody initiates force directly against another person’s body, but subject to that constraint, people regularly grab any external resource they can get their hands on, regardless of who has made or been using the resource. Any conception of aggression according to which the world so described is free of aggression is not a plausible one.”[6]

"Bruenig accepts all of Long’s account but the last sentence (which he omits). On the contrary, he insists that, “the grab-what-you-can world satisifes the non-aggression principle and no other world does.”[4]

"Hence the use of Grab World to refute libertarianism. The non-aggression principle (NAP) is basic to libertarianism; to Bruenig, Grab World is the only world that satisfies NAP; therefore, he concludes, to reject Grab World is to reject NAP, and with it libertarianism.

"Bruenig illustrates his point with what he calls a “reductio ad absurdum” argument.... While that explains what Bruenig wants to accomplish, it is not a knockdown reductio ad absurdum argument. It is not even a reductio ad absurdum argument, or much of an argument at all....

"Bruenig does say something that resembles an argument: 'It’s simple: 1) grabbing pieces of the world does not, by itself, involve initiating force against other people (if it did, then all resource use would be considered aggression), and 2) attacking someone for grabbing up a piece of the world does involve initiating force against other people.'

 "But neither point passes logical muster. 1) contains a quantification fallacy; it proves only that some acts of grabbing are not aggression, but concludes that no acts of grabbing are aggression; while 2) does not even try to prove, but simply assumes, that all attempts to stop someone else from grabbing things must involve 'attacking.'

"None of Bruenig’s repetitions, stipulations, definitions, or arguments show that Grab World, and only Grab World, follows from NAP. Of course, their failure to do so does not show that it doesn’t, either. To resolve that question, we will have to pay a visit to Grab World itself."

Read more:  https://www.nolanchart.com/grab-world
'via Blog this'

How a reductio ad absurdum does not work

by George J. Dance

Ever heard of Grab World? Matt Bruenig, an attorney who used to troll libertarians on progressive website Demos until he was fired for Twitter trolling, once used the idea of Grab World (a thought experiment invented by libertarian philosopher Roderick Long) to allegedly show how ridiculous the non-aggression principle is. When challenged by some libertarians, who in his words "couldn't handle this," Bruenig wrote a follow-up column on his own blog  "as a learning opportunity to help people understand how the reductio ad absurdum works."

He began by explaining that "A reductio is a type of argument in which you accept a premise and use it to generate a conclusion that strikes people as absurd," and then gave the argument form:

1. If X, then Y.
2. Y is totally absurd.
3. Therefore X is not true.

Next he fleshed out the form with his Grab World example: "the premise was justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle and the conclusion was people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that. So we plug it in.

1. If justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle, then people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that.
2. It is totally absurd to say that 'people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that.'
3. Therefore it is not true that justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle."

Almost every part of Bruenig's explanation is wrong. First, that is not "how the reductio ad absurdum works". His argument form is not even a reductio ad absurdum (RAA). An RAA, or indirect proof, works by positing an assumption (or supposition), and then proving it false by showing logically that it leads to a contradiction.

Second, Bruenig is confused about what premises and conclusions are. The premises in his argument are steps 1 and 2, and the conclusion is step 3. What he calls "the premise" and "the conclusion" are actually called the antecedent and consequent of a conditional. Third, what he calls "the premise" does not "generate" what he calls "the conclusion" - he merely asserts both together, as two halves of one unproven premise (step 1). 

Fourth, the above is not even a valid argument form (although it looks like one: modus tollens, or denying the consequent). It does not logically follow, from "If X, then Y" and "Y is totally absurd," that "X is not true" - all that would follow is "X is totally absurd," whatever Bruenig means by that. (He does not mean what logicians mean by "absurd," being contradictory or logically impossible.) 

Fifth, even if Bruenig's argument were valid, it would not be sound. A sound argument is a valid one with all true premises, which proves that its conclusion is true. There is no reason to think that either of Bruenig's premises is true. Almost every libertarian would deny the truth of his premise 1. Premise 2 looks a bit more plausible, but there is no reason to think it is true, either. (What if the "people [coming] into the house you live in" were bailiffs - or police seizing stolen goods - or even movers?)

In conclusion, let me show how an RAA argument really works:

1. Someone who knows logic would know what a valid argument is, and what the terms premise, conclusion, and reductio ad absurdum mean. (premise; see any logic text)
2. Assume Matt Bruenig is someone who knows logic. (assumption; beginning of RAA)
3. Then Matt Bruenig knows what a valid argument is, and what the terms premise, conclusion, and reductio ad absurdum mean. (1,2 hypothetical syllogism)
4. But Matt Bruenig does not know any of that. (premise; see above)
5. Therefore, Matt Bruenig is not someone who knows logic, (2-4 RAA)

I hope that readers find that argument instructive.

All that Bruenig's argument proves, on the other hand, is that he can pontificate on subjects about which he knows little or nothing: something that readers might find useful to keep in mind when reading his criticisms of libertarianism.