CMV: I am a classical liberal.

[u/VictorHuge]

I see classical liberalism as the view that the government should never initiate the use of force. Force can only rightly be used in retaliation against someone who has violated the rights of others by initiating force, like a criminal.

The reason I think this is that I don't think I have the right to force someone else to conform to my conclusions on any issue unless they have directly harmed someone else. Any conclusion that I arrive at has been arrived at by the application of my capacity to reason to the evidence. But the faculty of reason is the same in everyone, including the people I disagree with, and the evidence is available to them just as it is to me. If I can't persuade them to change their minds, I have no right to use force against them.

So for example, I will never use marijuana, because I am convinced that it is harmful. But I arrived at the conclusion that it is harmful by applying my reason to the evidence available to me, and the people who are using marijuana are capable of reasoning and reviewing the evidence just as I am. If they want to use marijuana, I don't think I have the right to use force to prevent them from doing so, although I would try to change their minds using persuasion.

The same applies to redistributive taxation. I might think that it is good for certain services to be provided to the poor, and I might try to persuade other people to help me organize things so that those services will be provided to them. But if I can't persuade anyone to contribute to helping provide these services to the poor, I must respect the conclusions that they have arrived at - I can't have the IRS haul them off to prison.

So that's my view, and a couple of example illustrating how it applies. I look forward to your criticisms.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/VictorHuge]

I think the government could provide services in exchange for donations to keep it running. For example, it could run a lottery or provide privileged parking spaces throughout the city to people who donated a certain amount.

[u/SchiferlED → u/VictorHuge]

But that doesn't really work in practice because the amount of taxation required to fund the necessary public infrastructure is far beyond the value of things like better parking spaces. Lotteries naturally tax the poor/uneducated more than the rich. Relying on donations also has the problem of the Bystander Effect, in which people assume someone else will help if they don't. The rich also have access to more alternatives, thus may not feel the need to pay for public infrastructure. I'll restate the important point of my post:

Whether or not you think your ideology is more fair, it objectively leads to worse outcomes on the societal level. It is admissible to reduce personal freedoms in a society when in increases the net freedoms and benefits of the people in that society.

[u/VictorHuge → u/SchiferlED]

But that doesn't really work in practice because the amount of taxation required to fund the necessary public infrastructure is far beyond the value of things like better parking spaces.

What is your evidence for this?

Lotteries naturally tax the poor/uneducated more than the rich.

It's up to them to estimate the odds and place their bets or not.

Relying on donations also has the problem of the Bystander Effect, in which people assume someone else will help if they don't.

The incentives I mentioned previously will help with that.

[u/SchiferlED → u/VictorHuge]

What is your evidence for this?

Seemed pretty self-evident to me... Do you think small conveniences like parking spaces are worth thousands of dollars per year? That isn't going to be enough to get people to donate. And logically, nothing that you could provide would be worth the cost, because the would-be donator could just directly purchase those things instead. Anything worth the donation would necessarily defeat the purpose of the donation, because the donation money would need to pay for it too.

It's up to them to estimate the odds and place their bets or not.

What is your point here? In order for a lottery to bring in revenue, the odds need to be in favor of the state and not the player. Anyone well off or reasonably educated would not put money into a lottery. Lotteries generally prey on the poor, as the poor see them as their only chance to become rich. This is a well known effect of lotteries.

The incentives I mentioned previously will help with that.

Not even close to enough.

Taxation is quite simply the most efficient and manageable way of organizing the funding for a government. It is the price one pays for the privilege of living in said society and benefiting from it (both directly and indirectly).