What do you think?
Rate this book
Taxation and Anarchism (Large Print Edition): A Discussion
LARGE PRINT EDITION! More at LargePrintLiberty.com.
A Discussion between the Hon. Auberon Herbert and J.H. Levy ( The Personal Rights Association, 1912).
A Discussion between the Hon. Auberon Herbert and J.H. Levy ( The Personal Rights Association, 1912).
84 pages, Paperback
First published October 17, 2013
16 people want to read
About the author
Auberon Herbert
52 books17 followersAuberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (Highclere, 18 June 1838 – 5 November 1906) was a writer, theorist, philosopher, and "19th-century individualist anarchist."
A member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Herbert was the son of the 3rd Earl of Carnarvon, brother of Henry Herbert, the 4th Earl, and father of the 9th Baron Lucas. He promoted a libertarian philosophy (that several authors consider related to libertarian anarchism) and took the ideas of Herbert Spencer a stage further by advocating voluntary-funded "government" that uses force only in defense of individual liberty and property. He is known as the originator of Voluntaryism.
Herbert was Member of Parliament for the two member constituency of Nottingham between 1870-1874. He served as President of the fourth day of the first ever Co-operative Congress in 1869.
Government, he argued, should never initiate force but be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights", and to be consistent in not initiating force they should maintain themselves only through "voluntary taxation." He stressed that "we are governmentalists... formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method"—however, using this force only in a defensive mode. He strongly opposed the idea that initiation of force may somehow become legitimate merely by constituting a majority, reasoning that "If we are self-owners (and it is absurd, it is doing violence to reason, to suppose that we are not), neither an individual, nor a majority, nor a government can have rights of ownership in other men."
Herbert recommends a "central agency" to defend liberty and property that is funded by a "voluntary tax," calling it "government." In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss the franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a voluntary "income tax," anyone "paying it would have the right to vote; those who did not pay it would be – as is just – without the franchise. There would be no other tax." The law would be strictly limited, of course, and the "government... must confine itself simply to the defence of life and property, whether as regards internal or external defence."
Herbert says that in "voluntaryism the state employs force only to repel force—to protect the person and the property of the individual against force and fraud; under voluntaryism the state would defend the rights of liberty, never aggress upon them."
A collection of Herbert's work, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays, was published by Liberty Classics in 1978.
A member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Herbert was the son of the 3rd Earl of Carnarvon, brother of Henry Herbert, the 4th Earl, and father of the 9th Baron Lucas. He promoted a libertarian philosophy (that several authors consider related to libertarian anarchism) and took the ideas of Herbert Spencer a stage further by advocating voluntary-funded "government" that uses force only in defense of individual liberty and property. He is known as the originator of Voluntaryism.
Herbert was Member of Parliament for the two member constituency of Nottingham between 1870-1874. He served as President of the fourth day of the first ever Co-operative Congress in 1869.
Government, he argued, should never initiate force but be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights", and to be consistent in not initiating force they should maintain themselves only through "voluntary taxation." He stressed that "we are governmentalists... formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method"—however, using this force only in a defensive mode. He strongly opposed the idea that initiation of force may somehow become legitimate merely by constituting a majority, reasoning that "If we are self-owners (and it is absurd, it is doing violence to reason, to suppose that we are not), neither an individual, nor a majority, nor a government can have rights of ownership in other men."
Herbert recommends a "central agency" to defend liberty and property that is funded by a "voluntary tax," calling it "government." In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss the franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a voluntary "income tax," anyone "paying it would have the right to vote; those who did not pay it would be – as is just – without the franchise. There would be no other tax." The law would be strictly limited, of course, and the "government... must confine itself simply to the defence of life and property, whether as regards internal or external defence."
Herbert says that in "voluntaryism the state employs force only to repel force—to protect the person and the property of the individual against force and fraud; under voluntaryism the state would defend the rights of liberty, never aggress upon them."
A collection of Herbert's work, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays, was published by Liberty Classics in 1978.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 1, 2020
A fascinating but somewhat perplexing debate between two late 19th / early 20th century British libertarians. J.H. Levy is a follower of Herbert Spencer and a self-styled "Individualist" who believes that the state should be limited to securing equal maximum freedom for all. Auberon Herbert, also a follower of Spencer, bases his "Voluntaryist" position on the idea of individual self-ownership.
What makes this debate confusing is that it *seems* like Herbert is an anarchist, but he vigorously denies it. What Herbert says is that he is opposed to compulsory taxation, but not to government. Levy calls him out on this and says that compulsory taxation is the essence of government - if you reject the former you necessarily reject the latter, and are thereby an anarchist. But Herbert seems to believe that anarchists are opposed to government in the sense of some settled agency for dealing with crime through fixed rules.
The idea that there could be a plurality of such agencies, competing with each other in some form of marketplace, seems simply not to have occurred to Herbert, though it's difficult to understand why he wouldn't be familiar with it, especially as he cites Benjamin Tucker as an example of a "moderate and reasonable" (but still mistaken) anarchist. And so we're never really clear on whether Herbert thinks that his state needs to have a *monopoly* on force (in which case he is a minarchist), or whether he thinks we could get the "government" he wants without a monopolistic state (in which case he is an anarchist).
Philosophically unsatisfying on the whole, but there's still a lot of great stuff in here. It's a short read, and Herbert and Levy present an enjoyable and sometimes punchy debate that is nevertheless clearly conducted in the spirit of goodwill and friendship.
What makes this debate confusing is that it *seems* like Herbert is an anarchist, but he vigorously denies it. What Herbert says is that he is opposed to compulsory taxation, but not to government. Levy calls him out on this and says that compulsory taxation is the essence of government - if you reject the former you necessarily reject the latter, and are thereby an anarchist. But Herbert seems to believe that anarchists are opposed to government in the sense of some settled agency for dealing with crime through fixed rules.
The idea that there could be a plurality of such agencies, competing with each other in some form of marketplace, seems simply not to have occurred to Herbert, though it's difficult to understand why he wouldn't be familiar with it, especially as he cites Benjamin Tucker as an example of a "moderate and reasonable" (but still mistaken) anarchist. And so we're never really clear on whether Herbert thinks that his state needs to have a *monopoly* on force (in which case he is a minarchist), or whether he thinks we could get the "government" he wants without a monopolistic state (in which case he is an anarchist).
Philosophically unsatisfying on the whole, but there's still a lot of great stuff in here. It's a short read, and Herbert and Levy present an enjoyable and sometimes punchy debate that is nevertheless clearly conducted in the spirit of goodwill and friendship.
Displaying 1 of 1 review