Is It Okay To Use Government Services (aka Take Money From The State)?

Is It Okay To Use Government Services (aka Take Money From The State)?

One of the many accusations that statists accuse libertarians of is being hypocrites. Here we say that taxation is theft, criticize the welfare state, want to abolish government, and yet many of us use government services. Is this a problem?

Before answering such a question, let me first say that the charge of hypocrisy is not an argument. Calling someone hypocritical is criticizing them, not their arguments. Suppose for example that you were living during the time of chattel slavery and you told people that slavery is immoral. After hearing this they respond back with, “But you own slaves. How can you say slavery is immoral?” This is irrelevant. Slavery is immoral, whether a person acts in accords with what he considers to be moral is a separate question. Slavery does not become moral because of hypocritical slavemasters. So too, whether anarchists are hypocrites does not make the state legitimate, it only means that some anarchists are hypocrites. Now don’t get me wrong, it is bad to be a hypocrite (if one espouses moral views), and if one is unwilling to act the way they think others should they have no right to complain when people emulate their behavior. Being a hypocrite is self-defeating since people are not going to take hypocrites seriously. Now are anarchists who use government services acting hypocritically?

Government Providing Services Violates People’s Rights. The Victims Using The Services They Are Forced to Pay For Violates No One’s Rights.

Is it okay for libertarians to use government services? Well first of all, either it is not okay to use government services or it is; it is irrelevant if the people are anarchists or not. It is wrong for people to own slaves for example; it isn’t just wrong for people who speak out against slavery to own slaves, it is wrong for everyone (even those who support and defend slavery). Something is either right or wrong; who does it is irrelevant. Therefore it makes no difference what one thinks about the state. It is either okay to take money (or services) from the state or it is not.

When anarchists critique state action we are criticizing the supplier of such action, not the user. For example, a government providing any service violates rights necessarily since in order to provide such a service they must tax people in order to pay for it. Since taxation is compulsory, it is theft and immoral. Anyone who taxes people is acting immorally. Likewise, since government services are paid for by taxes, government crowds out private alternatives to the services government provides. Even in areas where the government allows people to compete with them (with state approval first of course), since government services are subsidized, the private alternatives are artificially inflated and more expensive than otherwise would have been if not for government entering the scene. Therefore the very existence of government monopolization deprives people of fair competition. In short, government providing a services means stealing from people in order to pay for the service. It also means forbidding others to compete with them in any real manner. Therefore, PROVIDING government services is coercive and immoral.

How about USING (not providing) government services? Is this immoral? Well, no. Simply entering a library violates no ones rights. Even taking a check from the state violates no ones rights. Government does by stealing it from people, but as long as you didn’t ask the government to be your proxy and do the stealing for you, the person who receives the check is not violating anyone’s rights. For example, suppose a person robs a bank. Such a person is a thief. If he was hired by other people to rob the bank they are guilty as well. But suppose for example, the thief decides to give some random people part of the loot he stole, are they acting immorally by taking it? If the people are being bribed to shut up and not reveal who stole the money then they are guilty of harboring a thief. But suppose such people do not do that. They accept the money from the thief but still do nothing to help the thief. In fact they may even spend their time criticizing the thief and telling other people he is a thief. In such a case, the people who receive the stolen goods are doing nothing wrong. They did not steal the money. They did not vote to have the money stolen. They did not succumb to bribery by praising the thief in exchange for some of the loot. On the contrary, they have proven that they are incapable of being bribed by still exposing to the world the type of person the thief actually is, even after the thief gave them some of the stolen loot. Therefore, it should be clear that in such a case simply getting stolen money is not violating anyone’s rights.

Taking Money From The State Is a Mitzvah

Is it moral to take money from a thief? Yes, for a person taking money from a thief shows the thief that theft does not pay. The more people take from the thief, the less the thief has for himself. Refusing to take from the thief is saying to the thief, “No, you are the one who stole the money, it’s only fair that you keep all of it.”

Now suppose there are two types of people: 1) Those who the thief is able to bribe (by having them praise the thief as a hero) and 2) Those who are incapable of being bribed. The more money goes to those capable of being bribed, the less money goes to those who are not capable of being bribed. Is it moral to do what is in one’s power to ensure that those who are capable of being bribed get a smaller piece of the pie? Absolutely. The bigger the piece of the pie, the easier it is to bribe people. Likewise, those who sing praises for the thief are encouraging the thief to continue looting since they are saying, “If you loot, we will praise you and consider you good,” while those who criticize the thief discourage theft. Therefore, those who support thievery, while perhaps not as bad as the thief are a close second. Therefore making it where those who vote for the thief to go on looting get a smaller share of the stolen goods are acting consistent with justice. Those who say, “We refuse to take any of the thief’s money. The only people who should benefit from the theft is either the robber himself or those who support and encourage his robbery” are shooting themselves in the foot by showing those who support theft that crime does pay since all the stolen goods will go solely to them.

Therefore, I would argue that not only is using government services not immoral, it is moral to do so. The state is evil. Those who support the state are evil too. The less money goes to their hands the better. Every dollar the state gives to an anarchist is a dollar not given to the war machine. If the state is dumb enough to give you a piece of their stolen loot, I say take it. Take it and speak out against the state. Those who say, “Either use government services and praise the state, or refuse government services if one is going to speak out against the violence of the state” are revealing to the world the type of people they really are: Those who are capable of being bribed. Those are the people who will look past the violence of the state, so long as the state gives them some resources as payment for their praises (or apathy).

Finally, there are two groups of people: 1) Those who support taxation and 2) Those who do not. Those who support taxation are not being robbed when people use services that part of their paycheck paid for. After all, they don’t consider taxation theft so you are not robbing from them. That leaves the other type of people: Those who think of taxation as theft. These people are in a minority. If they think that taxation is theft it only makes sense that they want to minimize the victimization as much as possible. Bad enough they are forced to pay for things (many of which they morally oppose) against their will. Why be victimized twice, by not only being forced to pay for such services but by being unable to use the services they are forced to pay for? If taxation is truly theft, then simply think of using government services as a way of getting part of your money back.

One final thing I would like to address. How about those people who use more government services or collect more from the state than they pay in taxes? My answer: Such people do not exist. Government steals so much of people’s money than even if a person never paid one cent in taxes and is the biggest welfare whore, they still are cutting their loses. Government inflates the money supply, which is a form of taxation, so even if one doesn’t pay income tax, they are still paying an inflation tax. Government intervention makes things more expensive than otherwise would have been. That is another type of tax. Therefore, since government steals from everyone (either through taxation, diluting the value of money, or artificially increasing prices and limiting people’s options) there is no person (besides for the state agents themselves) who is not victimized by the state in some way.