1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3100/committing-crimes-to-punish-crimes/

Committing Crimes to Punish Crimes

February 4, 2005 by

Nicholas Provenzo, chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, an Objectivist think tank (where I was once a senior fellow) offers this endorsement of a seemingly non-Objectivist position:

The Center for Consumer Freedom is running a petition calling for on the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.”
Despite its deceptively warm-and-fuzzy public image, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated over $150,000 to criminal activists — including those jailed for arson, burglary, and even attempted murder. In 2001, PETA donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a criminal organization that the FBI classifies as “domestic terrorists.” And since 2000, rank-and-file PETA activists have been arrested over 80 times for breaking various laws during PETA protests. Charges included felony obstruction of government property, criminal mischief, assaulting a cabinet official, felony vandalism, performing obscene acts in public, destruction of federal property, and burglary.

I support and have signed the petition, but I would take it one step further: if PETA is funding domestic terrorists, it should be held accountable under the laws that punish criminal conspiracy.

CCF’s petition states that PETA is receiving “federal tax subsidies”:

In 2003 PETA collected over $24 million from Americans, avoiding over $3.5 million in federal income taxes. Because this tax break amounts to a huge subsidy, every American taxpayer is footing the bill for PETA’s behavior. (Emphasis in original.)

If Provenzo is endorsing this position, he’s departing from Ayn Rand’s view of taxation, which she explained in The Virtue of Selfishness: “[T]he government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income.” CCF’s position is just the opposite–$3.5 million that belongs to “every American taxpayer” is being stolen by PETA.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. That PETA may be engaged in criminal behavior does not justify the government’s confiscation of private property. The tax exemption is mutually exclusive from the alleged criminal actions of PETA’s members.

Furthermore, CCF’s proposed standard for revoking tax exempt status could subject almost any organization to financial devastation if even a handful of members commit a crime. This may sound just fine, but keep in mind, the federal government considers a wide range of behavior to be “crimes.” If a couple employees of the Mises Institute lie to the Census taker—a federal crime—should the government then be permitted to steal a percentage of the Institute’s annual revenues under the guise of taxation?

Tax exemption is nothing more than the government declining to steal a portion of that which it has no ownership of to begin with. Those who commit bona fide crimes—that is, those who violate the rights of another—can and should be punished. But advocating criminal behavior by the state is not an ethical response.

Update: Provenzo, responding to comments on his website, said:

I wondered when I wrote it if it would be misconstrued as support for taxation, but I assumed most readers would recognize otherwise. Affirming an individual’s right to their wealth free from confiscation will not be achieved by allowing PETA to serve as a front group for green terrorism as an exempt organization; no one has a right to the irrational nor is the irrational the justification for freedom. Under existing law, tax exempt groups are not permitted to propagandize nor fund criminal activity. In this case, I agree with the Center for Consumer Freedom that PETA’a actions place it outside of the 501(c)(3) rubric and that PETA’s exempt status should be revoked.

The larger battle for emancipation from taxation is just that: a larger battle that will require a philosophic revolution to precede the law being made consistent with the principle of individual rights. In the interim, I support obeying the laws on the grounds that to do otherwise is an invitation for whim-worship and betrayal of the principle that the establishment of a moral government must be founded upon reason and persuasion.

I’m not totally persuaded by this argument. I concur that the activities CCF accuses PETA of–and I have no personal knowledge of the situation–likely violates the tax exemption rules. But I dissent from the view that one must “obey the laws” until a “philisophical revolution” comes calling. If PETA is committing crimes–violating individual rights–then by all means hold it accountable. But that’s still a separate issue from the tax exemption question. The government is disobeying its law–the Constitution–by playing these tax exemption games in the first place. Why are individuals compelled to obey a law that they never consented to while the state is free to disregard its rules and regulations it claims to be solemnly bound by?

{ 6 comments }

p February 5, 2005 at 10:21 am

While your point is technically correct from Ann Rand’s POV, it is ridiculous. First, Ann Rand is not the basis of our social system, legal system or case law. Second, consistency is necessary but insufficient to manage in the real world. There are multiple levels which we must confront in social systems (Hayek and von Mises). Third, von Mises himself would burst out laughing if he were to hear you pontificate such a ridiculous nonsense. Please do not let yourself get trapped in logic at the expenses of reality.

Devin W. February 5, 2005 at 10:17 pm

Dear P,
I have seen several outbursts of yours on this site.

In this instance, I don’t see how Oliva’s point is in anyway impractical or unreasonable. Organizations have tax-exempt status granted and revoked every day. To revoke PETA’s status for funding environmental terrorists who destroy private property would not be too much to ask.
-Devin W.

charley hardman February 6, 2005 at 1:43 pm

i have a couple of quibbles with oliva’s post, but i prefer to announce them using refutation tactics i picked up from a commenter at this blog. it’s my first attempt with the method, so please forgive any misfires:

“Your point is ridiculous. [Insert irrelevant point #1.] [Insert meaningless point #1.] Your point is ridiculous. Please don’t be ridiculous.”

how’d i do?

Non Ofyerbidnez February 8, 2005 at 3:11 pm

I think it’s more then a little ironic that Oliva attacks CAC for supposedly holding a less-then-Objectivist position (which is debatable). Lew Rockwell hosts a Rothbard article copyrighted by the Mises Institute that says Objectivists are cultists. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

That’s right. Cultists. Untinking, Randriod cultists. Oga-oga-oga-boo.

So is it good that Provenzo has an opinion that Oliva thinks strays from Objectivism, which apparently is a cult, or bad?

Nicholas Provenzo February 9, 2005 at 9:22 am

>Lew Rockwell hosts a Rothbard article copyrighted by the Mises Institute that says Objectivists are cultists.

Heh.

So why would a Rothbardian organization even care what an Objectivist thinks?

You know what I’d like to see Oliva do with his investigative energy: Reconcile how a clearly Rothbardian organization can call itself the “Mises Institute” with a straight face.

heather May 25, 2006 at 3:49 pm

If they suspend PETA’s tax exempt status, then they also need to quit hiring meat inspectors, giving corporate welfare to factory farms (which is the cause of pollution for 99% of our water)
and quit giving tax money for hunting “conservation” purposes.
Also, since diet is responsible for 69-85% of cancer & heart disease, then meat eaters simply need to pay more taxes for how they clog up our tax dollars using medicaid/medicare.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: