Taxation and Serfdom - The Truncated Revolution

LFET ^ | Tibor R. Machan

[Sir Gawain]

Taxation and Serfdom

The Truncated Revolution

by Tibor R. Machan

Despite some rumblings of skepticism, there is little reasonable doubt about the revolutionary nature of the American founding. Yes, it wasn't at all some purist's dream, whereby all of the actors where morally clean as a whistle. What revolution is that? But when one considers just the content of the Declaration of Independence, one has to accept that a revolutionary turn was taken there in at least the field of politics.

Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots drafted a manifesto of political individualism whereby government would be demoted from its throne as the sovereign and the individual human being placed, instead, in that honored position. That is because we have rights by our very nature and the only point of government is “to secure these rights.” What a wild idea — even today most intellectuals as well as others have trouble grasping, let alone accepting it.

Sadly but understandably, this revolution forged by the American founders didn't go quite far enough. It didn't recognize, for example, that with the identification of individual persons as sovereign citizens must go the corresponding respect for their private property rights. Accordingly, they rightly abolished serfdom, a relic of feudal times, but kept the institution of taxation, which is also such a relic, a payment made to the feudal sovereign in return for having granted permission for people to live and work within the realm it ruled.

Yet neither serfdom nor taxation is consistent with the idea of individual rights as spelled out in the Declaration. If one's life is one's own, and one's liberty, then one's assets and peaceful acquisitions must be also. This is quite plain. One isn't a free agent if when one creates or produces, others get to expropriate or extort the results!

But revolutions are never quite complete or consistent. Consider that despite the unambiguous, unapologetic wording of the Declaration about human equality — that is, our equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — the country kept the institution of slavery for nearly a hundred years after its founding. That was a rank contradiction to the declaration's claims. It proved, as it should rightly have, to be a nearly fatal contradiction, too, since it made possible a Civil War that could then be justified or, if you will, rationalized, as absolutely necessary. Without slavery it is doubtful that such a war could and would have been fought, even if it had causes quite apart from that institution.

Of course, it will be asked immediately, had the Founders acted consistently and abolished taxation, how could they fund even the very limited government which they thought was not only legitimate but proper and necessary? That is a good question. But one must ask it by recalling that no less a problem faced those who had to forgo the benefits of serfdom or slavery — what would they do instead? They were so used to these institutions, so dependent on them not just economically but also socially, sometimes even by religious conviction, that giving them up had to be terribly difficult. Indeed, no unjust institution that has lasted for some time fails to become the livelihood for many people, most of whom will abandon it with great reluctance.

Justice in politics means not exercising power over others without their consent, and so many institutions in societies from ancient to modern involve precisely the opposite. So, the demands of justice are not very easily met, even when they are reasonably well perceived. And so the institution of taxation, which made perfectly good sense under a monarchy, didn't manage to get overthrown as readily as the institution of serfdom and, eventually, that of slavery.

But, the bottom line is, ultimately taxation must be overthrown and something that is indeed just must be put in its place. What could that be? Among certain promising ideas the charging of fees on all contracts that carry consideration would be a start. These instruments require a legal system which then also requires enforcement agents, even a military to protect the entire legal order. When one makes use of such instruments, then, one needs also to support that legal order.

This, however, would not amount to taxation because, at least in principle, one could do without contracts and just keep with relying on promises. However, in a robust economic order promises, which work mainly among intimates, are patently insufficient to make transactions work. So, contracts are overabundant and revenue received from contract fees could very likely fund those services of government that are proper and just, namely, the securing of our rights.

Another choice might be government run lotteries, but there are liabilities with that option that I for one am not eager to recommend. Whatever the answer, however, it is imperative that in a free society the institution of taxation be abolished and funding government be replaced with something that is ultimately voluntary, even if enjoying widespread participation (which would be the case with contract fees).

Human beings are ingenious enough to figure out how to solve problems without resorting to violating one another's rights. It is about time they do this as regards the funding of their legal systems.

---

Machan, who teaches at Chapman University in Orange, California, advises Freedom Communications, Inc., on public policy matters. His most recent book is Initiative — Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000). His email address is Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[sourcery]

Taxation is theft

[dcwusmc]

Freedom bump!

[KayEyeDoubleDee]