It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.
He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
It should be noted that Spooner was an anarchist. I am not, but find his assemsment of taxation spot on.
9 comments:
gotta disagree w/ you, Scott. Our government, though flawed, is still the best in the world. In order for this government to function, taxes must be collected. you pay taxes to your municipality, to provide services such as police and fire protection.
If we did not have such protection, anarchy would rule. Whomever had the best arsenal would become overlord of a region, and we would have a similar situation to that in Afghanistan.
I know you believe in the basic "goodness" of people, but I don't. I greatly regret that I can't, but the fact remains. people will always put their own interests above that of the greater good. This is why we need government.
Voluntary taxation would make sense if people really wanted the best for their neighbors, but they don't.
"My house has never been on fire, so why should I pay those guys to put out the fire at 501, not 400 Center?"
Taxation is indeed demanding money with menaces... Why else would we give the Government money? Personally I resent every penny I give them...
Also... isn't Libertarian ideology & Anarchist ideology very close on many things? Not much of a surprise then if you agree with some of what the Anarchists say.
Personal property is also theft. When you say something is yours, you are, in effect, threatening anyone else that wants to continue to use it.
Sammy,
Our government, though flawed, is still the best in the world.
I'm not sure our government is the best in the world anymore. In theory it is, that is to say the form it was laid out in the constitution is quite good, but the course of 200 years of politicians mucking things up has left us with what is basically an oligarchy. I suppose it doesn’t take much to be bets in the world in terms of government now-a-days, but it’s hardly incentive to pay taxes.
Our economy, on the other hand, is certainly the best the world has to offer. This is in spite of, not due to, the Governments best attempts to manipulate and regulate the market to further its own cause. And almost every day we see our system drift further and further from the government-free laissez-faire style CAPITALIST market and closer and closer to a government-regulated plutocratic CORPORATIST market.
But that’s a discussion for my next blog post. :)
In order for this government to function, taxes must be collected. you pay taxes to your municipality, to provide services such as police and fire protection.
In order for any Government to function taxes do seem to be a necessary evil, yes. Some taxation is necessary to sustain government. I’ll see your fire and police department and raise you a court and judicial system. There are other, less important institutions that need funding like public roads, welfare for the disabled, public landmarks, and a national defense (as opposed to our current national offense budget). There’s also our 8+ BILLION dollar national debt that needs to be paid off, so taxes obviously can’t be cut off all together.
However, when you look at how are budgets are set up very little of our money goes to these vital government institutions. (with the exception maybe of the War on Drugs which you know my opinion on) Most Libertarian models of tax reform pay for all of these government bodies and offer enough budget surplus to completely eliminate income tax. That coupled with the elimination our social security payments would give most everyone a nice 30% raise.
While taxation may be necessary to sustain a Government body, it, like any form of government enlargement should be met with much hostility. New taxes spawn new taxes. New regulations spawn new regulations. The bureaucracy will always expand to support the ever expanding bureaucracy. Like I said, I’m not an anarchist; I merely think Spooner’s view on taxation is correct. It is theft. It is immoral. And I think if more people held to that belief, rather than the normal “death and taxes” acquiescence, we would have less problems with government in general.
CK,
Also... isn't Libertarian ideology & Anarchist ideology very close on many things? Not much of a surprise then if you agree with some of what the Anarchists say.
Yeah, like Democrats and Republicans there are different degrees of Libertarian and some of them would be very close to full Anarcho-Capitalist. In fact the man who wrote the Libertarian Manifesto, Murray Rothbard, is considered to be a Anarcho-Capitalist which is why many Libertarians shun the Libertarian Manifesto. The general consensus among Libertarians is that a republic State is necessary to secure the rights of men, which are not provided by the Government, but rather defended by it.
Dback,
Are you referring to a Homestead principle type of situation? Or do you consider any mutual agreement between two people to exchange goods as theft? My post title referring to taxation as theft of private property was speaking to cash as private property. I think you’re probably talking about land ownership, is that correct? Or are you suggesting that claiming ownership to ANY personal property is theft because everyone in the world is part owner of it? Just trying to get a better understanding of your opinion.
Do I believe that personal property ownership is theft? No. But I don't believe that fair taxation is either. But one could make the argument that if you believe that taxation is theft, then so is personal property ownership. You would probably come back with the argument that personal property ownership assumes a contract. And I would say that by virtue of you living in this country, you are assuming a contract with the government. And so on. Blah, blah, blah. And we'd be getting into a wonky discussion on political theory in which neither of us would be swayed in the slightest to the other's position. And that wouldn't be any fun.
I appreciate that you are at least posting the historical basis for a lot of libertarian theory (many of which I've read before). And I'm not going to try and hijack your blog by debating every point.
Wonk on sir. I'll just sit back and enjoy. lol
Gentlemen. If you haven't already read it, may I suggest 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K LeGuin. It's a great book I have read many times about a (science fictional) anarchist community which tries to address some of the issues you've both been bringing up. I think that you'd probably both enjoy it.
Deep in my heart I wish that we could live without Government and that ideas like Mutual Aid and Anarcho-Syndicalism were the norm. Unfortunately the several historical experiments in this direction have all been crushed before they could really flower. I do wonder if such a society is even possible outside the theoretical musings of ploitical philosophers....
CK, have you no sense of decency? I'm already scrambling to order a bunch of your other book recommendations on Ebay. Let me catch up before you make new suggestions. lol
[snigger].
Sorry...... but trying to keep up with my book recommendations is like trying to match an alcoholic drink for drink... best not to even try.
I have to disagree as well, but for a different reason. Taxes, capitalism, private consumption, and government are actually all interlinked in a giant feedback loop. Private enterprise needs government to keep it going. Not only are governments some of the largest consumers of products (for all those workers need supplies, etc), but our private enterprise system is built on the assumption that government can and does something far more important than provide social and security services to private citizens. Government is charged with providing the optimum conditions for private enterprise to grow and thrive. Despite popular perception, the primary beneficiary of government is private enterprise. Our government doesn't exist to protect the individual anymore, it exists to protect the business interests of corporations. Government has taken on the costs of educating and training workers, and the bulk of research and development in many industries.
Without taxes to fund such things, private enterprise would not be nearly as strong as it is today, and we'd have much less income to whine about the government taking.
Post a Comment