Sunday, April 6, 2008

We're All Tax Slaves.......................


Taxation Again

Tibor R. Machan


Instead of all the mud slinging between Senators Hillary Rodham Clintonand Barack Hussein Obama, wouldn’t it be refreshing to have them engage insome serious political discussion? Since April 15 is nearly upon us, manyAmerican citizens might appreciate some in-depth exploration of the natureof taxation. The federal income tax, in particular, would deservethoughtful examination. Senator John McCain could also enter the fray, methinks. Why don’t these politicians, who are aspiring to the U. S. presidency--thepresidency of a supposedly free country--spend a bit of their energy andtime discussing with voters how a robust system of confiscatory taxationcan be reconciled with the basic principles of the country laid out in theDeclaration of Independence. In this revolutionary statement of a radicalpolitical philosophy--wherein we learn that human beings are equal inhaving unalienable rights to, among others, their lives, liberty, andpursuit of happiness--it seems pretty clear that a government’sconfiscation of one’s resources would amount to a violation of several ofthese rights.Take life, for example. What does one’s life consist of? Much of it isspent, of course, trying to earn a living so as to support one’s variousneeds and wants, including the housing, feeding, clothing, and educationof one’s offspring. Having an unalienable right to one’s life means,unless I am utterly amiss in my grasp of the English language and of howthe American founders used it, that one may not lose one’s life and itsfruits to other people unless one freely gives them away. Confiscatorytaxation is not a case of having one’s resources contributed freely, notby even the most post-modern interpretation of the words in play. Then again, take liberty. What is this liberty? It has to do with one’snot having anyone else, including government, dictate to one what one willdo, how one will act, what course of conduct one will undertake. None,since the right to liberty, too, is unalienable, that is to say incapableof being lost unless one’s humanity has vanished somehow. Confiscatorytaxation once again cannot be made consistent with the principle that onehas this unalienable right to one’s liberty for such taxation coerces oneto hand over a goodly part of one’s earnings to people one hasn’t freelychosen to receive them. (And let’s leave aside the sophistry of claimingthat taxation is ultimately voluntary or that majority vote may void one’sunalienable rights!)As to the pursuit of happiness, that too is supposed to be one’sunalienable right, yet when some get the legal power to force one todevote resources to goals one has not chosen to pursue, that right, too,is very evidently violated. It bears remembering, also, that these are just a few among the “certainunalienable rights.” Indeed, human beings have unalienable rights to doanything that’s peaceful, that does not violate someone else’s rights.Even the Bill of Rights attests to this, in its inclusion of the NinthAmendment among the principles it lists. It clearly refers to rights weall have that are not enumerated in the Constitution. So, to use somesimple examples, we all have the right to laugh, sing, have parties in ourback yards, and so forth, even though these rights are no listed--sincethey would take volumes to list--in the Constitution. Yes, reference is made in the Constitution to taxation but that is anunfortunate mistake, inconsistency actually, since taxation is not part ofa free country properly understood, any more than serfdom is, orinvoluntary servitude. One might wonder, well then how are the properfunctions of government to be funded, if not by means of the extortionistscheme of taxation? Actually, there can be valid alternatives to taxation,ones no involving coercion, confiscation, extortion, although these arenot studied now because so many people accept taxation is legitimate. Thatused to be the case with slavery, too, for centuries--alternatives to itwere not studied in ancient Egypt and Greece or elsewhere becauseinfluential people complacently accepted the practice. As they now accepttaxation. But that does not make it right!As a very brief hint, the legal services governments provide can be fundedby a contract fee--anyone who enters into a contract would need to pay afee so it would gain legal backing. Given the enormous popularity offreely entered into contracts, and given that one need not make use ofthem if one can get by with a handshake, the method would provide ampleresources to fund government’s proper functions.Wouldn’t it be just swell if those pursuing the presidency of a supposedlyfree country would raise issues like this one? No, instead they dwell onwhether one’s crazy minister speaks for one in matters of race or whetherone has actually encounter sniper fire when landing in some foreign land(where one probably shouldn’t have landed in the first place)? It is shameful how the right topics are evaded and trivial onessubstituted during this and most other political campaigns.

No comments: