Taxes Are Not A Duty

Taxes Are Not A Duty

Without taxes, society would devolve into chaos. There would be mass civil unrest. Roads would fall into disrepair. The public would be illiterate. People would be starving in the streets. Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

I reject these arguments; and you should too if you believe prosperity is rooted in freedom.

Let us look at the nature of taxes. Taxes evolve and revolve around violence. If you believe in forced taxation, you must at some level believe that the proper way to solve society’s problems is through the use of violent action. Refusal to pay taxes results in violence just as paying your taxes results in violence. Paying taxes results in violence against “the other guy,” typically the minority view holder of any given political agenda. Rarely does it result in justified violence against someone who has directly harmed you in some way.

All government action derives from the point of a gun. When someone advocates any form of taxation, they believe the best way to solve the problem at hand is by putting a gun to another citizen’s head in order to loot him of his labor.

Is it moral and just if I were to enter a rich mans home in the middle of the night, put a gun to his head; rob him of his labor by stealing his money; take a portion of that money for myself; then hand the rest to a starving mother?

If everyone did this, would we be living in a civil and just society? If everyone did this, would it eliminate impoverished mothers? How often would we need to do this in order to eliminate impoverished mothers? Once? Twice? A thousand times over unending?

Can violence solve poverty?

The State spends vast sums of money promoting the idea that taxes are a duty. That patriotic American’s must fork over their labor to the anointed ones as only they can solve society’s problems with your money. That the answers to society’s problems lie in ever more laws and ever more taxes. That taxes are legitimate and that they serve the greater good.

I reject those arguments.

The Legitimacy of Federal Taxes:

I will approach this from a fairly unique view that is not often heard yet I feel represents the strongest basis for the rejection of federal taxation.

The founding fathers established the federal government to manage 17 specific areas of American general welfare. Those areas can be boiled down to defense against invasion, coinage of gold and silver brought to it by the public, and ensuring free trade among the states. The states constituted the federal government as a contract (a treaty) between themselves to manage general inter-state affairs.

The US Constitution, in the opening line that lays out the powers of Congress, states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Constitution then goes on to list the 17 specific areas of legislation that define what constitutes the general welfare and common defense.

The legal argument is simple. Since the federal government is using my tax dollars outside of the 17 specific areas defined under Article 1 Section 8, the taxes collected are being used for illegal purposes and thus the laws requiring me to pay said taxes are null and void.

I could also argue that the Constitution itself is not binding on me. I never signed a binding contract abdicating my rights to the federal government. The Constitution’s legitimacy stems from its desire to protect the natural rights of the citizenry; to protect my rights from infringement by others. When government steps outside of this, it has lost its legitimacy.

The moral argument is just as simple. Since I have harmed no one, the government has no right to enact a punishment against me or use violence against me. Indeed the Constitution itself says “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Taxes deprive me of my property without due process.

Just as it is amoral for me to loot someone of their labor, so too is it amoral for government to engage in such action. By allowing government to engage in such action, we are implicitly agreeing that government has more rights than we do. That government’s right to my labor exceeds my own rights to that same labor. That government has a right to enslave me for its own designs. That politicians may spend debt on my behalf and hold me accountable for that debt by putting a gun to my head.

Society Without Taxation:

The Giving USA Foundation recently released a report stating that charitable giving had topped 300 billion in the US for 2008. To put 300 billion in perspective, the annual budget for all local, state, and federal spending in America during the year 1800 was 11 million. Adjusted for today’s inflation, that comes to 137,541,357 in 2008 dollars. According to the National Priorities Project, 137 million is half of what the US government is currently spending in ONE DAY fighting the “war on terror.” To summarize, in the year 1800, the entire US government operated on a budget two thousand times less than what American’s give freely in charity today.

An interesting fact about the year 1800 should be noted. Wiki cites this historical fact about the rise of Thomas Jefferson’s presidency:

By 1800 Americans were ready for change. Under Washington and Adams the Federalists had established a strong government, but sometimes failed to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people; they had followed policies that alienated large groups of Americans. For example, in 1798, to pay for the national debt and an army and navy, Adams and Federalists had enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country. Worse, after a single instance of tax revolt (a mob having freed two tax evaders from prison), Adams ordered the U.S. Army into action to collect the taxes. While the army could find no one to fight, Democratic-Republicans seized on this action as another example of Federalist tyranny.

Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers which asserted themselves as Democratic-Republicans in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, DC, he promised “a wise and frugal government” to preserve order among the inhabitants but would “leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement”[1].

Charles Adams expounds:

When President Adams replaced Washington, he too as a strong Federalist, introduced the first direct tax, and like the Whiskey tax, it set off another tax revolt, this time in Eastern Pennsylvania. When tax assessors showed up in the various counties, an armed uprising followed. Some of the rebels were put in jail, and an auctioneer named John Fries showed up with a mob and got the men released. Adams called out the militia, Fries was arrested and tried for treason. His conviction and subsequent sentence to be hanged, was overturned by a pardon given by President Adams, against the unanimous advise of his cabinet. Adams felt it was not treason, but just a riot. That unpopular tax, along with the whiskey tax, added to the popular contempt for the Federalist Party.

Remember, the country was founded on the premise that standing armies represented a clear and present danger to the freedom of the country equally as much as the threat of foreign invasion.

Would society devolve into chaos if instead of mandated taxation, government was operated as a non-for profit charity? That the public gives freely what it feels the government deserves? That government must be responsive to the people or the people will simply remove its funding? As the budget of our government in 1800 suggests, I think America could get along just fine with an all-charity government constrained by the premise of natural rights. Perhaps rather than political parties, local, state, and federal governments were organized in to various charitable organizations. If one got out of line, the people would cease funding it and instead direct their charity to the later.

This is not the only alternative, its simply one I am presenting. When looking at history, its clear a functioning government could be well run by nothing more than charity. That taxes at the point of a gun are not necessary. The nation prospered well under such freedom in our past, and its entirely reasonable to think that without the massive burden and regulation of government today, the ensuing prosperity would be well enough based on charity alone to fund the defense of our rights and liberty.

The private market can meet almost all the needs of society voluntarily. People don’t need to have a gun put to their head in order for a road to be built. If there is a market need, someone will fund and create the road (and the cost of tolls for that road will be less than what we pay for in taxes now, and the road will be up-kept in superior fashion to what we get for our tax dollars). Indeed, what socialists declare are “necessities” that require government welfare at gun point could all be managed in a voluntary private market with similar superior results. No force necessary.


continued...



[edit on 23-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

How would you consider roads, rubbish collection, park upkeep, community projects ect to continue to run and be funded without taxes? Sure some taxes are not necessary, well a lot of them arnt, but a lot of them are.

in Australia we a charged a GST (goods services tax) which taxes us basically for being human and having needs, yet we also have taxes which pay our garbage men for taking the garbage all the way to the tip, plus the upkeep of the tips.

Chaos will certainly run wild in your ideal world, so would the rubbish piles. How would the society learn value if it is not responsible for itself.

Reply to post by 1xion325alpha

Tolls for use, bring your own rubbish to the transfer station, stop throwing trash in the park and pick it up when you it.

Just for starters.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by 1xion325alpha


Where I live we have this thing known as a private trash collecton company. They own and maintain both the trucks and the area dump. We pay them each month for this service, about $20/month to pick up the trash each week. They hire people who then pay taxes and the company provides a nice taxable profit to its owners. So I am sure we would not be living in a cesspool of trash without the government taking care of every last detail of life for us.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Let's put it this way.

Taxes are LESS VIOLENT than a tax-free society. if the machinery of the society works well, as it does in most Western nations (well, works well enough at any rate) then there is little incentive for direct, violent action from the have-nots. Once that system starts to break down, though, riot and revolution erupt.

While you may feel violated by the idea of having a couple bucks taken out of each paycheck, I assure you it hurts a hell of a lot less than some dude actually gunning you down to take the cash from your wallet.

Your ideals only look good on hte internet, and only work on paper if there is the presupposition that people will behave exactly like your hypothesis needs them to.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


People throw trash in the park because they are too lazy to either bin it, or pay to take it to the proper disposal places, nothing to do with taxes just laziness on behalf of that taxpayer.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


Wow what is the difference between paying $20 upfront a month, or paying all together in your yearly rates (which is how it works here), seems both a reasonable way to have you trash removed. Except your trash service is for profit.

As I said before, some taxes are reasonable, some are not.

Edit: For spelling

[edit on 23-2-2010 by 1xion325alpha]

The economics of this are beyond the scope of this article, but clear rational logic leads us to the conclusion that society’s problems can not be solved at the point of a gun. Guns are only good for defense of our liberties and rights; they don’t work to resolve systemic societal issues.

After reading this article, I hope you take the time to consider where you stand.

-For tyranny or freedom.


--------------

end of article.


reply to post by 1xion325alpha


Land is property, 99.9% of land would be private.

Parks would charge admissions and their upkeep would be maintained by a private organization.

Either that, or charitable contributions to government would fund the acquisition of a public park, and public charity would maintain its upkeep.

Anarchists and libertarians are almost identical! They live in fantasy land, far detached from reality, even more than the politicians we vote in office.

Communism and socialism on the other hand, involve law and order with a touch of equality mixed in. I am neither for low or high taxation, I am for fair taxation and minimum waste.

One interesting concept to consider is that if we do away with private central banks and allow a people's government to print money, much like in the ex-soviet union, there would be no national debt because governments would not need to borrow funds. They simply print what they need and allow private banks to then lend money to companies and people at any given interest rate.

Allowing private banks to issue money distorts the entire picture and makes everyone, especially government, a money slave to the globalists. If you do not already know this, I suggest you do some research into the Federal Reserve. The FED is just one example out of many central banks, and the excuse is always "we don't want corrupt politicians handling the economy" as though they are not corrupt themselves.

reply to post by 1xion325alpha


People would subscribe to trash collection agencies.

People do it all the time in other countries.

reply to post by 1xion325alpha


I like that my trash service is for profit and I also like that there are like 5 other trash services around. So if my current trash service starts sucking I can move to some one who will serve me better. Plus, my trash servce is not government ran so I don't have to pay for bloated government admnistration and extra workers to pick up the trash because city workers are unionized and lazy and get unreasonable benefits for the work (or lack thereof) that they do. My private trash collector pays a fair market wage and benefits to its staff, has streamlined administration, and does a better job for far less of an expense than my local government could ever imagine. In fact, at one time our trash service was municipal, but then even the city figured out if it was cheaper and more effective just to let us hire our own service.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


In a free market, private banks would not be the sole issuers of currency.

Most currency would probably come from private mints, that would coin gold and silver brought to it by the public.

Banks may then issue bank notes on that coined gold or silver - or they may take direct delivery of the gold and silver.

Natural currencies would evolve in the market without government forcing them down the publics throat.

People would have choice.

If one currency is deemed to be a bad investment, people would switch to another rapidly. Just as people choose google or bing today, if google hoses its search engine, people would switch to another.


[edit on 23-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


LMAO, I don't know anything about anarchists other than they are a bunch of pot smokers, but Libertarian/Conservatives don't live in lala land like you suggest.

It is the socialist that lives in a lala land where they think everyone should have everythign provided to them by the government and then expects everyone to work as hard as possible to end up with the same reward as the laziest in the group. Socialists think someone will invest to create jobs and new businesses just so they can get all their profits taken away in the form of taxes. Now that is delusional for you.

Reply to post by 1xion325alpha

The difference should be obvious. One way you get to shop around for the best, hire who you like, transfer it yourself and save the $20. The other you either pay or go to jail. No choice. Unless you call going to jail a choice.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


Study Austrian economics long enough and you'll find that libertarians are really anarchists.

They just prefer a different term that hasn't been so demonized by State propaganda.

There is nothing the State fears more than its elimination, accordingly it has spent a great deal of time demonizing anyone that calls for its removal.

An absolute democracy never works, because too many people have a say into everything, and there is constant stalemate. The poor fight the middle class, the middle class fights the wealthy, blacks fight whites, hispanics fight everyone.

Good strong leadership is vital for stability. The question now is who will government support? In capitalism its for corporations, in socialism its for both corporations and people, and communism just for people. Of course, I prefer the second!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Good strong leadership is what Stalin gave the Soviet empire.

Originally posted by 1xion325alpha
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

People throw trash in the park because they are too lazy to either bin it, or pay to take it to the proper disposal places, nothing to do with taxes just laziness on behalf of that taxpayer.

Dont ya hate it when a perfectly good philosophy on how people should live gets screwed up by...how people live.

Reality...aint it a bitch.


Anyhow, yes...eliminate taxes, pave your own roads, protect yourself, put out your own fires or get a collection going with the neighborhood...all sounds great until its actually instituted...and voila, people are too busy being people...you will have mounds of trash in peoples yards causing freaking plagued cats and rats, crumbled roads, rampant crime (whoot, no cops...lets take everything not nailed down...shoot anyone trying to stop us), arsonist field days, criminal cartels, education and healthcare only for the elite top of society, etc etc etc.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Good strong leadership is what Stalin gave the Soviet empire.

Erm, strong leadership is what every leader gave every empire...care to be any more jaded and skewed?

George Washington...strong leadership, Che...Strong leader, etc etc etc.

get over it.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

LMAO, I don't know anything about anarchists other than they are a bunch of pot smokers, but Libertarian/Conservatives don't live in lala land like you suggest.

It is the socialist that lives in a lala land where they think everyone should have everythign provided to them by the government and then expects everyone to work as hard as possible to end up with the same reward as the laziest in the group. Socialists think someone will invest to create jobs and new businesses just so they can get all their profits taken away in the form of taxes. Now that is delusional for you.

Actually, libertarians and economic conservatives operate under a deep, fantastic delusion.

That delusion is that private industry holds public interest close to its heart. Libertarians / economic conservatives have it in their heads that running a company makes you an altruistic, wonderful person with no interest in profit, who would never cut corners, engage in unsafe or unfair practices to make a buck, and would always look out for the community.

The other problem arises from the flip side of the coin - while you guys are lauding the industry's commitment to public health, you deny that there is any such need. Take this private trash removal stuff.

What if I'm a total pig and a spendthrift, and just let garbage pile up in my yard? My piles of food and trash are havens for rats and flies, my old car batteries and oil filters are leaking into the groundwater, plastic bags fly out of my yard on the wind and into other people's yards - my rats are doing the same thing, only on the ground.

I am causing a public health situation, i'm dropping your property value, and thanks to me your kids are much more likely to discover the joy of cholera and bubonic plague (you DO have the money to pay for those drugs, right?) and you know what? YOU can't do jack about it, nyah nyah nyah!

Does this sound like the basis for a successful society to you?

This is the core problem with both communism and libertarianism / anarchism = they make the big assumption that people are perfectly altruistic and helpful and would work to the common good even against their own immediate benefit. That's not the way it works - That's not the way it works in private homes, and it's CERTAINLY not how it works in private industries!

Some socialists might be living in a utopian dreamland. But the theory of socialism is sound, even in practice, despite its spacier proponents. However the stuff you guys are talking about... Simply can't work. People don't work that way.