Government Without Taxation: Introduction

Death and taxes, we are often told, are two inevitable facts of life. However, a crucial distinction exists between the two—death is a metaphysical fact, while taxes are a man-made fact. As such, death is in fact inevitable, but taxes are not. The metaphysical is absolute and immutable; the man-made is subject to the choices and actions of man.

Taxes—by which I mean the forced payment of monies to the government—are a violation of property rights. Taxes compel individuals to cede their property without their consent. Each individual has a moral right to act according to his own judgment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Taxation, by using force, deprives individuals of their rights. In a free society, all interactions between individuals require the voluntary consent of all involved. This includes support for the government.

A common objection to government without taxation is that citizens will not voluntarily support legitimate government functions. This implies that government provides no value to the citizenry. Yet, citizens voluntarily pay for bread, automobiles, internet service, and countless other products and services. Individuals do so because they value these items.

The same is true of a proper government. Limited to its proper functions—the protection of individual rights—government would provide three services: the police, the courts, and the military. The police provide protection against criminals; the courts resolve disputes between individuals; the military provides protection against foreign threats. The protection of individual rights is a legitimate value, and ample evidence exists that individuals will voluntarily support government.

The costs associated with these functions are significantly less than that spent by the government on improper functions, such as welfare, health care, the regulation of business, and education. A government limited to the protection of individual rights would spend a fraction of the money that it spends today.

In this series of posts, I will indicate the approximate level of spending a proper government would require, as well as provide evidence that individuals will indeed provide voluntary support for government.

America is not yet ready for government without taxation. The ideas necessary to defend and implement such limited government are not dominant in our culture. Any attempt to implement such a policy would fall on deaf ears and be rejected. The battle for government without taxation is not a political battle, but a moral battle, and more fundamentally, an epistemological battle. In other words, without the proper moral and epistemological foundation, individual liberty cannot be achieved or sustained.

A culture in which reason and self-interest dominate would be significantly different from contemporary America. It would be a culture in which virtually everything would be different, from the most mundane to the most important. And because freedom unlocks creativity and opportunities, it is impossible to project precisely what such a culture would look like. We can however, make such projections in a more general sense.

Freed from the arbitrary constraints of government controls and regulations, the economy would invariably grow consistently. Historically, the contrast between command economies such as the Soviet Union and America provides ample evidence of this fact. Even in America such contrasts can be witnessed—cities such as Houston have stronger economies than cities with more regulations and controls.

In a free society, all property would be privately owned. This would eliminate issues such as the “tragedy of the commons”, the curriculum in our schools, and the continual political battles over “public property”. The recognition and protection of property rights would eliminate issues such as debates over land use, vehicle mileage standards, and the regulation of businesses.

In a free society there would be no restrictions on hiring practices—businesses and employees would be free to reach whatever agreements are mutually acceptable. Individuals would be free to offer their services to whomever chose to use them. There would be no impediments to employment.

Freed of the constraints of government, individuals would be able to innovate without restriction. New products and services would abound, as businesses sought to create new customers and retain old ones. The standard of living would consistently rise, while the cost of living would consistently fall.

The shrinking size of government would have commensurate economic benefits. The trillions of dollars consumed by government would become available for investment, further stimulating economic growth. The insidious confiscation of property through inflation would be impossible. The capricious and ever changing mandates of government would no longer impede long-term planning.

Achieving a free society is not an idle fantasy. It is not an issue that is “good in theory” but impractical—a theory that cannot be practiced is not a good theory. It is not an ideal that is impossible because of man’s nature—it is an ideal because of man’s nature. It is not an idea that worked two hundred years ago but won’t work in modern times—principles are not transient.

I hasten to add that the elimination of taxes is a goal for the very distant future. These posts do not mean to imply that we should be advocating the elimination of taxes today. This would be an impractical goal, and we would simply be dismissed as crackpots. However, there is value in understanding how government would be supported without coercive taxation. It is important for advocates of liberty to understand that voluntary support for government is not only moral, but also practical.


Updated on April 8, 2010 with links to all of the posts in this series:
Government Without Taxation: Introduction
Government Without Taxation: The Size of Government
Government Without Taxation:  The Police and Military
Government Without Taxation: The Courts
Government Without Taxation:  Other Revenue Sources
Government Without Taxation: Final Thoughts

Funky, But Chic

On Saturday I wrote about Peter Brown's endorsement by George Clinton, aka "The Godfather of Funk". A Brown supporter responded to my post, pointing out that Brown has spoken to the Houston Property Rights Association on multiple occasions:

I merely wanted to point out that Peter has listened to property rights groups and answered their questions. Just because he doesn't always share your views does not mean he has avoided hearing them. [punctuation and capitalization corrected]

This is a common approach among politicians. They will "listen" to anyone, and then "agree to disagree". They treat opposing views as a matter of opinion, and every opinion as equally valid. The truth is, my disagreement with Brown is at fundamental level and our views are diametrically opposed.

I hold that individual rights, including property rights, are sacrosanct and cannot be violated for any reason. Brown rejects individual rights and treats them as a minor obstacle that must be overcome in pursuing his "common vision". As a few examples, he supports restrictions on billboards and supported zoning in the 1990s. This is not a minor disagreement--this goes to the very core of our view of man, morality, and politics.

Brown's reaching out to the funk crowd is certainly not unusual. Politicians often try to build a "big tent" under which individuals with widely different ideas can feel comfortable. They try to throw enough crumbs to enough people that they can get the votes needed to win election. But what they, and their supporters, do not understand is that they cannot be all things to all people. In the end, they must pander to their core constituency.

For example, what will happen when Brown must choose between protecting property rights and billboards? How will he respond when some noisy gang wants to stop a development project? Brown has made it clear--time after time--that he is willing to use government coercion to stop land uses he does not favor.

I have previously pointed out that the ideas offered by Brown do not differ in any essential way from those of his chief opponent--Annise Parker. Both are offering the same conventional ideas.

Since Brown is playing to the funk crowd, I would suggest something really funky. (One definition for funky is "Characterized by originality and modishness; unconventional".) I would suggest that Brown defend individual rights, including property rights. This would certainly be unconventional, and it would distinguish him from Parker.

Such a position would have broad appeal--individual rights apply to all individuals. Brown would not have to choose between his constituencies--there are no conflicts between the rights of individuals. And in ushering in a new era of freedom, not only would Brown be funky, he'd be funky, but chic. He might even get an endorsement from David Johansen.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 25

And Now a Message From U-Haul
Sometimes numbers are worth a thousand words. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently issued a report that found (HT: Houston Strategies):

When comparing California with Texas,U-Haul says it all. To rent a 26-foot truck one way from San Francisco to Austin, the charge is $3,236, and yet the one-way charge for that same truck from Austin to San Francisco is just $399. Clearly what is happening is that far more people want to move from San Francisco to Austin than vice versa, so U-Haul has to pay its own employees to drive the empty trucks back from Texas.

For the past year I have been documenting studies and reports that show that Houston (and Texas) leads the nation in job creation, cost of living, and a host of other economic categories. And, while our political leaders love to tout these facts, they simultaneously endorse policies that attack and undermine the cause of the city's prosperity. They seem to treat economic prosperity as causeless, or attribute it to some mystical aura that hovers in our air.

The fact is, individual freedom is the cause of economic prosperity. Restrictions on land-use are an attack on individual freedom, as are prohibitions on "attention-getting devices", mandates to install tags on taco trucks, and a myriad other ordinances and proposals that have been passed or are being considered. If our "leaders" wish to emulate San Francisco in controlling the lives of individuals, we will get the same economic consequences.

Free Lottery Picks
Brian Shelley at Freedom is the Solution has done a good job of predicting several economic trends. Some time ago he projected the drop in housing prices in several cities, and recently he posted the actual drops:

Predictions for total price drop:
Miami – 32% drop
Los Angeles – 31%
Tampa, FL – 28%
Las Vegas – 28%
Washington – 24%

Actual:
Miami - 33% drop
Los Angeles - 30%
Tampa, FL - 27%
Las Vegas - 38%
Washington - 23%

With those impressive results, he is now offering lottery number predictions--for a fee.

But Will She Listen?

Some time ago I was visiting Annise Parker's web site and decided to accept her offer to leave some comments. I assumed that all comments would be screened, and my comments would never see the light of day. I was wrong, and you can read them here.

Brown is One Funky Dude
Peter Brown, who wants to subject the entire city of Houston to his grand vision, received an endorsement this week that should certainly expand his appeal. During a show by George Clinton, aka the Godfather of Funk, Brown received a endorsement from "Uncle Funky". Brown told the Chronicle political blog:

We have a serious campaign to reach people who have never been reached before and that's what this is all about.

Here's an idea Mr. Brown: How about reaching out to advocates of liberty? We haven't been reached in a very long time, like since 1776. We may not be as funky as the Clinton crowd, but that is a good thing.

No Post Next Saturday
I will be out of town next weekend visiting my mother for Mother's Day. There will be no post next Saturday.