Taxes; salvation or destruction?
People of government and those who are brought up to believe in the justification of taxation often argue that:"People need to be forced to pay taxes in order for government to work for the greater good. How else can we contribute to the well-being of others in society? "
This argument has two aspects. A principle aspect and a technical aspect. In this article the main focus is on the principle aspect because the technical one has more to do with organizing, constructing and managing systems.
The technical aspect:
If we technically look at this money-flow, we see that it is nothing more than a money transaction. The people pay government in which case the money flows from A to B. Government divides this money by allocating it to the projects or ideas that need funding, in which case it means paying those who ultimately are doing the real work. So, B pays C so C can deliver to A. But most of the time the ones who do all the work (category C) are also the ones who live among A. We may conclude that government in this case is nothing more than the middle man. And the golden rule for every businessman is that cutting out the middle man is always the best thing to do. You pay less and it is time-efficient. In this era of technology we should be able to create a system of transaction in which the people can pay for these services by cutting out the middle man. Is government really the only way to pay for these services?
The principle aspect has more sides to it:
Government is an institution that consists out of people… human beings that are equal to all other human beings in society. And these human beings in government are organized in a specific structure in which they have, in theory, obligated themselves to serve mankind. It is illogical and contradictory at first hand to accept this aspect of force imposed by these human beings, whilst they themselves claim to be servants of the people. In order for creating a better society we need to understand the difference between ruling over society and organizing society, especially when the main objective is for the people to prosper in peace and freedom. A conscious servant knows his place; he or she organizes and can or will not impose an idea on the ones he or she serves. An idea is presented and if this idea or proposition is accepted, the funds can flow willingly and accordingly.
Forcing people to pay tax means that the people in government do not respect one of the very laws they stand for namely the law of ownership. To rob or to steal from someone means that one has taken something without consent from the owner. When government imposes a law that justifies taking money from owners (in which case the owners have not committed a crime or are not in debt) without an existing contract, it is pretty much the same thing as robbing someone because there is no consent and no deal is made between the parties. There is no deal because before you were even born the government decided for you what portion of your earnings you would get to keep...before you were born meaning that even before your existence your earnings were already spent for you on something that nobody even knew about at the time.
How can a serving organization, consisting out of human beings equal to others force other human beings to pay for something without their consent or without an existing contract? Telling me that by taking from me (without my consent), in order to serve me is not an act of servitude but an act of violence. How can a government contribute to the well-being of the people when it takes from the same people without their consent? How can we speak of freedom when the ones who earn their money in a respectful way have no right to refuse? When people do not have the right to refuse in their own interest, they are not free. Slaves did not have the right to refuse because their refusal did not serve their masters. And when the people in government can take from others, regardless of the return of investment…where does the government have the incentive of actually really wanting or having to do better? Because if government delivers on its promises or not, the obligation to pay taxes stays untouched.
We also need to keep in mind that every one of us has our own struggles in life. Most of us get up every day, go out and do the things we need to do in order to stay alive. We have the right to fulfill our dreams and accomplishments and therefore we plan our budget so that we may manifest the things we want. This is one of the beautiful strengths of freedom. When we are conscious about our spending we realize that every dime we spend is an investment. Even when you buy a drink at the supermarket it is an investment. Your body needs the refreshment and you spend your money for your need. When we buy toilet paper or even go on vacation from taking a break from our routines or just to get away for a bit, we invest in ourselves what is rightfully ours to do. We do not need to explain this right of ownership to anyone. What and how we spend that what we have achieved through our own sweat and creativity is no one’s business but our own. For government to claim to have a right on our ownership is contradictory to that which it stands for, because government means to create circumstances for the people so they may realize their accomplishments in peace and freedom. If one in his or hers daily struggle should think of government first and far most when one has finally earned, it means the priorities of both parties have shifted.
We all teach our children about respect, about solving conflicts with a non-violent approach, to be nice and kind to each other and yet our institutions of government use force in the spirit of servitude.
Two analogies we can make with the argument of justifying force for the greater good;
a. Tom is 10 years old and has earned some money by doing chorus around the house. He has saved some money and as innocent as children can be, he shows this money to the other children at school. Now some of the other children also want some money because of their own needs. Tom does not want to give any of it because he has worked too long for it and he has already made plans on how to spend it. The teacher comes along in this matter with the intention of settling it in the right way. What is the morally right thing to do? Does the teacher say: “Kids, it is Tom his money and has the right to do with as he pleases. We should respect the property of others. You need to respect this right because when you grow up you could be in a lot of trouble when you do not respect the property of others.”
Or does she or he say: “Kids, Just take the money and let Tom keep some, he has worked for it so we should respect his effort. But sharing is a moral value so the right thing to do is to take it because Tom must understand that other people have needs too.”
One of these sentences will shape these children in an unimaginable way. So, maybe it is imperative that we realize what the message is that we as adults are sending to our children. What does it mean to respect the property of others? How can we measure morality when it comes to ownership and respect? Do we even know the meaning of the word ‘respect’?
b. The other analogy is one of two people, a man and a woman, stranded on a deserted island. It is normal, even natural to gratify sexual urges. So on one hand we can say that it is normal, even natural for the man to start feeling these urges and that there is nothing wrong with that. But the moment he forces himself upon her, he is violent because she has not given any consent. To justify it with the argument that ‘he had no other way in that situation and that the urge is natural and needs to be gratified’, does not justify his act of violence.
How can we as a people expect to create a peaceful and just society when our fundamental principle is the initiation of force in which we unconsciously teach our children that forcing others is a way of life because there is no alternative? And where there is force, there is inequality because its structure is built on hierarchy and where there is inequality there is always conflict.
A servant cannot be both servant and enforcer of the one he serves. Force by nature, is not able to function in the spirit of equality because forcing others means to bend their will to the will of the enforcer, and therefore peace and freedom cannot be a reality.
Conclusion: forcing others in order to achieve greatness is an illusion because if this were true, society would be a paradise right about now because of government.
Author (originally dutch)
Rumi Knoppel
(Iftesha)
