Taxes and the Modern State
April 10, 2001
by Joe Sobran
Now that it's tax time again, we should ask a
few questions that are all too rarely posed.
Why do people who clamor for "fairness" in the
tax code always want to raise taxes? Why aren't tax
reductions "fair"? Is there a point beyond which
taxes would be "unfair" even to billionaires? If
so, what would that point be? Put otherwise: at
what point does taxation become slavery?
These questions occur to me because a friend
of mine recently pointed out an interesting fact:
when the federal income tax was first imposed,
John D. Rockefeller paid taxes at a lower rate than
today's burger-flipping, mop-wielding minimum-wage
earners. Steady increases in income tax rates have
put poor people in a higher tax bracket than the
tycoons of yore. "And," my friend remarks, "this
doesn't seem to bother the liberals who are always
wailing about the poor."
Doggone right. Liberals preen themselves on
their "compassion," but what they really want is
compulsion -- more state power over every aspect of
our lives. For them, taxes can never be too high.
At first they attack the rich, appealing to the
envy of others; but in the end, they do to everyone
what they had threatened to do to the rich. And if
you complain about being deprived of your earnings,
you are "greedy" and "selfish" -- words liberals
never apply to the state. Or to themselves.
Why should there be taxes at all? Why isn't
forcing people to give up their property, on pain
of imprisonment, inherently "unfair"? And isn't
this unfairness compounded when the money is used,
not only for purposes that may be plausibly called
"the common good," but for special interests and
frivolous purposes that don't benefit the taxpayer
himself?
Most, if not all, services now supplied by the
state could be paid for through voluntary
arrangements. That would indeed be "fair." Why?
Because freedom is supremely fair.
"All right," someone may say. "But there are
certain essential functions that can't be performed
without the state, and in order to perform them the
state must have the power to tax."
Let's stipulate that for the moment. But if
it's true, then the state should be strictly
confined to those essential functions. It shouldn't
be able to keep increasing the number of
inessential things it can force us to pay for.
A voluntary organization has the right to
require its members to do anything it pleases,
because they can always quit. But you can't quit
the state. The state by its nature is a compulsory
organization with a captive membership. It ought to
have the modesty not to impose undue burdens on its
subjects. A decent state will be reluctant to tax
its subjects beyond necessity.
Does this describe the state today? Hardly.
The modern state takes advantage of its subjects'
inability to escape its power by continually
increasing its powers and their burdens. There is
no limit except the practical constraints of
politics and a few residual constitutional
inhibitions.
Do our rulers ever conscientiously ask whether
they already have too much power? Do they ever
hesitate to claim more? Do they ever try to define
the proper limits of power in principle? Do they
ever worry that they may be exercising tyranny over
us? Are they at all troubled by the disparity
between the limited range of state power in earlier
times and its limitless range today? Do they even
recognize the possibility of an illegitimate state
power?
Not that I know of. They take for granted what
might be called the autonomous state -- a boundless
entity that decides what its own powers are, and
even claims the sole authority to interpret the
Constitution so as to aggrandize itself.
Though the autonomous state is still, as I
say, slightly inhibited by certain features of the
Constitution (those features which it has been so
far unable to whittle away), it adds nothing to our
constitutional protections. Its inherent tendency
is to expand, at the expense of all traditional
restraints.
Yet most Americans don't recognize that the
autonomous state is diametrically opposed to the
principle of constitutional government. This in
itself represents a great achievement of statist
propaganda. As Orwell saw, the modern mind itself
is a product of the modern state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sobran's column -- Me and My Family and China (print version)
Me and My Family and China
April 3, 2001
by Joe Sobran
The Chinese government, which has been
displaying unusual belligerence lately, has
committed another provocation against the U.S.
Government by disabling an American spy plane over
international waters, then detaining the crew
incommunicado when they were forced to land on a
Chinese island. Whether the Chinese fighter jet
deliberately struck the propeller-driven American
plane is unclear -- the jet was lost, its pilot
apparently killed -- but the jet was certainly
risking a collision in order to harass the American
plane.
The incident is being described as "the first
major foreign policy test of the Bush
administration." We are also hearing the usual
phrases -- "improved relations," "cooperation,"
"firm response." The case may be resolved by the
time you read this, or, if the Chinese rulers have
decided to play hardball with the United States, it
could "escalate" into an "international crisis."
What is the reactionary utopian position on
this situation (which, however the present case
turns out, is likely to recur)? Speaking only for
myself, as the only avowed reactionary utopian I
know of, I appeal to the sensible question of Don
Corleone: "What is the interest for me and my
family?" And as Sonny Corleone adds: "Your country
ain't your blood." More precisely, your government
ain't your family.
In fact, your government is your natural
enemy. That's why we have so many safeguards
against it, though (as the Senate's passage of the
McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" bill shows) they
are being gradually removed. More and more, the
government demands that we trust it, especially in
secrecy-laden military affairs. (It's fitting that
John McCain exhibits a military-style
authoritarianism.)
Governments begin with crime and conquest.
They may be somewhat humanized over time, with
bills of rights and other measures to protect
subjects from rulers, but they generally revert to
crime and conquest eventually. The U.S. Government
is an enormous parasite on the productive sector of
the American people, as the imminence of April 15
should remind us.
The interests of the government are at odds
with those of its subjects. This fundamental fact
is disguised by democratic rhetoric, which may lull
us into thinking that whatever is good for the
rulers is also good for the ruled. Nowhere is this
truer than in military matters: intervention abroad
is always advertised as the defense of freedom.
War with China is not in the interest of me
and my family. But the enormous U.S. presence in
Asia is likely to lead to war sooner or later. The
Chinese and American governments are vying for
supremacy in the region like two rival gangs.
Thanks, but I want no part of it. Dominating Asia
is not in the interest of me and my family, even if
it could be done without bloodshed. Military
conquest does nothing to advance our freedom and
often has the opposite result.
In the present case, the American government
may be in the right, just as the Corleones may be
in the right when ambushed by the Tattaglias. It
remains true that the interest of me and my family
is to stay out of any such conflict. The last time
members of my family went to war, my father was
nearly killed and our ancestral country, Ruthenia,
wound up in Joe Stalin's duffel bag. President
Franklin Roosevelt assured us that we were fighting
for "freedom."
Am I positing "moral equivalence" between the
United States and China? Not exactly. I much prefer
life under the U.S. Government to life under the
brutal Chinese regime, because many of our freedoms
have, after all, survived the U.S. Government's
efforts to whittle them away.
But this is not to say that we owe those
freedoms to our government, whose character has
become increasingly lawless and criminal. And there
is no reason for us to root our current rulers on
in their power rivalry with the Chinese rulers.
It's imbecilic to equate our current rulers with
the precious principles of liberty and the rule of
law. But the lazy (and wholly irrational) equation
of the government's interests with the people's
freedom has become a bad habit.
This was not always so. In the days when
American rulers had some genuine concern for
freedom, they warned against foreign wars and
entangling alliances. Does anyone remember?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/010410.shtml".
To subscribe to the Sobran columns, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml or
http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2001 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. All rights reserved.
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml or
http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2001 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. All rights reserved.