Joe Heck and Catherine Cortez Masto offer voters a choice between different types of crimes carried out as a matter of policy. As for me personally, neither of those two are capable of debating me, nor would they represent me, and they would rather not even acknowledge me. The two parties leave me no choice but tax resistance. In this commentary, I explain why you should choose tax resistance as well.
I never thought I would see a day when support for the Bill of Rights would be considered radical, or even “anti-American”. Many people support one part of the Bill of Rights (e.g. the First or Second Amendment), while neglecting or even sabotaging another part. This thinking rests upon the fallacy that rights can be separated and traded, and that man can be fragmented into separate compartments. The government can somehow violate one sphere of a man’s rights, while still leaving the whole of the man intact.
The Bill of Rights is one of the most adroit documents crafted in the history of humankind. It is my contention that every amendment in the Bill of Rights is equally important, with each serving as an important firewall in the defense of liberty.
That we can safely exchange social liberty for economic liberty, or vice versa, is a ruse. In truth, there is an inextricable nexus between social liberty and economic liberty. One implies property rights and the other implies the right to self-ownership.
The right to own and control property and the right to self-ownership is the codification of human rights. There can be no human rights without property rights and the right to self-ownership. The essence of slavery is the deprivation of property rights. Rights are not collective, but belong to each and every individual – black, white, latino, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, gay, heterosexual, asexual.
Theft, arson, vandalism, and fraud have traditionally been considered to be crimes. This is because they violate property rights. Rape, kidnapping, and murder have traditionally been considered to be crimes. This is because they violate the right to self-ownership. Thus we can conclude that any violation of property rights or the right to self-ownership is a crime. If the government enacts and enforces a law that violates property rights or the right to self-ownership, then the government is behaving criminally.
Therefore, as lovers of life and liberty we must support every person’s unmitigated right of self-ownership and property rights. The refrain you might hear is this: “But some people would abuse these rights and harm other people.” What does harm imply? Somebody might violate another person’s property rights, or the right of self-ownership? These rights, absolute and unmitigated, preclude the right of trespass.
Not only are dollars physical pieces of property, but it is through the acquisition of dollars that one achieves a command over property. There is no objective difference between the government taking your cow, or taking your money so that you can’t buy the cow to begin with. Thus we can conclude that taxation can best be summarized as the confiscation of property.
Suppose the government taxed 100% of everything to do with, say, newspapers. How long would newspapers be in business? Without property rights, one can’t have the printing press. Without the printing press, one can’t exercise their First Amendment rights. Without property rights, one can’t eat. If one can’t eat, they can’t live. If one can’t live, they can’t exercise their First Amendment rights. Civil rights are a corollary of property rights. By exercising civil rights, one is also exercising property rights. It’s impossible for the government to encroach upon economic liberty without also encroaching upon social liberty.
As Lysander Spooner distilled what Caesar saliently articulated 2,000 years ago, money and soldiers mutually support one another. With money the state can hire soldiers, and with soldiers the state can steal more money. The first use of money by the state is to hire soldiers to subdue and kill all those who refuse to give the state more money.
The government doesn’t sustain itself by satisfying consumer demands (i.e. earning its income). The government sustains itself with compulsory taxation (i.e. coercion, or the threat of a jailhouse and bayonet). This is why problems inhere with everything the government inserts itself into. Joe Heck doesn’t understand this, as he believes the VA can be fixed by hiring more people. He hasn’t figured out that injecting healthy cells into a diseased patient will not cure the patient.
When it comes to the government, the consumer has no ability to punish misfeasance by taking their money elsewhere. That’s why the only reliable quality control mechanism is having to meet a profit and loss test on the free market. The problem is the nature of government itself.
Libertarians recognize taxation for what it is: the confiscation of property through force. But not only that, taxation is used to empower the state even further. Paying taxes is tantamount to placing a sword into the hands of a monster. If taxes are the price of freedom, then why is there an inverse relationship between the amount of taxes paid and the amount freedom we have? For this reason, all lovers of life and goodness should despise taxation.
The Declaration of Independence makes clear that when a government becomes destructive to the ends of liberty, we have a right to alter or even abolish that government. How do we have the right to abolish the government if we don’t have the right to cease rendering that same government aid through compulsory taxation? Politicians have no natural right to rule over us, nor does that government in Washington have any natural right to exist.
You say that we all must pay our “fair” share of taxes. The exact inverse of paying taxes isn’t not paying taxes (i.e. being a non-taxpayer). The exact inverse of paying taxes is consuming taxes (i.e. being a tax consumer). As John Calhoun explained with the taxpayer-tax consumer dichotomy, for every dime in taxes paid by one person that’s a dime of tax consumption by another person. Government employees pay no taxes at all. That they do is a bookkeeping fiction. They are, in fact, tax consumers.
When the government imposes a tax this inevitably divides the community up into two distinct groups: taxpayers and tax consumers. If everybody paid taxes, then that would mean nobody is a tax consumer. If nobody were a tax consumer, then that would mean the government isn’t spending any money. If the government isn’t spending any money, then that would make it an incorporeal entity that exists only on paper. To the contrary, government spending has been metastasizing. This means there’s actually a much smaller tax base carrying a much bigger burden for a larger subsidy base. The entire process of taxing and spending creates tax consumers. It’s impossible to be a taxpayer with revenue derived from taxation.
Joe Heck and Catherine Cortez Masto do not pay taxes. They are, in fact, tax consumers who seek to expand the tax consumer class (i.e. the subsidy base). They both endorse turning others into tax consumers (e.g. prosecutors who themselves pay no taxes) to carry out acts of violence against those who merely wish to remain free without having to aid and abet such violence.
Because of everything above, I have concluded the best thing I can do for my country is to kick off a tax revolt. Forget about Clinton. Forget about Trump. Forget about the nastiness and the violence. It’s time to stand for peace. It’s time to vote with our dollars by kicking off a tax revolt. I invite you to join with me in getting the tax revolt started.