No Taxation without Representation - what about the reverse?

Greetings everyone! After lurking for years i've decided to finally post something i've been pondering for quite some time.

I'm sure most are familiar with the slogan 'No Taxation without Representation', expressing the belief of American colonists that, since they weren't represented in the distant British parliament, laws and taxes imposed on them by said parliament were basically illegal, and a denial of their rights as Englishmen.

I think it's fair to say that this idea is one of the fundamentals of modern western democracies, and is regarded as a satisfactory justification for the existence of coercive governments. After all, if we are allowed to elect our rulers, then 'we' basically rule 'ourselves', and any law or tax imposed on us has been imposed by 'ourselves' (at least, that seems to be the simplified explanation as i see it.)

But if you think about it, this slogan also works in reverse - No Representation without Taxation. It makes sense that you shouldn't have to pay taxes if you are not politically represented, but what if you don't care about political representation at all? What if a settler on the frontier values his property more than some parliament, whether it is located in London or Washington? Wouldn't it make sense for some American thinkers like Jefferson to regard taxes as something akin to membership fees, without which one has no right to vote, and is not entitled to any government protection, but which the state has no right to collect by force either? A voluntary 'Social Contract', basically?

But this isn't just about taxation. For example, to what extend should people be compelled to obey government legislation if they eschew political participation and representation? Obviously crimes based on the common law like theft, murder and other violations of property rights would remain illegal whether one takes part in the political system or not. But i think this could basically be the end for most 'victimless crimes' as we know them (stuff like prostitution, sodomy, homosexuality etc.), at least for those who have 'seceded' from the political system (though this doesn't mean that certain behaviors become suddenly accepted). There may not even be much enforcement of laws regarding patents or copyright, since one might regard violations of those as 'victimless' as well.

Is it possible that this kind of thinking is ever adopted and implemented by the rebels during the American revolutionary war, or the years immediately after? Is it possible for a (probably very small) government to finance itself through fees and tolls? What kind of influence would this kind of government setup of the early US have on political thought in Europe before and after the French revolution? Or is this too radical even for people like Jefferson?

I know it is sometimes hard to see beyond our own preconceived notions and presentist beliefs. I, like most others here probably, have regarded our current social-democratic world order for most of my life as the best of all possible worlds, and the only moral way to organize society, a kind of 'End of History' type of thinking. That is probably why most (non-dystopic) TLs i have seen, once they reach our time, look quite similar to OTL socio-economically, with the same ideological presuppositions, even if the world map looks drastically different. But i see no particular reason why coercive taxation and arbitrary legislation couldn't with the right PoD over time be regarded in the same way as serfdom or the Divine Right of Kings - as relics of a barbarous and unenlightened age. It's fascinating to think what a modern world would look like under such a radical liberal order. What do you think?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Good afternoon and welcome to medieval Iceland. In other words: yes, this sort of system works, but it can be rather vulnerable to both internal and external power-grabs. That is: some internal party can gather enough power to basically just enforce his will, and drop the 'voluntary' bit... or an external conqueror can take over because this kind of society is unlikely to have a standing army.

On that note: what about the army? Have none? Just militias? Or if you do have one, how do you finance it? If it's through voluntary taxation, you get free-loaders (people who don't pay, but whjo still live in a country whose borders are defended by the military). And how do you finance infrastructure? Privatise everything? Or does government still do it? If the latter, how do you ensure that only 'paying members' use the roads/canals/etc? Levy toll everywhere?

Jefferson himself believed (mainly for the reasons above) that anarchy or quasi-anarchy (meaning exactly this; a voluntary system) could only work locally. I don't think there were any significant thinkers at the time who were more radical in this regard. You did get them later on (think about Thoreau and utopian anarchists like Josiah Warren). Of course, it is no secret that I consider 'voluntarism' (for lack of a better word) the theoretically ideal system... but I, too, remain confronted with issues like those raised above. There can be solutions to some of those problems, but those are not solutions I can see the Founding Fathers embracing.

I discussed medieval Iceland in some detail in this thread, going into the problems that system ultimately encountered, and proposing that a more voluntary set-up would have actually improved matters. It may not be relevant to the early USA exactly, but it does go into some of the key features of a system rather like the one you describe. Considering that the quasi-anarchy of medieval Iceland was actually quite peaceful and laster for almost four centuries, I'm unwilling to dismiss the feasibility of such a system in the long term. Nevertheless, it remains vulnerable to power-grabs. Governments typically expand to cover the size of the economy, even if slowly. Sooner or later, an internal or external power will try to fill the 'power vacuum' of such a society, either out of actual good intentions (a gradual accumulation of government tasks, as we saw in the late 19th century and the entire 20th century) or simply out of a desire to reap the wealth (a foreign power demanding tribute or tax, its demands backed up by superior military capacity).
 
The most likely form you'd see no representation without taxation is as a form of voting restriction against those too poor or young to pay tax.

Wealth based restrictions were common otl after all.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
But Income tax and payroll tax is modern invention. Tolls and Tariffs is considered as taxation by people, US revolution is started by Tea Tax. so no founder would consider it possible for individual to escape taxation, most government revenue after all come from tariffs and tolls. To escape tax, someone (like USA) has to own Sovereign territory so he could decide tariffs and tolls for himself.
 
Generally speaking the poor are always taxed, the rich benefit most from what governments generally do and every instance of argument against the right of the "non-taxpayer" to participate or for the vote to be linked with a tax payment has always involved a particular tax being singled out, one designed to tax just the rich and at rates they deem bearable, whereas in truth the state would operate on multiple taxes, and the poor always pay plenty of those.

As for the notion of being given an option not to pay a tax in return for being excluded from voting--I gather Margaret Thatcher tried that in the UK. That is, the Tories passed a law which created a new tax, a flat head tax, same for everyone and in the range of many thousands of pounds a year, that was supposed to fund social services and housing subsidies and so forth. Anyone could opt out of paying this tax, and clearly a very large percentage of the citizenry, maybe the majority, were too poor to be able sustainably be able to pay it. But the right to vote, for local government and for Parliament IIRC, was linked to this sole tax. From a radical Tory point of view it was brilliant of course; if people accepted that all social services must be paid for by a flat tax, the same for every voter, then it would of course be impossible for recipients of these benefits, anyway recipients on a chronic and large scale, to afford to pay the tax; quite automatically all social services are constrained, means-tested, and restricted to a poorer class than those entitled to vote,

And of course it is double-edged in that while key services the poor are directly interested in are linked to this tax, other key government services are not--such as defense for instance, which absorbs the lions share of all taxes. In fact the poor will be compelled to fork over a substantial share of the money that does trickle down briefly into their hands, but on paper they are "not taxpayers" because attention is focused myopically on one tax that is only part of the package.

We saw a lot of this mentality in the USA around the depression of 2009-10, for instance; the US media were rife with right wing figures griping about poor families that paid no Federal Income Tax. Actually at this same time, quite a few of the largest and most powerful American corporations were paying no corporate income tax either. In fact corporations frequently are able to show themselves below the threshold of liability for corporate income tax. Whereas the US federal personal income tax was created explicitly as a tax only the rich would have to pay; it was inflation causing bracket creep, especially during WWII, that moved first middle class and then working class earnings into the taxable ranges and made it a near-universal one.

Another example is the infamous division of the Prussian kingdom parliament into three classes, each of which paid 1/3 of one particular and limited tax. This tax was assessed not as a flat head tax but on as a proportion of income, so the top 1/3 of the total levy was paid by a very small number of very rich persons; then 1/3 of the legislature was reserved for their vote. The second class of voter was of course of quite high income compared to the prevailing wage, and got their share of the legislature, and the vast majority of the kingdom's population was restricted to the bottom third. Again it is worth noting the regime got only a fraction of the revenue needed to run things from this single tax; with the poor removed from any prospect of gaining a majority on its own and restricted in influence to supporting policies some sector of the better off elite favored, the legislature could impose other taxes on the masses with impunity, and fund things like Prussia's (and eventually the German Empire's) infamously large and well equipped military without her of bankrupting the "good people" who were deemed to be the true nation--the rich.

In truth, I think it is clear that all great fortunes are sequestered from the labors of the poor masses; wealth is created by ordinary work and all high levels of concentration of it represent exploitation. One may prove that such exploitation is socially beneficial or even necessary, but my point here is the notion that the poor are not taxpayers and are free riders is both ludicrous and a case of insult added to injury.
 

Skallagrim

Banned

I must disagree with the notion that all high levels of concentration of wealth represent exploitation. That very notion is one of my key gripes with most socialist or quasi-socialist theory. There are lots of variations of course, but all too often, 'exploitation' shows up. Whenever someone starts talking about that, I ask for proof of coercion. If none is shown, I reject the argument there and then. Because I firmly believe that exploitation must, must, must be rooted in coercion to ever exist. If something is voluntary, it cannot be exploitative. As such, if I invent something lots of people wish to own (say a cool new ultra-cheap eco-friendly dish-washer) and they buy it from me of their own free will, and this makes me a huge fortune, there is nothing exploitative going on. I have offered something, and others have taken that offer and presented me with a compensation to which they agreed, being of sound mind. I contend that only a person who is decidedly not of sound mind could honestly call that exploitative in any meaningful sense.

At this point I could expound at length on my own firmly deontological view of ethics, and how it leads me to the inevitable conclusion that everything voluntary is by definition moral and everything involuntary is by definition immoral, but I'll spare you that rant. ;)

Needless to say, I do agree with you that government is - almost or perhaps entirely by design - an instrument of the powerful. (I do not say 'the wealthy', although they often are: yet power comes in many forms.) I do note that all the examples you have listed are partial examples of the idea expressed in the OP. Some kind of limit to the franchise is enacted - typically with the specific goal of serving the powerful. Yet that is not exacly what the OP is about. The OP suggests a sort of 'opt-out' for everyone who wants it, which may seem similar, but which is different in both intent and practice. If your goal is to point out that there's a very good chance that the scenario outlined in the OP will end up quite the same as in your examples-- then I agree. This is why I pointed out some great big points of uncertainty tied to the idea. Thing is, if you get some kind of system where an arbitrary amount of taxes paid will get you a vote, you will indeed end up with something that will somehow be skewed. Most likely in favour of whoever introduces it.

Yet the OP also hints at the idea of a society where everything is like a membership. Where participation is voluntary. Regardless of whether that is feasible... it is certainly a different idea than the one you have described in detail above. I'd argue that medieval Iceland is the closest we've gotten to a voluntary society on any meaningful scale. And that was perhaps the society that was the least controlled by powerful interests in all of civilisation's long history. In fact, when such interests were introduced, they at once set to work to end the voluntary nature of the system and to enlange (rather: to create) a system of government.
 
It boils down to responsibility vs gain. Most people want the benefits, but complain when they gotta pull their part.

I know little of medieval Iceland, but they were an island in the end and once it encompasses all, not many problems to deal with. With the newborn US, they'd have to deal with each other along with the native tribes, who would exploit the cracks and divisions to secure their future.
 
Top