alternatehistory.com

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?
Top