Bewildered

[fpb]

One of the ways in which Americans, or at least Republicans, simply do not seem to live on the same planet as the rest of us, is shown by the fury with which the whole Republican party has attacked Joe Biden for saying that paying tax - sorry: for the rich to pay more tax - could be regarded as patriotic. The poor man has not said one thing - not

Comments

[fpb]

That is roughly as true as that the Civil War was about States' Rights. Let us see what the original signers complained of:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good

[cerebresque]

Leaving aside the historical comparison, I also would say that this is close to it. I would agree with the bare statement that paying taxes is indeed patriotic, in the sense of supporting the government's performance of its basic duties - the police, the courts, national defense, etc., etc

[fpb]

IN that case, you take part in the political process to denounce abuses and, if possible, drag abusers before the courts. You do not declare yourself independent of your own government for tax purposes (though for no others, since if the government declared the protection of police and courts withdrawn from you in reciprocation, you would indubitably scream blue murder). Since no government is ever going to do everything exactly as every citizen wishes it, to attack the duty to pay tax every time you disagree with what the government is doing is the same as to write yourself a blank permit not to pay tax any time you like. Citizenship is a serious business, and so is duty, but it surprises me that supposed conservatives should claim the right to redefine either in their own favour.

[cerebresque]

Who's said anything about doing that? All most people making this point are doing is noting that, as so often happens, the mantle of virtue is draping a gang of thieves, and people should not be fooled by it.

Anyway, conservatives would point out the duties run both ways, and if one side abrogates their part of the bargain, then the other side is likewise freed of their obligation.

Libertarians, and at least some conservatives, would also point out that deferring to an unconditional duty to pay whatever tax a democratic government demands is essentially to say that anyone's property is at the mercy of any 51% group that conceives a desire for it, and that this is both morally and pragmatically wrong.

[fpb]

Which ignores the point I just made, that is that it is not up to you - at least, not to you alone - to decide that what the government does is right or wrong. Civic obligations are not negotiable at the pleasure of every citizen. No country can exist for two minutes in which such a berserk, upside-down notion of duty were applied for one second.

[cerebresque]

Which ignores the point I just made, that is that it is not up to you - at least, not to you alone - to decide that what the government does is right or wrong.

Rather, I would disagree with that point. I would say that it is necessary that individuals decide whether what the government does is right or wrong, because the ability of the minority to either walk out by emigrating, or simply to refuse consent to intolerable impositions, either in toto or by raising compliance costs to an impractical level, is a valuable restraint on a democracy acting as a mere majoritarian tyranny.

[fpb]

That is the morality of the assassin. You talk as though property were something natural and the state were something artificial. In real life, the very opposite is the case: it is the state that certifies and indeed creates property. Without the state, there would be nothing but mutual violence, and no property would be safe. What makes property stable is the law that defines it, the office that records it, the police that protects it, and the courts that avenge it. And if you even begin to think sensibly in this area, you should realize that taxation is not an assault on property, but a condition of it.

[fpb]

As for what I said about the morality of the assassin, tell me, is there anything about resisting intolerable impositions that John Wilkes Booth, Leon Csogolcz, GAetano Bresci, Gavilo Princip, Nahuram Godse, Lee Oswald, or Yigal Amir would disagree with?

[fpb]

http://fpb.livejournal.com/262320.html

second part

[fpb]

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.Really, taxation? And not assaults upon the power to legislate, to administer, to do justice, to defend one's

[expectare]

to legislate, to administer, to do justice, to defend one's communities

I would respectfully suggest that the Declaration of Independence doesn't say it all. It's very much a document of context. That it doesn't say "taxation!" does not mean that taxation is not a factor--even the factor. For instance, the article about to having their trade cut off refers to the blockade on Boston because the Bostonians wouldn't pay their taxes.

So the questions are legislate and administer what? To see who gets justice? To defend their homes against whom? Who pays what taxes when. Those who were organizing a concentrated, active refusal to pay taxes. Soldiers and tax collectors (the officers who eat out substance) put there because the colonists weren't paying taxes.

The reason that it took more than a year after the war actually started to issue the declaration of independence was partially because it was so hard to get the southerners behind the effort. The southern colonies didn't have to deal with martial law and other "intolerable" behavior

[fpb]

OH, and how does the complaint about French law in Quebec fit into it? I am sorry, you are reading it upside down. The complaint was that the power to make laws, which inevitably includes the power to raise taxes, was being expropriated in various ways from the colonies to London. It was the same question on which revolutions have always started: WHO IS TO GOVERN THIS COUNTRY?