Thursday, October 1, 2009

No Taxation - Regardless of Representation

Below is my case for abolishing taxation and switching to voluntary government funding.
1-All contracting parties wishing to have their contractual rights defended in courts of law may be required to pay a sum to the government. In a way, it's a voluntary form of government funding. Ayn Rand suggested it but warned that she did not think it was the best option and added that it could be abused.
2-Someone may VOLUNTARILY transfer or bequeath a business or a group of businesses to the government, thus providing the government with a constant source of revenue.
3-(My favorite option) Government financing may be a sort of charity. Unlike my opponents, I don't have a problem with that option. There are several arguments in its favor:
-You see, the current taxation system is based not only on force (though force is a major part) but also on the idea that government may be beneficial. If no one thought that government provides at least some benefits, this coercive system would likely disintegrate and turn into anarchy. No administrative or taxation system can be based on PURE coercion - there must be some idea behind it. Based on this assumption, it is likely that many people would regard government (within its proper limits) as beneficial even if the coercive system were removed. It should also be noted that it would be much easier to finance a MINARCHIST government because its functions are much more limited and it needs much less revenue.
-I don't doubt that rational men understand that the rule of law is extremely beneficial for them. That's why I don't see why they would oppose financing a minarchist government that guarantees the rule of law. On the other hand, if there are no rational men in society, it's quite useless to do anything - it doesn't matter if you force them to pay for government or not. Such a society is destined to collapse anyway. Moreover, if the government involved does not support the rule of law, why should it be financed?
-"The free rider" objection is meaningless because free riders exist now to a much bigger extent than in a minarchist system - they're called welfare recipients.
-Charity - THAT IS, COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY CHARITY - is now a multi-billion dollar business. How can one assume that people can spend such huge amounts of dough if inspired by the idea of "being my brother's keeper" (a wrong idea but that's not the point) but cannot voluntarily fund government if inspired by the noble and extremely beneficial idea of the rule of law?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

regarding point #3, I am curious as to whom your "opponents" are?