8/12/2019 Rothbard on Taxation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rothbard-on-taxation 1/2

the local  or the  national basis. This

idea richly merits development.  One

may readily picture many consti-

tutionally-minded Americans  who

would volimtarily  pay  their state,

but not a national, income tax—quite

irrespective of the amounts involved.

A poll of NATIONAL REVIEW readers on

this particular point would  be il-

luminating.On this vital matter  of  local  self-

government, exception must be taken

to  the  imjustified assertion that  the

cities have always been among  the

most corrupt establishments  in

America. If it  sometimes looks that

way, this  is  primarily because  cor-

ruption  in  local goverrmient cannot

be indefinitely concealed, while that

in  the national bureaucracy,  in  effect

defended  by  paid public relations

officers, and remote from public over-

sight,  may  easily  go  wholly undis-closed.

This  is not the  only instance  in

which  it is necessary  to  defend your

correspondent's thesis against  her.-

self.  Clearly  it is the  iniquitous  na-

tional income  tax, rather than  com-

pulsory taxation  as  such,  at  which

she is hitting. For instance, she never

even suggests making  the  payment

of  the  tariff  tax a  volimtary matter.

But  on the  issue  of the national  in-

come  tax, Mrs.  McLearn's feet  areon firm ground. Both  its  so-called

  progressive feature  and the double

taxation  of profits which  it takes, are

thoroughly inequitable  and  certainly

would have been condemned  by the

Founding Fathers.

Finally,  it is  only  the  national  in-

come  tax  which  can be  used,  as it

is now being suicidally used by seem-

ingly patriotic Americans,  as a so-

cialistic weapon  to  destroy  the  free

enterprise system. Karl Marx  saw

that,  and  said  so  more directly thanMrs.  McLearn  has  done.

FELIX MORLEY

In a  lorious—and Radical—Tradition

Hosannahs  are in  order  for Mrs.

McLearn,  and for  NATIONAL REVIEW'S

courage  in  printing  her  article. The

revolutionary concept  of  voluntsiry

contributions  to  government  has ac-quired substantial support  in  liber-

tarian circles, but  this  is perhaps the

first time it has come into public view

as  a serious proposal. In  this respect,

it renews  a  shortlived  but  glorious

tradition that flourished  in the  great

individualist  age of the  late nine-

teenth century. There were glimmer-

ings  of the  pure voluntarist idea  in

the early writings  of  Johann Fichte,

but perhaps  its  first positive expres-

sion came  at a  meeting  of the  great

Political Economy Club in 1849, whenthe veteran French libertarian econ-

omists Frederic Bastiat  and  Charles

Dunoyer were shocked  to  find their

yoimg disciple, Gustave  de Molinari,

going beyond them  to  reject taxation

altogether. Molinari,  who  lived  to a

remarkable  old age as the  doyen of

French economists,  can be  foimd  in

English translation  in his  fine  but

neglected work.  The  Society  of To

morrow  (1904).  The  other great

figure of  the  past  is  Auberon  Her-

bert,  a  British aristocrat  and  formerM. P.,  converted  to  liberty  by Her-

bert Spencer. Herbert soon went be-

yond  his  master  to  advocate volun-

tary taxation  and to  found  a  move-

ment called Voluntaryism. Herbert

died suddenly  in 1906, on the  pointof distributing  a Plea  for Voluntary-

ism  as a  nation-wide petition. World

War  I  killed  the  Voluntaryist move-

ment as it did so many other stspects

of liberty, and it is only recently that

these ideas have been brewing again.

Would  It  Work

I mention this history briefly,  be-

cause anyone  who has  flirted with

the question  of  voluntary taxation

has had to face inevitably  the charge

that  he is  indeed halfway round  the

bend. Yet it is interesting to note that

critics have all too quickly dismissed

the idea  as  lunatic, without first

bothering to say whether such  a sys-

tem would be  desirable. In short, we

must separate  the  question: would

volimtary contributions  be desirable,

and could such a scheme work? Those

who wish  to  preserve taxation  as a

means  of  looting Peter  to pay  Paul

will  of  course reject  the  whole idea

out  of  hand.  But it is not for  them

that  Mrs.  McLearn wrote  her pio-

neering artide;  she  wrote  for  those

who want liberty  and ask:  could  it

work?

The most common complaint is that

voluntaryists believe, charmingly but

naively, that  all men are  good;  if

they only understood man's capacity

for evil, they would have  to  favor

taxation.  But few if any  voluntary-

ists have really been  so  unworldly.On  the  contrary, they believe quite

sensibly that man has a  great capac-

ity  for  both good  and  evil. That  is

precisely  why  they maintain that

taxation must  be  abolished:  for the

existence of compulsory taxation pro-

vides  a  legalized channel  for  crime.

The purpose  of  voluntaryism  is to

erect  a  system where crime  and co-

ercion have  no  legal  and  legitimate

rationale: where robbery  and mur-

der would always  be  regarded  and

punished  as crimes,  and  never glori-fied as necessary  for the  social

good. Only  the abolition  of  taxation

leaves  no  legal loophole  for  aggres-

sion. If men are capable of great evU,

shall  we put  into  the  hands  of any

group  of men a  monopoly  of  power

to coerce their fellows?

Private  vs. State Services

My major criticism  of Mrs. Mc-

Learn's article  is  that  she  does  not

quite realize  how  radical this  pro-

posal really  is. Even semantically, the

very term voluntary taxation

strikes  me as a  contradiction.  The

very essence  of  taxation  is  compul-

sion,  so  that  it  would  be  more  ap-

propriate  to contrast voluntary pay-

ments  to  government with taxa-

tion. But  there  are far  more  im-

portant problems  of  neglected radi-

calism.  For the  crucial question  is

this:  why  shouldn't  Mrs. McLearn's

non-voter have  the  right  to  turn  to

some other agency  for  protection  or

other services  now  supplied  by the

government?  And if he  does have

this right,  as he  must  in a  truly

voluntary society, what becomes  of

the very concept of government  as an

agency with  a  monopoly  of  force?

Instead  of a  government there

would  be a  truly free market, with

private firms supplying  all  services,

whether they  are now  branded  as

  governmental or not. For a service

is  now  called governmental only

because  it is  currently supplied  by

the coercive monopoly of government.

  4  N A T I O N A L R E V I E W

8/12/2019 Rothbard on Taxation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rothbard-on-taxation 2/2

An important and neglected fact is  every  one of the services  no w

e.g. fire-

  has at one t ime or another been

Mrs. McL earn's proposed govern-ent would, in fact, become an in-

directors of the enterprise. Su b-

Another prime reason for the in-

There will be those who charge

that some or all of Mrs. McLearn'sor my discussion adds up simply to  anarchy . Unless we are to adoptKarl Marx's sneer at the free marketas anarchy of production, we hadbetter guard our semantic front. Forthe term anarchism has becomealmost as confused as the term lib -eral, and the professed anarchists

of our century have all been evenmore violently opposed to capitalismand private property than have theCommunists. Voluntaryism in any ofits forms, on the other hand, wouldfinEdly render private property in-violate. Is this anarchism?

In conclusion, we must all bedeeply grateful to Mrs. M cLe arn forbravely launching us on a new andvirgin field of study: how to eradi-cate the legal initiation of force andviolence in our society. Those whoscofi at the ideas suggested as absurdand impractical are cordially invitedto set to work and come up with

practical proposals of their own. Cer-tainly, if only a fraction of the energyso far devoted to plans for pushingpeople around, were expended onproposals for liberty, tiie world wouldbe a far better place in which to live.

MURRAY N ROTHBAED

Coercive, Yes; Confiscatory, No

MUdred Adams McLearn is not thefirst, of course, to suggest that taxpaynient should be purely volun-tary ; but she deserves praise for hereffort to deal candidly with some ofthe problems that voluntary taxationwould involve. Let us see whetherthat effort is successful.

Nearly every government in theworld today unduly l imits the l ibertyof the individual, prohibits actions itought not to prohibit, compels actionsit ought not to compel, imposes bur-densome, unjust and pimitive taxes,deters enterprise, and, in  brief,

exercises too much power andcoercion.

But it does not follow that allcoercion is evil and unnecessary. Nogovernment could exist without somepowers of coercion. To govern is, bydefinition, at least partly to coerce.Government must use coercion toprevent coercion. None of us cotildenjoy l iberty unless others were pre-vented from interfering in our peace-able pursuit of liberty. Peace andorder cannot exist imless the majorityis able to prevent unscrupulous mi-norities or individuals from destroy-ing peace and order. Government; ex-ists precisely to preserve peace andorder. Its function is to safeguard theprivate property, life and liberty ofevery citizen. It must establish a sys-tem of law. It must enforce obedienceto law. It must employ policemen toprotect its citizens from internal ag-gression and i t m ust em ploy' armedforces to protect its citizens from ex-ternal aggression. The agents of the

State must be the  only  persons au-thorized to exercise coercion—astrictly limited coercion. And as partof its essential function, the Statemust be authorized to levy compul-sory taxes.

Make Taxes Equitable

What is chiefiy important is notthat taxes should be voluntary (aquite impracticable aim), but thatthey should be equitable, and offer a

minimum deterrence to enterpriseand production.

Adam Smith thought the mostequitable principle for imposing taxeson individuals was in proportion totheir respective abilities; that is, inproportion to the revenue which theyrespectively enjoy. Bu t in recentt imes this abil i ty-to -pay principlehas been perverted to mean, not taxesdirectly proportioned to the indi-vidual 's income, bu t progressivetaxes which take a constantly greater

proportion of an individual's incomeas that income increases. Most of theargume nts used to support the gra d-uated or progressive income tax,if carried to their logical conclusion,would lead to complete confiscationof all income above that needed forthe individual's survival. And, in fact,a personal income tax rising to 91per cent falls short of confiscation ina merely technical sense.

What Mrs. McLearn has in mindis a tax directly proportional to in-

come. But it is difficult to see howthis could be made purely voluntary.

JUNE  21, 1958 15