The Parable of Coercion
Imagine, if you will, a man of humble means and honest toil, residing in a land where the fruits of his labor are his own.
One day, a gang of armed men arrives at his front doorstep, engaging in pleasant conversation that soon reveals their true intentions. They demand that the man hand over a portion of his hard-earned possessions, specifically ten-percent of his wealth in the form of coins and bills, for the gang's convenience.
The man, steadfast in his principles, refuses to comply with their demands.
His refusal is met with increasing aggression from the gang, who threaten dire consequences if he does not submit to their will. The gang leader, now inches from the man's face, breathes heavily as he spews forth a torrent of threats.
“Give us what is ours,” he demanded.
“Pay up or they’ll be consequences!” His voice laced with venom.
“Don’t make me break yer face in front of the lil ones,” he threatened.
This gang, it turns out, controls much of what happens in the land the man calls home. Most of his neighbors, fearing retribution, have consented to the gang's demands. They find solace in the gang's promise of protection from other thieves, viewing the extortion as a small price to pay for safety.
But is this truly a fair and just arrangement? Can we, in good conscience, equate the coercive actions of this gang with the proper role of a government?
This parable, though allegorical, in my opinion mirrors the reality of taxation without explicit consent. A practice that, when scrutinized through the lens of the Seven Postulates of Human Existence, reveals itself to be a form of coercion, if not outright theft.
The Sanctity of Consent
“Without my consent, my possessions remain mine.”
This declaration, Postulate 5 of our shared human existence, is a clarion call for the sovereignty of the individual's will. It is a testament to the inviolable principle that one's property, one's very sustenance, cannot be justly claimed by another without permission freely given.
The Seven Postulates of Human Existence, as I have previously outlined, form the bedrock upon which our understanding of human rights and the essence of our shared humanity rests. These self-evident truths, particularly Postulate 5, call into question the very foundation of taxation without explicit individual consent.
John Locke, the luminary of liberalism, espoused the sanctity of personal property when he proclaimed:
“Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself.”
The fruits of our labor, the rewards of our ingenuity, are extensions of our personhood. To seize them without consent is to deny our agency, to usurp our autonomy, to violate our dignity.
The Illusion of Collective Consent
Some may argue that the collective consent, as manifested through the democratic process, legitimizes the imposition of taxes.
Yet, this notion of collective consent often obfuscates the individual's dissent.
The will of the majority, while a cornerstone of democracy, must not trample upon the rights of the minority. As John Stuart Mill wisely cautioned:
“The tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.”
The essence of true consent is voluntariness, free from coercion or duress.
When an individual's refusal to part with their possessions is met with punitive measures, can we truly call this consent? Or is it acquiescence born of fear and compulsion?
As the philosopher Ayn Rand so aptly put it:
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
The Ethical Imperative of Autonomy
Our autonomy, as affirmed in Postulate 4, is the bedrock upon which our dignity as human beings is built.
Immanuel Kant, the sage of Königsberg, taught us:
“Autonomy is the basis of the dignity of human and of every rational nature.”
Our thoughts, our speech, our actions—these are the realms over which we must hold dominion. When the state encroaches upon these realms, dictating the disposition of our possessions under threat of force, it undermines the very autonomy that imbues our lives with meaning.
Taxation without explicit consent is not merely an economic grievance. It is an ethical affront. It disregards the individual's sovereign right to determine the use of their property, a right that is as fundamental as the liberty to think and to speak.
As he argued in his seminal work, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” Robert Nozick made this observation about taxes:
“Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor.”
The Fallacy of the Social Contract
Proponents of taxation often invoke the concept of the social contract, arguing that by participating in society, individuals implicitly consent to the authority of the state and its right to impose taxes.
However, this argument fails to withstand scrutiny.
Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century American political philosopher, eloquently dismantles the notion of the social contract in his work “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.” He writes:
“The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.”
The idea that an individual's mere existence within a geographical area constitutes consent to be governed and taxed is a fallacious one.
True consent must be explicit. It must be voluntary. And it must be continuously renewed to form the basis of a transaction between two parties.
It cannot be assumed or imposed by force.
The Moral Economy of Voluntary Exchange
The beauty of voluntary exchange, a principle that has guided the flourishing of civilizations, lies in its reciprocity and mutual benefit.
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, recognized the virtue of voluntary exchange when he observed:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
When exchanges are voluntary, they are conducted with the consent of all parties involved, each finding value in the transaction.
Taxation without consent, however, is a unilateral imposition, a breach of the moral economy that respects the individual's right to choose.
It is true that the common good often necessitates collective action. Yet, the pursuit of the common good must not come at the expense of individual justice. As Aristotle, the philosopher of reason, taught us:
“Justice is the set order of the political community.”
For justice to be justice, it demands that the rights of the individual be preserved. Whereby the autonomy of each person is respected.
The common good is best served not through coercion, but through cooperation. It thrives when individuals are free to contribute to the collective welfare out of their own volition, guided by the enlightened self-interest that recognizes the interdependence of our fates.
A Call to Action and the Path Forward
As we stand at the crossroads of history, we are called to action—to champion the principles enshrined in the Seven Postulates of Human Existence.
We must create systems that honor the individual's right to consent. Systems and communities that respect the sanctity of personal property. And if we want to be on the winning side of righteousness, we must uphold the dignity of every human.
We should strive to create societies where taxation is not a mandate enforced by the state's might. Rather, it should be an individual choice—a chance for people to contribute to one’s community.
The metaphor of the non-consenting man and the coercive gang is not a mere fable. It is a reflection of a reality that challenges our principles. It compels us to confront the dissonance between the ideals we espouse and the practices we tolerate. It is a call to align our actions with our convictions, to ensure that the rights we hold self-evident are not merely proclaimed, but practiced.
As the great economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat argued:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
In nearly every historical example nameable, the state through virtue of its power over the land and its inhabitants, has executed coercion and force to take what they believe should be used for the common good.
For this reason, and based on the principles of individual liberty, we should reject the notion that the state, like the gang in our metaphor, has the moral authority to demand a portion of our possessions. And if we are brave enough, we must stand firm in our commitment to the principles of self-ownership, individual autonomy, and the inviolability of personal property.
In the end, it is not the acknowledgment of these postulates that will define us, but the courage with which we apply them. Let us be the architects of a future that honors the foundation of human existence.
For in the words of Murray Rothbard:
“The state is the only institution that can take a valuable commodity like paper, slap some ink on it, and make it totally worthless.”
We should not allow the state—or any gang of coercive thugs—to do the same to our most precious commodity: our individual liberty.
I was thinking that billionaires had earned their liberty as Max Stirner would say by seizing it through their ability
Jeff Bezos paid no income tax one year actually had a tax credit
But billionaires are surrounded by armed guards
Is that freedom either
John Mcaffee had 40 security guards supposedly and died in prison
It seems that no one is free in our society
Homeless people could claim freedom but the police beat on them
Ecce Homo
Are the government types free or in the Hotel California
lol