where cultures collide: notes on toledo cathedral

The following article is from our family’s travel blog, arttravel.me. It was written by me.

Introduction

Before Philip III moved the capital of Spain to Madrid in 1561, the ancient city of Toledo, with its highly fortified riverside location and sturdy stone walls, was the original capital city of the Spanish Empire. Small wonder, then, that it boasts one of the greatest cathedrals in the world, the Primatial Cathedral of Saint Mary of Toledo (Catedral Primada Santa María de Toledo), also known as Toledo Cathedral.

Toledo Cathedral, seen from Plaza del Ayuntamiento.
Toledo Cathedral, seen from Plaza del Ayuntamiento.

Built for more than 250 years, the cathedral is a shining example of Spanish High Gothic architecture, although it incorporates aspects of the Baroque, Rococo, and Mudéjar styles as well. Today, Toledo Cathedral’s beauty and imposing grandeur continue to draw tens of thousands of tourists to the city, centuries after its stones were laid.

So what makes Toledo Cathedral so special, and how does it continue to attract and inspire people hundreds of years later?

Toledo

To properly understand Toledo Cathedral, we first have to look at the city of Toledo itself.

Toledo, seen from the Mirador Toledo.

As seen by the image above, Toledo sits on a hill facing the Tagus River, easily defensible by walls. This naturally advantageous position for a city was recorded as far back as ancient Rome; the Roman historian Livy writes of Toledo as “a small city, but fortified by location” as early as the first century AD. It is not surprising, therefore, that Toledo first served as the capital city of the Visigothic Kingdom from 542 to 725 AD, a period of almost 200 years; nor is it surprising that Holy Roman Emperor Charles V centered his court on Toledo. Indeed, Toledo was Spain’s de facto capital city until Philip III moved the capital to Madrid due to a lack of space.

As the greatness of the city grew throughout the years, the need for a grand cathedral arose. It’s important to remember that cathedrals in Europe are designed to be the focal points of their cities; they’re designed specifically to instill awe and grandeur in the viewers. So, considering both the illustrious history of the city and the need for grandiosity in cathedrals, the grandeur of Toledo Cathedral comes as less of a surprise.

Exterior

Front façade of Toledo Cathedral, seen from Plaza del Ayuntamiento.

Toledo Cathedral is often called the crowning glory of Spanish High Gothic architecture, and this title clearly shows in the exterior of the building, specifically in the front façade.

To start, the three-portal design of the front (1) is a very clearly Gothic form of cathedral architecture. The cathedrals of Notre Dame de Paris, Amiens, Rouen, and Reims, to name just a few, all have three portals. The trefoil designs of the arches (2), as well as the stone tracery of the arches, both are descended from the Gothic style. And of course, the classic Catholic iconography of carved images of Christ and statues of the saints in niches (3) speaks to the cathedral’s purpose.

On the other hand, some elements of the cathedral’s exterior are influenced by the Mudéjar style, which utilizes Islamic-derived elements in Iberian architecture. For example, the elaborately carved stone patterned railing on the top of the façade (4) is in the mudéjar style, as is the brickwork of the left belfry (5). Overall, however, the mudéjar style does not become immediately apparent from the front.

On the topic of the belfry, one of the more unusual aspects of Toledo Cathedral is its seemingly mismatched and asymmetrical towers. The taller tower on the left is a bell tower (6), but the tower on the right is a chapel (7) (whose octagonal dome was designed by Jorge Manuel Theotocópuli, son of the famous painter El Greco), used specifically to house a worship place for the Mozarabic rites. These rites were once used throughout the Iberian peninsula and were kept alive by the Christian communities under Muslim rule in Al-Andalusia, or the Mozarabs. The Mozarabic rite is still kept alive today, especially in Toledo, where the rite is still celebrated in the chapel to this day.

From the grand and elaborate front façade, we come into the interior of the cathedral itself.

Interior

Interior of Toledo Cathedral, right side aisle, nave.

The nave of Toledo Cathedral is a quintessential example of High Gothic architecture. From the colossal columns supporting the rib vaults to the stained glass windows and the gigantic rose window, the front of the cathedral is almost entirely in the Gothic style. Here, the pointed shape of the Gothic arch is prevalent, as is the cross shape of the rib vault. The front is dark, almost gloomy, lit by artificial lights and sunlight streaming through the stained glass.

Wall painting of St. Christopher carrying the infant Christ, on the side of the transept entrance.

As we move forward from the side aisle of the nave to the side of the transept entrance, an unexpectedly large wall painting is shown of a bearded man carrying a child. The subject of the painting is also large within the settings of the painting; his “staff” is a palm tree. This is St. Christopher; legend has it that he carried the (miraculously heavy) infant Christ across a river, curing him of his pride and causing him to devote the rest of his life to Christianity.

Choir of Toledo Cathedral.

Near the transept is the choir space, where the choir sings during services. The two gigantic organs are immediately visible, their pipes sticking out like cannons; the one on the left (1) is in the ornate Baroque style, while the one on the right (2) is in the more recent and austere Neoclassical style. The choir therefore already features a convergence of styles, blended smoothly so that all methods are encased in the overall “look” of the cathedral.

But how would the organ players get to the organs themselves, which are far above the rest of the choir? The answer lies in the back panels behind the columns; look closely at the panels behind the stairs, and you’ll see that they are in fact secret doors (4), which lead directly to the seats where the organists would play their hymnals.

The inner space is surrounded by three series of arches; this is where the choir sits, underneath the rows of statues of Biblical patriarchs and saints encased in individual niches. And of course, the gigantic lectern (3), where the conductor read from the gargantuan sheet music, is in the very center of the space itself. And make sure not to miss the statue of the Virgin Mary at the front of the gates, facing the apse and chancel.

Altarpiece of Toledo Cathedral.

Behind iron bars, the chancel contains one of the most elaborate and dazzling altarpieces of any Gothic cathedral. Consisting of six golden tiers containing colorful scenes from the life and death of Jesus, this altarpiece is simply magnificent. Avid-eyed visitors can spot some iconic allegories and stories here; starting slightly left of center with the Annunciation (1), or the visitation of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary; then moving to the top-center with the Nativity (2); then moving immediately to the Passion with the Last Supper (3) and Crucifixion (4). Finally, the story concludes with the continuation of the message of the Gospels, showing the Holy Spirit descending on the Apostles (5). Golden and polychromatic, this altarpiece is a beautiful triumph of medieval art—and consider also the fact that all of these sculptures are life-sized. Impressive indeed!

Take a close look at the painting in the bottom-right corner (6), and you’ll notice that it has hinges. That’s because it’s another secret doorway, which leads to none other than the center of the altar, the monstrance (7).

Of course, from way down below at ground level, the figures look miniature and the monstrance looks very small. But seeing the monstrance at eye level, we can see that it is, in fact, a gilt-silver tower. A closer look can be achieved by going to a separate room, where the original monstrance (the one in the altarpiece is a replica) is in a display case.

The monstrance of Toledo Cathedral.

Supported by angels and towering above, it truly looks like the giant achievement that it is.

But what is a monstrance? In short, it is the vessel in which the Eucharistic host (which is the sacramental bread you see in Communion services) is placed; in Toledo’s case, the host is placed within the (comparatively) tiny circular holder in the center of the monstrance. It truly can be called the centerpiece of the centerpiece.

El Transperente, towards the back of the apse.
The hole in the ceiling illuminates El Transperente with natural light.

Moving on, the altarpiece behind the gilded wooden sculptures is equally as impressive. Known as El Transparente, this gigantic altarpiece is a true triumph, this time of the Baroque style. In a fantastic dreamscape cut from marble, angels and cherubim fly wildly through gilded shafts of light coming from the Eucharistic host, in a style perhaps influenced by Bernini’s famous Throne of Saint Peter in the Vatican, while the Virgin and child sit humbly at the bottom.

The golden rays emanate from none other than the previously mentioned monstrance, where the Eucharistic host sits as if the body of Christ itself radiates shining light. 

The real genius of El Transparente, however, lies in the way the sculptor designed natural light to hit the altar. In a dark cathedral such as this, especially in the very back of the church, where it’s hard for light to hit the altar, the illumination of the altar proves to be difficult. However, in a stroke of genius, the sculptor found the solution to lighting the piece by cutting a hole into the ceiling. This striking and unusual detail ends up working out very well: the light that hits this baroque masterpiece is completely natural. And, when the time of day and year are just right, the light is perfectly angled so that a single beam hits the Eucharistic host in the very center of the altar.

Annexes and cloisters

Towards the left of Toledo Cathedral, the entrance to the annexes are visible. Here, precious works of art by masters such as El Greco, Titian, Raphael, Caravaggio, and (in an unusually religious painting) Goya, are all on display. The most notable of these masterpieces, of course, is El Greco’s The Disrobing of Christ.

The Disrobing of Christ by El Greco, on display in the annex rooms.

Notice the striking (and at the time controversial) composition of the painting. Instead of Christ being at the very top of the painting, he is instead on the ground, surrounded by the people about to execute him. The drawn-out and elongated anatomy of the figures, especially visible in the man carving the cross and the figure of Jesus himself, is also very striking, especially as you get closer to the painting. Finally, the decision to only make Christ’s eyes glimmer white as he turns his face to heaven is deeply moving.

Before going to the cloisters, I would recommend taking some time to admire the other masterpieces that are on display in the annex rooms, which include Titian’s Portrait of Pope Paul III, Raphael’s The Virgin of the Veil, Caravaggio’s Saint John the Baptist, and Goya’s The Arrest of Christ, an unusual subject matter for the artist, as mentioned above.

Concluding the visit to Toledo Cathedral, make sure to swing by the cloisters before you leave. Here, the herbal scent and cool shade of the arches make for a lovely atmosphere, and the view of the belfry isn’t bad, either. When we arrived, hardly any tourists were milling about the cloisters, so it makes for a nice place to rest for a minute if you don’t mind the suffocating heat.

View of Toledo Cathedral’s belfry from the cloisters.

Concluding thoughts

Toledo Cathedral is unquestionably a must-see for any visitors to the city. From its gorgeous exterior to its jaw-dropping interior, it speaks as a convergence of several different artistic and architectural styles. The influence left by the Moors, the Mozarabs, and the Spanish is carved indelibly in rock, the product of centuries worth of progress and innovation.

As a prime example of cultural synthesis, the cathedral really is an unquestionably unique and beautiful location. Where cultures collide, here beauty has sprung.

This article is based on our visit to Toledo Cathedral on June 23rd, 2023.

william warren barbour: voice of the persecuted

The following essay was written for the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage essay contest 2023, but was not submitted. It was finalized on January 12th, 2023.

With the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the world is once again facing bloody fighting. We are forced to reevaluate the value of peace, the horror of conflict—and the plight of wartime refugees around the planet.

In these troubling times, we must look to the past to see the plight of refugees, and how we as a nation must find the courage to help them. No elected official demonstrates this courage better than William Warren Barbour: business leader, heavyweight boxer, New Jersey Senator, and an outspoken advocate for Jews persecuted under the Nazi regime.

It is important to note that the US in the 1930s was highly antisemitic. Perhaps the most vivid illustration of this hatred comes from the pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, held by the German American Bund. Said Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the Bund: “Wake up! You, Aryan, Nordic and Christians, to demand that our government be returned to the people who founded it!” (Kramer). Indeed, according to the Anti-Defamation League, “daily antisemitic violence plagued Jews in the streets of some major American cities… where antisemitism thrived” (ADL). 

Within this climate, it is surprising that Barbour chose to speak out on behalf of the persecuted Jews of Europe. Politicians accused of “Jewry” were subject to violent antisemitic accusations. During the German American Bund’s pro-Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, for instance, “The cheers turned to jeers and boos… as other speakers mentioned President Roosevelt—made to sound as though it were spelled ‘Rosenfeld’—Harry Hopkins and others who had been outspoken in their denunciation of Nazi Germany” (NYT). Dr. Rafael Medoff says that “‘…Barbour had very little to gain politically… He was not up for re-election this year. He was not Jewish. He had no special connection to Jewish refugees” (Palmer). Barbour had nothing to gain.

What is more surprising is that Barbour himself had not previously shown much emotion for the plight of the European Jews. Indeed, “During his years on Capitol Hill, Barbour was not known to have any particular interest in matters of specifically Jewish concern, nor was foreign policy his specialty. Yet the plight of Europe’s Jews aroused his humanitarian sympathies” (Palmer). 

One reason for his change of heart may be attributed to the screening of We Will Never Die, a musical pageant that raised awareness of the mass murder of millions of Jews in Europe. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Its audience members included… more than two hundred members of Congress [emphasis added]…” (USHMM).  Although Barbour’s presence at the pageant cannot be ascertained, it may be that he found sympathy for the Jews after watching it.

Whatever the reason for his change was, Barbour clearly felt very strongly about this issue, demonstrated by an astounding act in the fall of 1943, when he met with 400 rabbis participating in the Rabbis’ March on Washington, D.C. The Jewish Historical Society of New Jersey says that Barbour “… was one of a small group of senators and congressmen who… met with 400 rabbis who marched.…” (JHSNJ). 

It was no small gesture. According to the Association for Jewish Studies, “… more than four hundred Orthodox rabbis marched to the White House to plead with President Franklin D. Roosevelt to rescue European Jews from the Nazis….” (Medoff). Considering the political and social climate of the time, it was unusual for Barbour to so openly express his support for the Jewish cause. Indeed, it was a profoundly courageous decision.

Today, the march is noted for President Roosevelt’s decision to ignore the rabbis—in fact, Roosevelt was so opposed to meeting the rabbis that he “… avoided seeing the marchers by slipping out of the White House through a rear exit” (Medoff). Arthur Hertzberg, a participant in the march, said that “All of us who had been there that day left feeling very bitter…” (Hertzberg). Despite this setback, however, Barbour was determined to continue his cause.

To accomplish this, Barbour undertook the most courageous act of his political career: on October 14, 1943, he submitted Senate Joint Resolution 85 to the Committee on Immigration. The goal of the resolution was “To provide for the admission to the United States of aliens who are religious or racial refugees” (U.S. Senate). Had the resolution passed, “ …up to 100,000 victims of Axis persecution, because of religious faith or race, would be permitted to enter the United States as visitors for the duration of the war…” (New York Times). 

According to the David S. Wyman Institute, “It took real political courage for Barbour to introduce such a resolution” (Medoff). Barbour’s resolution could have hardly been politically expedient in such an antisemitic climate. 

However, tragedy struck when, just before Thanksgiving 1943, Barbour suffered a fatal heart attack. He was 55 years old. Without him, support for the resolution fizzled out, and it ultimately did not pass. 

Congress mourned the loss of a great statesman. Vice President Henry A. Wallace said of him: “In his passing the Jewish people of Europe have sustained a great loss” (Congress). Representative Gordon Canfield remarked that “Senator Barbour… aimed to add to the sum of human happiness and he did” (Congress). 

Even today, Barbour—and his courageous stand for justice—is not forgotten. The Jewish Historical Society of New Jersey states that “Senator Barbour’s actions did much to increase political and public awareness of and compassion for the victims of the genocide” (JHSNJ); the Jewish Standard called his legacy “A legacy of goodness” (Palmer). Dr. Rafael Medoff says that the Jewish community “gave thanks that in Jewry’s darkest hour, there were still men of courage who refused to be silent” (Medoff).

William Warren Barbour is a striking example of astounding political bravery at a time when such bravery was detrimental. Barbour stood up for the vulnerable, demonstrating courage for justice and empathy for the persecuted. The legacy of William Warren Barbour still lasts as one of compassion, courage, and kindness.

Bibliography

Kramer, Sarah Kate. “When Nazis Took Manhattan.” NPR, NPR, 20 Feb. 2019, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan. 

“Antisemitism in American History.” Antisemitism Uncovered, Anti-Defamation League, 27 Feb. 2020, antisemitism.adl.org/antisemitism-in-american-history/. 

“22,000 NAZIS HOLD RALLY in GARDEN; POLICE CHECK FOES; SCENES as GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND HELD ITS “WASHINGTON BIRTHDAY” RALLY LAST NIGHT.” New York Times, TimesMachine, 21 Feb. 1939, timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1939/02/21/94680980.html

Palmer, Joanne. “A Legacy of Goodness.” Jewish Standard, Times of Israel, 31 Oct. 2019, jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/a-legacy-of-goodness/.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “The ‘We Will Never Die’ Pageant.” Holocaust Encyclopedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 17 Sep. 2021, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-we-will-never-die-pageant.

“Senator W. Warren Barbour.” Jewish Historical Society of New Jersey, WordPress, https://jhsnj.wordpress.com/senator-w-warren-barbour/.

Medoff, Rafael. “The 1943 Jewish March on Washington, Through the Eyes of its Critics.” AJS Perspectives, Association for Jewish Studies, https://associationforjewishstudies.org/publications-research/ajs-perspectives/the-protest-issue/the-1943-jewish-march-on-washington-through-the-eyes-of-its-critics.

Hertzberg, Arthur. “They Day the Rabbis Marched.” David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, 7 Jul. 2004, web.archive.org/web/20070927043354/http://www.wymaninstitute.org/special/rabbimarch/.

United States, Congress, Senate, Committee on Immigration. Senate Joint Resolution 85. GovInfo,  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1943-pt13/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1943-pt13-2.pdf, 78th Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 85, introduced 14 Oct. 1943.

“MOVES FOR ADMISSION OF 100,000 REFUGEES.” New York Times, TimesMachine, 15 Oct. 1943, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1943/10/15/85126488.html?pageNumber=21

United States, Congress. “Memorial Services Held in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States, Together With Remarks Presented in Eulogy of William Warren Barbour, Late a Senator form New Jersey.” United States Government Printing Service, Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=3koYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

is tax theft?

The following essay is the second and final draft of my submission to the John Locke Essay Contest 2023, answering the third philosophy question: “Is Tax Theft?”. It was submitted on June 29th, 2023, and won a Commendation award.

Introduction

Benjamin Franklin once remarked that “… nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” (NCC, 2022). More than 200 years later, the quote still holds up; taxes are a fundamental part of the way governments work and have been for a long time. Taxation is central to the state.

With the rise of libertarianism, however, comes the questioning of the ethics of taxation. Many libertarian thinkers, from Robert Nozick to Murray Rothbard, argue that tax is theft; Nozick notably said that “Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor” (Nozick, 1974, p. 169). This idea isn’t a new one, but it certainly has gained prominence recently. And with the increase of libertarianism in the mainstream, this idea will likely gain further traction in days to come.

Before I begin, I will define two crucial terms: “tax” and “theft”. First, tax is defined as the imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by democratically elected governments with the best interests of the people at heart. The first part of this definition is obvious; the second part, less so. Tax is only justified when levied by democracies because only they have the full consent of the people. This point will be further elaborated on later. For brevity’s sake, all uses of the word “tax” below will refer specifically to this kind of legitimate tax, unless specified otherwise.

Second, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines theft as “… the physical removal of an object … without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently” (Bernard & Thornton, 2023). This is the definition used below.

I argue that tax levied by democracies is not theft, for two reasons: firstly, because taxes in democracies are levied with the people’s consent; and secondly, because tax is meant to be used solely for the benefit of the people, without the intent of depriving citizens permanently.

Argument I: Tax isn’t theft because it’s consensual.

In all legitimate taxes, the people’s consent is crucial. After all, by our own definition, a government taking money from its citizens without their consent is robbery. Therefore, taxation can only be legitimate when taxpayers consent to give taxes and have a say in how their money is used. Only forms of government where leaders are elected by the people—that is, democracies—can tax legitimately. This is why taxes levied by dictatorships could not be considered legitimate; they tax regardless of the people’s will.

In the relationship between the people and their governments, taxation plays an especially vital role. Alex Cobham writes that “Paying tax is the glue in the social contract. When people pay tax, they are empowered to hold their governments to account for how their money is spent” (Cobham, 2022). 

But what is the social contract? Britannica defines it as “ … an actual or hypothetical compact … between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2023). It’s a compact between the government and the governed, which lays out what each side can and should do. Democracies are therefore controlled by this treaty, and the citizenry is bound by it as well. Because of this, these countries are constrained by the people’s consent.

No one understood this better than John Locke, the father of the social contract. Locke wrote that “Men … have such a right to the goods … that no body hath a right to take their substance … from them, without their own consent: without this they have no property at all” (Locke, 1690, p. 44.). He argued that only democracies have the right to levy taxes:

This [tax as theft] is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists … in assemblies … but in governments, where the legislative is … in one man, as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still … it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority … for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people … without such consent … he thereby invades the fundamental law of property … (Locke, 1690, pp. 44-45)

Representation also matters because it determines how much one should pay. Adam Smith wrote that “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government … in proportion to … revenue which they respectively enjoyed under the protection of the state” (Smith, 1776, p. 777).

So, tax in democracies is levied with the consent of the people; therefore, it doesn’t fulfill the first part of our definition of theft.

Argument II: Tax is used solely for the people’s benefit.

The second part of our definition, taking “… with the intention of depriving the owner … permanently” (Bernard & Thornton, 2023), is equally as important as consent. This intuitively makes sense. For instance, if your friend borrows $20 from you, promising that he will pay you back, but loses it, it would be strange to accuse him of theft because there was no intent to deprive you permanently.

Therefore, we must examine the intentions and effects of tax to determine if it inherently has the will to take from the people permanently. James John Jurinski writes that “The primary goal of taxation from biblical times … has been to raise revenue for the government … the government spends income tax revenues on ‘public’ goods and services …” (Jurinski, 2012, pp. 2-4).

The state taxes to raise revenue for itself, and uses it on public works and services. Clearly, public expenditure doesn’t harm but helps the public. Consider tax-funded law enforcement. What would happen if it were abolished? With no one left to enforce the law, an exponential increase in crime is likely. And profit itself could not be made without such uses of tax; without police, businesses wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves.

Tax itself upholds and protects profit; it gives back to the people more than it takes. Its intent isn’t to permanently take; rather, it’s to protect the people and to make sure they continue to profit from their labor.

For further information, we turn again to Locke, who demonstrated this relationship with an analogy: “… but yet we see, that neither the serjeant, that could command a soldier to march … where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money…” (Locke, 1690, p. 45).

Locke shows that tax can only be spent for the good of the nation, not for personal enrichment. A sergeant can command his troops to certain death for the country, but he can’t take their money for himself; similarly, the state can tax for the good of its citizens, but not for the personal profit of the leaders themselves. Tax can only justly be used for public purposes, not for private ones.

Hence, governments are limited in levying tax by quantity, as Smith showed; procedure, as only democracies can justly tax, as Locke demonstrated; and purpose, as its purpose should be to better the nation’s citizens (Kimball, 2018). So tax carries both the consent of the people and the intent to give back to and protect them. It cannot be theft.

Counter-arguments

Many counter-arguments could be made against these two propositions. One is that there is no social contract. This is a common line of attack: Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan, for instance, write that “… there never has been a social contract … the social contract envisioned by modern progressives is precisely not an agreement at all … and the terms are in no way clearly spelled out” (Davies & Harrigan, 2019).

This can be refuted by observing the frameworks of modern democracies. Consider their constitutions, such as that of the United States. They lay out what the government can and cannot do; as these constitutions are the basis of these governments, the government’s side of the social contract exists.

And consider the fact that citizens themselves can modify this contract, such as by amendments. The very nature of this ability to change implies that the citizenry is a party to the contract. Therefore, the people’s side of the social contract exists. From these two observations, we conclude that the social contract is real and binds government and citizens alike.

Another argument is that there is no consent because citizens can only choose how much they pay, not if they should pay that all. If a robber lets you choose between him stealing $100 or $1000, both options would still be theft. But the premise that citizens cannot choose to give nothing is mistaken. One of the tenets of the social contract, after all, is that both sides must be bound by it. If one side violates the contract, the other side is no longer bound by it. If the state becomes tyrannical, the citizen has a right to revolution. Rebellion against taxation is permissible under the social contract if it strays from its duty of serving the people. 

Others argue that taxation ends up harming the citizenry, and suggest the privatization of tax-funded services. This is mistaken, as Lake Larsen writes: “… privatizing schools has resulted in … some of the lowest literacy and mathematics levels in the country … Based off changes we’ve already seen …  privatizing sectors of the government will only result in unhappy citizens …” (Larsen, 2019).

Another comes from citing examples of poor taxation, of which there are many. Opponents note unnecessary subsidies given to industries such as big agriculture and big oil, both of which are paid with taxpayer funds, or huge sums of tax seemingly wasted; for example, Axios shows that the US spent more on its military in the previous year than the next ten countries combined (Lawler, 2023). These examples certainly seem daunting.

However, it’s equally important to note examples of good taxation policies as well. Thanks to taxpayer funding, infrastructure like roads, bridges, railroads, and airports are free to use and well-maintained. Education, such as the K-12 system and state colleges, is funded by tax. Britain’s NHS, as well as US government-funded vaccine research during COVID-19, are examples of leaps being made in public health services stemming directly from taxpayer money.

Ultimately, the crux of the arguments of the anti-taxation thinkers comes down to libertarianism, a “… philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value” (Boaz, 2023). Libertarian ideals regarding the role of the state are in opposition to our current system of representation and to liberty itself.

Many libertarians have a deep-seated skepticism of government and its actions; a distrust of the state is one of its core tenets. Consequently, taxation, a system with the consent of the populace and the unique means to help them, becomes a dangerous example of theft. Their alternative is the privatization of tax-funded industries; the “expansion” of freedom through the choices of citizens replacing public services; and the encouragement of the free market’s purported efficiency. All of these lead to an argument that the people shouldn’t pay taxes at all.

These positions are incorrect. The state is the only body that can effectively protect and help its citizens. Privatization, as shown by Larsen, has not and will not lead to more efficiency or cost reduction. 

Furthermore, the results of tax prove that benefits are clearly returned to citizens for their money. Effective public services, as well as the existence and efficacy of infrastructure, prove this. Likewise, police agencies and courts, both of which are funded by tax, uphold the safety and liberty of the people. Ironically, the libertarian ends up losing his liberty by choking out its funding.

Conclusion

The debate around the ethics of tax is old. From the evidence presented, I conclude that tax in democracies is not theft, because it inherently entails the consent of the people and because it does not take permanently from the people, but rather gives back in the form of safety, service, and liberty. 

References

Bernard, T. J., & Thornton, W. E. (2023, May 19). Theft. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/theft

Boaz, D. (2023, May 19). Libertarianism – Self-Ownership, Rule of Law, and Free Markets. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics/Historical-origins

Cobham, A. (2022, March). Taxing for a New Social Contract. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Taxing-for-a-new-social-contract-Cobham

Davies, A., & Harrigan, J. R. (2019, May 2). There Is No Such Thing as a Social Contract, but so What? Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-social-contract-but-so-what/

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2023, April 24). Social contract. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract

Jurinski, J. J. (2012). Tax Reform: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues) (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO.

Kimball, M. (2018, December 16). John Locke: Legitimate Taxation and other Appropriation of Property by the Government is Limited as to Quantity, Procedure and Purpose. Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2018/12/16/john-locke-legitimate-taxation-and-other-appropriation-of-property-by-the-government-is-limited-as-to-purpose-procedure-and-quantity

Larsen, L. (2019, November 6). Taxation is not Theft. The Western Howl. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://wou.edu/westernhowl/taxation-not-theft/

Lawler, D. (2023, April 24). U.S. spent more on military in 2022 than next 10 countries combined. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/global-military-spending-2022-us-china-russia-list

Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government (1st ed.). Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7370/pg7370-images.html

McLure, C. E., Neumark, F., & Cox, M. S. (2023, June 1). Taxation. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/taxation

NCC Staff. (2022, November 13). Benjamin Franklin’s last great quote and the Constitution. The National Constitution Center. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/benjamin-franklins-last-great-quote-and-the-constitution

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell Publishers. https://archive.org/details/0001AnarchyStateAndUtopia/mode/2up

Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.207956/page/n5/mode/2up

van der Vossen, B. (2002, September 5). Libertarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/