Category: opinion

mccarthy’s ousting isn’t just about polarization—it’s about precarity

Isaac Kim

The following essay was chosen as the featured article of the October edition of the LA/Irvine Media Club newsletter. You can find it here: https://shorturl.at/kuRZ4

Eight Republican votes: that’s all it took to paralyze our government on October 3rd when the House of Representatives decided to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the first time it has chosen to do so in history. One-half of Congress is now rudderless, limping by with an interim speaker that has no real power; in other words, it has paralyzed itself.

The timing is impeccable. Two US allies are now engulfed in devastating wars that call for government attention and aid immediately. US citizens have been taken hostage in crises. And a government shutdown is looming in little over a month—the deadline, ironically, being one that Congress set for itself. This moment is one of the worst to have a Capitol Hill crisis, but as it stands, the House is engulfed in chaos.

This isn’t a temporary problem, either. What once looked like a messy leadership change has now spun into a full-blown leadership crisis for the House GOP. This was only further confirmed when Mr. Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader and the Republican nominee for House Speaker, dropped out of the race today, leaving the Republican spot for Speaker vacant once again. Commenting on Mr. Scalise’s choice, Rep. Mark Alford remarked “…we’re a ship that doesn’t have a rudder right now, and I’m thoroughly disappointed in the process” (Brooks et al.). That seems clear enough: Republicans are not willing to put aside their divisions and support cohesive action on the House floor.

This problem is, of course, a familiar one. Ever since Republicans assumed control of the House, hardliner groups within the party haven’t hesitated to make their voices heard. One example of this lies within the House Freedom Caucus, a group whose “members… are among the most conservative of House Republicans, with several falling on the rightmost end of the spectrum” (DeSilver). Or, more broadly, the so-called “Wrecking-Ball Caucus”, “an ultraconservative minority that sees the federal government as a threat to the republic… a wrecking crew aimed at the nation’s institutions on a variety of fronts” (Hulse).

But what makes this particular situation unique is its shocking reveal of government precarity. The numbers on the ousting vote are revealing: only eight Republican votes out of a total of 221 were needed to eliminate McCarthy’s speakership. Among the votes was Matt Gaetz, who filed the motion to vacate and is described as a “reliable flame-thrower, a main character in the drama now consuming Capitol Hill” (Honderich). It only took eight reactionary firebrands to throw Congress into chaos.

Mr. Carl Hulse sums up the Republican division in his article for the New York Times: “House Republicans… are consumed with an extended struggle of personal grievance, petty beefs, political payback and rampant attention-seeking that has sidelined Congress at a critical moment and rendered the Capitol a bastion of G.O.P. dysfunction. The spectacle of their infighting is even more glaring at a moment of international crisis… they remain unable to settle on a speaker who could put the House back in business.”

Equally as important, though, is the role of House Democrats in McCarthy’s ousting. It’s telling that every single Democrat voted to oust him, as stated by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who justified the vote by arguing that “It is now the responsibility of the GOP members to end the House Republican Civil War. Given their unwillingness to break from MAGA extremism… House Democratic leadership will vote yes on the pending Republican Motion to Vacate the Chair” (Racker). Ironically, it was Jeffries himself who “urged House Republicans to pass bipartisan legislation…bipartisan plan was the only option available, he said” (Blackburn). It isn’t just Republicans tied up in petty personal squabbles: it’s Democrats as well.

We can therefore see three factors that each played a crucial and instrumental role in the McCarthy oust: a lack of a clear leading force in the Republican party; an unwillingness to cooperate with either side from both parties; and a disproportionately large amount of power that individual Congressmen seem to suddenly wield. 

Firstly, it is plain that the Republican party lacks a clear and cohesive leading force right now. It isn’t an exaggeration to say that the current state of the party is in turbulence; especially during the last few days, “The race for House Speaker is dividing Senate Republicans, reflecting the broader division in the GOP between traditional and MAGA-aligned conservatives” (Bolton). But the McCarthy fiasco has only brought these problems to further light; as early as January, analysts were warning of “a modern-day civil war within the GOP… On one side: a growing number of elected officials eager to move beyond the divisive politics and personality of former President Donald Trump… And on the other: the GOP’s vocal ‘Make America Great Again’ wing, which… is quick to attack the status quo in both parties” (Peoples). In other words, division within the Republican party has been exacerbated by the McCarthy ousting, but this particular problem’s root lies in how the GOP is currently structured.

Republicans were certainly united, or at least seemed to be, in the Trump administration’s heyday. Throughout the presidency, the de facto leader of the party was undeniably Trump. But after COVID, January 6th, and Ukraine, the party is split between radical conservatives and more traditional members. Because of this division, the party is no longer headed by the former president, or indeed by any single entity at all; Trump becomes a flashpoint, reduced to little more than a stasis point for the party to split itself over. That much is clear, shown by Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and other Republicans vying to appeal to the more Trump-hesitant half, presenting themselves as an alternative. The Republican party is increasingly becoming leaderless and disjointed—compare that to the Democrats, whose unanimity in ousting McCarthy speaks volumes.

Meanwhile, although an unwillingness for across-the-aisle cooperation is a historic tradition of Capitol Hill, the increasing political polarization over any number of points—Roe v. Wade, Ukraine, January 6th, and now Israel—gives plenty of reason for worry. The leaderless and uncoordinated nature of the Republican party is a cause for concern, but equally concerning is the unanimous decision of House Democrats to oust McCarthy, fully knowing that his replacement will probably be far less willing to cooperate with them on key issues. After all, McCarthy was ousted precisely because he was too willing to work with Democrats in the first place. Why, then, would they make this choice? Whether it be a lack of trust in their Republican colleagues or a kind of pleasure at watching said colleagues get humiliated, it’s clear that we won’t be seeing much in the way of bipartisan trust or action any time soon.

Perhaps the most concerning angle of this whole debacle, though, is the amount of power that is concentrated in the hands of individual Congressmen, partially as a result of increasing polarization. In his bid to become House Speaker, McCarthy agreed to a new rule, the “motion to vacate”. According to this rule, “only one member of Congress—Democrat or Republican—is needed to bring… a vote on removing the speaker” (Stewart). And it was one of these motions, brought forth by Gaetz, that spelled the end of McCarthy’s Speakership. This is gravely concerning; for one, it gives much power to individual Congress members, which is likely to be exploited by firebrands and radicals. It gives the next Speaker less leeway with potential policies and less room for action. And it certainly dashes any hopes of significant across-the-aisle political cooperation.

The upshot of all of this is more than temporary instability in Capitol Hill; it transcends Speakership quibbles and polarization. In the short term and long term, the consequences impact us immediately. The New York Times, for instance, cites aid for Israel and Ukraine, as well as avoiding a government shutdown by November 17, as three essential actions that will be put on hold as “disunity… has brought the House to a standstill… leaving one chamber of Congress hobbled in the face of crises at home and abroad” (Jimison). 

But in the long term, the consequences to American standing and power abroad could potentially be devastating. As Robert Gates, a former defense secretary, warned: “‘Dysfunction has made American power erratic and unreliable… with potentially catastrophic consequences’… paralysis raises questions about America’s global leadership…” (Economist). Indeed, both at home and abroad, the McCarthy ousting is casting doubts on America’s image and reputation. It is making people less secure with us. And it is putting our government and nation in an increasingly precarious situation.

If Capitol Hill wants respect from its people, trust from its allies, and fear from its enemies, it must act like it does. Anything else risks pushing the nation over the brink.

Citations

Brooks, Emily, et al. “Steve Scalise drops out of Speaker’s Race.” The Hill, 13 Oct. 2023, thehill.com/homenews/house/4253448-steve-scalise-drops-out-speakers-race.

DeSilver, Drew. “Freedom Caucus likely to play a bigger role in new GOP-led House. So who are they?” Pew Research Center, 31 Jan. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/23/freedom-caucus-likely-to-play-a-bigger-role-in-new-gop-led-house-so-who-are-they.

Hulse, Carl. “The Wrecking-Ball Caucus: How the Far Right Brought Washington to Its Knees.” The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/republicans-congress-freedom-caucus.html.

Honderich, Holly. “What Does Matt Gaetz Actually Want?” BBC News, 11 Oct. 2023, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67084540.

Hulse, Carl. “With the World in Crisis, House Republicans Bicker Among Themselves.” The New York Times, 13 Oct. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/us/politics/house-republicans-bicker-world-crisis.html.

Racker, Mini. “Why House Democrats Refused to Save McCarthy.” TIME, 3 Oct. 2023, time.com/6320202/house-democrats-refused-save-kevin-mccarthy.

Blackburn, Piper Hudspeth. “Key Lawmakers in the Government Spending Fight as a Shutdown Nears.” CNN, 30 Sept. 2023, www.cnn.com/2023/09/30/politics/key-players-government-funding-shutdown-capitol-hill/index.html.

Bolton, Alexander. “Senate GOP divided over race to replace McCarthy.” The Hill, 9 Oct. 2023, https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4244261-senate-gop-divided-over-race-to-replace-mccarthy/.

Peoples, Steve. “Republicans confront bitter divide; no clear path forward.” AP News, 27 Jan. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/politics-us-republican-party-donald-trump-united-states-government-2022-midterm-elections-77c6e337644955bc3e64e1f7e3a094e5.

Stewart, Kyle. “How a speaker of the House can be ousted with a ‘motion to vacate’.” NBC News, 10 Jan. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-of-the-house-ousted-motion-to-vacate-rcna64902.

Jimison, Robert. “Here’s What Can’t Get Done While Republicans Fight Over a Speaker.” The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/us/politics/speaker-house-republicans-israel-ukraine.html.

“Paralysis in Congress makes America a dysfunctional superpower.” The Economist, 12 Oct. 2023, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/10/12/paralysis-in-congress-makes-america-a-dysfunctional-superpower.

william warren barbour: voice of the persecuted

Isaac Kim
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?

Isaac Kim
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/