The population of the US is somewhere around 317,940,000.

The federal government takes 17.3% of Gross Domestic Product in taxes.

So the average federal employee controls a little more than 20 times as much of each year’s produced wealth as the average American. And it’s not just production income:  As highlighted in the recent Bundy ranch standoff, that 0.86% of the population claims to “own” 28% of land in the United States.

Oh, they say they control it “for all of us” and “on everyone’s behalf,” but that just doesn’t wash even if it’s true (and we all know it isn’t). After all, many — maybe even most — “private sector” rich people contribute to charity and so forth, but the “wealth inequality” complainers hold that it’s the fact that they have/control the wealth, not what they do with it, that’s important.

What got me thinking about this? Well, a lot of people are talking about Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the 21st Century. I haven’t read it yet, but I’ve been following the talk, and one blurb stood out to me:

“A landmark book … which brings a ton of data to bear in reaching the commonsensical conclusion that inequality has to do with more than just blind market forces at work.” Paul Krugman, New York Times

That quote caught my attention because I find such a … libertarian … statement rather odd coming out of Krugman’s mouth. I believe it to be true that it is indeed not “blind market forces” which create drastic wealth inequalities. I suspect that in a free market, wealth would distribute itself quite a bit more evenly than it does in a state-managed economy. I’m not saying that there would be no rich people or no poor people, just that most people would be wealthier than they are now and that “the super-rich” would control a smaller percentage of wealth than they do at present.

But is that what Krugman meant? I tried Googling the specific quote and wasn’t able to find the piece it came from. What I did find was his upcoming piece on Piketty in The New York Review of Books, “Why We’re in a New Gilded Age.” In which he holds that:

So progressive taxation — in particular taxation of wealth and inheritance — can be a powerful force limiting inequality.

And he’s just. Flat. Wrong. When wealth is “progressively taxed,” it doesn’t get redistributed equally among those poorer than the people who had it before. It gets redistributed to a tiny bureaucratic minority who are just as interested in acquiring, using and keeping that wealth as anyone else, even if they formally disclaim personal interest and pretend to be acting as agents of “the public.” As history demonstrates, this tiny bureaucratic minority tends to align itself with those “progressively taxed” wealthy rather than with the poor, however deserving or undeserving you might think the poor are (if for no other reason than that even under very “progressive” taxation, the wealthy retain enough wealth to pay bribes, hire lobbyists, elect candidates, etc.).

The state is, as Karl Marx put it, “the executive committee of the ruling class.” And it pays itself a hell of a salary.

[cross-posted from KN@PPSTER — this piece is in the public domain]

Estado: Instituição que intervém no livre mercado através do exercício direto da coerção ou da concessão de privilégios (sustentados pela coerção).

Impostos: Forma de coerção ou interferência no livre mercado em que o estado coleta tributos (os impostos) que permitem que ele contrate forças armadas para agir de forma coercitiva na defesa de privilégios, além de se envolver em guerras, aventuras, experimentos, “reformas” e outras atividades custeadas não por seus próprios recursos, mas às custas de “seus” súditos.

Privilégio: Do latim privi, privado, e lege, lei. Uma vantagem concedida pelo estado e protegida por seus poderes de coerção. Uma lei em benefício privado.

Usura: Forma de privilégio ou interferência no livre mercado em que um grupo, apoiado pelo estado, monopoliza a emissão de moeda e, com isso, cobra tributos (juros), diretos ou indiretos, sobre todas as transações econômicas.

Latifundismo: Forma de privilégio ou interferência no livre mercado em que um grupo, apoiado pelo estado, passa a ser “dono” da terra e, assim, extrai tributos (rendas, aluguéis) daqueles que vivem, trabalham ou produzem nela.

Tarifas: Forma de privilégio ou interferência no livre mercado em que as mercadorias produzidas fora do estado não podem competir em igualdade com aquelas produzidas dentro do âmbito do estado.

Capitalismo: Organização social que incorpora elementos como impostos, usura, latifúndios e tarifas e, portanto, é contrária ao livre mercado, embora alegue representá-lo.

Conservadorismo: Escola filosófica capitalista que afirma apoiar o livre mercado, mas que, na verdade, defende a usura, os direitos artificiais à terra, as tarifas e, às vezes, impostos.

Social-democracia: Escola filosófica capitalista que pretende corrigir as injustiças do capitalismo acrescentando novas leis às já existentes. Toda vez que os conservadores passam novas leis que criam privilégios, os social-democratas criam outras leis modificando esses privilégios, o que impele os conservadores a fazerem leis mais sutis que recriam os antigos privilégios e assim por diante, até que “tudo que não seja proibido é obrigatório” e “tudo que não seja obrigatório é proibido”.

Socialismo: Tentativa de abolição de todos os privilégios através da concentração de todo poder no agente coercitivo por trás dos privilégios, o estado, transformando a oligarquia capitalista em monopólios estatais. É o mesmo que tentar branquear uma parede pintando-a de preto.

Anarquismo: Organização social na qual o mercado opera de modo livre, sem impostos, usura, concentrações de terras, tarifas ou outras formas de coerção ou privilégio. Os anarquistas de “direita” preveem que, num livre mercado, as pessoas escolheriam voluntariamente competir mais do que cooperar; anarquistas de “esquerda” preveem que, num livre mercado, as pessoas escolheriam voluntariamente cooperar mais do que competir.

Traduzido do inglês para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

Toine Manders works at the Haags Juristen College (Hague Lawyers Board) and specializes in tax avoidance. Manders refers to tax avoidance as a moral duty. Tax revenue is used by the state to pay for war, prisons, the militarization of the police force and the regulatory agencies which constantly privilege big business. This moral duty is connected the Haags Juristen College’s former business practice which was to help individuals avoid the military draft. Avoiding the draft and avoiding taxes are both ways by which personal contribution to state oppression and war is reduced. Calling this a moral duty is not a far-fetched idea.

Tax reduction is a promise often made by conservative and neo-liberal politicians. Acknowledging taxation as theft might very well place this editorial on that side of the political spectrum. However, opposing taxation altogether is not a right-wing sentiment. Through taxation big business uses the power of government to socialize the costs of running the state’s operations. Additionally the state grants economic privilege to those very same corporations. When neo-liberal politicians argue for tax reduction they are merely saying that the current tax percentage is too high in relation to the economic privilege their corporate campaign contributors receive. Grant them more privilege and you won’t hear them complain.

Those on the left claim that taxation is necessary to achieve economic justice and that taxation counterbalances the enormous wealth that is held by the rich and powerful. However it is the state that grants economic privilege to corporations and it is the state that insulates them from competition. At best taxation is a secondary intervention meant to rectify the economic privilege of corporations. The road to economic justice is not to increase the taxing power of the state but to strike at the root of the problem. Economic privilege should be abolished and taxation will falter and fall soon after.

Opposing taxation is not an excuse for big business. By opposing taxation we root for the entrepreneurs, small business owners, worker cooperatives and the self-employed. However “Taxation is theft” must be followed by, “and economic privilege is bribery” otherwise it is rendered meaningless to those who truly seek liberty.

Economic privilege should be dismantled. In the meantime tax avoidance and even tax evasion are tools by which we can lessen our personal contribution to the state’s murder machine. Taxation is theft and if you don’t pay up you go directly to  jail – do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Free Toine Manders!

DE STAAT: De instelling die de Vrije Markt belemmerd via de directe uitoefening ban dwang of het toekennen van privileges (gesteund door dwang).

BELASTING: Een vorm van dwang en belemmering van de Vrije Markt waarin de staat tribuut verzamelt (de belastingen), waardoor het strijdkrachten kan huren om dwang uit te oefenen en privileges te verdedigen, en ook om deel te nemen aan oorlogen, experimenten, ‘hervormingen”, enzovoort. De staat doet dit niet op eigen kosten maar ten kosten van haar burgers.

PRIVILEGE: Van het Latijnse privi, privé, en lege, wet. Een voordeel toegekend door de staat en beschermd doormiddel van dwang. Een wet voor persoonlijke bevoorrechting.

WOEKER: Een vorm van privilege die de Vrije Markt belemmert waarin een groep, gesteund door de overheid, het muntstelsel monopoliseert en daardoor tribuut (in de vorm van rente), direct of indirect, uit alle economische transacties weet te halen.

GROOTGRONDBEZIT: Die vorm van privilege of belemmering van de Vrije markt waarin een groep, gesteund door de overheid, eigenaar wordt van grote stukken land en daardoor tribuut (huur) kan afdwingen van degenen die op het land wonen, werken of produceren.

DOUANERECHTEN: Een vorm van privilege of belemmering van de Vrije Markt waardoor goederen die buiten de Staat geproduceerd worden niet vrij zijn om op gelijke voet te concurreren met goederen die binnen de staat geproduceerd zijn.

KAPITALISME: De inrichting van de samenleving waarin belasting, woekeraars, grootgrondbezit en douanerechten de dienst uit maken. Deze toestand belemmert de Vrije Markt terwijl het juist de Vrije Markt probeert te illustreren.

CONSERVATISME: De school van de kapitalistische filosofie die trouw beweert aan de Vrije Markt terwijl het in feite woekering, grootgrondbezit, douanerechten en soms belasting ondersteunt.

LIBERALISME: De school van de kapitalistische filosofie die probeert de onrechtvaardigheden van het kapitalisme te corrigeren door nieuwe wetten toe te voegen aan bestaande wetten. Elke keer dat conservatieven een nieuw privilege toekenennen maken de liberalen een wet om dit voorrecht te wijzigen, waarna conservatieven een meer subtielere wet maken die het privilege in stand houdt, etc., tot dat “alles dat niet verboden is verplicht word” en “alles dat niet verplicht word verboden is”.

(STAATS) SOCIALISME: De poging tot afschaffing van alle privileges door de volledige macht te geven aan de vertegenwoordig van alle privileges, de Staat, waardoor de kapitalistische oligarchie omgezet word in een etatistische monopolie.

ANARCHISME: Die inrichting van de samenleving waarin de vrije markt vrij functioneert zonder belasting, woeker, grootgrondbezit, douanerechten of andere vormen van dwang of voorrecht. “Rechts-“ anarchisten voorspellen dat in de Vrije Markt mensen vrijwillig zullen kiezen om vaker te concurreren dan om samen te werken; “links-“ anarchisten voorspellen dat in de Vrije Markt mensen vaker vrijwillig zullen kiezen voor samenwerking dan concurrentie.

Robert Shea en Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 622-23

Vertalingen voor dit artikel:

• Deutsch, Begriffserklärungen und Unterschiede.
• English, Definitions and Distinctions

FREIER MARKT: Der Zustand der Gesellschaft in dem alle ökonomischen Handlungen (Geschäfte) auf Freiwilligkeit basieren, nicht auf Zwang.

DER STAAT: Die Institution die den freien Markt behindert durch die direkte Anwendung von Zwang oder die Gewährung von Privilegien (unterstützt durch Zwang).

STEUER: Die Form des Zwangs bzw. Behinderung des freien Marktes durch den der Staat Abgaben kassiert (die Steuer), die die Anheuerung von bewaffneten Truppen ermöglichen welche den Zwang ausüben und Privilegien verteidigen, auch die Beteiligung an Kriegen, riskanten Unternehmen, Experimenten, Reformen, etc. wie es ihm beliebt, nicht auf eigene Kosten, sondern auf die Kosten seiner Propanden.

PRIVILEG: Von Latein: privi – privat und lege – recht. Eine Bevorteiligung, die durch den Staat garantiert wird und von seinen Kräften mit Zwang geschützt wird. Ein privates Vorteilsrecht.

ZINSWUCHER: Die Form von Privileg bzw. Einmischung in den freien Markt bei dem staatlich- unterstützte Gruppen das Geldsystem monopolisieren und dadurch Abgaben (Zinsen) einnehmen, direkt oder indirekt, von allen bzw. den meisten ökonomischen Transaktionen.

GROẞGRUNDBESITZ: Die Form von Privileg bzw. Einmischung in den freien Markt bei dem eine staatlich unterstütze Gruppe Land „besitzt“ und dadurch Abgaben (Pacht) von denen einnimmt die dort leben, arbeiten oder produzieren.

ZOLL: Die Form von Privileg bzw. Einmischung in den freien Markt bei Waren die ausserhalb des Staates produziert wurden nicht in gleicher Weise mit den Waren konkurrieren die im Staat produziert wurden.

KAPITALISMUS: Die Gesellschaftsordnung bei der Elemente der Steuer, des Zinswucher, des Großgrundbesitzes und des Zolls eingebettet sind, welche den freien Markt verweigert während sie so tut als würde sie ein Beispiel für diesen sein.

KONSERVATIVISMUS: Die Schule der kapitalistischen Philosophie die behauptet loyal zum freien Markt zu stehen, während sie eigentlich Zinswucher, Großgrundbesitz, Zoll und manchmal Besteuerung unterstützt.

LIBERALISMUS: Die Schule der kapitalistischen Philosophie welche versucht die Ungerechtigkeit des Kapitalismus durch neue Gesetze zu beseitigen. Jederzeit wenn Konservative ein Gesetz erlassen das ein Privileg erschafft, erlassen Liberale ein anderes Gesetz um das Privileg zu modifizieren, dies veranlasst Konservative mehr raffinierte Gesetze zu verabschieden die das Privileg wiederherstellen, usw. solange bis „alles was nicht verboten ist Zwang ist“ und „alles was nicht Zwang ist verboten ist“.

SOZIALISMUS: Die versuchte Abschaffung aller Privilegien durch die Wiederherstellung der vollständigen Zwangsgewalt hinter allen Privilegien, dem Staat, wodurch die kapitalistische Oligarchie in einen staatlichen Monopolismus umgewandelt wird. Eine Wand kalken, indem man sie schwarz streicht.

ANARCHISMUS: Die Ordnung der Gesellschaft in der der freie Markt ungehindert agiert, ohne Steuern, Zinswucher, Großgrundbesitz, Zoll und anderen Formen von Zwang oder Privilegien. „Rechte“ Anarchisten prophezeien das die Menschen in einem freien Markt freiwillig mehr miteinander konkurrieren statt kooperieren würden, „Linke“ Anarchisten prophezeien das es mehr Kooperation als Konkurrenz geben wird.

Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 622-23

Die ursprüngliche Version dieses Artikels wurde von Robert Shea und Robert Anton Wilson veröffentlicht.

Übersetzung aus dem Englischen: Sascha Bose

***

En una reciente entrevista, Noam Chomsky, quien quizás sea el anarquista más famoso del mundo, hizo una declaración que le provocaría un ataque de grima a sus primos anarquistas de mercado:

Movámonos a un tipo de sociedad en la que el 15 de abril [fecha en la que vence el plazo para la declaración de la renta personal en los Estados Unidos] sea un día de celebración.

“Lo que nos da grima”, dirían los anarquistas de mercado, al unísono, “es que el señor Chomsky, a pesar de ser lingüista, no ve la contradicción inherente en pedirle a alguien que disfrute de ser forzado a hacer algo. El diccionario dice que los impuestos son contribuciones compulsivas a las arcas del estado, lo que significa que el estado fuerza a la gente a pagarlos. La gente nunca celebrará el pagar impuestos porque a la gente no le gusta que le roben el fruto de su trabajo.”

Pero la contradicción que los anarquistas de mercado ven en la declaración de Chomsky tiene que ver más con Economía que con Lingüística.

A pesar de que su propio trabajo muestra de manera sistemática que el estado ha sido el principal impulsor de la concentración de poder privado a través de la historia, Chomsky es de la opinión de que antes de deshacerse de él, la gente tiene que de alguna manera tomar el control del estado y reformarlo para que de verdad represente sus intereses, y utilizarlo como una barrera de contención contra el poder de la élite corporativa.

Pero para el anarquista de mercado es imposible reformar el estado debido a la naturaleza de su estructura de incentivos, de la cual los impuestos son parte fundamental. Los miembros de cualquier organzación que tenga el poder de usar la fuerza para extraer recursos de la gente cuyos intereses supuestamente representa, tienen un fuerte incentivo para usar esos recursos para promover sus propios intereses, por la sencilla razón de que dicha gente no cuenta con la opción de dejar de contribuír con sus recursos al sostenimiento de la organización. Y la democracia atenúa, más no soluciona el problema, porque el votante promedio sólo puede sacar de sus puestos a los políticos votando en su contra una vez cada varios años; y sólo si convence al 51% del electorado de que voten como él.

La posibilidad de compartir los recursos extraídos a la gente por la fuerza con las corporaciones es lo que da a los políticos la capacidad de ofrecerles lo que equivale a un mercado cautivo a cambio de contribuciones políticas, posibilidades de carrera en el sector privado, y todos los otros favores espúreos que Chomsky ha denunciado tan diligentemente a través de los años.

El argumento en contra de los impuestos promovido por los anarquistas de mercado también contradice frontalmente al que proponen la mayoría de los economistas convencionales, según el cual los impuestos son un mal necesario al que la gente se resigna para solucionar el problema del polizón en la provisión de bienes públicos. Un pilar fundamental del movimiento anarquista de mercado es la enorme cantidad de investigación que han echo a favor de la hipótesis de que el problema del polizón se puede solucionar a través de la acción colectiva voluntaria en lugar de la compulsiva; o de que los problemas para la provisión competitiva de bienes públicos se origina en la intervención del estado en lugar de en las fallas de mercado.

Pero la relación entre los anarquistas de mercado y los impuestos es algo más complicada que el simple pujar por su abolición a cualquier precio y bajo cualquier cirunstancia. Los anarquistas de mercado jamás hubiesen aprobado reducciones impositivas á la George W. Bush y sus neocon-amigotes. De haber tenido que financiar sus aventuras imperialistas y su red de bienestar corporativo con impuestos, la inmediatez del dolor financiero quizás hubiese impulsado al electorado a rebelarse contra el régimen. O al menos hubiese sido más difícil hacerlos creer en embustes sobre armas de destrucción masiva.

O para usar un ejemplo sobre un régimen que supuestamente se encuentra en el extremo ideológico opuesto, los anarquistas de mercado probablemente preferirían que el estado venezolano se financiase mayoritariamente a través de impuestos comunes y corrientes en lugar de los ingresos que obtiene por su monopolio petrolero. Eso quizás le daría a los venezolanos un mayor incentivo para exigir estándares mínimos de transparencia y responsabilidad fiscal al régimen de Hugo Chávez, que actualemente se afinca sobre no uno, sino diez fondos parafiscales para gastar tanto como quiera, en lo que quiera, en favor de quien se le de la gana, sin tener que rendirle cuentas a absolutamente nadie.

Pero si retrocedemos un poco en la historia contemporanea de venezuela nos encontraremos con que más de un anarquista de mercado, a pesar de estar perfectamente conscientes de los graves problemas ocasionados por los subsidios a cualquier forma de transporte, se opondrían con igual vehemencia a la eliminación tipo “terapia de shock” de los controles de precios del combustible implementados por el régimen de Carlos Andrés Pérez hacia finales de los 80 con el respaldo del Fondo Monetario Internacional, lo cual fue la causa fundamental del caracazo y legitimó el intento de golpe de estado perpetrado por Chávez. En palabras de Kevin Carson:

Las prioridades estratégicas de los libertarios con principios deberían ser exactamente las opuestas: eliminar primero las formas fundamentales, estructurales de intervención estatal cuya principal consecuencia es facilitar la explotación, y sólo después desmantelar las formas secundarias de intervención estatal cuya función es hacer la vida un poco más llevadera para la gente de a pie que vive bajo un sistema de explotación facilitada por el estado. Tal como lo dijo el blogger Jim Henley, romper el yugo antes de retirar las muletas.

En éste sentido, una propuesta para distribuír el ingreso petrolero entre los venezolanos de manera más eficiente y transparente, usando un mecanismo de transferencias condicionales parecido a “Bolsa Familia” en Brasil, probablemente sería apoyado por el anarquista de mercado como un paliativo necesario, al menos hasta que puedan desmantelarse las formas fundamentales de intervención estatal que son la principal causa de la pobreza.

***

In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most famous anarchist alive, made a statement that would make his market anarchist cousins cringe:

“Let’s move towards a kind of society where April 15 [the day on which individual income tax returns are due to the federal government in the US] is a day of celebration.”

“The reason we cringe,” the market anarchists would, in unison, say, “is because Mr. Chomsky, despite being a linguist, fails to see the contradiction in asking someone to enjoy being forced to do something. The dictionary says taxes are compulsory contributions to state revenue, which means the state forces people to pay them. People will never enjoy being taxed, because people don’t enjoy being robbed of the fruits of their labor. Even a child can understand that.”

But the contradiction that market anarchists see in Chomsky’s statement has more to do with economics than language.

Despite his own research systematically showing that the state has been the chief enabler of concentration of private power throughout history, Chomsky is of the view that before doing away with it, we the people ought to somehow reform the state to make it truly further our interests, and thus use its power as a bulwark against that of the corporate elite.

But the market anarchist is adamant on the impossibility of reforming the state due to its fundamental incentive structure, of which taxes are a crucial element. The members of any organization able to forcibly extract resources from the people whose interests it is supposed to serve, have a strong incentive to use those resources for their own benefit, for the people simply cannot choose to stop giving their resources to them. Furthermore, democracy doesn’t quite solve the problem: People can only vote their representatives out of office at multi-year intervals, and only if they convince 51% of their neighbors to do likewise.

The possibility of sharing the resources forcibly extracted from the people with large private corporations, gives politicians the capacity to offer them the equivalent of a captive customer base in exchange for campaign contributions, revolving doors, and all the goodies involved in the perverse symbiosis that Chomsky has so rightly denounced over the years.

The economic argument against taxation put forward by market anarchists is also squarely at odds with that held by most mainstream economists, according to which taxes are a necessary evil that people agree to submit themselves to in order to overcome the free-rider problem inherent in the provision of public goods. A fundamental tenet of the market anarchist movement is their massive body of research in support of the view that the free-rider problem can either be overcome by voluntary, rather than coercive, collective action; or that the problems for competitive private provision of public goods arise themselves from governmental intervention, rather than market failure.

But the relationship of market anarchists to the problem of taxation is somewhat more complicated than simply pushing unconditionally for their elimination under any circumstance. Market anarchists don’t buy the argument behind a reduction of taxes à la Dubbya and Neocon company. If they would have had to fund their imperialist wars of aggression and corporate welfare with taxes instead of debt, the immediate financial pain would perhaps have spurred people into a popular revolt against the regime. Or at least they would have been much less easily persuaded by WMD baloney.

Or, to use an example from a regime that supposedly is at the opposite extreme of the ideological spectrum, market anarchists would perhaps prefer the Venezuelan state to be funded by run-of-the-mill tax revenue rather than by the profits from its oil monopoly. That perhaps would give people a stronger incentive to demand minimal transparency and accountability from Hugo Chavez’s regime, who currently relies on not one, but ten para-fiscal funds to spend as much as it pleases, on whatever it pleases, in favor of whomever it pleases – without reporting absolutely anything to anyone.

Go back a bit on Venezuelan contemporary history though, and you will find more than one market anarchist, Kevin Carson prominently among them, that despite being acutely aware of the evils of transportation subsidies, would have opposed with equal vehemency the IMF-sponsored, shock-treatment elimination of fuel price controls that were part of Carlos Andrés Pérez’s late 80’s fiscal reform package, which sparked the Caracazo and legitimized Chavez’s attempt to overthrow him. In Carson’s own words:

The strategic priorities of principled libertarians should be just the opposite: first to dismantle the fundamental, structural forms of state intervention, whose primary effect is to enable exploitation, and only then to dismantle the secondary, ameliorative forms of intervention that serve to make life bearable for the average person living under a system of state-enabled exploitation. As blogger Jim Henley put it, remove the shackles before the crutches.

In this sense, a proposal to distribute oil revenue among the Venezuelan poor in a more transparent and efficient way, through a conditional cash transfer scheme similar to Brazil’s Bolsa Familia, would probably resonate with the market anarchist as a necessary palliative, at least until the fundamental forms of state intervention that are the root causes of poverty are dismantled.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, “Es complicado”, o la relación del anarquismo de mercado con los impuestos.

THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, “reforms”, etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of “its” subjects.

PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group “owns” the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

TARRIFF: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

CONSERVATISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

LIBERALISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until “everything not forbidden is compulsory” and “everything not compulsory is forbidden”.

SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.

ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. “Right” anarchists predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate; “left” anarchists predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.

Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 622-23

Translations for this article:

• Deutsch, Begriffserklärungen und Unterscheidungen.
• Dutch, Definities en onderscheid.
• Portuguese, Definições e distinções.

Think tank Third Way just issued a paper [PDF] analyzing what the median US taxpayer of 2009 (who earned $34,140 and paid $5,400 in federal taxes) actually purchased.

Bloggers responding to the analysis note that usually when an exchange of goods occurs, a bill of transfer or receipt is produced. Why is one not given to taxpayers in the same manner? An honest and baffling question for American citizens to ponder, with a lousy answer.

Joseph Stalin said “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

When brought down to the individual level, death and taxes aren’t just abstract concepts anymore. Three-something trillion dollars in government spending this year? What does that even mean? It’s difficult to fully comprehend such a vast amount of goods and services and the labor necessary to produce them.

However, when someone takes $200 out of my paycheck, I notice. You probably do too.

When people see that they have to work for two weeks of their year to pay for the healthcare of someone they’ve never met, or for a morning (with luck, probably a Monday) to preserve land they’ll possibly never visit or enjoy, or a full day to pay to fight wars which they may find morally reprehensible, without the choice of refusing, they rightly become angry!

It gets worse, though. There isn’t even a satisfying answer for taxation after one has become aware of the current unavoidability of this process. The argument most commonly given as to why one has to pay this tax “bill” is almost always the supposed Claymore known as the social contract argument:

You live inside of a nation.

You must abide by its rules and what the majority decides.

If you don’t like it, you can leave.

At first blush this seems reasonable. One could choose a different community to live in where the policies are akin to one’s own preferences. Many people are just plain thankful that they are lucky enough to pay that little in taxes instead of much more, or that they don’t live in someplace without indoor plumbing. Those are things to absolutely be grateful for, but the indignity of being coerced to labor against one’s will would not change by moving to any new state.

If one relocated deep in the jungles of Brazil and began creating wealth, it would only be a matter of time before the government came to collect the bill you owed. Build a home on an uninhabited island in the Pacific, and expect the local government to come looking for “its” money eventually.

When people stare down the fact that they have no choice but to give up their money to somebody, toward ends they often don’t even want, never asked for, or don’t morally agree with, they begin to sense that something foul is afoot, and they’re right.

Itemizing taxes to the individual taxpayer’s level is certainly a good start on the road to a free world. Hopefully it would encourage people to demand from their politicians the ability to opt out of services which they didn’t morally agree with, or even just those that they didn’t actually want or benefit from. Eventually they may even discover that they don’t want to pay the salaries of their rulers and would prefer the logical conclusion of a stateless society over the forced labor under government, and then, as an old teacher of mine used to say, we’d really be cooking with natural gas.