Liberty and Taxation

My chief interest in Mr. Levy's article, .however, is excited by his valid criticism of those. Individualists who accept vol untary taxation, but stop short, or think they stop short, of , Anarchism. LIBERTY AND TAXATlON The power of taxation, ,being the most ,vital one to the State, "naturally was a prominent subject in Liberty's, discussions. Mr.F. W. Read, in London Jus, ,attacked ,•the posi.tion of Anar<;hism on this point and was thus 'answered by Mr. T1J.cker: 'THE idea that, the voluntary taxationistobjects to the St~te precisely ,because it does not rest ,on contract, and "wishes to subsl:itute contract for it,' is strictly correct, and I am glad to see· (for the first time, if my ,Demory serves.me) an opponent grasp it. •But Mr. Read obscures.his statement by his previous remark. that the proposal of voluntary ,taxation is uthe out48 I N D I V I D U ALL I BE R T Y J come of an idea ... that the State is, or ought to be, founded on contract." This would be true if the words which I have italicized should be omitted. It was the insertion of these words that furnished the writer a basis for his otherwise groundless analogy between the Anarchists and the followers of Rousseau. The latter hold that the State originated in a contract, and that the people of to-day, though they did not make it, are bound by it. The Anarchists, on the contrary, deny that any such contract was ever made; declare that, had one ever been made, it could not impose a shadow of obliga tion on those who had no hand in making it; and claim the right to contract for themselves as they please. The position that a man may make his own contracts, far from being analogous to that which makes him subject to contracts made by others, is its direct antithesis.

It is perfectly true that voluntary taxation would not necessarily ((prevent the existence of five or six (States' in, England," and that umembers of all these (States' might be living in the same house." But I see no reason for Mr. Read's exclamation point after this remark. What of it? There are many more than five or six Churches in England, and it fre quently happens that members of several of them live in the same house. There are many more than five or six insurance companies in England, and it is by no means uncommon for members of the same family to insure their lives and goods against accident or fire in different companies. Does any harm come of it? Why, then, should there not be a consider able number of defensive associations in England,· in which people, even members of the same family, might insure their lives and goods against murderers or thieves? Though Mr. Read has grasped one idea of the voluntary taxationists, I fear that he sees another much less clearly,-namely, the idea that defence is a service, like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity sub ject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the produc tion and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges ex orbitant prices; that, like almost all monopolists, it supplies a INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY 49 worthless, or nearly worthless, article; that, just as the mo~ nopolist of a. food product often furnishes poison instead of nutriment, so the State takes advantage of its monopoly of defence .to furnish invasion instead of protection; that, just as the patrons of the one pay to be poisoned, so the patrons of the other pay to be enslaved; and, finally, that the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent of .its vil lainy because it enjoys the unique privilege. of compelling all.people to buy its product whethe~ they want h or not.

If, then, five or six CCStates" were to hang out· their shingles, the people,] f~ncy, would be able to buy the very best kind of security ata reasonable price. And· what is more,-the better-their services, the less they would be needed; so that the multiplication of HStates" involves the abolition of the State. All these considerations, however, are disposed of, in Mr. Read's opinion, by his final assertion that CCtheStateis a social organism." He considers. this Htheexplanation of the whole matter." But for the life of me I can see in it nothing but another irrelevant remark. Again! ask: What of it? Suppose the State is an organism,-whatthen?· What is the inference? That the •State. is therefore permanent? But what is history but a record of the dissolution of organisms and the birth and growth of. others to be.dissolved in turn? ·Is the State exempt from this order? If so, why? What proves it? The State an organism ? Yes; •so is a tiger. But unless I meet him. when I haven't my gun, his organism will speedily disorganize. The State is a tiger seeking to devour the people, and they must either, kill or cripple it. Their own safety. depends upon it.

But Mr. Read says it can't. be done. ttBy no possibility can the power of the •State be'restrained .." This must ,be very dis appointing' toMr.Doni~thorpe and Jus, who are ",working to restrain it. If Mr. Read is right, their occupation is gone. Is he right? Unless he can demonstrate it, the voluntary taxa tionists and the Anarchists will continue their work, cheered by the belief that thecompulsQry and invasive State is doomed to die. In answer to Mr. Read's statement (which, if, with all its implications, it were_true, would be a valid and final answer. to the .Anarchists ) that ttdissolving an organism is' something differen! from dissolving a collection of atoms with no organic structure," I cannot do .better than quote the following. pas50 INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY sage from an article by J. Wm. Lloyd in No. 107 of Liberty: CClt appears to me that this universe is but a vast aggre gate of individuals; of individuals simple and primary, and of individuals complex, secondary, tertiary, etc., formed by the aggregation of primary individuals or of individuals of a lesser degree of complexity. Some of these individuals of a high degree of complexity are true individuals, concrete, so united that the lesser organisms included cannot exist, apart from the main organism; while others are imperfect, discrete, the included organisms existing fairly well, quite as we~l, or better, apart than united. In the former class are included many of the higher forms of vegetable and animal life; includ ing man, and in the latter are included many lower forms of vegetable and animal life (quack-grass, tape-worms, etc.) , and most society organisms, governments, nations, churches, armies, etc."

Taking this indisputable view of the matter, it becomes clear that Mr. Read's statement about ccdissolving an organ ism" is untrue while the word organism remains unqualified by some adjective equivalent to Mr. Lloyd's concrete. The question, then, is whether the State is a concrete organism. The Anarchists claim that it is not. If Mr. Read thinks that it is, the onus probandi is upon him. I judge that his error arises from a confusion of the State with society. That society is a concrete organism the Anarchists do not deny; on the contrary, they insist upon it. Consequently they have no in tention or desire to abolish it. They know that its life is in separable from the lives of individuals; that it is impossible to destroy one without destroying the other. But~ though society cannot be destroyed, it can be greatly hampered and impeded in its operations, much to the disadvantage of the individuals composing it, and it meets its chief impediment in the State.

The State, unlike society, is a discrete organism. If it should be destroyed to-morrow, individuals. would still continue to exist. Production, exchange, and association would go on as before, but much more freely, and all those social functions upon which the individual is dependent would operate. in his behalf more usefully than ever. The individual is not re lated to the State as the tiger's paw is related to the tiger. Kill the tiger, and the tiger's paw no longer performs its office; kill the State, and the individual still lives and satisfies his INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 51 wants. As for ,society, the Anarchists would not kill it if they could,. and could not if they would. Mr. Read finds it astounding that] should u put the State ona level with churches and insurance companies." I find his astonishment amusing. Believersin compulsory religious sys temswere "astounded when' it was, first proposed to put •the church' on a level with other associations. Now the only as stonishment is-at least in the United'States-that the church 'is' allowed to st~y ~tany other level. Buttliepolitical super stition ,.has replaced the religious superstition, and Mr. Read is. under its sway.

,Ido not think ~ttthat five or six tStates' could exist side by side with" quite (tthe same convenience' as 'an equal·number. of churches." In 'the relations with which States have to do there is more chance for friction than' in the simply religious sphere. . But, on the other· hand, the friction' resulting from a multiplicity of States would be but a nlQle-hillcompared with the mountain ,0£ oppression and injustice which is gradually heaped up bya single compulsory State. It would not be necessary for a police o:ffi.cerof a voluntary <tState" to know to what ttState" a given individual, belonged, or whether he belonged to any. Voluntary ttStates" could, and probably )Vould,authorize their executives' to proceed against invasion, *0 matter who the invader or invaded might be. Mr.Read ",ill probably object that the' ttSt;ate" to' which the invader, ~el(jnged might regard his arrest as itself an invasion, and proceed against the ttState", which ~rr~sted him. Anticipa tion,'of such conflicts would. probably result exactly in those treaties between UStates" which Mr., Read looks upon as so #esirable,'and even in the establishment of federal tribunals, ~scourts •of .last resort, by •the cooperation of the various ~CStates/' on the"same voluntary principle in accordance with which the ttStates" themselves wereotganized.

, ,Voluntary taxation, far from impairing. the UState's~?credit, ~ould strengthen it. In the first place, the,.simplificationo£ jts functions would greatly reduce, and perhaps entirely ~bolish, its need to borrow, and the power to·borrow is gener ~Uy inversely proportional to the steadiness of the need. It is •usually. the inveterate borrower who lacks credit. In, the fec:ond,place, the power of the State to repudiate, and' still '!continue its business, is ,dependent upon its 'power of com52 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY pulsory taxation. It knows that, when it can no longer borrow, it can at least tax its citizens up to the limit of revolution. In the third place, the State is trusted, not be cause it is over and above individuals, but because the lender presumes that it desires to maintain its credit and will there fore pay its debts. This desire for credit will be stronger in a ((State" supported by voluntary taxation than in the State.

which enforces taxation. All the objections brought forward by Mr. Read (except the organism argument) are mere difficulties of administra- , tive detail, to be overcome by ingenuity, patience, discretion, and expedients. They are not logical difficulties, not difficulties of principle. They seem ((enormous" to him; but so seemed the difficulties of freedom of thought two centuries ago. What does he think of the difficulties of the existing regime? Ap parently he is as blind to them as is the Roman Catholic to the difficulties of a State religion. All these ((enormous" dif ficulties which arise in the fancy of the objectors to the volun tary principle will gradually vanish under the -influence of the economic changes and well-distributed prosperity which -will follow the adoption of that principle. This is what Proudhon calls ((the dissolution of government in the econon1ic organ ism." It is too vast a subject for consideration here, but, if Mr. Read wishes to understand the Anarchistic theory of the process, let him study that most wonderful of all the won derful books of Proudhon, the uIdee Generale de la Revolution au Dix-Neuvieme Siecle."

It is true that ((history shows a continuous weakening of the State in some _directions, and a continuous strengthening in other directions." At least such is the tendency, broadly speaking, though this continuity is sometimes 1:?roken by pe riods of reaction. This tendency is simply the progress of evolution towards Anarchy. The State invades less and less, and protects more and more. It is exactly in the line of this process, and at the end of it, that the Anarchists demand the abandonment of the last citadel of invasion by the .. substitu tion of voluntary for compulsory taxation. When this step is taken, the ((State" will achieve its maximum strength as a protector against aggression, and will maintain it as long as its services are needed in that capacity. If Mr. Read, in saying that the power of the State cannot INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 53 be restrained, •simply meant that .it cannot ,be legally re strained, his remark had no fitness as an answer to Anarchists and voluntary taxationists., , They do·not, propose to legally re strain it. They propose to create a public sentiment that will make itimpossible for the State to collrct taxes by force or in. any other way invade the individual. Regarding the State as.an instrument of aggression, they do not expect to convince it that aggression,is against its interests, but they doe:x:pect to c()nvinceindividu~ls "th~t it is ~g~inst their, interests to be.in..

vaded. If ,by this ,means they succeed in stripping the State of its invasive powers, they will be satisfied, and it is im material to them whether the means,is described by the word Urestraine' or by some other word. In fact,! have ,striven in this discussion ,to accommodate myself to Mr., Read's phraseology., Fox myself I do not, think it, proper. to' call' vol untary associations States,'. but, enclosing the word in quota tionmarks,I have so used it because Mr. Read set the example. Mr. ,Frederic A. C. Perrine, of Newark, N. J., asked Mr.. Tucker. for his reason for' refusing to pay poll tax, and incidentally criticised the latter's position on that matter, which brought forth this reply: MR. PERRINE'S.criticism "is an entirely pertinent, one, and o£ the sort that I like,to answer, Ithough in this instance.c~rcum stances have delayed the '.appearance'of his letter. The gist of his position-in £ac;t, the. whole of' his argumen~-is based on the assumption .that the State is precisely the thing which the Anarchists say it isnot,~namely, a voluntary association of contracting individuals., ,Were it. really ·such, I should have no quarrel with it, and.I, should admit the truth of Mr. Per tine's remarks. For certainly such voluntary association would he entitled to enforce whatever regulations the contracting parties might agree. upon within the limits of whatever' ter ritory, or divisions'of territory, had been brought into the association by these parties as individual occupiers thereof, all~, no non-contracting party. would have a right to enter ()rtemain in this domain except, upon such,. terms as the ••,as spciation might, impose.. ,But if, somewhere between, these divisionso£, territory, had lived,. prior to the£ormation o£the 54 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY aSSocIatIon, some individual on his homestead, who for any reason, wise or foolish, had declined to join in forming the association, the contracting parties .would have had no right to evict him, compel him to join, make him pay for any in cidental benefits that he might derive from proximity to their association, or restrict him in the exercise of any previously enjoyed right to prevent him from reaping these benefits.

Now, voluntary association necessarily involving the right of secession, any seceding member would naturally fall back into the position and upon the rights of the individual above de scribed, who refused to join at all. So much, then, for the attitude of the individual toward any voluntary association surrounding him, his support thereof evidently depending upon his approval or disapproval of its objects, his view of its efficiency in attaining them, and his estimate of the advantages and disadvantages involved in joining, seceding, or abstaining. But no individual to-day finds himself under any such cir cumstances. The States in the midst of which he lives cover all the ground there is, affording him no escape, and are not voluntary associations, but gigantic usurpations. There is not one of them which did not result from the agreement of a larger or smaller number of individuals, inspired sometimes no doubt by kindly, but oftener by malevolent, designs, to declare all the territory and· persons within certain boundaries a nation which everyone of these persons must support, and to whose will, expressed through its sovereign legislators and administrators no matter how chosen, everyone of them must submit. Such an institution is sheer tyranny, and has no rights which any individual is bound to respect; on the con trary, every individual who understands his rights and values his liberties will do his best to overthrow it. I think it must now be plain to Mr. Perrine why I do not feel bound either to pay taxes or to emigrate. Whether I will pay them or not is another question,-one of expediency. My object in refus il}g has been, as Mr. Perrine suggests, propagandism, and in the receipt of Mr. Perrine's letter I find evidence of the adap tation of this policy to that end. Propagandism is the only motive that I can urge for isolated individual resistance to tax ation. But out of propagandism by this and many other methods I ·expect there ultimately will develop the organiza tion of a determined body of men and women who will effecINDIYIDUAL LIBERTY'S,.

tOvely,thopgh p~ssively, resist, taxation, not simply forpropa andism,·.but to. directly· cripple their.oppressors. This. is.the e~ent of the only ccviolentsubstitution afend for beginning U hich. I can plead. guilty .. ofadyoca ting, and, if the.·end. can e ttbetter and more easily obtained" in any other way, .I S ould·like .to have it pointed out. The cCgrand.raceexpe ence" .which Mr. Perrine thinks I~neglectis a very imposing/ hrase,.on hearing which one is moved to lie down in prostrate s .bm.ission; .but . whoever hrst .chances to take a closer look iUsee that it is. but one of those .spooks of which Tak Tak James L. Walker, author· of cCThePhilosophy of Egoism"] ells us. Nearly aU the evils with which. mankind was ever fflicted were products of this ccgrand race experience," and I rrino~ aware that any were ever abolished by showing it any nneccessary reverence. We. will bow to.it when we must; e will ucompromisewith existing circumstances" when,we ave to; but at. all other times we win' follow our· rea-son and , he•plumb-line.

When. I .said that voluntary association necessarily involves . he right ·of secession,.I. did not· deny the .right .ofany inai ... iduals to go through the form of constituting themselves n association in which each member waives.the right. of seces ion. .My.'assertion was simply mea.ntto carry the idea that uch a constitution, if any' should be .. so idle as to adopt· it, ould be: a mere form, .which every decent man who was a arty to it would hasten to violate and tread under foot.as oon as he appreciated the enormity of his folly. Contract is, very service~hle and most. important tool,' .but its usefulnes,s as its limits ; no man can employ it for the abdication of his anhood. To indefinitely, waive one's right of secession.is o make one's self· a slave. Now, no man can make himself o much .a slave as to forfeit the right to issue his own eman ipation proclamation. Individuality and its, right of asser ion are Indestructible except by death. Hence any signer fsuch a. constitution as' that· supposed who should after ..

ards' become .an Anarchist would be fully justified' in. the se of any means that would protect him from attempts to oerce .him in the name of that con~titution. .But even if this erenotso;.ifmenwere really under obligation,to keep ,im ossible'.contr~cts,---.there would· still be .no inference'to be S6 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. drawn therefrom regarding the relations of the United States to its so-called citizens. To assert that the United States constitution is similar to that of the hypothesis is an extremely wild remark. Mr. Perrine can readily find this out by read ing Lysander Spooner's ((Letter to Grover Cleveland." That masterly document will tell him what the United States con stitution is and just how binding it is on anybody. But if the United States constitution were a voluntary contract of the nature described above, it would still remain for Mr. Per rine to tell us why those who failed to repudiate it are bound, by such failure, to comply with it, or why the assent of those who entered into it is binding upon people who were then unborn, or what right the contracting parties, if there were any, had to claim jurisdiction and sovereign power over that vast section of the planet which has since been known as' the United States of America and over all the persons contained .therein, instead of over themselves simply and such lands as they personally occupied -and used. These are points which he utterly ignores. His reasoning consists of independent propositions between which there are no logical links. Now, as to the ((grand race experience." It is perfectly true that, if we have anything grand, it is this, but it is no less true that, if we have anything base, it is this. It is all we have, and, being all, includes all, both grand and base. I do not deny man's grandeur, neither do I deny his degradation; con sequently I neither accept nor reject all that he has been and done. I try to use my reason for the purpose of discrimina tion, instead of blindly obeying any divinity, even that Qf man. We should not worship this race experience by imitation and repetition, but should strive to profit by its mistakes and avoid them in future. Far from believing in any Edenic state, I yield to no man in my strict· adherence to the theory of evolution, but evolution is ((leading us up to Anarchy"

simply because it has already led us in nearly every other di rection and made a failure of it. Evolution like nature, of which it is the instrument or. process, is extremely wasteful and short-sighted. Let us not imitate its wastefulness or even tolerate it if we can help it; let us rather use our brains for the guidance of evolution in the path of economy. Evolu tion left to itself will sooner or later eliminate~ every other social form and leave us Anarchy. But evolution guided will INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 57 try to discover Ithe common element in its past failures, sum marily. reject everything having this element, and straight way accept Anarchy, which has it not. Because we are the products of evolution we are not therefore to be its puppets. On the contrary, as our intelligence grows, we are to be more and mor,e its masters. It is .just becaus~ we let it master us, just because we strive to act with it rather than across its path, just because we dilly-dally and shilly..shally and fritter away our time, for instan~e, oyer. secret ballq ts, open· ballots~ and the like, instead of treating the whole matter of the suf frage from the standpoint of principle, that we do indeed ((pave the way," much to our. sorrow, (Cfor those great revo lutions" and tcgreat'epochs" when extremists suddenly 'get the upper hand. Great epochs, indeed! Great disaste~s rather, which it behooves us vigilantly to avoid. But how? By being extremists now. .If there were more extremists in evolution ary periods, there would be. no revolutionary periods. There is no lesson more important for mankind to learn than that.

Until it is learned, Mr. Perrine will talk in vain about the divinity of man, for every day will' make .it more patent that' his god is but a jumping-jack. I have never said that it is Headi man's duty to break all contracts as soon as he.hasbecome convinced that they w~re made foolishly." What I said was that, if a .man should sign a contract to part with his liberty. forever, he would violate it as soon as he saw the enormity of his folly. Because ,1 'believe that some promises are better' broken than kept,. it does not follow that I think it wise alw~ys to break a foolish promise. On the contrary, I deem the keeping of promises such an· importantimatter that only in the .,extremest cases would I approve~heir. violation. It is of such vital conse quence that associ~tesshould be able t~ rely upon each other that it is better never to do anything to .weaken this confidence except when it can be maintained only ,at the expense of some consideration of even greater importance. I mean by evo lution just what' Darwin means by it,-namely, theproces~ of selection by which, out. of all the variations tha,t occur £romany cause whatever,'only. those'are preserved which •• are best adapted to the environment. Inasmuch as the variations that perish vastly outnumber those that survive~ this process is•.extremely . wasteful, .but. human intelligence. can greatly INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY lessen the waste. I am perfectly willing to admit its optim ism if by'optimism is meant the doctrine that everything is for the best under the circumstances. Optimism so defined is noth ing more than the doctrine of necessity. As to the word ((deg_ radation," evidently Mr. Perrine is unaware of all its mean ings. By its derivation it implies descent from something higher, but it is also used by the best English writers to ex press a low condition regardless of what preceded'it. It was in the latter sense that I used it.