In the heat of a summer night
In the land of the dollar bill
When the town of Chicago died
And they talk about it still

When a man named Al Capone
Tried to make that town his own
And he called his gang to war
With the forces of the law

I heard my mama cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother what a night it really was
Brother what a fight it really was
Glory be

I heard my mama cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother what a night the people saw
Brother what a fight the people saw
Yes indeed

And the sound of the battle rang
Through the streets of the old east side
'Til the last of the hoodlum gang
Had surrendered up or died

There was shouting in the street
And the sound of running feet
And I asked someone who said
Bout a hundred cops are dead

I heard my mama cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother what a night it really was
Brother what a fight it really was
Glory be!

I heard my mama cry
I heard her pray the night Chicago died
Brother what a night the people saw
Brother what a fight the people saw
Yes indeed

And there was no sound at all
But the clock upon the wall
Then the door burst open wide
And my daddy stepped inside
And he kissed my mama's face
And he brushed her tears away

The night Chicago died
The night Chicago died
Brother what a night the people saw
Brother what a fight the people saw
Yes indeed

The night Chicago died
The night Chicago died
Brother what a night it really was
Brother what a fight it really was
Glory be

The night Chicago died
The night Chicago died
Brother what a night the people saw
Brother what a fight the people saw
Yes indeed

I know we've been over this before. But I'm still trying to help you. I keep showing up your nonsense argument for what it is:

Myth: Taxes are theft.

Fact: Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.

Summary

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.


Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians make the following populist argument:

"If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and seize your property."

The implication here is that you are being extorted to pay taxes, and this theft amounts to a violation of your rights. Although the events described are technically correct -- you should expect such a response from any crime you commit -- the implication that the government is aggressing against you is false, and not a little demagogic.

Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services. Even libertarians agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response. So the real question is not whether a crime should be met with "men with guns," but whether or not the social contract is valid, especially to those who don't agree with it or devote their allegiance to it.

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly, is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill.

Many conservatives and libertarians concede the logic of this argument, but point out that taxes do not go exclusively to public goods and services. They also go for welfare payments to the poor who are allegedly doing nothing and getting a free ride from the system. That, they claim, is theft.

But this argument fails too. Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this). If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.

We should also note that the program most popularly known as "welfare" -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- takes up less than 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. (1) That tax critics would raise such a big stink over such a paltry sum begs an explanation. Their typical response to this is to expand the definition of welfare. But suppose we include all programs that involve one-way transfers of wealth with no expectation of immediate repayment or return services. According to the Library of Congress, in 1992 such expenditures at the federal, state and local level came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion. (2) It still seems incredible that such fiery anti-tax rhetoric is reserved for 12 percent of a person's taxes. But keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. Voters have ultimately agreed that these programs provide not just social insurance, but social investment. Certainly our society benefits by enabling more young people to attend college. Some may dispute the need for such social insurance and investment, but the majority of voters have (ultimately) agreed to put it in our social contract.

And this brings us to the second line of liberal argument: the best form of social contract is majority rule. It's not perfect, but its better than minority rule and still better than one-person rule. Government by unanimous consent is impractical, since it almost never happens, and society by anarchy results in "kill or be killed." So what do libertarians and conservatives propose in democracy's stead?

Of course, nearly all democracies have constraints on majority rule, designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. In the U.S., these are embodied in our constitution. But to be legitimate, a constitution must be a document of the people; hence it must be approved by the majority. (In the U.S., a supermajority.) And the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But should the constitution allow taxation? If conservatives and libertarians feel that it should not, then it is up to them to describe a constitutional or political system that would work better than majority rule. Do they prefer minority rule? Or dictator rule? The only alternative to these historical atrocities is self-rule -- but again, that's anarchy, kill-or-be-killed.

Of course, some may wish to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment. But if they do, then they are legitimizing the social contract… which hardly puts them in a position to call taxation "theft."

Understanding the above points allows you to see through common anti-tax arguments. Here is a real example taken from the Internet:

The "How Many Men?" Argument (1)

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?


This argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy the car, pitching in with a loan that covered 29 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place…

Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.

Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.

2. Ibid.

A Earle would say:

I went downtown, it was just to ease my pain
I took my pistol and a hundred dollar bill
I had everything I needed to get me killed

if you think spending 1.22 for every dollar is bad, then you really dont want to know what the govt pays to make one dollar bill.

the markets were manipulated. perhaps let the forensic analysts put together a narrative... and obviously, the person is going to be rich?

this is real terrorism...this would be a great way to fight your "enemy"... somehow got in cahoots with people who control vasts moneies/resources and have similar ideology... understanding how to manipulate the market takes less time then blowing up the country physically. (apparently)

it's greed and fear, either way... and i just dont have any money anyway so i can only not be afraid and not be greedy... and want to educate myself. thats a good place for anyone to start i think.

rich men will end up needing comforts that cant be bought.

All that anticipation, and no bruises from the fan blades. I'm taking my dollar bills back.

1. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, unanimously ratified by the US Senate.

2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

3. The First Amendment is the ONLY mention of religion in the entire constitution. There is no mention of god in the constitution.

4. The supreme court has clarified the first amendment in the form of the Lemon Test. In order to be constitutional, a law must pass all three of the following requirements:
a. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
b. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
c. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

5. James Madison, principal author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was a vociferous advocate of separation of church and state: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

Madison made these remarks to argue against a proposed law that would have funded churches with tax money (Almost what Bush is doing through the back door with OFBCI). Instead of supporting religion with taxes, Jefferson authored and Virginia passed (with Madison's support) the Virginia statute on religious freedom. This act states:

"[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right."

Under such a doctrine I could not be compelled to contribute tax money to the hiring of chaplains for congress and the supreme court, nor printing religious slogans on dollar bills ("In God We Trust"), nor paying teachers to teach religious slogans ("one nation under God").

This just in: George Washington owned black people and forced them to work on his property. Will this hurt his Mount Rushmore chances? It's possible, and he may even lose his chance to be on the 1 dollar bill.

More state-sponsored propaganda at 11.

Were this a Bush kerfuffle and Team Bush did its own investigation, do you think there's a moonbat within 3000 miles who wouldn't call FOUL?

Were this a Bush kerfuffle, he'd refuse to "comment on an ongoing investigation". See how he handled Fitzgerald's (the same Fitzgerald, in fact) investigation into the Valerie Plame mess. Unlike this case with Blagojevich, people in Bush's camp were directly targeted by that investigation, and not only did he not disclose any information publicly (exculpatory or otherwise), he actively stonewalled the investigation. There's suspicion, voiced by Fitzgerald himself, that that includes the perjury of Scooter Libby, a suspicion deepened by Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence.

If some Senator from Texas had gotten involved in a bribery scandal after the 2000 election, I doubt Democrats, or their netroots, would try to tie it to Bush, especially if there was actual evidence that made such a tie unlikely (like we have in the Blagojevich case). Probably there would still be moonbats making the accusation, but they wouldn't be supported by the mainstream of either the Democratic party, or the progressive movement -- we'd call them moonbats ourselves.

NetStumbler, the Party of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds and now this Blago criminal scumball thank you for your ad hominem attacks, but face it, trying to be witty, you're no Al Franken. Don't let your keyboard write checks your monitor can't cash.

So let me get this straight, I am the one making ad hominem attacks?

Didn't you just threaten violence right there?

I'm still waiting for you to prove your innocence of the sodomy charges I assume you're involved in.

BTW, ad hominem would mean that I'm making an argument by attacking the character of the speaker. Read my comments on this again, and you'll notice this gag is a counterexample putting you in the seat of the accused, not an attack on your character. I don't think there's anything wrong with being homosexual, and it certainly doesn't make your arguments weak; your arguments are weak because they're based on ad hominem attacks, now directed at me. In a Rovian twist, you're also "projecting", and saying I'm doing what you in fact are doing yourself.

So, prove your innocence, as you want Obama to, or I'll yell to every media outlet that'll listen how you're queerer than a three dollar bill. If people start thinking you're gay, it's your fault for not being forthcoming enough with evidence.

It's okay, liberals will still welcome you with open arms, at least until you start calling them names for being who they are.

You guys really didn't have a clue?

She openly admitted she went to strip clubs putting dollar bills on women's panties.

Yeah there's no universal rule saying 'if a girl goes to a strip club she's a lesbian'. But actively seeking strip clubs to see naked chicks, that's a little out of normal female behavior, no?


Even without that comment I kinda figured she was on the butch side, with the way she talks, the roles she takes on tv shows, the jokes she makes etc etc. I may not have a keen gaydar, but I definately have a strong lezdar.

Well there is a more basic idea than law at stake here as VJ points out. Making just owning a gun a crime is an overly huge power of the government, much akin to prohibition of alcohol. However, I can't say I agree with his anarchism.

I think the main ploy to the ordinary man to give up his second amendment rights to bear arms usually comes with the idea of enhanced safety of all. If people don't have guns, then less violent crime will happen, or at least the violent crime won't be as easy to comment and take to the point of lethality. But this is a slippery slope of logic that I don't see any reasonable ending point to. You can carry that argument in every direction without bounds that aren't completely subjective. For instance, cars make bank robberies much easier to commit. Should the general populous not have access because it would make all of our dollar bills safer?

Gun laws seem very close in relation to drug laws, to make criminals out of people that have committed no other crime than possessing something. That is a moral problem. How is it right for a person to be brought to trial for committing no crime against his fellow man. A man going to jail because of his hypothetical use of a device in a violent manor is unjust and has no logical end.

No one can ignore the horrible atrocities that have happened in the recent upsurge of school shootings. The ease in which massive harm can be committed with automatic weapons is all to apparent. But making guns illegal doesn't solve that problem. In fact, it only gives power to those rouge elements in society that have no respect for the law. I find a similar parallel in the video game industry with all the new copyright protection methods. Hackers easily thwart all the new countermeasures within weeks or less, but the ordinary person has to deal with a whole new level of stress when dealing with the program (program stalls, interference with hardware settings and various others). I am not commenting on the legality of these copyright measures, but how they negatively affect the ordinary person and do nothing to stop the criminal.

It is a fact that in a free society, horrible things will happen. When such a thing happens, it is the immediate instinct to react. And what better way to react than with the false but convincing argument that more government controls will help the situation. You can outlaw criminal behavior as much as you want, but that doesn't eliminate crime. The fact is, the more unnecessary laws you create the more criminals you create, of which most are collateral damage, ordinary persons thrown in jail in the pursuit of unobtainable perfect safety.

In a free society, we have to get used to the fact that instead of a monarch committing atrocities on us, it will be our neighbors. A hard but certain truth when considering any law you would wish to create. In that, you want all the liberties you can get to ensure you freedoms will be preserved.

you could put two five dollar bills between her two front teeth

Something tells me someone by the nick "CeeZaar" has something to do with this.

I can't quite put my finger on it.

Good thing that crappy Rap music was playing over the ear-bleeding sound of squealing tires.

"Got hundred dollar bills in the bank..."
Really? What bank? A safe-deposit bank? A piggy bank? INQUISITIVE MINDS NEED TO KNOW!

>> ^quantumushroom:
The debate is on. Now the question is, would Obama like his ass handed to him or would he like it in a doggie bag?
What we all need right now is change and with it, the hope of a dream. I am dreaming that change will be in the well of hope, that we might all stand together in unity, because the opposite of that unity is standing apart. Many Black Americans didn't have the same opportunities as I, because like me they were not on the dollar bills. Those people on the dollar bills appear all in green, and as I must remind you every two minutes, I am partly African- American in background so if I am accused of being green, that cannot be the hopeful change we all seek to unify.


Well since it is safely after the debates I can safely say this.

Dude QM, You seen the news man, Like McCain lost homes.

Sure he's a good public speaker but that isn't going to do shit when it comes to actually fixing the economy.

What we all need right now is change and with it, the hope of a dream. I am dreaming that change will be in the well of hope, that we might all stand together in unity, because the opposite of that unity is standing apart. Many Black Americans didn't have the same opportunities as I, because like me they were not on the dollar bills. Those people on the dollar bills appear all in green, and as I must remind you every two minutes, I am partly African- American in background so if I am accused of being green, that cannot be the hopeful change we all seek to unify.

My plan to tax ONLY "the rich" will surely not harm you middle class and lower income people, the same way leaving a sunflower in darkness and giving it very little water will not stunt its growth. We are all interconnected in unity until it's time to blame others for the failures of still others. Do not ask me about issues, I am busy having a dream, always having a dream of hope and can't be bothered with clarity that doesn't unify the message of change!

The debate is on. Now the question is, would Obama like his ass handed to him or would he like it in a doggie bag?

What we all need right now is change and with it, the hope of a dream. I am dreaming that change will be in the well of hope, that we might all stand together in unity, because the opposite of that unity is standing apart. Many Black Americans didn't have the same opportunities as I, because like me they were not on the dollar bills. Those people on the dollar bills appear all in green, and as I must remind you every two minutes, I am partly African- American in background so if I am accused of being green, that cannot be the hopeful change we all seek to unify.