Redistribution of Wealth vs. Permissible Taxation

A fundamental principal of freedom is found in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Any honest inquiry into the historical meaning of the phrase “pursuit of Happiness” will reveal that this phrase was intended to refer to rights over one’s property. And even the dishonest quibblers must concede that a right to life and liberty without a corresponding right to control of property is almost meaningless. Those who believe that these rights are an endowment from mankind’s creator must also acknowledge that human laws that seek to deprive mankind of these unalienable rights are not merely contrary to a political scheme invented by men but are contrary to the will of God.

So, what about taxes? Does it make sense to say that individuals have a natural right to possess the property that they lawfully acquire and still maintain that some form of government taxation is moral? If each individual has a natural right to possess his/her property, then how can government ever justify forcing a citizen to give up a portion of his/her property through taxation?

Utilitarian justifications are clearly inadequate. If an act is wrong, then it is no excuse that the act avoids unpleasant consequences. This is especially true for those who believe that there is more to existence than mortal life, those who believe that morality is more than sentimental feelings of pity and empathy for those who are in pain.

I haven’t yet found a solution to the problem of coercive taxation that satisfies me completely, but at the very least coercive taxation is only justifiable if two conditions are met.

First, the taxation must result in a direct benefit to the individual being taxed. In other words, coercive taxation can only be justified when it looks like a purchase rather than a robbery. In a purchase, an individual gives up property in exchange for some other property or benefit that the individual can use to further his/her goals. Under this type of purchase-like taxation, the only real reason that it is necessary to coerce is to prevent the problem of free-riders: individuals who take advantage of a service and would pay for the service if there were no chance of getting it for free but who otherwise are dishonest enough to let everyone else bear the cost. Conversely, in a robbery one individual uses force to take property from another individual without giving anything in exchange. This robbery-like taxation is what is meant by redistribution of wealth, and is always unjust.

Second, coercive taxation may only be used to fund services that must be provided generally. For example, physical defense must be provided on a general basis; an individual citizen cannot defend against invasion by amassing weaponry and hiring mercenaries to defend his/her home and business. Conversely, it is clearly possible for an individual citizen to purchase medical care without the implementation of a general government program.

There are very few government programs that use tax money in a way that satisfies these two conditions. Some of the popular programs that fail include: public education, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, financial bailout plans, housing subsidies, and any grant of money to a foreign power or international organization. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it should provide enough examples to illustrate the extent to which our politicians are abusing their power and violating their oath of office.