He is not free to keep that which is produced as the result of his work. But of what use is this freedom when he can never call even a single square foot of dirt his own to stand on, beholden to none? He is free, it is true, to move about at will – though even this degree of freedom is being systematically taken away. This is a fiction, though perhaps a more palatable one. If he is denied the right to own such property – as by being compelled to make regular payments of money to its in-fact owner – then what does he own, exactly? But he is denied full ownership of anything that would establish that he is a free man, i.e., his home and the land it sits on. He is permitted the illusion that he is his own man – mark the italics. The tax slave is also possessed – just less obviously because less immediately. The slave is owned, physically (and legally) possessed by another person – his owner. The “pursuit of happiness” sounds wonderful – but what does it mean, exactly? How does one reach a state of happiness when one is perpetually beholden to the lamprey that is government? How can one object to the ugly practice of owning human beings when the government lays claim to the property of human beings? Put another way, if it is wrong to own another human being, then how can it be right to assert ownership over another human being’s property?Īre they not merely different expressions of the same principle? Jefferson wrote beautifully but imprecisely. The Declaration is poetry, not straight talk. Like chattel slavery, the property tax was not confronted by the founding generation as preposterously antithetical to the core ideas expressed by the Declaration of Independence. This loathsome business migrated to Great Britain’s American colonies and – startlingly – it was not done away with when the colonies became independent from Great Britain. Which you were permitted to retain possession of so long as you paid the taxes demanded, establishing your status as a tenant. Thus was the principle established that the lord – and not you – fundamentally owned the land. This was based on the value of his land and other holdings. This analogy is historically accurate as the property tax dates back to feudal times, when the lord – the medieval era’s equivalent of a county supervisor today – sent an assessor to gauge a landholder’s ability to pay. The government being the the lord of the land. The property tax establishes the proper relationship – that of renter and landlord. The real benefit – to the government – is establishing the principle (and the fact) that no one will ever be able to fully, truly own their home and land. Which is of course precisely what this tax is meant to do – the money-stealing being an incidental benefit to the government which steals it. That being even the possibility of ever owning your home and land. The most evil of all taxes – the tax on property – is evil not so much because it takes but rather because of what it precludes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |