Revolutionary Opinion They all say, ?Taxation without representation is tyranny.? Those revolutionary fools! Surely they jest! I am well aware that many of my fellow townspeople believe in this notion.
It is rather sensible, after all. Who really likes to pay taxes? Not I! However, all those that subscribe to this train of thought are living in a dream world. In reality, it is the other way around. ?Representation without taxation is tyranny.? Revolution is futile and will only result in more taxes for the whiners to gripe and moan about.
Frankly, I?ve had enough.A few days ago, I saw some protesters walking down the road chanting and marching with signs that read Taxation Without Representation Is Tyranny.? I seem to remember that other Americans also once expressed similar views. Most people would now regard that point as a fair one.
I am no great fan of democracy, as I prefer liberty, but even I can agree that people who are taxed but not allowed to vote are likely to be more than averagely oppressed by those who can vote. This then prompted me to consider the converse proposition: Representation Without Taxation Is Tyranny. It would, of course, be a fallacy to think that this is entailed by the first proposition, but surely it is just as reasonable.If we must have state services, it should at least be for those who pay for them to vote for which services they want and how much they wish to pay. To allow those providing, or living off, the services to vote is like allowing a shopkeeper to vote on what you must buy from him, or a beggar to vote on what you must give him.
Naturally, I hear them say, ?but doesn't everyone pay tax, at least on goods and services?? Furthermore, is it not trivially true, insofar as morals can be ?true?? No, they do not and it is not. Not by a long shot. Lord Grenville, everyone?s favorite exchequer, has recently been parading around town saying how he realizes that the recent practices of taxation have been unfair and how he relates to the feelings of the townspeople.He even went so far as to state, or shall I say lie, about how much he strongly dislikes his job because he, like everyone else, has to pay taxes. I scoff at this, as it has been fortuitously proven that since he is paid by the state, he is not a true taxpayer. Consider state distribution of taxes.
We can see that this must create two social categories: those who are net taxpayers, as most of the townspeople are and those who are net tax recipients, like Lord Grenville. Only the net taxpayers can be said to provide the state with tax funds.The net tax recipients are paid out of taxation, plus any payments in newly created state currency that effectively taxes those who hold money. This proves that people who are state-paid cannot be genuine taxpayers. Proof of this is that if their jobs were abolished the state would have more money to spend elsewhere, unlike those jobs in the genuinely taxpaying sector. To take a clear case, when a direct state-employee, such as a civil servant (let?s just say Lord Grenville for an example,) receives his salary check there will be an apparent deduction for the amount of tax that he pays.
As a matter of fact, this is a mere bookkeeping exercise designed to keep up the pretense that he is a taxpayer along with everyone else.Abandoning this pretense of taxpaying and simply paying him less in the first place would save taxpayers' money in administration and make the political reality clearer to all, as opposed to being a blurry, vague cloud of smoke as it is now. Now, I am not arguing (here at least) that the people who live off taxation are social parasites. On the contrary, I would enjoy very much to be one of the ?lucky? ones.
For the sake of argument, I am prepared to grant the (absurd) assumption of so many superior state services that the state ought to employ half the population. Anyway, my point is that it should be clear who is paying what to whom and that those who are being paid cannot be allowed to decide what is to be paid for, which is what allowing them to vote does. This is an absolute injustice, a tyranny that destroys the wealth and liberty of the real taxpayers.Wouldn't allowing only taxpayers to vote be socially divisive? The social divide is there already. This is merely a demand that it be unmasked and that those who do not pay taxes be stripped of their privilege to vote themselves. However, while there is sense to the idea that taxpayers and tax recipients are at odds with each other, for every gain to the tax recipient is a greater loss to the taxpayer in a destructive struggle, there is no truth in the idea that workers are at odds with capitalists, for there are gains to both sides, and to the consumer too, in the process of production.
If only the genuine taxpayers are voting for services that they want, then any conflict between the two tax classes is reduced dramatically. That would be a welcome change. So now answer me this: why should people who are not taxpayers be allowed to vote money away from those who are? I defy you to come up with an answer.They shouldn?t possess the ability; I agree with that.
Rebelling is stupid as nothing really comes of it. Now there is all this controversy and hoopla regarding the ?revolutionaries,? if they can call themselves that, and their ?superior wits? finally allowing them to see the ?writing on the wall,? so to speak. They?ve just begun to realize that these taxes that they?ve been complacent with for so long are beginning to affect them directly. Previous to this, the taxes were indirect, and they were derived from various duties and products that people needed or wanted. Therefore, consumers could have a sense of control over specific taxes by not using the duties or buying the products that have them.
Some taxes were inevitable though, such as payment for ministers or updates to the town center, which most people did not mind. The idiotic rebels have just discovered that Lord Grenville from the mother country of England has decided to force the colonists to pay for some of the 140,000,000? worth of debt that was incurred from the war that just passed. My Loyalist brethren and I think that it?s a fine and fair idea. Nevertheless since we think the idea is good, the revolutionaries must be somewhere screaming ?corruption? from the mountaintops. I must say the rebels are quite unnerving.What the mother country has recently begun to do is requiring all townspeople to pay taxes.
Some people have been evading the indirect taxes but now all that will change due to the beginning of direct taxes such as sales tax on everything that is sold and property tax to be paid annually by anyone that owns land. Lately the anarchists have been saying things that are pure rubbish; taxation is not just about money, but is also about limitations on our liberties. Bah! Honestly, I must say I am quite sad for the old blokes. It appears as if they are now just fueled by thoughts of conspiracy and fiction.They also claim that the reason why England has left a miniature standing army here is to keep us in line.
Really, now that?s just ridiculous. The idiocy just oozes from them. The revolutionaries have brought up many a point repeatedly regarding literal and virtual representation versus taxation. Aha, now all of their infernal rabble-rousing is making sense.To be perfectly honest, I really didn?t know what the difference was until Farmer Wilson from down the river explained it to me at market.
Literal (or actual) representation means that we in the colonies have a person sent to England to attend meetings regularly and voice our concerns. Virtual representation involves women, children, and those people that do not own property to be represented by Parliament since we are all too far away to have actual representation. I?m so sick of all of this. I hope sincerely that the rebels will give in and let Virginia return to its kind, docile state that it once was in before all of this chanting and marching hogwash. All they are doing is aggravating Mother England, something we really shouldn?t do as it will reduce to rubble the favorable commercial trade relationship that we?ve achieved. If they don?t surrender their outlandish ideals at some point in the near future, who knows what kind of havoc they will wreak on all of our once-peaceful lives.
I hate to admit it, but the more these radicals speak their crazy falsehoods, the more I feel like joining their cause. In between all of the nonsensical jabbering that takes place, many intelligent discussions occur. Oh, I do fear that the wretchedness is getting to me. If this doesn't cease soon, I may (perish the thought) become a revolutionary myself! American History.
