Percy Blakeney recently made the argument that ‘the proper function of taxation is to raise money for core functions of government’.
The first problem with this is that it ignores the fact that there are lots of other ways in which money can be raised, apart from taxation: Principally user fees, but also penalties, sales of goods and services, donations, raffles, and so on.
So it might be more precise to say that ‘The proper use of taxation is to raise money for core functions of government only after all other avenues have been shown to be ineffectual’.
But there’s still a problem.
If you take the words of the state constitution seriously — not that anyone does, but if you did — taxation isn’t something that the government has the power to do. Article 8 says very clearly that the officers and magistrates of government are the substitutes and agents of the people. A substitute or agent can’t do anything you can’t do. If you can’t force your neighbor to do something, or stop doing something, or pay for something, then you can’t hire a substitute or agent to do it for you. Nor can you elect one to do it.
But if we’re talking about ‘core functions’ of government, what would those be exactly? The reason we’re not still colonies of England is that we put forth a new theory of government to replace the old theory. This theory — spelled out in the Declaration of Independence — asks and answers two fundamental questions:
- Why do we have government? Men form governments to protect their rights.
- From where does government get its power to act? From the consent of the governed.
So the core function of government is to protect rights. Anything beyond that is mission creep.
Our state constitution embodies this theory. Article 1 says that all good government is founded in consent. Could you consent for me, if someone else wants to take my kidney? No. Neither can you consent for me, if someone else wants to take my property. Property that can be taken by majority vote isn’t property at all, because it’s not owned. It’s borrowed.
Article 3 says that when men enter into society, they may surrender some rights in order to ensure the protection of other rights. This cuts to the heart of the relationship between taxes and the core function of government — you can’t take my property without my consent, but if you insist on doing it anyway, you have to use it to protect my other rights.
Not to protect me. To protect my rights. Not to keep me safe, or warm, or fed, or clothed, or medicated, or educated, or employed, or entertained. Not to keep me from making stupid decisions, or engaging in dangerous pastimes. To keep my rights from being encroached upon — whether by my fellow citizens, or by the government itself.
To see where the faults lie with Percy’s analysis, just imagine that, instead of money, taxation is about taking kidneys. If you’re going to take my kidney against my will, do I really care about simplicity, transparency, economic neutrality, equity and fairness, complementarity, or reliability? Not so much.
What I do care about is your being able to show me a very direct line between taking my kidney and protecting my other rights. Very little of what government currently considers to be ‘core functions’ is able to satisfy that requirement.
Which is to say, the current theory of government — which seems to have replaced the one in the Declaration of Independence, without ever being spelled out in writing, or ratified by anyone — is that men form governments to enforce moral codes and redistribute property, and get the power to act from majority rule.
From that perspective, it’s hard to say what could not qualify as a ‘core function’ of government. And to quibble about the mechanisms by which they are carried out is kind of like complaining that the lion who is about to eat you hasn’t brushed his teeth.
