Why Taxation Is Theft: No Contract Enforcement

Taxes are a one-way street in terms of government officials using the funds responsibly. They go to government, but the government has no legal obligation, no legal liability, no contractual liability, if it wastes the money it extracts from you forcibly.

If a government is constitutionally obligated to provide a service funded by taxes, this might be thought of as a social contract. For example, the Michigan constitution appears to enunciate a joint State and school district obligation to provide free education: “The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.”

When confronted with public education malpractice lawsuits, however, courts routinely throw them out of court. This being the case, there is no way to enforce the constitution’s apparent quid pro quo: education in exchange for taxes. In turn, this means that with respect to education, the social contract is mythical. If you cannot enforce a contract in which money has changed hands for a service, even if forcibly so through taxes, the contract is unreal. It’s a fake. It’s a fraud.

It is no surprise that a federal court would toss out a lawsuit in Michigan claiming a right to literacy since there is no such right in the abstract. There is at best a claim of education malpractice, or a failure to supply the constitutionally-mandated education, but this claim is exactly what courts routinely do not enforce.

A similar situation occurs with respect to police malpractice. Even though governments forcibly extract taxes to fund police, “…there is no constitutional right to be protected by police against exposure to danger.”

Police and other government officials have “sovereign immunity“: “Under the rules of sovereign immunity, judges and certain other government employees cannot be sued for their official acts.” If taxpayers cannot sue police or any government officials for malpractice, then any notion of a social contract is rendered useless, futile, nonexistent, nugatory.

Libertarians routinely say that “Taxation is theft“, and this is correct because taxes are taken without explicit consent. This leaves open the possibility that there is a so-called “social contract”, which in essence means that government provides services in exchange for the taxes. This possibility fails because there is no way for taxpayers to enforce the hypothetical contract. They can’t sue for malpractice or failure to deliver the promised services.

The revolutionary slogan was “Taxation without representation is tyranny”. That seemed to be good enough at the time, but only if the people held their representatives strictly to account and were willing to have a revolution every generation or so. We have learned better. The government has built a BORDER WALL around itself consisting of its own legalities that isolate its monopolistic provision of services from the monitoring and control of the people. Lawsuits are not an allowed remedy, according to government rules. What does that leave as alternatives but messy political processes and pressures that include mass movements, capture of government by special interests, corruption, subterfuge, deceit, payoffs and violence?

Share

12:11 pm on July 2, 2018