Consent of the Homebodies…

The most common interaction we have with the state is thus; the state demands property that we regard as our own, and if we refuse to hand this property over it sends men with guns to our house. If we resist these men with guns, they imprison us. If we resist too effectively, they kill us. This is true of every modern nation-state. Liberal democracies differ from authoritarian states in that they allow us to complain loudly about the process, to minimize its arbitrariness, and to have some (very) small say in how our property is reallocated. This difference isn't trivial, but it isn't as large as normally assumed.

Robert Farley, Lawyers, Guns and Money

I want to come back to one part of my previous post on consent, specifically my assertion that collection of taxes by the state isn’t theft or extortion. As evidenced by the quote above, many political scientists take the dimmer view that the threat of potentially lethal force – no matter how remote – taints the entire concept of taxation. This is also a formulation that Libertarians often start from to argue that all taxes are immoral.

This is based on the observation that the modern nation-state monopolizes the legitimate use of violence. This is not true of a feudal system, for example, since the various lords under the same king would war with each other. In many large societies in the past, assassination and physical intimidation were considered valid political tools for individuals or powerful families to use. The nation-state is different in that it reserves violence as a tool for exclusive use of state actors, and enforces this monopoly itself with threat of violence.

But modern, liberal nation-states go beyond this. The use of state-sanctioned violence is heavily proscribed by laws and regulations such that if a state actor is allowed use lethal force against you, you will know it. They will wear a uniform, display their weapons, announce their role and give you the opportunity to back down or surrender. Generally the use of violence has been subject to increasing constraints such that in countries that have abolished the death penalty the state use of lethal force against its own citizens is limited to self-defense, which is generally considered legitimate for anyone. The false equivalence between liberal nations and brutal, authoritarian ones in Rob’s quote above heavy handedly ignores this trend away from violence. (He also conflates war and law-enforcement, which is unreasonable, but we’ll pretend he was only talking about taxation.)

We have to ask, if nation-states monopolize the legitimate use of violence, where do they get their legitimacy? In liberal democracies the legitimacy of the state comes from the consent of the governed. We empower the police the enforce laws, and to use violence to a limited extent when doing so. The legitimacy of force, and thus the power the tax, originates not from the barrel of a gun, but from the ballot box.

Liberal nations will also freely issue passports and will generally not interfere with emigration. Although there can be other barriers to free movement such as economics or local politics, many people have left a nation hostile to their wishes and settled in a more suitable country. In the end most Americans stay put because they want to be here, and the US government functions to maintain the conditions in which people want to stay. I’m not saying you should “love it or leave it,” but the fact that you can leave puts lie to the notion that taxation is something against your will.

- jack*