I was walking my dog the other day and a car drove by with a bumper sticker that said “taxation is stealing.” I assume that the driver’s perspective is that she goes to work, works hard, and then sees the government take a percentage of what she earned. In my head I hear her saying, “Why should the government be able to take my hard-earned money?” Here’s my answer.
When the Enlightenment came, people began rejecting the idea that governments had authority because of a divine right given by God. This led political philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu to develop a new understanding of the relationship between government and people. This is the idea of the social contract, which basically means government by agreement.
In any contract there must be value (called consideration in contract lingo) given by both parties to the contract. In a social contract, generally speaking, the consideration from the people is loyalty and support for the government (which can mean taxes) in exchange for the government providing services and an ordered society. The specific terms of the social contract need to be negotiated and different societies have different agreements.
We began the process of forming our social contract in the United States when we broke free from Britain. Ironically enough, it was taxation that drove the colonies to declare independence. The well-known refrain from the time was “no taxation without representation.” Perhaps the colonists would view the taxation in the late 1700s as stealing because it was being enforced by a government that did not negotiate a deal, but instead imposed its will on them.
As the Revolutionary War began to wind down, the colonists had to decide what kind of social contract an independent America would have. Since we had just been under the yoke of a perceived unfair foreign power (England) our first attempt reflected the states’ concerns over giving up any power to a central authority (that might, for example, tax unfairly). The governing document was called the Articles of Confederation and it created a system with a very weak central government which did not have the power to tax or enforce anything against the states. So, although you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker (or perhaps, at that time, a flag) to say “taxation is stealing” or “no taxation without representation,” the results were pretty disastrous. James Madison described the situation, writing, “Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole.” A grossly underfunded central government was unable to stop trade wars between the states, or currency manipulation, and as a result, the economy was in terrible shape.
Madison, George Washington, and others believed that the remedy was to create a new social contract, so they called for a constitutional convention in 1787. The Constitution, created that summer, although amended 27 times since, is still the governing document that we operate under today. That Constitution gave much more power to the new central government, including the first power listed for Congress, the power to tax. (See Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1.)
Of course, writing a contract and agreeing to a contract are two different things, so this new Constitution had to be ratified [approved]. Special conventions were held in each state and the procedure for selecting delegates was very democratic for its time. While women and most nonwhite people were still not allowed to vote, in many states property requirements for voting were removed for the convention elections. As a result, more people were allowed to vote than ever before.
Additionally, it was a single-issue election. People voted for delegates who were either for or against the Constitution. This is a more purely democratic procedure than modern elections because in modern elections you may vote for a candidate but actually only agree with them on some things but not others.
As Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote, “the various ratifying conventions did aim to represent ‘the People’ in a particularly emphatic way.” Taking the times into consideration, the democratic nature of the process and the fact that eventually all 13 states approved of the Constitution, make it fair to say that “the People” did agree to this new social contract.
So, why are we bound to an agreement made by people over 230 years ago? Well, the Constitution provides for many of the leaders, and in particular the ones that impose taxes, to get their jobs by being elected. Every time we have an election we are in essence agreeing to this social contract and also perhaps, renegotiating some of the terms.
For example, if we elect leaders who want to cut taxes, they might be cut, and if we elect leaders who promise more services, taxes might be raised. The ongoing voice that the people have in our governance is a crucial part of why our Constitution remains one of the longest active social contracts in the world. (By the way, a similar story could be told for the New Hampshire Constitution, which also allows the government to issue taxes. See Article 12.)
It is, of course, legitimate for the people to question the wisdom of their leaders. It is legitimate for the people to complain about government policy, corruption, or waste. It is legitimate to complain about too much taxation or that the government is not providing enough service. However, I do not believe it is correct to characterize taxation as stealing. It is part of our social contract with a government that provides schools, libraries, and the roads we drive on (including the road where I saw the bumper sticker). If you want to change the terms of that contract, vote.
(Dan Marcus teaches at John Stark High School in Weare.)