But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Frédéric Bastiat - The Law (1850)
Among the husbands was Shalikov, the tax-collector—a narrow, spiteful soul, given to drink, with a big, closely cropped head, and thick, protruding lips. He had had a university education; there had been a time when he used to read progressive literature and sing students' songs, but now, as he said of himself, he was a tax-collector and nothing more.
Anton Chekhov - The Husband (1886)
In the prosperous year of 1856, incomes of between a hundred and a hundred and fifty pounds were chargeable with a tax of elevenpence halfpenny in the pound: persons who enjoyed a revenue of a hundred and fifty or more had the honour of paying one and fourpence. Abatements there were none, and families supporting life on two pounds a week might in some cases, perchance, be reconciled to the mulct by considering how equitably its incidence was graduated.
George Gissing - Born in Exile (1892)
2 comments:
The normal counter to arguments like those of Bastiat is to say that property rights only exist at all because the state guarantees them. The law is fundamental and it makes no sense to talk of ownership or rights which are "natural".
They do have a point - what are "natural rights"? - but it leads inexorably to Starmerism and totalitarianism. The state owns the money, and all our property. We just get loaned it. While it's convenient.
Sam - yes, arguments against Bastiat lead to Starmerism and totalitarianism. It's why the small state argument needs to be heard, but to achieve that we need genuinely liberal political parties, but the democracy we have now doesn't deliver that.
Post a Comment