IF someone forces you to do something you do not want to do, he is denying your right to make your own decisions. The ability to make your own decisions is what most of us would describe as having free will. But if you do exercise your free will, as just described, and you are punished by some terrestrial authority, have you been exercising free will?
Most people would answer, no. You have been punished by a force beyond your control for trying to express your free will.
In other words, you have political free will only if no terrestrial force can punish you as a consequence of your exercise.
There are always, of course, moral consequences of any action. We are familiar with them in the attack of conscience which follows doing something you wish you hadn’t done because it hurt someone.
This kind of free will, governed by conscience, is not the kind of free will that The Voluntary State uses as its method of operation. The Voluntary State gives man the right to use his own free will to make political decisions without any punishment.
Until now, refusal to pay taxes resulted in the use of force against you, through financial penalty or confiscation or jail. This use of force against the exercise of political free will would be abolished by adopting the voluntary tax system _ thus ending arbitrary power, the source of corruption.
There would be an historic shift of power with the establishment of The Voluntary State. The arbitrary power inherent in official positions, once the election process is over, would no longer exist. At present, the voter is largely powerless between elections. In The Voluntary State, the voter would be able to cripple the elected official’s ability to function by withholding tax payments, if the official departed from the program that the voters had agreed to fund. Because taxes would no longer be coercive, the official would be helpless to retaliate. True, the voter would need to make up the taxes he had voted to pay, after the official was forced back into line. But it would not take many instances of this type to establish that the purse strings in the hands of the voters represented an unbreakable rein on the official’s ability to violate his word on what he had pledged.
The pomp and circumstance of office would remain, where necessary for the official to represent his constituency, but those occasions which would then represent empty displays of power would not take place.
The full significance of this shift in power _ from official back to voter _ would be more easily understood and appreciated if we were to change the title of the voter to elector, signifying an increase in the power of the function. All the power of the State would reside in those who held the purse strings.
There would still be legislative, executive and judicial functions which would need to be performed, but with an attitude showing more humility on the part of those performing them. All of the ugly manifestations of corrupting power would disappear when the power itself was brought under control, because the control of the money would no longer be in the hands of those who use it to corrupt others in order to retain power.
The purpose, in The Voluntary State, of restricting the vote to those willing to be responsible members of society is to elect responsible officials. Because neither the voters, nor the officials they elect, would be seeking personal advantage, there would be no way to corrupt either. Both those paying the costs of government voluntarily, and those restricted to the program they pledged to carry out, would have no way to cheat.
The very word politician has come to connote a person who is not to be trusted. Perhaps it was always so.
The source of the distrust comes from the reluctance of the politician to keep his word, because he wants to be re-elected or to keep his appointed position.
He likes the power of office, is corrupted by it. Having tasted it, he is unwilling to do the job he promised his voters. He finds that he doesn’t need to keep his promises, because he can win more votes through dishonesty than through keeping his promises.
Of course, winning more votes always involves the manipulation of money affairs which government can influence, or supporting the vested interests of those whose votes he seeks. The satisfaction of the power of office takes priority over his integrity.
This is the human reaction to a system which can force people to pay against their will, leaving the people with no effective means of controlling their government.
It isn’t so much the caliber of the men who are elected as that the wrong incentives are embedded in our political system. The voters are not, now, made directly responsible to pay for the consequences of their vote. The authority of the vote should be balanced with responsibility for the cost of the consequences, just as in private life.
As it is, irresponsible voters elect irresponsible officials for personal ends. This is, in effect, selling the vote, just as the official is buying the vote.
But under The Voluntary State this buying and selling of votes would become impossible.
The incentive for the voter would then become the same as when he buys products or services in the market _ the best possible value for his money, his voluntary taxes.
This transformation would result in responsible voters electing responsible officials. The effect would, of course, follow the cause.
Instead of politician we would then have your obedient servant.
The enforcement would then be in the hands of the taxpayer _ instead of the hands of the officials of government. Man would be in control at last.
No one would be refused the right to vote and to participate in running the government _ it would be the first time in history that the vote would have a moral base, each man making the decision for himself.
A free press would be there to report on the process.
Violations of campaign pledges could result in immediate withholding of quarterly payments of voluntary taxes. Because no government operates without money, this would force officials, including legislators, into line promptly. It is a direct and open remedy.
That voters would voluntarily pay for the arbitrary bureaucracies now functioning is unthinkable. Government would be simple again and understandable to all.
What, it is asked, would cause people to pay voluntarily? It is because they would at last get what they want _ control of what they are paying for. They pay for refrigerators and cars, burglar alarms and security guards, because they have control. Their safety is dependent on government. Of course they would pay for an honest government they could control.
How about those who would be riding free and refusing to pay?
These are exactly the voters we need to eliminate, who are now irresponsibly using the vote for personal gain. They are riding free already. Let’s either let them ride free but get rid of the votes they sell, or turn them into responsible voters. Their present power to vote in addition to riding free is the worst of worlds.
Ignoring the fact, that subsidy creates more of what is subsidized, has resulted in the trapping of many, even for generations, because of government subsidies, in a growing under-class, bereft of hope, that did not exist at all before the Welfare State.
Who would provide these irresponsibles or unfortunates with a substitute for the money from government programs on which they now live?
Once the victims of the gigantic, now-acknowledged, failure of the Welfare State have been restored to normal life, a prosperous market society _ one without compulsory taxation _ would provide enough profits to allow charitable giving to do as much, or more, for the truly needy as government does now. This is because taxes would be lower, much, much lower, and there would be more money to give.
Elections
How would an election proceed in The Voluntary State?
It is safe to say that in practice we would learn many things.
Here is a procedure that seems to offer a workable way. There could be many variations.
A date would be set for the registration of those planning to participate. It would need to be set far enough in advance of the election for the political parties to use the information derived from the registration to formulate their programs, setting forth the percentages of the voters’ income that would be required to pay for their programs.
On the day of registration, each person intending to vote would submit his expected income for the next year (this information not to be made publicly available.) Then the total of the annual incomes of those intending to vote would be made known to all.
Party A would commit itself to carry out a certain program for, say, ten per cent of each voter’s income. Party B would make a similar commitment, for a twelve per cent tax, which would encompass a more extensive program of services.
After the election, the voter would be obligated to pay the full amount of the taxes when due, no matter which of the parties won the election and whether or not the winner was the party for which he had voted.
Any voter seriously disagreeing with the policies of the party winning the election could withhold his taxes if he chose. Then, at the next election, he could decide whether he wanted to vote again. If he did, he would need to pay what he had committed himself to pay (at the prior election) in order to vote again.
The commitment would cover, say, four years for legislative and executive officials, and would operate as described earlier to discipline the elected officials.
Such an enormous change from the presently known way of running government might cause a reluctance to try it _ in effect, to swap the devil you know for the devil you don’t know. But no great leap of faith would be necessary.
The procedure could be adopted and tried anywhere in one or more small communities. If successful, it could spread to the county level, and from there to one or more of the States.
Finally the voluntary tax system could be tried for Congressional elections, and elections leading to the choice of the President.
By that time there would be a comfort level with the new type of control of the government.
With no necessity to pay taxes there would seem to be little incentive for cheating. However, there would need to be a procedure to take care of any who did so. Citizens’ committees might work best or, if necessary, a grand jury. The society would certainly not need to be without whatever safeguards would make the system work properly.
We should be clear that voluntary taxation would not be like Red Cross contributions. There would indeed be teeth in this system _ with the reward of voting for paying one’s share, or the penalty of not being allowed to vote for not paying one’s share, of the taxes.
Let us review : a voter could make the commitment anew at each election to pay his share of the taxes as his responsibility for the authority of voting. He need not pay taxes, but if he did not he would lose his right to vote. If he made the commitment to pay and did not fulfill it, he would lose his vote until his tax account was paid in full. However, the payment of taxes would always be voluntary.