Progress pill
How freedom works

Power through taxation and monetary manipulation

Freedom as a Social Project

Power through taxation and monetary manipulation

  • Taxation: contribution versus confiscation
  • Deficit and debt: taxing those who cannot defend themselves
  • Money as an instrument of domination
  • War and the denial of secession

Taxation: contribution versus confiscation

The fundamental distinction between contribution and confiscation is the starting point for any honest reflection on the practices of unfreedom. What separates a legitimate tax from a form of organised plunder? The liberals of the French tradition answered this question with care, and their answer remains instructive.
Pierre de Boisguilbert (1646-1714), the Norman magistrate who devoted his retirement to a devastating critique of the fiscal system of Louis XIV, was among the first to identify the distinction with precision. In his Détail de la France (1695), he wrote:
"The prince who takes from his subjects more than is necessary to maintain order and security does not thereby become richer; he merely becomes the instrument of their impoverishment, and in impoverishing them, he impoverishes himself. For the wealth of the sovereign flows from the wealth of the nation; and the nation that is bled dry has nothing left to give. The fiscal system of France has crossed this threshold: it no longer finances the state; it destroys the productive capacity from which alone the state can draw its revenues."
In other words, confiscatory taxation is self-defeating even on its own terms: it kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. The sovereign who taxes beyond the margin of legitimate contribution is not accumulating power; he is consuming it.
Frédéric Bastiat developed this idea of an exchange of service for service, insisting that taxes must be legible, so that every taxpayer knows precisely what he receives in return for his contribution:
"A legitimate tax is simply the price of a service: the service of security, of justice, of the enforcement of contracts. Like any price, it should be proportional to the service rendered and agreed upon by the payer, at least implicitly. The tax that goes beyond this and finances the preferences, the ideals, or the projects of those in power is no longer a price; it is a tribute. And a tribute is a form of subjugation."

Deficit and debt: taxing those who cannot defend themselves

Alexis de Tocqueville, after his voyage to the United States, identified with particular clarity the democratic problem of public spending. Political power, however well-intentioned, cannot be thrifty. The fundamental mechanism is the rupture of the link between enjoyment and payment: individuals have a natural tendency to shift burdens onto others while enjoying the benefits themselves.
Tocqueville expressed this with characteristic melancholy in his notes on democracy:
"The democratic legislature is constitutionally incapable of economy. It represents the living and does not represent the unborn. It can always find a majority willing to enjoy an expenditure and a minority willing to defer its payment. The deficit is therefore not an accident of democratic governance; it is its permanent tendency, restrained only by exceptional circumstances or by constitutional provisions that the democratic logic itself tends, over time, to erode."
In other words, deficits and debt make it possible to pass the cost of services obtained onto future generations, who are unable to defend their interests in the face of decisions that commit them. This practice constitutes a major contradiction with the democratic principle that there should be no taxation without representation. As Tocqueville saw, our grandchildren are not present to defend their pockets. Democracy, which already tends to sacrifice minorities, thus also sacrifices future generations.
Bastiat made the same point more bluntly:
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else. The deficit is the proof that this fiction has been extended to its logical extreme: we are trying to live not merely at the expense of our contemporaries, but at the expense of our descendants. This is not a policy; it is a postponed bankruptcy."

Money as an instrument of domination

In the logic of political domination, money ceases to be a commodity or service like any other and becomes an instrument of power. But what is money, properly understood? And what does its manipulation by political power actually accomplish?
Nicolas Oresme (1320-1382), the Norman bishop and polymath who served as tutor to the future King Charles V of France, addressed these questions in the fourteenth century with a clarity that remains astonishing. His Traictié de la première invention des monnoies (c. 1360) was the first systematic treatise on monetary theory in the Western tradition. He wrote, addressing the king directly:
"The currency belongs to the community that uses it, not to the prince who mints it. The prince has the right to regulate its use; he does not have the right to alter its content for his own advantage. When he debases the coinage, he commits a theft: a theft from all those who hold the currency, a theft diffused across the entire community, and therefore a theft more difficult to identify and to resist than the simple plunder of an individual. It is for this reason that monetary debasement is the most dangerous of all the abuses of political power."
In other words, monetary manipulation is not a technical matter but a political one: an instrument by which the ruler extracts wealth from the population without the visibility and resistance that direct taxation would provoke.
Monetary debasement produces inflation and destabilises prices, for the monetary signal becomes uncertain when the master of the measures of value can arbitrarily alter their content. Freedom offers solutions through competition and innovation. Bills of exchange and banknotes, invented in the Middle Ages, and today private currencies, provide contracting parties with means of exchange that are voluntarily accepted, rather than a currency with no intrinsic value used primarily to finance political power.
Oresme's insight was taken up by the French liberals of the nineteenth century, who identified the paper money of the assignat period as the most extreme modern example of monetary spoliation:
"The assignat was not money in any meaningful sense; it was a forced loan, imposed on all holders of currency, repayable at the pleasure of the government, and liquidated in the end at a fraction of its face value. It was, in other words, a tax: a hidden, regressive, unavoidable tax, falling most heavily on those least able to protect themselves by holding real assets."

War and the denial of secession

Gustave de Molinari paid particular attention to the question of war, observing the contradiction between this archaic mode of international relations and the new phenomena of peaceful production and globalisation. What is war, stripped of its military ceremony? It is, at bottom, a manifestation of the conflicting interests of rulers themselves, who seek to extend their monopoly of territorial domination as an industrialist would seek to increase his clientele.
Molinari was characteristically direct:
"War is the continuation of taxation by other means. Just as the tax collector extracts wealth from the domestic population by force of law, the general extracts wealth from the foreign population by force of arms. The two operations differ in their legal status; they do not differ in their economic nature. Both consist in the transfer of resources from those who produced them to those who hold power over them."
This logic of expansion is a vestige of the feudal system, where the state was conceived as the owner of the nation. The history of territorial transfers between ruling families, by marriage or by sale, illustrates this conception perfectly. The purchase of Louisiana, or later of Alaska, demonstrates the possibility of acquiring not only land but also the right to dominate its inhabitants, who had no say in the transaction.
The doctrine of liberty opposes this logic with the principle of individual and collective secession: the free choice of individuals who belong to themselves and who decide for themselves what political organisation will satisfy their needs. Molinari elaborated:
"A region that wishes to join another country should be free to do so, just as a client is free to change his supplier. A community that wishes to manage its own affairs should be free to do so, just as an entrepreneur is free to set up his own business. The prohibition of secession is nothing other than a monopoly of territorial domination, as indefensible in principle as any other monopoly, and productive of the same evils: high prices, poor quality, and the permanent frustration of those who would prefer an alternative."
Modern constitutions proclaim a single, indivisible republic, prohibiting all collective emancipation. A region cannot join another country, nor can it become autonomous to manage its own public services. This fundamental contradiction in no way prevents states from seeking to conquer new political clienteles, thus perpetuating the very practices of domination they claim to proscribe.
Quiz
Quiz1/5
According to Pierre de Boisguilbert's critique of the Ancien Régime, what fundamental conception underlied the arbitrary taxation system of the late 17th century?