It’s the Fourth of July. People all over America are celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The majority of Americans are employees of large companies or of the government itself. Very few are independent. What does the fourth of July mean to them? They get a day off from work. They have a fourth of July picnic. Maybe in the evening, they watch a fireworks display. If they live out in the country, they might even be setting off their own fireworks. But in many municipalities across the land, the sale of fireworks is illegal. These laws have been enacted for “our own good” to protect us from ourselves. We are so independent now that we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions about our personal well-being.
Americans know that they are commemorating the day when America declared its independence from Britain. But most people don’t think about why that was.
When children are taught about history in the schools, it’s often represented as a break from a monarchical form of government, and the words “republic” and “democracy” are often used interchangeably.
In fact the war of independence was about taxation. It was about the right to be free of from the measures taken by the British government to protect its colonies, and the funding that was needed to pay for that protection. The argument went something like this:
Americans: Stop taking our money away from us.
British: But we need to tax you in order to protect you. It’s for your own good.
Americans: We don’t want your protection.
Did the Colonists need British protection? Were they ungrateful for all the government had done for them? Maybe. Every nation needs protection from marauders. And it certainly was true that the Americans needed protection from the British, as the war of 1812 demonstrated. It’s hard to fight a war with no navy. It’s hard to fund a navy without taxes. It’s hard to maintain your freedom once you decide that for your own protection, you need a standing army. And that’s how we start down that slippery slope that leads to the nanny state.
How far have we slipped? Here’s a video that shows the government at work protecting its citizens from the perils of everyday life:
Much of the machinery for protecting the average citizen from bad food is designed to put independent farmers out of business, while favoring the factory farm.
Is this the inevitable result of independence? Have we jumped from the frying pan and into the fire? Was the war of independence meant to be just the start of another kind of dependence? What would it take for Americans to achieve the sort of personal independence that they used to enjoy as British colonists?
Everybody needs protection from interference from others in their personal lives. That’s why we form governments: to get protection. But who will protect us from the protectors?
© 2011 Aya Katz
There were still taxes after the American Revolution, but the key issue was over taxation without representation in the British Parliament. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 illustrated that Americans cannot just willy nilly disagree to pay taxes. When you live in a free society, it is not a free lunch, but you do have to contribute to that society. Also, being an American I am proud of the government we have, and the protections it provides. If people do not like our tax structure or governmental system, I truly believe there are other places in the world they could live. A country without a governmental structure would be pure chaos, as in the example of Somalia.
Thanks, Sweetbearies, for your comment. I welcome the exchange of ideas. I happen to think the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion was unfortunate. I’ve been reading about the early history of the United States, and I don’t think everything that happened after independence was for the best. Although I know that many people interpret the “no taxation without representation” slogan as being about democratic ideals, I don’t see it as a cart blanch for a government to do what it wants, so long as it has the majority vote supporting it.
There are fewer and fewer places to go that are not beset with corruption. Rather than leave and go elsewhere, people who care stay and fight.
The problem with taxation without representation is even though Americans were angered over this, there were British citizens in their own country that had fewer rights. What angered a minority of Americans was that Britain had neglected their affairs for virtually from the beginning of colonization, and only became more interested in taxing American colonization when they had cash flow problems after the French and Indian Wars. I actually think the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion was the right thing because some taxes are necessary to keep a country functioning. Without a tax structure, who is going to pay for road repairs. I am against the privatization of schools, roads, and laws in the public domain because this will create an upper class of people, and a corporate like government as it were. Structurally America needs more laws than it did after the colonization because our country is bigger, more complex, and diverse. I can trace my ancestors back to some of the earliest settlers of this country, and some of the later ones. Our government may not be perfect, but I disagree with those who want to overhaul it severely. Our government works much better than in many parts of the world such military dictatorship found in Latin America. In the United States we have far more checks and balances than say with someone like Pinochet. Living in a Latin American country where you had to be afraid to saying anything against the government is far more restrictive. Americans have the right to protest their government, and that is more than many other countries allow. Also, complete absence of laws would go against the more liberal majorities in some states. Conservatives cannot dictate how liberals want to run the country, and vice versa. I am glad for the structure of government we have.
Sweetbearies, on reviewing our exchange, it occurs to me that it was tangential to the point of my editorial, since it seemed to be mostly about the right to tax. I mentioned the connection between taxation and protection, but my real focus in this piece was on how destructive unfettered protection can be.
In the long run, the real issue is quality of life. It’s not just that taxes impoverish citizens. We might be willing to pay the taxes, if we were guaranteed freedom to live our lives after paying the tax. But taxes fund government entities that then make serious inroads into our ability to decide for ourselves how we will live.
Are you in favor of regulating lemonade stands out of existence? How would you feel if this happened to your nephews or nieces? Do you really think it is a good thing to deny people access to raw milk or farm fresh eggs? We may owe our country a great many things, but is eating only the food that others choose for us one of our obligations as a citizen?
Let me describe my stance on this. If the girl is just having a lemonade stand in front of her house that is one thing, but she is was using to raise money that inferred with zoning laws. If you live in a rural area a lemonade stand is no big deal, but in urban areas it is a bigger deal. For instance, if someone sell contaminated lemonade at the stand, the city could actually be held liable for allowing this. So if you want to have a lemonade stand in a rural area where no one cares that is fine, but in an urban area there is more accountability.
It is all about the complexity thing. If people live in a more sparsly populated area, I believe locally they should have the right to pass laws that allow them to have lemonade stands. In areas that are more heavily populated, you have to realize there are just a need for more laws Now I have been able to buy fresh vegetables at the farmer’s market here, but yes these local farmers have to follow laws and regulations. I see this as a protection from consumers. What is my largest inspiration for this? Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. If a company, no matter how small, is selling something for profit, they need to follow the laws for sanitation just like everyone else. There are plenty of local growers here that share their vegetables, and even eggs, but they do have to follow city ordinances. I remember reading about the people who died from eating contaminated spinach, and I am thankful we have regulation. In countries like Egypt there is very little government regulation of food sold on the street, or even cars that people drive.
Also, when it comes to the tax structure, I do not see it as off topic, but if you do that is fine. My concern is that people who make more money can afford to pay more taxes. I am very unforgiving of corporations like GE that do not pay tax. I would like to see more of the tax burden actually placed on these larger corporations, who could afford to pay more.
Sweetbearies, I don’t see taxation as off topic, just tangential. I did actually mention taxation in my editorial, so it is certainly not off limits here, but only a small aspect of taxation is what I wanted to address here: the way legitimate government protection can so easily slide into major incursions into personal liberty.
For me, it not about rich people or poor people, but all people. You mention GE as an example of a rich person, but I don’t think of GE as a person at all. The idea that corporations are persons is a legal fiction, and I think you might have seen what I had to say about that elsewhere. (http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Corporate-Entity)
You also have a point about the population density being related to how much regulation people end up submitting to. My father wrote an article about that I republished on Hubpages, and I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read that. It reconciles the views of libertarian and liberals. Here is the URL:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Liberty-and-Justice-Why–How-and-for-Whom
Finally, I think that even in those areas where government involvement seems most appropriate, such as defense funding, the fact that government money is involved, rather than letting the private sector come up with the product, does have a very corrupting effect.
Because people make better decisions when spending their own money on their own needs and pleasures, even the best intentioned and most competent people behave differently, when acting as government employees and public servants. It’s just human nature. And that’s why the government that governs least governs best.
Well, actually the supreme court ruling now treats corporations as individuals, and I was very much against that 2009 ruling. I understand where you are coming Aya from living in a rural area, but these things were just not work here in California. I also would like to see less money spent on any kind of defense or weapons at all, which is where some of my truly pacifist ideals come into play. If it were up to me, we would not be involved in foreign wars, period. However, I do not have a say on that, but when it comes to how individuals spend their money, I am not always sure. When a company is not regulated, who knows what they will sell people. Who will be the watch dog committee then. I see government as the form we have it today as an evolution in the process, working towards something better.
Sweetbearies, as long as there is enough room on the planet in general, and in the U.S. specifically, then city people and country people, like you and me, can agree to disagree and each can have things more their own way in their own neighborhood. But cities tend to spread out into rural areas, just as human populations tend to make incursions on wildlife habitats. If this trend continues, there will be much less opportunity to simply live and let live, and the final resolution will not be a happy outcome for anyone.