Search the archive.

6. Why should not lawyers have the right and the moral permission to accept immoral causes? Why is it wrong to accept? In order to answer these questions we must first answer the same question posed before with respect to the client: what are the moral reasons that vie in favour of and against accepting. These reasons are certainly prima facie, i.e. defeasible in particular cases. As we shall see, we can always find situations in which these reasons are superseded by others. However, in most cases, there seems to be no moral reason to accept such cases. Instead, there are strong reasons against accepting. The fundamental reason not to accept representation for a client with an immoral purpose is obvious: it is morally wrong to help someone do something wrong. As we have seen, the client has a right to pursue such a purpose in spite of not having moral permission to do so. If the client’s actions are wrong, contributing specifically, and in full awareness, to the performance of such actions must also be (prima facie) wrong. It must be remembered here that considerations related to the adversarial system or the right of defence are no longer relevant. These considerations are sufficient to support a right to accept, but they do not give a reason. 18 Neither do these considerations override moral reasons against accepting. Suppose I have the right to enter into any (legally permitted) association or club, but I have a moral reason not to enter association P (for instance, P is a racist club). Having a right to become a member of P does not override or diminish my reason against doing so.19 Similarly, having a right to accept a client with a wrong purpose does not affect the moral reason I have for not accepting this client. There are additional reasons against accepting representation for immoral causes. First, the resources devoted to representing an unjust cause might be assigned to other, valuable (or at least not unjust) ones. This is particularly important in countries where legal resources are far from being justly distributed. Second, in many cases, the representation of an unjust cause typically contributes to the success of other unjust or immoral causes, especially when the case is institutionally relevant (appeals to the Supreme Court, cases of public interest, etc.).

I think that the talented tenth is actually the wrong metaphor for leadership in the performance debate community. Du Bois, later in his life, sharply criticized and disavowed a reliance on the black elite to lead, believing that they were more preoccupied with individual gain than with group struggle, and willing to work within current structures rather than calling for radical change. They were becoming Americanized, Du Bois believed, and deradicalized. This deradicalization “occurs when more privileged African Americans (re) align themselves to function as a middle class interested in individual group gain rather than race leadership for mass development” (James, 1997, p. 24). Instead of his youthful belief in the black elite, “Gradually, black working-class activists surpassed elites in Du Bois’s estimation of political integrity and progressive agency. He democratized his concept of race leaders through the inclusion of the radicalism of nonelites” (James, 1997, p. 21). The young people who have emerged, as leaders in the performance debate community were definitely not those Du Bois would have identified as the Talent Tenth in 1903. Du Bois was talking to and about the Black elite, the educated middle class. Earlier in Du Bois’s life, he assumed that those people, college educated, were the natural leaders. My participants who might be seen as potential leaders do not come from such backgrounds. Many do end up going to college and becoming potential leaders, but they are privileged through this process rather than prior to it. In addition, their focus is most definitely political as opposed to cultural. Nowhere in my research did I hear a Bill Cosby-esque injunction for black people to shape up and work harder. Instead, the critique is focused on “uplift as group struggle” for continued liberation. Finally, these young leaders are most definitely radicalized as opposed to interested in incremental change that rocks no boats. From CRT and their open critiques of white supremacy to their willingness to call for change openly in debate round, these young leaders are contentious and bold. Two of my participants, and many of their former debate peers, are involved with a Baltimore group called Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle (LBS). The website of the LBS established their identity: We are a dedicated group of Baltimore citizens who want to change the city through governmental policy action. Our purpose is to provide tangible, concrete solutions to Baltimore’s problems and to analyze the ways that external forces have contributed to the overall decline of our city. (“Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle”, n.d.) As we see in this statement of identity, then, LBS as one model of leadership is focused on the political and on an analysis of external influences; this focus is very different from a racial uplift position, and their model of leadership very different from the Talented Tenth. LBS has developed platforms regarding jobs, education, incarceration, and many other issues facing Black people in the city. They hold monthly forums for discussion of these topics, inviting guests and discussing the topics themselves. Further, one of the LBS members ran for City Council this year. He lost, but plans to run again. The training my participants discuss, therefore, is not in the abstract: it is training for the real world, for their own empowerment and that of their communities. This work is extending into local high schools, as well, and Paul Robeson High School now has students involved in LBS. They attend events and meetings not only to help out but as a form of leadership training

Ever since our brave forebearers declared America's independence, the United States has been a beacon of liberty, hope and opportunity. Indeed, America is still regarded the world over as a land where success can be achieved regardless of where you've come from. And that is because our forebearers trusted free people, free speech and free markets – all of which continue to undergird the "American dream." The American dream never fails to inspire old and young alike, and I believe its promise will continue to motivate future generations to work hard and innovate. Because our country has always valued hard work, we seek to achieve and often succeed because opportunity exists here. But it's important to recognize that free markets are fundamental to American opportunity and prosperity. How do free markets contribute to the American dream? The answer rests in the philosophy of freedom so foundational to our nation. Free markets allow consumers and producers to freely participate in mutually beneficial transactions, empowering entrepreneurs and innovators to create the future. While opponents of free markets often criticize corporations for dominating an industry, their proposed solution is typically socialization – which would by definition grant the government an unfettered monopoly in regulation of an industry. The result of such regulation would hold back job creators, including small business owners and would-be entrepreneurs. Unelected bureaucrats should not pick winners and losers in the market. I trust the American people to do that on their own. Where there is more government regulation, there is always less opportunity to innovate and allow the market for products and services to follow its natural trend. To illustrate, think back on rental stores like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. If the government had socialized the movie rental business in the 1990s, Americans would still be driving to the store hoping to borrow the one movie they wanted to watch. However, thanks to free markets, we get to enjoy the benefits of innovation, which in the case of video entertainment has led to popular rental services like Redbox and video streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Similar examples could be drawn about cell phones, cars, household appliances and just about every other industry.

In many practical ways, our tax system is morally problematic. It discriminates against family formation – with results that we see very clearly and, of course, it discourages work. A tax system that undermines family and work cannot be thought of as moral. And, of course, when the state is spending nearly half of national income, there can be no general agreement about the morality of the things on which it spends money. In spending over 46 per cent of national income, the state finances all sorts of other things with my money that I think are morally wrong – and probably different things that you think are morally wrong. A tax system in a nation of 65 million people, mediated by a huge bureaucracy controlled by a government called to account in elections every five years, cannot possibly replicate the true personal human compassion and philanthropy that is necessary if we are to provide the poor with genuine help. The individual, in this context, becomes a small cog in a giant wheel whose right of initiative has, in large part, been taken away and who has been encouraged to delegate his genuine societal responsibilities to those in need to the state. As Pope Benedict has said: solidarity is the responsibility of everyone to everyone and it cannot be delegated to the state.

Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which discredit government. If we are to pay taxes, he says, let them be open and understood and accepted. Gordon Brown has made it his style to rack up taxes by keeping them concealed and keeping taxpayers confused. William Hague plans to expose taxation, probably in the belief that if people know what they are paying, they will be less tolerant of the high tax culture, and the arrogant assumption that it will plan and organise our lives better than we can do it ourselves.

After two decades of uninterrupted borrowing – including three years in which deficits surpassed 10 percent of the economy – the U.S. national debt is higher as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than at any time since World War II and is on course to breach that record. Yet policymakers have done little to contain our $24 trillion national debt, and most legislation has added to it in recent years. Additionally, there have been numerous claims that “debt doesn’t matter” and the United States should borrow even more than the $16 trillion it is projected to borrow over the coming decade. These claims are problematic and concerning. This does not mean there is no proper time to borrow. In fact, deficit spending helped to prevent an economic catastrophe and support the country through a pandemic in the recent COVID-19 crisis. However, even this justified borrowing comes with some consequence, and much of the recent borrowing before and since the COVID crisis was enacted for political rather than purely economic justification. Excessively high debt levels are damaging for many reasons. High debt levels: Threaten economic vitality: The recent surge in deficit spending has contributed to rapid near-term inflation and over time will result in higher interest rates, slower economic and income growth, and a small but increased risk of fiscal crisis. Place a strain on the budget: The federal government currently spends as much on interest payments as it does on most of our safety net programs combined, and interest is projected to become the largest government expenditure within the next 30 years. As interest and mandatory spending dominate a greater share of the budget, our government’s ability to invest in new priorities will be limited. Create geopolitical challenges and risks: With large portions of our debt held by foreign investors, a substantial share of our national income goes abroad. We are consequentially left with fewer financial tools to manage conflicts with other countries when they have increased leverage over our economy. Make responding to new emergencies more challenging: High deficits and debt – particularly if coupled with high inflation or interest rates – make it harder to borrow in response to a recession, pandemic, war, or other legitimate emergency. Are unfair to younger and future generations: The federal budget already favors consumption on seniors over investment in children. Failing to address rising debt also leaves future generations with an additional fiscal and economic burden. Given these very real threats and risks, policymakers should pursue the appropriate tax and spending adjustments to bring the fiscal situation under control. The Economic Consequences of Deficits and Debt High and rising debt creates near-term and long-term economic consequences, some of which are playing out in real time through high inflation. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis, policymakers injected more than $5 trillion of fiscal support into the economy. Deficits ballooned from just under $1 trillion in 2019 to an average of $3 trillion per year over the subsequent two years. Much of this borrowing was important for supporting households, securing balance sheets, limiting the depth of the recession, and supporting the economic recovery. However, the total magnitude of fiscal support – particularly support enacted in 2021 – greatly exceeded the needs or capacity of the economy.1 The resulting excess demand has contributed to inflation. The Federal Reserve normally aims for 2 percent inflation as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) index, the equivalent of roughly 2.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Over the past year, the PCE index has risen by 6.3 percent; economists have attributed 2 to 4 percentage points of this rate to the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan alone.2 CPI inflation has totaled 8.6 percent, the highest in four decades. In response to rising inflation, the Federal Reserve has begun aggressively raising the federal funds interest rate, which reverberates throughout the economy. Similarly, investors generally respond to higher levels of debt issuance by demanding higher rates on Treasury bonds. Box 1: Modern Monetary Theory and the National Debt Over the past few years, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – a fringe economic theory that argues the government can, should, and effectively does print money to finance deficits – has gained growing prominence. The basic idea behind MMT is that fiscal policy, rather than monetary policy, should manage the macroeconomy and that there is no reason to worry about debt sustainability. Instead, the theory states, deficit spending should continue until the point that the economy is at capacity and substantial inflation emerges. While MMT is appealing as a political excuse to brush aside the tradeoffs involved in budgeting, it makes little sense either in theory or in practice.3 On the theoretical side, MMT rightly recognizes that economies that borrow and print in their own currency can never be forced into default, but it misunderstands the relationship between borrowing, interest rates, demand, investment, and economic growth. For example, some MMT advocates have theorized that higher interest rates could boost demand for goods and services rather than crowd out investment.4 On the practical side, MMT implicitly relies on Congress and the President to substantially raise taxes or cut spending – without help from the Federal Reserve – in order to fight bouts of inflation. There is little evidence of willingness to enact large abrupt tax increases or spending cuts in periods of high inflation.5 In fact, advocates of MMT have offered virtually no fiscal solutions to recent inflation, and in many cases, they have suggested further fiscal expansions.6 MMT has widely been panned by economists on the left and right, ranging from Paul Krugman to John Cochrane.7 Its proponents often articulate a contradictory framework that doesn’t withstand even the most basic scrutiny.8 While MMT does help explain some basic insights about the constraints of an economy’s productive capacity and the technical ability of a government to borrow, it is of little use in understanding how to analyze or manage an economy or government budget.

Over the years, I have concluded that some people simply refuse to fully comprehend the reality of governmental taxation and spending. These individuals don’t seem to realize that the government is spending our money. This may sound silly because on its face, these concepts are exceptionally basic. With that said, the advocacy of fiscal policies espoused by some of these individuals are illogical. One such policy is the progressive tax. The obvious immorality of the progressive tax system (which is an increase in the tax rate as taxable income increases) should be the enemy of anyone in search of legitimate freedom. Progressive taxes essentially seek to redistribute the wealth from one group of people to another. Politicians advocating for increased taxes on higher earners are saying, “Vote for me, and I will use the levers of power to take their money and give it to you!” Over time, the government has grown exponentially larger and continues to infringe upon our fundamental liberties. As a society, we have allowed this enlarged government to legalize theft right before our eyes. When Congress confiscates the dollar of one person to reallocate it to another, nobody raises an eyebrow. If a private citizen carried out this action, we would deem them guilty of theft. Earnings are personal property, just like a house or car. You are in no way entitled to the money of others, and any argument in defense of such a claim is an overt fallacy. An attack on the personal property of others is an attack on freedom. Freedom can hardly be exercised when property is being disproportionately confiscated based on income levels.

This reframing raises the question: does a Job Guarantee require higher taxation? The answer, using MMT reasoning, is “Almost certainly, yes”. Suppose the economy initially has two groups of workers, employed and unemployed. Employed workers produce some quantity of marketed goods and services, as well as freely provided public services. They receive a wage, while unemployed workers get a (low) benefit. As well as workers, there are people receiving profits, interest and so on. Now we introduce a Job Guarantee in which all unemployed workers are hired, at the minimum wage or more, to produce public services (say, extra contact tracing for pandemics), that would otherwise not be provided. The newly employed workers spend their wages (over and above previous benefits) on marketed goods and services. But where are these goods and services to come from? It can only be from reducing the consumption of those who are already receiving wages or other market incomes. Shifting the consumption to public use is the job of taxation (alternatively, the government could cut existing services, freeing the workers there to produce market goods and services, but I won’t explore this).

The American safety net is not perfect – not by a long shot – but it does a good job of ensuring that low-income Americans have enough support to meet their basic needs. The data are clear about that: Consumption poverty, which measures the wellbeing of the poor after accounting for safety net assistance provided by the government, declined to an all-time low of 3 percent in 2016. Thanks to a good economy and strong public assistance programs, very few Americans live in deprivation. Universal Basic Income (UBI) would be an unaffordable way to undermine our social safety net’s successes. UBI would transfer money away from those who need it most, change the distinctly American relationship between citizen and government, and sharply raise taxes or the national debt (or both). And critically, it would fail to improve upon our current safety net’s biggest weakness: UBI would destroy – not improve – incentives to work. Universal Basic Income would transfer money away from those who need it most, change the distinctly American relationship between citizen and government, and sharply raise taxes or the national debt (or both). The first problem is the money. A truly universal payment of $10,000 to every citizen every year adds up to a new expense of about $3 trillion, well more than we spend on our social safety net now, and close to the entirety of the tax revenue currently collected by the federal government. If any element of the current safety net is going to be preserved, taxes will have to be raised dramatically, beyond what is politically plausible or economically desirable, or the U.S. would have to borrow even more money than we already do. Proponents of UBI should have to answer: what social programs will be cut to make room for their proposal? Some of the money needed to pay for UBI would have to come from the middle- and lower-middle classes, either in reduced benefits or increased taxes, and they would then see some of their money transferred up to wealthier recipients of UBI. Money that would have been spent on programs for people in the lowest income quintiles would now be distributed universally, including to the uppermost income quintiles. This does not sound much like an anti-poverty program.

The status quo can be tyrannical when it focuses our thinking into known and familiar ways. Seeing only the absolute power of existing conditions, one is often led to dead-end solutions, producing no real change or way out of the current environment. In fact, it often takes a crisis to produce change, but the actions taken are typically drawn from those ideas that are lying around. So to break free from the tyranny of the status quo, good ideas are needed that are ready for implementation.

More than 40 years ago, Milton Friedman (1962, 182) wrote the following in Capitalism and Freedom: The 'social security' program is one of those things on which the tyranny of the status quo is beginning to work its magic. Despite the controversy that surrounded its inception, it has come to be so much taken for granted that its desirability is hardly questioned any longer. Yet it involves a large-scale invasion into the personal lives of a large fraction of the nation without, so far as I can see, any justification that is at all persuasive, not only on liberal principles, but on almost any other.

In an important new book, Brookings’ Vanessa Williamson shows that most Americans regard paying taxes as a civic duty and are offended when they regard others as not doing their part. As lawmakers and the Trump administration begin their push for tax reform, they should pay attention to fresh survey evidence that supports Williamson’s thesis.

A Gallup survey released on April 13 finds that 61 percent of Americans see their own federal income tax obligation as fair, including 69 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 56 percent of Republicans. According to an April 14 report from the Pew Research Center, only 27 percent of Americans are bothered “a lot” by the amount they themselves pay in federal income taxes. Only 35 percent of Republicans, often regarded as allergic to taxes, say they are more than minimally bothered by the taxes they pay. Fifty-four percent of Americans say they pay “about the right amount” in taxes; 49 percent of Republicans agree.

6. Why should not lawyers have the right and the moral permission to accept immoral causes? Why is it wrong to accept? In order to answer these questions we must first answer the same question posed before with respect to the client: what are the moral reasons that vie in favour of and against accepting. These reasons are certainly prima facie, i.e. defeasible in particular cases. As we shall see, we can always find situations in which these reasons are superseded by others. However, in most cases, there seems to be no moral reason to accept such cases. Instead, there are strong reasons against accepting. The fundamental reason not to accept representation for a client with an immoral purpose is obvious: it is morally wrong to help someone do something wrong. As we have seen, the client has a right to pursue such a purpose in spite of not having moral permission to do so. If the client’s actions are wrong, contributing specifically, and in full awareness, to the performance of such actions must also be (prima facie) wrong. It must be remembered here that considerations related to the adversarial system or the right of defence are no longer relevant. These considerations are sufficient to support a right to accept, but they do not give a reason. 18 Neither do these considerations override moral reasons against accepting. Suppose I have the right to enter into any (legally permitted) association or club, but I have a moral reason not to enter association P (for instance, P is a racist club). Having a right to become a member of P does not override or diminish my reason against doing so.19 Similarly, having a right to accept a client with a wrong purpose does not affect the moral reason I have for not accepting this client. There are additional reasons against accepting representation for immoral causes. First, the resources devoted to representing an unjust cause might be assigned to other, valuable (or at least not unjust) ones. This is particularly important in countries where legal resources are far from being justly distributed. Second, in many cases, the representation of an unjust cause typically contributes to the success of other unjust or immoral causes, especially when the case is institutionally relevant (appeals to the Supreme Court, cases of public interest, etc.).

Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which discredit government. If we are to pay taxes, he says, let them be open and understood and accepted. Gordon Brown has made it his style to rack up taxes by keeping them concealed and keeping taxpayers confused. William Hague plans to expose taxation, probably in the belief that if people know what they are paying, they will be less tolerant of the high tax culture, and the arrogant assumption that it will plan and organise our lives better than we can do it ourselves.

Admittedly, it is possible to take a different view on this matter, but there's a good and entirely reasonable argument that tax avoidance and tax evasion work to the benefit of us all. The crucial point is really how one views the activities of government. And there's two views that seem to be held. One that I regard as hopelessly naive and simplistic, the second something very much closer to reality. That first is that all of the things that government does for us are beneficial to us and that limiting what it does do harms us all. The second is that some parts of what government does are things which both must be done and can only be done by government, but that a rather large part of what it attempts to do shouldn't be done at all, whether by government or not. Thus, starving the beast by avoiding or evading taxes produces a benefit because it reduces the size and scope of government. The trigger for this thought is this excellent piece discussing this very point: Imagine the following world. The only goods that government produces are public goods. Public goods have two characteristics. First, they are non-rival in consumption: one person's consumption of the good does not diminish the amount that others can consume. Second, they are non-excludable: excluding people from benefiting from public goods is prohibitively expensive. National defense and public protection are the standard examples. Government determines what budget these public-good activities require and then levies the most efficient taxes necessary to finance them. Each citizen is charged a tax price lower than his valuation of the public goods (and lower than any alternative way to produce them). In brief, the state finds the optimal level of public-good expenditures and then levies the most efficient taxes to finance them. This is, by and large, the model of orthodox public finance theory. In this model, tax dodging by any individual increases the burden on other taxpayers. As anyone who has ever bothered to observe the sausage making that is government and the legislature this isn't in fact what happens. We all complain about what actually happens. Even those on the left who generally believe in the power of government to do good insist that the special interests (say, the Koch Brothers who are entirely demonic figures to those at places like Alternet and points left) manage to corrupt what government actually does. And those on the right have their own examples and proper liberals like myself will happily make use of both sets of failures to make our point. Leading to this being, to my mind, a much more accurate model of what government is and how it works: Public Choice theory, developed in the last half of the 20th century, provides an alternative model, which can be sketched as follows.12 The individuals who run the state—mainly politicians and bureaucrats—are, like ordinary individuals, motivated by self-interest. Their interests are generally served by expanding the power and scope of government. Politicians do this by providing a large number of private goods and privileges for the benefit of supporting clienteles. Bureaucrats expand the size of their bureaus. We thus observe built-in incentives within the state to collect as much revenue as possible given political and other institutional constraints—to charge what the captive "market" will bear—and then to spend the proceeds on things that benefit those in power and the interest groups whose support they need. Government maximizes revenues; it does not levy revenues only to produce genuine public goods. At which point taxdodging has benefits to all of us. Because by dodging taxes people limit the ability of governments to impose ever higher ones. If you like, you could say that such tax avoidance is a Laffer Effect. The Laffer Curve itself is really, originally at least, about the effects of taxation levels upon economic growth. It's possible for taxes to be so high that lowering them will increase growth enough to provide more revenue to the government. Here though we're perhaps not talking about growth so much as just resistance to high tax levels. If people will avoid or evade what they regard as high taxation then that reduces the revenue from having said high taxation. And, obviously, if enough people avoid then this will reduce total revenue. At which point we can say that tax dodging is one of the things that reduces the overall tax rate. Sure, it does depend upon one's view of governance. But as I say, I defy any rational adult who has really looked at how the system works to deny that the second explanation is a lot closer to reality than the first. And if it is then tax avoidance and tax evasion does us all a favour: it limits the ability of the politicians to take the money of the law abiding.

Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which discredit government. If we are to pay taxes, he says, let them be open and understood and accepted. Gordon Brown has made it his style to rack up taxes by keeping them concealed and keeping taxpayers confused. William Hague plans to expose taxation, probably in the belief that if people know what they are paying, they will be less tolerant of the high tax culture, and the arrogant assumption that it will plan and organise our lives better than we can do it ourselves.

Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which discredit government. If we are to pay taxes, he says, let them be open and understood and accepted. Gordon Brown has made it his style to rack up taxes by keeping them concealed and keeping taxpayers confused. William Hague plans to expose taxation, probably in the belief that if people know what they are paying, they will be less tolerant of the high tax culture, and the arrogant assumption that it will plan and organise our lives better than we can do it ourselves.

Over the years, I have concluded that some people simply refuse to fully comprehend the reality of governmental taxation and spending. These individuals don’t seem to realize that the government is spending our money. This may sound silly because on its face, these concepts are exceptionally basic. With that said, the advocacy of fiscal policies espoused by some of these individuals are illogical. One such policy is the progressive tax. The obvious immorality of the progressive tax system (which is an increase in the tax rate as taxable income increases) should be the enemy of anyone in search of legitimate freedom. Progressive taxes essentially seek to redistribute the wealth from one group of people to another. Politicians advocating for increased taxes on higher earners are saying, “Vote for me, and I will use the levers of power to take their money and give it to you!” Over time, the government has grown exponentially larger and continues to infringe upon our fundamental liberties. As a society, we have allowed this enlarged government to legalize theft right before our eyes. When Congress confiscates the dollar of one person to reallocate it to another, nobody raises an eyebrow. If a private citizen carried out this action, we would deem them guilty of theft. Earnings are personal property, just like a house or car. You are in no way entitled to the money of others, and any argument in defense of such a claim is an overt fallacy. An attack on the personal property of others is an attack on freedom. Freedom can hardly be exercised when property is being disproportionately confiscated based on income levels.

Mr. President, it is natural to man [patriot] to indulge in the illusions of hope. [But] Is this the part of wise men [patriots], engaged in a great struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to comfort themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves, are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. And what have we to oppose to them?

(Lev Menand, Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, “The Logic and Limits of the Federal Reserve Act,” 40 Yale J. on Reg. 197, pg lexis//um-ef)

Second, by entangling the Fed with the executive branch, nonmonetary functions are likely to reduce the Fed's independence in determining the rate of monetary expansion and handling other banking-system-related matters. For example, because the law requires that the Treasury Secretary approve nonbank lending, the Treasury Secretary could influence many of the terms and conditions of the Fed's pandemic response without taking political responsibility. Moreover, if executive branch officials hold formal levers over some policy areas, they will be "sorely tempted to use them as informal bargaining chips over monetary policy. That's just how the world works."394 These entanglements shift the Fed's allegiance from Congress to the Executive, the part of government policymakers have long sought to separate from decisions about the money supply.

(Lev Menand, Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, “The Logic and Limits of the Federal Reserve Act,” 40 Yale J. on Reg. 197, pg lexis//um-ef)

The Fed, I argue here, is the capstone of the American Monetary Settlement. Congress built it to administer the investor-owned banking system and to stabilize it both economically and politically. Drawing on the text, structure, and legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA), as amended, I argue that today's Fed was designed to address three problems with monetary outsourcing that contemporary scholars and commentators tend to overlook, underplay, or misunderstand: monetary contraction, an uneven playing field in the banking system, and a lack of public accountability and control. I then use this understanding of the statutory scheme to answer questions left unsettled in the existing literature. First, I show that the Fed is not a kitchen-sink agency: its core statutory tools all relate to its monetary mission, as does the justification for its [*204] substantial independence from executive oversight and judicial review. Second, I explain why the Fed's expanding activities since 2008 are largely the product of a shift in the underlying structure of the banking system: the rise of financial firms that issue alternative forms of money without bank charters. Third, I consider three downsides of the gap between the Fed's enlarged footprint and the logic animating its enabling act.