Wednesday, January 19, 2011

"Taxation Without Representation" in question

Share |
The principle of "Taxation Without Representation" has been a popular notion in US political history. The problem with this concept is that it is a misconception. Firstly the idea that we have, or could possibility have representation without engaging in some personal contractual relationship with the government, and without having the right to suspend that support is nonsense. Therefore, I do not willingly allow my wealth to be expropriated by those who would set up a fallacious system of representation.
The objection is that we cannot all realistically have personal representation. This is not entirely true for several reasons:
1. People only need 'personal' representation when any assembly of agents or representatives fail to perform their role. This is unlikely if there is a large pool of competitors.
2. Pools of representation can be based upon issues rather than party 'pools of issues'
3. The basis or standard of value need not be votes, but a meritocratic 'superior argument', which is after all the same basis which our courts are expected to function. The difference is that courts are not entirely effective because of the structure they function under. The implication is that we need political reform to ensure reason is the standard of value.

Without real and effective representation, you get no taxation!
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?