Conscription and the War Tax

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Veteran New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has recently proposed a new military draft and a “war tax” as methods of dealing with the Islamic State situation in Iraq and Syria. Rangel has long been an advocate of military conscription and other forms of non-military compulsory government service for young Americans. Rangel claims that a draft and a “war tax” would cause the majority of Americans to “feel” the consequences of military action against the Islamic State. He has long felt that a small minority of Americans endure the suffering connected with war.

The first national draft in the United States took place during the Civil War. While conscription produced a small minority of the total number of Union soldiers employed against the Confederacy, the attempt to enforce the law making all American males between the ages of 20 and 45 draft eligible led to the most destructive civil disturbance in New York City history on July 13, 1863. At least 119 died in the riots. Wealthy individuals were able to avoid serving if drafted by paying for a replacement. Theodore Roosevelt’s father famously did this, inspiring the future president to seek family redemption by seeking military adventure. Congress passed the Selective Service Act on May 18, 1917 in order to raise the manpower necessary to fight the unpopular Great War—only about 100,000 of the 1 million men needed volunteered prior to the reinstatement of hte military draft. The draft remained active through World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. No soldiers have been drafted in the United States since 1973. President Nixon campaigned on ending the draft and favored ending conscription as a means of neutering the antiwar movement. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the antiwar activists during the Vietnam War were mainly interested in protecting themselves and their loved ones from being drafted and forced to fight and die against their will.

Conscription is a violation of the natural right to liberty. The government has no right to force an individual to join the military against his or her will let alone to force an individual to fight, risk life and limb, and kill in a war. Forcing an individual to join the military not only violates the right to liberty but also potentially the right to life as all wars have fatalities. Conscription also violates the right to property as conscripted soldiers are forced to leave jobs and other business interests during the period of forced military service. Thus, conscription violates all three prongs of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It also violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlaws slavery. What is being forced under penalty of law to join the armed forces and fight in a war if not literal slavery?

Rangel’s “war tax” proposal is a bit less egregious than his conscription proposal. “War taxes” are nothing new in American history. For example, a telephone tax was created in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. This tax was not completely abolished until 2006. At present the unconstitutional wars in the Middle East are being funded by increasing national debt and the Federal Reserve’s “inflation tax.” Wars need to be funded somehow—either now or with interest down the line. Placing a tax on those who benefit—defense contractors, oil companies, etc.—would seem just, but paying these taxes would ultimately just be passed onto American taxpayers. However, if the federal government were forced to stop using its “fiscal illusions” to hide the true cost of wars from taxpayers, then it is likely that the people would oppose most wars.

While conscription is immoral and should properly be viewed as unconstitutional, there exists what is in effect a de facto draft. By destroying the economy through burdensome taxes and regulations and corporatist machinations, the federal government has forced many young Americans to join the military because there are so few economic opportunities for young people—particularly young people in lower socioeconomic classes. Military personnel and veterans should be honored for the courageous service and the sacrifices that they make defending the Republic. However, forcing desperate young Americans to serve in the military and then using them in cynical, unconstitutional, corporatist wars to protect the interests of crony capitalists and foreign despots is unacceptable and positively Un-American.

(For a much more detailed discussion of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property as well as taxation, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

On Taxation

by Gerard Emershaw

With tax day approaching, it seems a good time to discuss a few various and sundry issues concerning taxation.

The Economic Royalist Mantra

Almost half of all Americans pay no federal income tax! Many so-called conservatives have been lamenting this for years. If Sean Hannity did not have this dead equine to clobber, his show would only be a half hour long instead of an hour. Libertarians tend to believe that taxation is theft. Many go so far as to claim—following those like Ayn Rand—that taxation is akin to slavery. One would think that conservatives would share the view that forcing Americans at the barrel of a gun to pay tribute to the government is a bad thing. So why do so many on the right act like whiny economic royalists? Complaining that 43% of Americans pay no federal income tax is like saying that 43% of Americans are not enslaved. The goal should be to one day say with glee that 0% of Americans pay no federal income tax not to one day say that 100% of Americans pay federal income tax. Complaining about those who pay no federal income tax is a perverse sour grapes view that is like a wrongly imprisoned political dissident complaining that there are like-minded dissidents who are not in prison.

One might say that the problem is that those who do not pay federal income tax have no skin in the game. Therefore, since they do not pay federal income tax, they will be willing to support increases for those who do. Of course, one way to solve this problem would be to increase the size of the economic pie so that there is more prosperity and more wealth. One way to get more people to pay federal income tax is to create a state of affairs where more Americans earn more money, and hence, are legally required to pay federal income tax under the current system.

The whiny economic royalist mantra also ignores that many who do not pay federal income tax nevertheless have income tax withheld during the year which is later refunded. Given that these taxpayers are denied the time value of their money, they do in fact pay a tax. Those Americans who do not even have any income tax withheld still pay the myriad of other taxes imposed by the bloated and out of control federal government. And, of course, all but the wealthiest and best politically connected pay the “inflation tax” that is imposed by the Federal Reserve as it continues to “print” money and destroy the value of the dollar.

Whiny economic royalists help the tyrannical government with its “divide and conquer” strategy. Americans of all races, religions, socio-economic classes, etc. should be united against an increasingly despotic government and not fighting among themselves.

The Flat Tax

Many conservatives and even some libertarians have espoused a flat tax in which all Americans would pay the same amount of federal income tax. Oddly, such advocates of a flat tax often say that it is only fair that everyone pay the same percentage in tax. Such a regressive tax proposal is monstrous and would target the middle class and the poor unfairly. The reason that it would be unfair is that the wealthy simply receive more government services than the poor. Even if the nation followed a non-interventionist policy, it would still be true that defense spending would protect the considerable wealth and assets of the wealthy far more than that of the less affluent. The military simply does not protect the mansion of the homeless man. A corporatist military such as the United States currently has wastes tax money protecting the interests of multi-national corporations. The poor person who does not own considerable stock in Halliburton, an oil company, or the like simply does not benefit from this the way the wealthy do. To make matters even worse, corporate welfare costs taxpayers more than welfare for the needy. This is yet another example of how the government provides more services to the rich than the poor. Hence, the “fair share” of a wealthy individual or corporation should be much higher than that of a less affluent person. Even more egregious than corporate welfare is foreign aid. In 2012, the federal government gave nearly $37 billion in foreign aid. Giving money to rich foreign dictators hardly seems fair.

National Sales Tax

Another suggestion often made is a national sales tax. One problem with such a suggestion is that the federal government is most likely to install a national sales tax without abolishing the income tax. In essence, it will come in for yet another pound of flesh. Even if it were to abolish the income tax in favor of a national sales tax, this would be monstrously regressive. Poor people spend all of their income and then some whereas the wealthy spend only a fraction of their income. Basically, a pure national sales tax would be a massive wealth redistribution program which would employ a reverse Robin Hood strategy of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

A national sales tax would most likely lead to an increased black market. This will give organized crime yet another entry point into the economy. If anything, the government should be decreasing the influence and profitability of organized crime by ending drug prohibition. Instead, instituting a national sales tax would simply be giving the Mafia, the Triads, and street gangs another large stream of income.

The FairTax is a national sales tax that includes a “prebate,” which refunds the amount of sales tax that would be paid by a family at the poverty level. While this makes such a plan less regressive, it makes the system expensive to administer and ripe for fraud.

It is a general rule that one should tax something that one wants less of. A national sales tax is a way to decrease spending. This is no better than a federal income tax which decreases the incentive to work. The government should seek to remain neutral and not discourage either human activity. Of course, back when the federal government was Constitution-sized, it relied mainly on tariffs. Non-protectionist tariffs and excise taxes might be at least the start of a rational alternative to both federal income and sales taxes.