Taxation is Oppressive to Freedom

1108 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Rousseau theory of social contract introduction

In the court case of McCullough vs. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that “an unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.” What he meant by this is when a government is given the power to tax its citizens indefinitely, gains the power to destroy personal liberty and society as a whole. One hundred and fifty years later, Robert Nozick, an American libertarian philosophy would farther argue this point by stating that “Taxation of earning from labor is on a par with forced labor [civil service] … This makes them a part owner of you.” By doing so, Nozick equates taxation with civil service. Not only does he maintain that they are detrimental to the individual, he like Marshall, believes that forced civil service and taxation are damaging to a truly free society. In sharp contrast to this argument, Rousseau, the famous German author of “The Social Contract” claims that “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens … the state is not far from its fall.” He elaborates by asserting that “I hold enforced labor to be less opposed to liberty than taxes.” Whose ideal is correct, that is civil service (and taxation) a threat to liberty or the ultimate expression and tool of maintaining it? To discover the answer to this question, it is necessary to adequately considered and critiques the viewpoints of Nozick, a libertarian philosopher and Rousseau, an Enlightenment thinker who holds a stout view nationalism and civil service. In addition, examples of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory will be discussed using Michael Sandel’s Justice. The relationship between civil duty and liberty... ... middle of paper ... ...st cases, required civic service is a threat to freedom. When someone is forced to do something against their will by the government, society as a whole suffers. There are, however, some cases where civic duty is necessary to a freedom. The most obvious case is the invasion of domestic soil by a foreign force. To combat that threat, citizens have a duty to defend each and there country. Another less apparent case is jury duty. While unappealing to most, it is a necessary service to a nation’s justice systems. Cases could be made if a sudden understaffing of certain institutions caused a shortage of a necessary service. This is only practical in dire circumstances as the costs of this would be staggering. In addition, the line would be exceeding difficult to draw on these cases. In most cases, civic service is oppressive to freedom but in some cases it is needed.

Show More
Related

  • Explaining the Origins and Evils of Society in Second Treatise of Government by Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Rousseau

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    Second Treatise of Government by John Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau are books written to try and explain the origin of society. Both try to explain the evils and inequalities of society, and to a certain degree to discuss whether man in his natural state is better than man in society. These political science based theories do not appear, at first, to have anything in common with J. Hector St. John De Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, which are letters written by Crèvecoeur during the settling of America and the beginning of the American Revolution, however with examination we can see reflection of both Locke’s and Rousseau’s ideas about things such as human nature, government, and inequality.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Robert Nozick's View On The State Of Government

    1040 Words  | 3 Pages

    Robert Nozick was a political philosopher who best reflects the political thinking of the United States, to the extent that his work is unthinkable without considering the history and the constitution of the nation. From this starting point Nozick show us that in the state of nature men are entitled on one hand to their lives and safety, and also to self-possession. Inspired by empiricist philosopher John Locke who proclaimed that natural rights exist and are claimable, Nozick claims that his concept of a minimal state is morally justifiable. “Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against any force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates person’s rights not to be force to do certain

    Read More

  • The Rhetorical Analysis Of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

    612 Words  | 2 Pages

    Civil Disobedience makes governments more accountable for their actions and has been an important catalyst for overcoming unpopular government policies. To voice his disgust with slavery, in 1849 Henry David Thoreau published his essay, Civil Disobedience, arguing that citizens must not allow their government to override their principles and have a civic duty to prevent their government from using unjust means to ends. The basis for Thoreau’s monumental essay was his refusal to pay a poll tax, which subsequently landed him a night in county jail. In his passage: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine...

    Read More

  • A Theory Of Justice, And John Rawls's Anarchy, State And Utopia

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.

    Read More

  • Duty and Change in Melville’s Bartleby

    1488 Words  | 3 Pages

    Natural philosophers of every century of human existence have asked what we owe to each other, society or government. In The Origin of Civil Society, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the only natural form of duty is to one’s family, and all other obligations are based on agreement (57). Henry David Thoreau, in 1849, wrote in Resistance to Civil Government (sometimes known as Civil Disobedience), “it is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support” (143). This sort of conflict, which has accompanied all men at the great changes in society, is what drives conflict in Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener. Melville, like the Byzantine architects, crafts a work of art that studies a microcosm of the macrocosm. That is to say, by looking at the relationship between two people, Melville is able to explore the larger context around them, specifically the radical change of society in the mid-19th century. Like Thoreau, Bartleby’s famous word, “I would prefer not to,” send a shockwave through contemporary expectations and give rise to how a person approaches a situation. Bartleby and Thoreau are both transcendentalists, and look to return to a Rousseauian state of nature. They have both arrived there after a journey of self-examination – most definitely in Thoreau’s case, and most probably in Bartleby’s – and their non-conformist attitudes raise questions of what is expected of people with regard to their duty to society and each other. Bartleby in particular makes the nameless...

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    First, I outlined my arguments about why being forced to be free is necessary. My arguments supporting Rousseau’s ideas included; generally accepted ideas, government responsibility, and responsibility to the government. Second, I entertained the strongest possible counterargument against forced freedom, which is the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Lastly, I rebutted the counterargument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. In this paper I argued in agreement Rousseau that we can force people to be

    Read More

  • Resistance to Civil Government: Henry David Thoreau

    1381 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding to one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes. After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest. From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm; and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws.

    Read More

  • Thoreau Vs Socrates

    2023 Words  | 5 Pages

    There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice By Robert Nozick And John Rawls

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nozick’s central claim is that any sort of patterned distribution will have a significant effect on liberty. First, Nozick’s idea of a “patterned distribution” needs to be separated from the notion of “unpatterned distribution”. Obviously, patterned distribution adheres to an unspecific pattern. Nozick’s own theory in itself is unpatterned, a theory that suggests that each person acquisition of goods have been acquired through legitimate means. Nozick’s conception of “legitimate means” is manifested through his Entitlement Theory. The Entitlement Theory ...

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.

    Read More

  • Democracy: Loyalty, Security, and Liberty

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.

    Read More

More about Taxation is Oppressive to Freedom

Open Document