After many years of working in jobs that exchanges a specific gross wage, then comparing said wage to the net (after tax) wage, would relentlessly leave me upset and frustrated. Why was the nominal amount of money taken out of my paycheck becoming increasingly higher and higher after traveling through the temporal scarcity our mortality brings us? How did I directly benefit from the taxing, and was it really worth it? For many years I would always relinquish my frustrations by creating a paradoxical assumption that the taxes actually went to benefit me in more ways than not. Then, I was led to one strange antagonism. Initially, it was the concept of the fact that bureaucracy was a contradictory entity in the role of methodological individualism. After beginning to understand this fact, I uncovered that binary intervention (taxation) was a form of aggression, and was in place to advance nationalism and state coercion.
How can bureaucracy initially be a contractionary force against the individual, and their conquest to conquer scarcity? The beginning stages of bureaucracy was at the time of the expansion of absolute monarchs within the countries of europe. The issue that many of these monarchs faced, when attempting to rectify their absolute monarch status, was the fact that manor lords throughout their kingdom were not necessarily bound to honor the king. In fact, as one might discover, the history of medieval europe shows us that a majority of the kingdoms were very de-centralized. How did these monarchs begin to, then, expand their “rightful power”? Rather than having a kingdom compiled of several lords, with their own loyal servants, the monarchs created bureaucracies. Initially, with bureaucracies, the monarchs could employ people to do the bidding of the absolute monarch with less worry of dissidence.
It is no coincidence, during the rising times of the bureaucratic systems that plagued europe we saw an explosion of mercantilism. Once mercantilism became a normal aspect of economic achievement, liberal philosophy quickly dispelled all the myths through various reasonings of the classical economic laws. However, the rising trend of economic laws was unjustifiably plagued with the beginning fanatical attempts of wealth re-distribution and protectionist policies. All of these new concepts begin to emphasize the philosophy of the omnipotent powers of the state. This became very lucrative for the bureaucrat. We will not delve into the invalid premises and the assault on reason state compulsion brings to us in this article because it will be too vast.
While the stages of nationalism and state power were beginning to be melded, it became apparent that protectionist policies were only favored by socialists. Whether it be conservative socialist, people redistributing wealth to the bourgeoisie in an attempt to maintain said power, or it can fall under marxian socialism, where people wish to redistribute wealth to the proletariat class. Each and both forms of wealth redistribution will always be a result of aggression. This aggression is called binary intervention into the market.
The fact that wealth redistribution can only be a result of a cost to one entity, in the attempt to empower another, leads us to now understand that taxation is a mercantilist policy. The fact that the state will attempt to drive the power of the consumer, negates the role of the individualist in society. Do we really have a say in what we can create, expand, and produce when the state has built purposeful restrictions with a blatant attempt to benefit one caste and dismantle another? Taxation, by its purest definition is a form of aggression and robbery. The ever expanding power of the state has only resulted in giving us less productive ventures. Ventures such as endless wars, mass starvation, forced collective education, concentration camps, prisons, and a shrinking of the power each of us, as individuals, conceals.
The attempts to justify these negative effects of binary intervention forces the state to propagandize against its own people. They will create different enemies to justify their expansion. Such as the warrantless wiretapping in the United States shows commonalities to that of the Nazi state of Germany forced polylogistic laws to incarcerate people of “unclean genes”, to be easily identifiable. The connection between the vagueness of legal definitions pertaining to the word “terrorist” and the the concept of “unhygienic genes” leads us to understand that the omnipotent power of the state only comes through the expansion of the bureaucracy. With the perceived threats, created by the state, the bureaucratic system can expand relentlessly in its conquest against individualism.
The people that truly benefit from taxation are the bureaucrats, the people honoring the absolute monarchs. Just as the old economic policies of mercantilism are the ones that suggest that if the nation is not highest, then it is “losing”. The new power of the state expansion by bureaucracy has allowed the caste of state officials to maintain a higher caste in society. Taxation, not only is it robbery, but it is a protectionist policy to maintain a power structure of bureaucrats and thieves.
There is no principle that can rightfully justify this compulsion. Collectivism, by its very nature, is a logical structure to empower one individual or principle above the others. If the ego of one person A falls into a certain methodological structure, then that structure can only be the epistemological structure of A, for A can never be B, and B can never be C. However, the role of collectivism suggests that the epistemological structure of A will actually fall into the same epistemological structure of B and C. Considering then that if it benefits A, it must benefit B and benefit C. Yet the proponents of this concept fail to represent how this is even possible, considering A can never be B and B can never be C. This leads us to understand that the mere intervention brought on to relinquish the ability of B to act, in the name of benefitting A, will ultimately grant both disutility. Considering the fact that B’s ability lend aid to the powerful division of labor, will free up access to that same division of labor for A to participate in. Forcing B and A to act as one collective unit; we begin to see the destruction of the division of labor, through various impossible attempts to make A and B act the same way.
Yet binary intervention, though dubious, suggests it benefits society; we have shown that it only hinders the division of labor. However, it does benefit people within society above others. The biggest beneficiaries towards binary intervention are the ever powerful bureaucrats. The bureaucrat gains all of their income from the force of aggression. The bureaucrat might suggest that they pay their taxes as well. This assumption is ludicrous, considering all their income derives from taxes. Bureaucracy can not function as a private entity, it can not function as a firm, and it can not function as a salvage of human waste. It only brings waste, considering the fact that it faces no profit and loss structure, leads us to understand that there is absolutely no economic calculation possible inside a bureaucracy. The entire role of a bureaucracy is to do the bidding of the state, attempt to dismantle methodological individualism, and bring compulsory power to themselves. After understanding that this is the role of binary intervention, I realize that the taxing of my labor has not benefitted me at all. In fact, it has led to the expansion of the state and brought psychic waste to society.
Disquisition on government, John Calhoun
Human Action, Ludwig V. Mises
Power and Market, Murray Rothbard
Bureaucracy, Ludwig V. Mises
Omnipotent Government, Ludwig V. Mises
Man Economy and State, Murray Rothbard
A Theory of Socialism & Capitalism, Hans-Hermann Hoppe