Taxation without Representation
In Washington, D.C. they have license plates that bear the slogan, “Taxation without representation”. This of course calls back to the days of elementary school when we learn back about the days of the Revolutionary War (where they called back to the days of the Bible). The phrase then was “no taxation without representation”; a snappy ultimatum combining all the charm of “Ho-ho Ho Chi Minh, Vietcong will never win” with the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The idea was that jolly old England ought not be chargin’ citizens of the crown without giving them their fair say in what goes on. This concept is often cited among the sparks for the revolution, and is often cited as overrated by smart-ass Revolutionary War historians.
Some will say that the rallying cry was merely a ploy to instill a sense of investment in rebellion among common folk. It was more likely an excuse for already rich tea barons and barrel makers to complain about taxes. Tea barons were the divas of the 1770’s fiscal scene. Regardless of its origins, the phrase persists in our history books and our mythology for different reasons.
More interesting is what can be inferred by the words “no taxation without representation”. Ostensibly, the gist is that the people refuse to be taxed by a government without receiving a voice in that government via representation. To continue this line of reasoning, wouldn’t it follow that representation is being paid for? To imply that taxation is tantamount to a crime when not followed by a vote, is analogous to a customer demanding goods after being charged admission. Does this mean that representation is for sale by a government and purchased by those who pay taxes?
People are said to have certain inalienable rights as is written in our founding literature. Is a voice in government (via representation) one of them? There have been many barriers to voting in the past that have all been deemed archaic and anti-democratic like property ownership, literacy tests, racial and gender requirements and, currently, felony convictions. If someone were to protest by not paying taxes to a government they believed was corrupt or immoral, would they still be allowed, as a citizen, to vote?
It seems that saying “I will not be taxed unless I am given a vote” leaves tremendous opportunity for a government to respond, “you will be given a vote when you pay your taxes.” Perhaps D.C.’s plates aren’t the snarky sarcasm I initially believed them to be. Maybe they are just proud of their caution in blurring the lines between taxes, representation, democracy and paid admission.
