The Anti-Theft Amendment
Political ·Saturday January 10, 2009 @ 16:51 EST (link)
I started by asking myself: how would congress work if it didn't have power to tax? They'd have to persuade people to opt-in; this is easy to see how it works with e.g. healthcare, but less easy with infrastructure that everyone uses.
Representatives should be empowered solely to put together proposals which people can opt into, and perhaps to make laws, although only against malum in se crimes, i.e. those that cause harm (to people or property), handle national defense, and borders. This should work at all levels, so e.g. at the municipal or county levels, representatives would have to persuade people to opt in to support e.g. schools and libraries (with people able to change their election either at any time or at least yearly).
Regarding infrastructure: roads, e.g. Interstates at the state level, possibly even at the federal level (although that's dubious since things should be as granular as reasonably possible and it doesn't do a Washingtonian any good if New York highways are improved; if he uses goods transported on those highways, the price of the good should include the cost of transportation which should include route maintenance) etc. should be counted as opted into if used. Until all roads can be made toll (possibly with computer tracking), this means people that drive will contribute a share of their city, county, state, and federal road taxes, ideally by use (gasoline tax distributed to each depending on number of drivers and roads).
Opting in by use needs to be very narrowly restricted, i.e., a politician can't claim that people have opted-in by use by taking no action (e.g. they shouldn't be able to claim someone's opted into welfare payments just by existing, or even by working, but driving on roads is sufficient to opt into their upkeep, although not necessarily building new ones or upgrading).
How would the actual voting on proposals work? Perhaps by default, people's choice is allocated to their representative (later, these representatives will go away, replaced by delegates: anyone can delegate their choice to anyone else, again, changeable either at any time or yearly). A proposal comes with an associated (hard) cost or cost range; the first vote is support; the second is to fund it (after figuring out how many people are supporting it). Perhaps people commit to a range of funding, and then after the first vote an algorithm is used to determine who's in?
I've been exploring some ideas that could fix the corruption of government and I think I've hit upon an axiomatic (and short) amendment, one that, if enacted would stem the corruption almost immediately.
No tax shall be levied without direct consent of the taxed (with annual opt-out).
I'm still trying to work this idea out exactly. I think use should constitute consent (you drive on a road, you've consented to pay your part of its upkeep; you send your kids to school, you've consented to pay your part from property taxes, etc.). It's very much a thought experiment; it'd be virtually impossible to pass it (and it was virtually impossible for a ragtag bunch of colonists to defeat the British army and navy). I think it would have been impractical for most of the life of the Republic, due to communication difficulties, but with today's technology it's an idea whose time is near.
At the core of the idea is that instead of politicians introducing a bill and its passing giving them the right to appropriate funds, rather, after the bill passes, it goes to the population to be funded. As now, people can delegate their support to others, or they can elect for themselves. The benefit here is that it allows people to opt out of government programs they don't use (but they can choose to opt in even so: even if I don't visit any national parks this year, I can still decide they're valuable and to pay some money to support them). (It's a bit like company benefits, with annual election and renewal.)
There's definitely more fine-tuning needed for the raw idea, and as a legal proposal it'd need more ironclad language to prevent abuse (cf. the abuse of the "general welfare" clause). Do people "use" national government; and if so, does that mean that a congressperson can charge any excesses to the population (as now), hire as large a staff as they like for whatever amount they wish, lease a private jet, etc. and bill the taxpayer? Representatives deserve a salary, decided by the people, and after that the public should have to give direct consent for expenses incurred.
Books finished: No Exit, and Three Other Plays.DVDs finished: M*A*S*H: Season Three, Children Of The Corn 666: Isaac's Return, Friends: The Complete Third Season.
