The one major way that our government violates our rights is through the seizing of our wealth in the form of income taxes. This system of coercive taxation has enslaved us all, robbing us of and violating those unalienable rights (rights incapable of being sold or transferred, regardless of the consent of the owner, either tacit or explicit). This immoral act of our government deciding how much of the wealth we have earned we can keep and how much must be turned over to the government steals from us not only our property but also that part of our lives we spent making that money. This undermines our freedom. Either we are free, or we are not. Freedom is an absolute and freedom is what we do not have.
So, how do we arrive at absolute freedom? Well, it certainly is not anarchy, as many perceive. Living under a system (or lack thereof) of anarchy and lawlessness, individuals would be under constant threat of others, of the ones who are physically stronger than them, of the ones who wield the largest and/or more powerful weapons. In the chaos of anarchy, people deal with one another through force. Under this lawlessness, there is no protection of individual rights. This is not freedom.
In order for man to be free absolutely, he must be free from force. The only way this is possible is if the government is constitutionally limited to it's only morally justifiable role: protecting the individual rights of its citizens. This entails that the government be limited to three functions: providing a court system, a police force, and a military.
- The role of the courts would be to arbitrate between individuals in the event of a civil dispute and/or if a crime has been committed.
- The role of the police would be to protect us from the initiation of force from other individuals.
- The role of the military would be to protect us from the initiation of force from foreign countries and enemies.
Everything and anything else, from education to healthcare to scientific research, must be left to the private sector. The three functions would be funded not by means of force but by means of voluntary taxation, as it is in each individuals self-interest to have their own rights protected. Will there be freeloaders? Perhaps, but it would not dissuade those who do fund it. To explain, I'll use a realistic analogy. I have witnessed, on several occasions, people reading newspapers on the subway. Almost every time, there is someone sitting next to the owner of the newspaper, glancing at the pages. Both people in this situation are gaining benefit from the paper, however, only one paid for it. Does this dissuade the owner of the paper, or others from purchasing newspapers? No. Why? Because the people who bought the paper have the assurance that they will get the benefit that they wanted or needed at that time, in this case, information. The only way to get that assurance, is by paying for it yourself. It is assurance that motivates and allows voluntary taxation to work. Seeing as one's rights are more important than a newspaper, there should be no doubt that people will voluntarily pay to have their rights protected.
Only when we restore our republic by limiting our government to its proper role, can we then truly declare, with pride, that this is America, the land of the free.
