|
Initially, recent tax protest started with some small replications of the "Boston
Tea Party" of 1773, which symbolized the start of the American Revolution.
Under relentless assault by serial taxers and regulators this is becoming a
political phenomenon. It is uncertain how far it may go, but the onslaught
of Democrat corporatism is alien to the fundamental nature and constitution
of America and Washington's mania needs to be censored and curbed.
Over the past few years we have briefly discussed the "Second American Civil
War". The first one, of course, was prosecuted to bring freedom to all citizens.
This one has been prosecuted under the banner of political correctness to constrain
the freedom of all citizens. Last year's Democratic electoral success has turned
loose a remarkably energized movement to intrude upon every aspect of life.
The classic condition for successful political reform has occurred when tax
demands are still soaring as most levels of government are in an aggressively
expansionist mode--as the private sector suffers a severe post-bubble contraction.
In March, Secretary of State Clinton advised "never waste a good crisis". That
was by way of an pitch about taxes and regulations needed to cure the earth's "health".
Government can find incredible reasons to spend, and the following essay reviews
some classic chicanery.
One would have hoped that financial rip-offs committed by medieval princes
would have been permanently shelved when liberal enlightenment ended the divine
right of kings.
Recent imperious announcements by Chairman Bernanke to use the "printing press" to
inflate anything they can should be considered startling only in the resort
to honesty. Euphemisms for currency depreciations started with the original
promoters of the Fed and the tout was that a "flexible" currency would prevent
serious financial contractions.
Although policymakers have been convinced that currency depreciation would
keep every "recovery" going, the 95 percent depreciation of the dollar's purchasing
power has exaggerated the booms and busts.
This is particularly ironical as government intervention did not prevent massive
contractions such as with the commodities collapse of 1921 and with the collapse
of virtually everything after 1929. Moreover, the timing and percent declines
on this fall's crash replicated those of 1929 with remarkable fidelity. The
crisis has been used as an excuse to increase taxation and regulation. The
ambition is reaching Medieval proportions.
Nineteenth Century liberals, so rational and principled in their views, could
not have imagined the greedy craft developed by many modern governments in
confiscating private wealth earned by productively working citizens. Are we
seeing medieval financial tyranny replicated by today's proponents of the divine
right of bureaucrats? A look at history provides perspective.
Although outrageous when imposed, the passage of time makes early examples
of princely finance somewhat amusing: the colourful Richard I (1189-1199) sold
property to finance his joining the crusade of Peter the Hermit. Upon returning,
he took it back on the pretense that originally he had no right to sell it.
The infamous King John (prompted the Magna Carta in 1215) introduced the clever
plan of imprisoning and ransoming the mistresses of priests, confident that
the funds he could not obtain from their greed he would from their lust.
Edward I (1272-1307) confiscated money and silver or gold plate from monasteries
and churches, faked a voyage to the Holy Land and, in keeping the money, refused
to go.
Edward IV (1461-1483) was described as the handsomest tax-gatherer in the
country; and when he kissed a widow because she gave him more than he expected,
it is said she doubled the amount in hopes of another kiss.
The fiscally sound Henry VII (1485-1509) approached wealthy families with
two arguments. If the household was not extravagant in expenditure, then he
attacked what they had saved by thrift; while if they lived extravagantly they
were considered opulent and could afford any exaction. Named after his minister
of finance, the ploy was called "Morton's Fork".
A broader form of wealth confiscation capable of tapping even the poor was
accomplished by currency debasement and extreme examples in ripping off everyone
provoked severe social disorder. No matter what method employed, financial
outrage prompted the evolution of parliament as a necessary means of constraining
fiscal ambitions of the governing classes.
The struggle between individual freedom and authoritarian state proceeded
until the late 1600s when growing commercial wealth and political power in
London began to become influential with its financial common sense. The specific
event that formalized the victory over the ancient status quo was the "Glorious
Revolution" of 1688, which maneuvered the pro-business and Protestant William
of Orange into the British Crown and displaced James II as the last absolutist
king. How refreshing this was is indicated by the oppressive politics of his
and his predecessor, Charles II. Starting with the restoration of the monarchy
with Charles in 1660, both kings were bribed by France to change the culture
of England - consistently in an authoritarian direction. Scornful remarks by
miffed establishment were similar to those directed to the pro-business "religious
right" today.
No matter how imaginative or despotic princely financing was, it can't compare
with the long- running compulsion to spend other people's money by today's
bureaucrats and politicians, virtually unrestrained by the checks and balances
of constitution or mainstream media.
But before expanding this point, consideration should be given to the other
event that formally ended the old world, which was the beginning of modern
finance with the incorporation of the Bank of England in 1694. As history shows,
central banking is fine when disciplined by a convertible currency and, when
not, it becomes a tool of state ambition to confiscate wealth though currency
depreciation. That the dollar has lost 90% of its value in only 50 years exceeds
most princely devaluations and, like those, has been no accident.
Indeed, recent Fed announcements to "print money" could be an attempt to go
for the final 10%. While many outside central banking would consider this as
infinite folly, it is uncertain as to how long this endeavour will maintain
credulity in even academic circles. Regrettably, modern financial agencies
such as the Treasury or Federal Reserve System have become as corruptible as
their medieval counterparts.
Fortunately, history provides some antidotes to governmental abuse of the
productive sector. Short of rebellion, the most effective of course has been
government and its financial agencies being forced to be accountable to the
taxpayer. As for those who have wrecked the currency (also a government responsibility),
Dante, in his Inferno, reserves a special place in hell for "false moneyers".
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles record something equivalent, albeit more temporal:
"1125 A.D. In this year before Christmas King Henry sent from Normandy
to England and gave instructions that all moneyers ... be deprived of their
members ... Bishop Roger of Salisbury commanded them all to assemble at Winchester
by Christmas. When they came hither they were then taken one by one, and
each deprived of the right hand and the testicles below. All this was done
in twelve days between Christmas and Epiphany, and was entirely justified
because they had ruined the whole country by the magnitude of their fraud
which they paid for in full." - The Laud Chronicle (E)
Fortunately, history indicates that the public will eventually figure out
that no matter how beguiling the claims about currency management and taxation
are, the gambit has been mainly to confiscate private savings. They will then
demand the return of sound money and accountable government.
|