Introduction
Is tax theft? To answer this question, people have to consider property fundamentally. Tax is a policy in which states take part of people’s wealth. About this, some liberalists, who have philosophical opinions that are based on John Locke, claim that it is national violence which interferes with proper property. On the other hand, people like Rousseau argue that liberty is more important than wealth, and it is natural to limit personal property to preserve liberty; therefore, they argue it is not theft. Eventually, the dispute whether tax is theft or not lead to the question of whether property is sacrosanct or not. Thus, I will compare the opinions of both Locke, who is represented as a liberalist, and Rousseau, a person who stands on the opposite side of Locke, and explain my answer to this question.
Argument of Locke and Rousseau
(1) John Locke
Locke set out the argument about personal property rights. He said people can produce worth by adding personal labor to something that is regarded as a public property (306). This idea is explained well in his book, Two Treatises of Government. According to his claim, It is clear that citizens get personal property rights that can’t be interfered with by other people since their wealth is accumulated by their own work (307). Especially when he makes his argument, he says that property is justified to justify citizens’ liberty. Therefore, property to Locke has a sacrosanct feature that the owner must protect it, not to be taken away by any other people.
(2) Rousseau
Unlike Locke, Jean Jacque Rousseau doesn’t consider personal property rights as a top priority. In his book called A Discourse Upon The Origin and The Foundation Of The Inequality Among Mankind, he reveals that natural and basic rights are life and liberty (163). He regards protecting liberty as more important than preserving wealth; due to this reason, he thinks that personal property rights can be adjusted for liberty. Additionally, in the same book, he argues that personal property rights are the main cause of sin, quarrel, and inequality. Considering these aspects, it is evident that property is not an essential right to Rousseau; as a result, it is not a sacrosanct right either. It can be restricted for liberty whenever it needs to.
As you can see, there are two big features in common between them. The first one is that both of them are considering people’s liberty. The Second one is that neither of them want to create inequality. However, there are some differences when they mention liberty and inequality. Locke regards individuals' property positively while Rousseau regards it negatively. Also, Locke uses inequality to counter other people’s criticism about his claim of property, but Rousseau utilizes it to counter Locke’s argument.
The Two Reasons Why I Stand by Rousseau’s Argument
Considering this fact and their arguments, I claim that Rousseau’s argument should be the standard to decide whether tax is theft or not.
(1) Why is state interference with personal property rights an essential thing to do?
Locke says that when men put additional work by his hands to something that is public property, it becomes his own (306). In this claim, there is a premise that a ‘public property’ exists, and Rousseau thinks that it is made and protected by every person on the earth. In his book, A Discourse Upon The Origin and The Foundation Of The Inequality Among Mankind, he reveals this idea by giving an example of land (134). He says that land is where it can't belong to any specific individual, but belongs to every person on the earth.
According to this idea, I think every person on the earth has a proper right to get a benefit which is produced from giving additional work to public property since it is regarded as public. To actualize this, it is essential that the state interfere with personal property rights. The state is one of the biggest units that exists within peoples’ social contracts in reality; due to this reason, tax is the most universal way to give a benefit to every person in the country. The government of the state distributes benefits by providing national services which are afforded by tax. All kinds of welfare policies are representative examples (Gorton). Therefore, it is clear that some part of the benefits should be given to every person since all of them have a relationship with public property.
(2)The necessity of positive liberty reveals Locke’s self-contradiction.
If Rousseau’s liberty was the same with classical liberalism that emphasizes people’s rights to do everything they want as long as no one is harmed, he wouldn't say that personal property rights can be restricted for it. Rousseau’s concept of liberty is nearly identical with positive liberty, which is the ideology that was advocated mainly by John Rawls.
John Rawls’ concept of liberty is self achievement. It means that real liberty is the situation in which people can achieve what they want. To make this situation for every citizen of the state, it is evident that liberty has to be equal for every member of society, regardless of their social class (Rawls, 204). Considering this fact, the state must be a welfare state to provide enough economical and social support to poor people. Therefore, in terms of positive liberty, interfering with personal property rights can be justified.
At first glance, positive liberty looks only helpful for poor people. However, to ensure positive liberty is essential to provide a free society to not only poor citizens, but also rich people. If positive liberty can’t be ensured, a free society can’t be formed. This fact is Locke’s self-contradiction in his theory. If people only regard not interfering with personal property rights as a liberty, society can’t be a free society to both poor people and wealthy people, and this is not what Locke intended in his book. This can be explained by the historical case called the French revolution.
At the time that the French revolution occured, there was a huge inequality between each status. French people were always starving and dying since they were so poor. On the other hand, the aristocrats and royal family were very rich. There was no welfare policy to save French commoners so positive liberty couldn’t be provided to all of the people. However, French citizens got angry at the aristocrats and the royal family, and revolted. As a result, a majority of rich people were killed or they had to run away to other countries. In the long term, this also caused the Reign of Terror, which was the period that many people were killed (“French Revolution”). However, even though the revolution proceeded, commoners still had to worry seriously about what they eat and wear. Due to this situation in France, poor people had to suffer from poverty, and rich people had to suffer from deaths’ horror. Therefore, the society of France in the French revolution period was not an actual free society
The same thing is happening in modern society. Protests of labor unions and other kinds of strike unions are representative examples. When these protests occur in modern society, the atmosphere of the society is changed negatively and becomes anxious, and its systems stopped. This can downgrade the society to an unideal and less free society. In conclusion, it is clear that if positive liberty doesn’t provide well, society can not maintain or progress to an actual free society for every social class. Considering this fact, it is clear that John Locke’s argument makes a self contradiction since Locke justified his claim because he thinks it can build an ideal and free society.
I think that to build an actual free society, positive liberty has to be ensured to all of the members of it, and to fulfill this, people have to give tax to the state since the state is the main agent of providing positive liberty. Therefore, it is essential to intervene in people’s property to tender it; as a result, personal property rights in reality are not sacrosanct, and it also proves that Rousseau’s idea is appropriate to build a real free and ideal society.
Potential Issues
Some people might criticize my opinion about Locke's self contradiction. They tend to think that Locke’s idea about the relationship between personal property rights and liberty is more reasonable since it can build a society where people can make social contract (In this context, ‘social contract’ doesn’t mean Locke’s concept nor Rousseau’s concept of it. It means the social contract we see in real life.) with other people freely. If the people who will make contracts with each other have the same amount of wealth, so they can be treated perfectly equally, I would agree with Locke’s argument. However, I disagree with his argument if the background situation of the contract is unequal. If the background situation, such as the amount of capital, is different, people can’t create contracts freely. It looks equal and free, but in reality, usually the person who has less capital takes a lower position in the contract, while the person who has more capital takes a higher position in the contract (Rousseau, 145). The social contract in reality is the same as the contract between company and worker, and in this situation, people can’t contract ‘freely’. I think that Locke’s idea contributes to encouraging this phenomenon since it considers property as more than freedom. Rousseau’s argument is the best way to set the contract's background equally, which means it can help people to make contracts freely.
Conclusion
In short, my main argument is that I agree with Rousseau’s idea because of the two reasons. Firstly, some part of the benefit that comes from the owner’s own work should be given to every person since all of them have a relationship with public property. Secondly, Locke has a self-contradiction in his theory about the relationship between actual free society and negative liberalism. I think that to ensure positive liberty is essential to build an actual free society.
Considering these two reasons, I decided that personal property rights are not sacrosanct; therefore, tax is not theft.
Works Cited
Locke, John. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government : a critical edition. Introduction and notes by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. A Discourse Upon The Origin and The Foundation Of The
Inequality Among Mankind. bookk, 2019
Gorton, David. “Taxes Definition: Types, Who Pays, and Why”. Investopedia, last updated
31 March 2023, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxes.asp. accessed
25 June 2023.
“French Revolution”. HISTORY, last updated 27 March 2023,
25 June 2023
This essay received "commended" in '2023 John locke essay competition' Philosophy topic 3, "Is tax theft?
Writer : Yeryeong Choi
High School : Kyungpook National University High School
Comments