Washington, D.C. -- Tax Haven?
April 12, 2001

by Joe Sobran

     Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- you 
remember him -- and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the 
District of Columbia's nonvoting delegate to the 
House of Representatives, have come up with a 
brilliant idea. They have jointly introduced a bill 
to exempt residents of the District from income 
taxes.

     It's called the No Taxation without 
Representation Act of 2001. The idea is that D.C. 
residents shouldn't have to pay income taxes until 
the District becomes a fully represented state, 
with senators and congressmen.

     District residents are already exercised about 
the principle "No Taxation without Representation," 
which is now inscribed on their auto license 
plates. Mostly black, they contend that whites, 
especially Republicans, don't want them to enjoy 
statehood, since they would be likely to elect 
black left-wing Democrats to the Senate and House. 
And they have a point.

     But the bill might have unintended 
consequences. D.C. residents might discover that 
they are better off without either statehood or 
income taxes. Think of it. If you could keep your 
own earnings, wouldn't you be willing to forgo 
statehood for a while? Like, indefinitely? Maybe 
even forever, per omnia saecula saeculorum?

     If Washington becomes a tax-free zone, it will 
be transformed. People from around the country, or 
around the world, will pour in. Property values 
will soar. Slums will disappear, as developers 
snatch up decrepit neighborhoods and replace them 
with luxurious new housing.

     With a booming and prosperous population, 
competition for the privilege of tax-free residence 
will be intense. White professionals (and let's not 
forget Asians) who have fled or avoided the city 
would pay big money to move back in. Poor blacks, 
priced out of the market, would move out. The 
capital would be transmuted ethnically.

     And politically. The new population would 
fiercely resist the very thing the present 
population demands: statehood. Once Washington 
became a state, its inhabitants would have to start 
paying income taxes -- the very thing they came to 
escape. The whole purpose of the great migration 
would have been defeated. The people of the city 
would realize that gaining representation in 
Congress, in return for paying thousands of dollars 
in taxes annually, would be a terrible bargain.

     Think of it. Washington, D.C., headquarters of 
the federal government, would actually become an 
enclave of freedom from the oppression of -- the 
federal government!

     So without realizing it, Senator Lieberman and 
Delegate Norton may be establishing themselves as 
the leaders of what amounts to a new secessionist 
movement. Abe Lincoln, eat your heart out!

     "No taxation without representation" could 
also mean "Just get rid of my taxes, and I won't 
need representation." Who really feels 
"represented" by our elected officials, anyway? If 
they represent everyone, how can they truly 
represent anyone? When you hire a lawyer, you know 
he represents you; he doesn't profess to represent 
you and your adversaries at the same time.

     If politicians actually represent all of us, 
as they claim they do, how come we have to pay high 
taxes and submit to so many onerous laws? If you 
got similar results from your lawyer, you'd fire 
him.

     Why do we assume that the government 
"represents" us when it exercises power over us, 
robs us of our wealth, and strips away our 
freedoms? What nonsense. But this is what passes, 
in an age of political superstition, for 
"democracy" and "self-government."

     The Lieberman-Norton bill may inadvertently 
expose the truth: that we are better off without 
politicians "representing" us. I doubt that this is 
what they set out to demonstrate, but that's fine. 
People will draw their own lessons when they get 
the chance to keep their city not only tax-free, 
but politician-free. They will say, with one mighty 
voice, "Hey! Why didn't we think of this before?"

     Who knows how this idea might catch on? Other 
parts of the country might clamor for tax-free 
status too. Would they have to give up their 
representation in Congress? Well, you can't have 
everything! At least they should have the option. 
Let the market test the real value of politicians.

     That's why the Lieberman-Norton bill won't be 
adopted. In this great democracy of ours, no 
politician in his right mind would offer the voters 
a chance to choose between politicians -- alias 
"representation" -- and 100 per cent tax relief.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~













Me and My Family and China
April 3, 2001

by Joe Sobran

     The Chinese government, which has been 
displaying unusual belligerence lately, has 
committed another provocation against the U.S. 
Government by disabling an American spy plane over 
international waters, then detaining the crew 
incommunicado when they were forced to land on a 
Chinese island. Whether the Chinese fighter jet 
deliberately struck the propeller-driven American 
plane is unclear -- the jet was lost, its pilot 
apparently killed -- but the jet was certainly 
risking a collision in order to harass the American 
plane.

     The incident is being described as "the first 
major foreign policy test of the Bush 
administration." We are also hearing the usual 
phrases -- "improved relations," "cooperation," 
"firm response." The case may be resolved by the 
time you read this, or, if the Chinese rulers have 
decided to play hardball with the United States, it 
could "escalate" into an "international crisis."

     What is the reactionary utopian position on 
this situation (which, however the present case 
turns out, is likely to recur)? Speaking only for 
myself, as the only avowed reactionary utopian I 
know of, I appeal to the sensible question of Don 
Corleone: "What is the interest for me and my 
family?" And as Sonny Corleone adds: "Your country 
ain't your blood." More precisely, your government 
ain't your family.

     In fact, your government is your natural 
enemy. That's why we have so many safeguards 
against it, though (as the Senate's passage of the 
McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" bill shows) they 
are being gradually removed. More and more, the 
government demands that we trust it, especially in 
secrecy-laden military affairs. (It's fitting that 
John McCain exhibits a military-style 
authoritarianism.)

     Governments begin with crime and conquest. 
They may be somewhat humanized over time, with 
bills of rights and other measures to protect 
subjects from rulers, but they generally revert to 
crime and conquest eventually. The U.S. Government 
is an enormous parasite on the productive sector of 
the American people, as the imminence of April 15 
should remind us.

     The interests of the government are at odds 
with those of its subjects. This fundamental fact 
is disguised by democratic rhetoric, which may lull 
us into thinking that whatever is good for the 
rulers is also good for the ruled. Nowhere is this 
truer than in military matters: intervention abroad 
is always advertised as the defense of freedom.

     War with China is not in the interest of me 
and my family. But the enormous U.S. presence in 
Asia is likely to lead to war sooner or later. The 
Chinese and American governments are vying for 
supremacy in the region like two rival gangs. 
Thanks, but I want no part of it. Dominating Asia 
is not in the interest of me and my family, even if 
it could be done without bloodshed. Military 
conquest does nothing to advance our freedom and 
often has the opposite result.

     In the present case, the American government 
may be in the right, just as the Corleones may be 
in the right when ambushed by the Tattaglias. It 
remains true that the interest of me and my family 
is to stay out of any such conflict. The last time 
members of my family went to war, my father was 
nearly killed and our ancestral country, Ruthenia, 
wound up in Joe Stalin's duffel bag. President 
Franklin Roosevelt assured us that we were fighting 
for "freedom."

     Am I positing "moral equivalence" between the 
United States and China? Not exactly. I much prefer 
life under the U.S. Government to life under the 
brutal Chinese regime, because many of our freedoms 
have, after all, survived the U.S. Government's 
efforts to whittle them away.

     But this is not to say that we owe those 
freedoms to our government, whose character has 
become increasingly lawless and criminal. And there 
is no reason for us to root our current rulers on 
in their power rivalry with the Chinese rulers. 
It's imbecilic to equate our current rulers with 
the precious principles of liberty and the rule of 
law. But the lazy (and wholly irrational) equation 
of the government's interests with the people's 
freedom has become a bad habit.

     This was not always so. In the days when 
American rulers had some genuine concern for 
freedom, they warned against foreign wars and 
entangling alliances. Does anyone remember?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/010412.shtml".

To subscribe to the Sobran columns, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml or 
http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2001 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. All rights reserved.














http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml or 
http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2001 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. All rights reserved.