Representation, Taxation, and Government Debt

Consider one of the supposed reasons given as the causus belli in the American Revolutionary War, that there must be “No taxation without representation.” I’ve long been suspect that this was little more than a piece of propaganda, since there was little thrust to such an argument. Supposing it were a valid complain (I would agree it is a valid complaint, but not in this case a valid causus belli) and not a mere rhetorical point, then the English government might’ve avoided the whole fiasco if only they’d granted representatives to the American colonies. But this would’ve done no good; with their paltry number of representatives in Parliament (the American colonies would’ve probably had about half a dozen representatives at the most) they would’ve been outvoted when it came to whether or not taxes should be stuck to the colonists, and so problems like the tea tax would’ve come to a fore anyway. Technically, the colonists would be represented; it’s just that their representation would amount to nought.

That historical point aside, let’s consider the current state of affairs with the government. (Can you count all the puns?) Currently, there is a government debt that totals in excess of 15 trillion dollars. Who will end up paying for this debt? While the currently represented citizens will pay some part, in some way (either by direct taxation or hidden forms of taxation like inflation), there are others who will end up becoming represented citizens who will be made to pay taxes into something that they weren’t represented in. In other words, those who aren’t represented (citizens who are underage and cannot vote) pay for taxation that was decided by those who could not be called their representatives in the government. Therefore, government debt violates the principle that there can be “No taxation without representation.”

Advertisement