Might we call your tactics “civil-financial disobedience?”
After some rooting around on clairewolfe.com I noted that in some circles, tactics like mine are being debated under the name “economic secession.”
For instance, this article suggests the tactic, this article criticizes it, and this one responds to the criticism.
The Doing Freedom! site advocates an interesting approach to disengagement from government:
These days in the US, one of the best ways of doing freedom is to unsubscribe from a coercive government, depriving the State of your financial support. And for me, the easiest way to unsubscribe was to go permanent tourist.
Read The Permanent Tourist: A Minimalist Approach to Getting Started for an idea of what the “permanent tourist” lifestyle adds up to.
I didn’t know that Rose Wilder Lane, best-known probably for collaborating with her mother Laura Ingalls Wilder on the Little House on the Prairie books (although she was an accomplished writer in her own right), was a tax resister.
I was made aware of Lane’s tax resistance by reading the essay/chapter To Shrug: An Alternative Lifestyle for an Individualist by David King, who was inspired by Lane’s example. By “to shrug” he means something similar to what I’m doing or to the “economic secession” that gets debated from time to time in libertarian circles. He calls it “shrug” in tribute to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. He shrugged in and hasn’t looked back:
King’s “To Shrug” can be found in its entirety in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.
The best way to gain economic freedom is to cut expenses. People who squander their prime years on excessive work to pay unnecessary expenses, and then spend the remainder of their lives working just to stay sheltered and fed, can’t enjoy much freedom.
As part of her exercise in subversion, in Rose Wilder Lane began an attempt to reduce her income below taxable levels. My own implementation of this has been a great success. As of , the base (federal) taxable level of income in the USA is above $5000 per year. This represents over twice the amount necessary for me to live comfortably. For the final 14 years of my working life I worked two 8-hour shifts per week at or near the minimum wage (as dishwasher/janitor in local restaurants). My standard of living rose continually during that time, mainly because almost the entirety of my income was “disposable income.” I had followed Ms Lane’s example and reduced my living expenses to just about nil.
My standard of living has been rising continually since , when I had fully implemented my lifestyle. Whether I consider the amount of material wealth that I possess or the amount of leisure time available to me or the amount of time I must devote to earning my living or the amount of economic security I have. In all these respects I am better off now than I have been at any previous time of my life.
An interesting thing about all this is that I believe anybody could do what I have done. Anybody in America could work 10 years at minimum wage and then retire for life. As screwed up as it is, this is still the richest society the world has ever seen.
Wally Conger, at out of step, reprinted some good advice from Samuel Edward Konkin Ⅲ:
Another Konkin pamphlet can be found in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.
Ideologically, there is nothing wrong with sabotaging the State or even shooting statists; either you believe the State is pure institutional aggression or you need to go back to elementary classes in basic libertarian theory. However, for agorists there is a strong economic element involved: is this economically sound?
Morally, all but our pacifist allies should have no problem with self-defense and hence sabotage of the State. The interesting questions arrive in the Strategic and Tactical levels. Strategically, we refer to agorism: all counter-economic activity is considered sabotage of the State’s economic order. So, again, we have no problem in a systematic sabotage of the State. But how and where? When should scarce resources be utilized for a negative, defensive purpose rather than our usual pursuit of moral profit having the positive side-effect of smashing the State?
And so we come to the Tactical level, the elegance of Counter-Economics answers our question simply: almost never. There are two categories where sabotage may be engaged in, divided praxeologically, into production and consumption. Consumption means that a particular counter-economist finds sabotaging the State to be his or her whim-worshipping pleasure. Most of MLL, most of the time, cannot waste resources on such pleasures.
On the other hand, on a production level, one commits a destructive act in order to clear the way for an even more constructive act. What object of the State could distract us to put our “dynamite” in its vile dam blocking the road to freedom? The answer is War. Not only is sabotaging the war machine satisfying, but downright urgent. Lives are at stake, either draftees from home or victims of imperialism abroad.
liberal Cindy Sheehan and libertarian Sam Bostaph have come together to urge people to dynamite the war machine:
[T]he ideological differences that exist between Cindy and Sam must be set aside in the interest of a united front against this obscene war. If she had to do so, Cindy would describe herself as a progressive humanist who wants the militarism of America and the world to be replaced with kinder, more gentler foreign and domestic policies. She passionately believes that the vast amounts of our tax dollars that are being dumped into war and wasted by the “War” Department every year need to be returned to our communities to build a culture of plenty and peace.
If he had to do so, Sam would describe himself as a political and economic libertarian who wants a government that is limited solely to the protection of our human rights. This would eliminate almost all departments and agencies of the federal, state and local governments as they exist now. Like Cindy, he wants an end to militarism, the return of all U.S. military forces to the continental U.S. and the closure of all foreign bases.
But, Cindy and Sam are “we” in this struggle against the fascist, warlike society that America has become — particularly under the Bush regime — and “we” want a lot of company.
is the 100th anniversary of what Gandhi called — a campaign he helped lead in South Africa against one of the repulsive and racist laws that were perennially fashionable there.
He compared the campaign he was to help lead to the ongoing Russian Revolution:
It is interesting to compare the reactions of the Russian people to tyranny with our own reaction to it. Under British rule, we draft petitions, carry on a struggle through the Press, and seek justice from the King. All this is perfectly proper. It is necessary, and it also brings us some relief. But is there anything else that we should do? And, can we do it? We shall think of these questions later. For the present, let us see what Russia is doing. The people there, both rich and poor, do not send petitions and stop there. The oppression there is such that it has given rise to a number of anarchists. They believe that all rulers are oppressive, and the State should therefore be done away with. To achieve this end, people in Russia kill the officials openly as well as secretly. In this, however, they are making a mistake. Such thoughtless adventures only serve to keep the minds of both the rulers and the ruled in a state of constant tension. All the same, it is admitted on all hands that men taking such risks must be brave and patriotic.
Even young girls set out on such adventures and court risks. A book was recently published about the lives of young women who have thus made themselves immortal. Knowing that death is certain, these fearless girls, actuated by patriotism and a spirit of self-sacrifice, take the lives of those whom they believe to be the enemies of the country, and themselves meet an agonising death at the hands of officials. Facing such risks, they serve their country selflessly. It will be no wonder if such a country succeeds in achieving freedom from tyranny. The only reason why it has not become free immediately is that such patriotism is misdirected, as we have pointed out before, and results in bloodshed. In consequence, these people cannot, according to divine law, obtain any immediate benefit.
Do our people display patriotism of this order? We have regretfully to say “No”. No one can be blamed, for we have not yet been trained for this. We are children in political matters. We do not understand the principle that the public good is also one’s own good. But the time has now come for us to outgrow this state of mind. We need not, however, resort to violence. Neither need we set out on adventures, risking our lives. We must, however, submit our bodies to pain, and the new Transvaal Ordinance offers an excellent opportunity. The Ordinance represents the limit of oppression.… [I]f, disregarding our attempts at gentle persuasion, the Government enforces the Ordinance, Indians will not abide by it; they will not [re-]register themselves, nor will they pay fines; they will rather go to gaol.…
Gandhi’s writings about tax resistance can be found in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.
A mass meeting was held on at which this resistance campaign was launched. Gandhi’s speech on that day, which he said later was delivered unprepared in response to the surprise proposal by one attendee that everyone present take a solemn oath to oppose the hated Ordinance, is a stirring bit of rhetoric that compares favorably in this American’s eyes with our “Declaration of Independence”:
I wish to explain to this meeting that there is a vast difference between this resolution and every other resolution we have passed up to date and that there is a wide divergence also in the manner of making it. It is a very grave resolution we are making, as our existence in South Africa depends upon our fully observing it. The manner of making the resolution suggested by our friend is as much of a novelty as of a solemnity. I did not come to the meeting with a view to getting the resolution passed in that manner, which redounds to the credit of Sheth Haji Habib as well as it lays a burden of responsibility upon him. I tender my congratulations to him. I deeply appreciate his suggestion, but if you adopt it you too will share his responsibility. You must understand what is this responsibility, and as an adviser and servant of the community, it is my duty fully to explain it to you.
We all believe in one and the same God, the differences of nomenclature in Hinduism and Islam notwithstanding. To pledge ourselves or to take an oath in the name of that God or with Him as witness is not something to be trifled with. If having taken such an oath we violate our pledge we are guilty before God and man. Personally I hold that a man, who deliberately and intelligently takes a pledge and then breaks it, forfeits his manhood. And just as a copper coin treated with mercury not only becomes valueless when found out but also makes its owner liable to punishment, in the same way a man who lightly pledges his word and then breaks it becomes a man of straw and fits himself for punishment here as well as hereafter. Sheth Haji Habib is proposing to administer an oath of such a serious character. There is no one in this meeting who can be classed as an infant or as wanting in understanding. You are all well advanced in age and have seen the world; many of you are delegates and have discharged responsibilities in a greater or lesser measure. No one present, therefore, can ever hope to excuse himself by saying that he did not know what he was about when he took the oath.
I know that pledges and vows are, and should be, taken on rare occasions. A man who takes a vow every now and then is sure to stumble. But if I can imagine a crisis in the history of the Indian community of South Africa when it would be in the fitness of things to take pledges, that crisis is surely now. There is wisdom in taking serious steps with great caution and hesitation. But caution and hesitation have their limits, which we have now passed. The Government has taken leave of all sense of decency. We would only be betraying our unworthiness and cowardice, if we cannot stake our all in the face of the conflagration which envelopes us and sit watching it with folded hands. There is no doubt, therefore, that the present is a proper occasion for taking pledges. But every one of us must think out for himself if he has the will and the ability to pledge himself. Resolutions of this nature cannot be passed by a majority vote. Only those who take a pledge can be bound by it. This pledge must not be taken with a view to produce an effect on outsiders. No one should trouble to consider what impression it might have upon the local Government, the Imperial Government, or the Government of India. Every one must only search his own heart, and if the inner voice assures him that he has the requisite strength to carry him through, then only should he pledge himself and then only would his pledge bear fruit.
A few words now as to the consequences. Hoping for the best, we may say that, if a majority of the Indians pledge themselves to resistance and if all who take the pledge prove true to themselves, the Ordinance may not even be passed and, if passed, may be soon repealed. It may be that we may not be called upon to suffer at all. But if on the one hand one who takes a pledge must be a robust optimist, on the other hand he must be prepared for the worst. It is therefore that I would give you an idea of the worst that might happen to us in the present struggle. Imagine that all of us present here numbering 3,000 at the most pledge ourselves. Imagine again that the remaining 10,000 Indians take no such pledge. We will only provoke ridicule in the beginning. Again, it is quite possible that in spite of the present warning some or many of those who pledge themselves might weaken at the very first trial. We might have to go to gaol, where we might be insulted. We might have to go hungry and suffer extreme heat or cold. Hard labour might be imposed upon us. We might be flogged by rude warders. We might be fined heavily and our property might be attached and held up to auction if there are only a few resisters left. Opulent today, we might be reduced to abject poverty tomorrow. We might be deported. Suffering from starvation and similar hardships in gaol, some of us might fall ill and even die. In short, therefore, it is not at all impossible that we might have to endure every hardship that we can imagine, and wisdom lies in pledging ourselves on the understanding that we shall have to suffer all that and worse. If someone asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that, if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near. If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be prolonged. But I can boldly declare, and with certainty, that so long as there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there can only be one end to the struggle, and that is victory.
A word about my personal responsibility. If I am warning you of the risks attendant upon the pledge, I am at the same time inviting you to pledge yourselves, and I am fully conscious of my responsibility in the matter. It is possible that a majority of those present here might take the pledge in a fit of enthusiasm or indignation but might weaken under the ordeal, and only a handful might be left to face the final test. Even then there is only one course open to the like of me, to die but not to submit to the law. It is quite unlikely but even if every one else flinched leaving me alone to face the music, I am confident that I would never violate my pledge. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this out of vanity, but I wish to put you, especially the leaders upon the platform, on your guard. I wish respectfully to suggest it to you that, if you have not the will or the ability to stand firm even when you are perfectly isolated, you must not only not take the pledge yourselves, but you must declare your opposition before the resolution is put to the meeting and before its members begin to take pledges and you must not make yourselves parties to the resolution. Although we are going to take the pledge in a body, no one should imagine that default on the part of one or many can absolve the rest from their obligation. Every one should fully realize his responsibility, then only pledge himself independently of others and understand that he himself must be true to his pledge even unto death, no matter what others do.
Here are some more things that have cropped up on the web in recent days that have caught my eye:
I maintain that it is the right of any individual person to reject and renounce a government which violates his moral conscience. I maintain that it is my personal right, in this very body, here and now, to ignore the State, and to refuse participation in its actions which violate humanity and life itself. I also declare that the same is my intention insofar as refusal to pay direct tax to any nation-state. There can be no treason if one’s first loyalty is to humanity and to life itself. Human life is above Nation-State. Personal conscience and individual moral sovereignty is above State sovereignty. How can the question of treason arise when one refuses to murder helpless women and children? He who claims self ownership can never commit treason because the State cannot own him. He is not the property of the State.
…[M]ake spending money into a conscious, deliberate process through which you take control and defend yourself, through which you demand full value. When you are skeptical of people trying to sell you something, then you stop being vulnerable to the incredible bombardment of ads and opinions that urge you to be a fool for “the newest, the shiniest, the sexiest” acme product. Remember… what you are actually trading is not a scrap of government paper but the irreplaceable time it took you to acquire that government scrap. Make sure you receive something equally valuable in return.
Long before the incident with the swindling computer company, I’d lost the sense of “businessmen as heroic producers of wealth” which I’d absorbed (briefly) from Ayn Rand’s novels. Experience taught that businessmen were no more honest or admirable than the average Joe; indeed, whenever money changes hands, honesty seems to decrease. Moreover, as a libertarian I became acutely aware of how well-connected businessmen embrace the Corporate State and glut themselves on tax-funded contracts and state protections/privileges. (The limited liability of corporations is a perfect example of the latter.)
Businessmen are often the biggest obstacle to the free market and the staunchest friends of government regulation. In his article What Is The Enemy, Sheldon Richman writes, “the great threat to liberty is the corporate state, otherwise known as corporatism, state capitalism, and political capitalism. (The Therapeutic State falls into this category, because the prime beneficiaries are corporate medical providers.)” And, so, one of the ideological motivations behind my frugal rebellion was/is to remove myself from the role of obedient consumer, a role that helps to legitimize and sustain a system I find morally and politically bankrupt.
The moral necessity of defunding the US Empire is as follows: The Empire is engaged in wars of aggression, the endless war on “terror,” violation of human rights and civil liberties, illegal rendition of terror suspects to foreign countries for torture and interrogation, denial of habeas corpus, denial of the Geneva Convention, torture, wiretapping US citizens, and use of depleted uranium weapons, an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction. Need I go on? People said it couldn’t happen here, but now we are the “good Germans,” dutifully doing what the IRS tells us to do, while the government commits war crimes in our name with our money.
…[T]ake the following pledge: “I withdraw my mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual energy from the corrupt US government. I will not give them any financial support, nor will I willingly accept any tax-funded benefits from the US government. I will put my financial resources to better use such as Vermont secession. I will starve the beast.”
Hundreds of pages of recently unsealed court records detail how kickbacks shaped the [Iraq] war’s largest troop support contract months before the first wave of U.S. soldiers plunged their boots into Iraqi sand.
The graft continued well beyond the congressional hearings that first called attention to it. And the massive fraud endangered the health of American soldiers even as it lined contractors’ pockets, records show.
At Sunni and the Conspirators, Sunni Maravillosa encourages folks to consider some self defense against the upcoming trillion-dollar bailout fleecing. Excerpt:
First and foremost, the socialist cesspool will be funded by taxpayers — so we need to withdraw that tangible support. The Picket Line is an excellent resource for information and inspiration in that regard. Individuals who can’t easily get entirely out of the IRS’s clutches can almost certainly find ways to maximize deductions and such to reduce the money stolen from one’s income.
Everybody can turn to grey markets for goods as well as services. Roadside produce stands, Craigslist, Etsy, the handyman who’ll fix your various repairs for cash, with no receipts or records — are ways to exchange value outside of the taxers’ reach. Turning to those entities first should become a matter of habit — a principled habit — for those wanting to withdraw support from the USSA kleptocracy.
In a follow-up post, Sunni expanded on this:
The teeth behind [our] warning is that we shrug, as much as possible: we withdraw our activities from the aboveboard market, where inflation and taxation will eat at us with increasing vigor as the government tries to suck our lifeblood to pay bankers who’ve been misrepresenting themselves and cheating us a myriad of ways all along.
Many will argue that they cannot afford to risk becoming tax resisters, especially in such troubled times. As I said , I do understand that such a move is easier for some, both physically and mentally. If you’re having difficulty wrapping your head around dropping out in this way, consider some of the implications of staying within the system:
- People who stay in the system will bear the costs of all these nationalizations, in terms of tax increases and a declining value of the USSA dollar.
- As such, they will have less of a buffer between their income and ability to support themselves and the fluctuations in the mainstream economy.
- Less diversity in one’s income streams means greater risk; this shakeup is far from over, and many of the aftershocks of the moves already made have yet to show themselves.
- Less diversity in the type of income (viz., the USSA dollar) one receives means greater exposure to risk if that type of income becomes unstable or devalued.
- Being in the system might actually make one more of a target, as new taxes, enforcement of extant taxes that are largely overlooked, and/or seizures of assets may radically change the economic landscape.
As an individual who values freedom, do you really want to maximally support what is an increasingly collectivist and overtly fascist system? Because that’s what you’re doing when you allow yourself to stay under the thumb of their rules, regulations, and reporting that add to business costs but add nothing of value.
Erica Weiland has summarized her keynote speech on Economic Disobedience and War Tax Resistance, which she delivered at a conference in Eugene, Oregon, on . Excerpt:
When we heard about this work in Spain, it was clear to us that war tax resistance is economic disobedience, the refusal to cooperate in an economic system that is built on war, militarism, and the perpetuation of human suffering. It was also clear to us that a variety of movements that also practice economic disobedience are allied with us in this struggle. When people refuse to pay debts to ruthless debt collectors, resist foreclosure, set up bartering networks that don’t report bartering as income, set up gift economies that avoid the IRS bartering regulations, organize lending circles for low-income borrowers, counsel high school students on alternatives to military service, squat abandoned houses, organize tent cities for the homeless regardless of bureaucratic and inhumane regulations, and struggle against corrupt landlords and employers, we are engaging in economic disobedience. The economic system we live under is not set up to support us, so we should withdraw our support from the system whenever feasible.
And here’s some more information about the Spanish movement that is the inspiration for this work: an interview with Enric Duran on the Shareable site and the video Come Back: A Story We Wrote Together (subtitled in English) which tells the story of Duran’s bank heists and how a coalition of pioneers used the funds to build a parallel solidarity economy.
Some links that have graced my browser in recent days:
The Satyagraha Foundation for Nonviolence Studies recently came to my attention. It has a few pages that touch on tax resistance, including:
- Street Spirit
- Did the U.S. government ever press charges against Voices in the Wilderness for violating the sanctions?
- Kathy Kelly
- They would bring us into court with some regularity. It was curious because at one point there was a $50,000 fine. I thought, “What are you going to take — my contact lenses?” I just had to laugh. I mean, I haven’t paid a dime of taxes to the U.S. government as a war tax-refuser since 1980. So there is nothing they could take from me. The people that would go over were in the same boat. So good luck collecting from them!
- Spirit
- But as it turned out, they did fine your group $20,000, didn’t they?
- Kelly
- Yeah, they finally took us into court. And I think Condoleezza Rice inadvertently might have saved us. This is speculation on my part, but this much is true. Chevron settled out of court, acknowledging that they had paid money under the table to Saddam Hussein in order to get very lucrative contracts for Iraqi oil.
- Condoleezza Rice was the international liaison for Chevron while it was paying money under the table to get these lucrative contracts. So when we finally had our day in court, Sen. Carl Levin’s staffers were still digging up this information and it was beginning to become public evidence that Chevron, Odin Marine Inc., Mobil and Coastal Oil had all been paying money for these oil contracts under the table to Saddam Hussein.
- So there were big fish in the pond that broke the sanctions and there were little fish in the pond that broke the sanctions. I think some of the big fish said, “That is one hot potato. You drop that hot potato as fast as you can, and don’t make a big deal because those people are little fish but they’re mouthy little fish.” So they never tried to collect a dime from us. The money was just sitting there.
- Spirit
- Well, what exactly did happen to you when the U.S. government took you to court for violating the sanctions?
- Kelly
- We were found guilty and were fined $20,000. Federal Judge John Bates wrote in his legal opinion that those who disobey an unjust law should accept the penalty willingly and lovingly.
- Spirit
- Unbelievable! A federal judge lectures you about lovingly accepting this unjust fine using the words of Martin Luther King?
- Kelly
- Yes. We said to Judge Bates, “If you want to send us to prison, we will go, willingly and lovingly. We’ve done that before already. But if you think we will pay a fine to the U.S. government, then we ask you to imagine that Martin Luther King would have ever said, ‘Coretta, get the checkbook.’ We are not going to pay one dime to the U.S. government which continues to wage warfare.” At that time, supplemental spending bills appeared every year, sometimes two or three times a year, and congressional representatives and senators continued to vote yes on those spending bills for the military. So we said, “No, we won’t pay a dime of that fine.”
- Spirit
- You have also been a war tax resister for a long time.
- Kelly
- I’m a war tax refuser. I don’t give them anything.
- Spirit
- Oh, you’re not a 50 percent withholder, like many war tax resisters. You’re a 100 percent withholder?
- Kelly
- Yes, I’m a 100 percent withholder. I think war tax resistance is important but I happen to be a refuser. They haven’t got one dime of federal income tax from me since 1980.
- Spirit
- Why did you begin refusing to pay federal taxes entirely?
- Kelly
- I won’t give them any money. I can’t and I won’t. I won’t pay for guns. I don’t believe in killing people. I also don’t want to pay for the CIA, the FBI, the corporate bail-outs or the prison system. But particularly, I began as a war tax refuser. I wouldn’t give money to the Mafia if they came to my door and said, “We’d like you to help pay for our operations.” I’m certainly not going to pay for wars when I’ve tried throughout my adult life to educate people to resist nonviolently.
- Spirit
- How have you gotten away with not paying federal taxes ? Do you keep your income low?
- Kelly
- Many years I have lived below the taxable income. But in , someone from the IRS came to my home. I had in some years claimed extra allowances on the W-4 form. And I just don’t file. I haven’t filed . Now, that’s a criminal offense and they could put me in jail for a long time for that. If I was earning over the taxable income, I would just calculate how many allowances I have to claim so that no money is taken out of my paycheck. It says in the small print on the W-2 form to put down the correct number of allowances so that the correct amount of tax is taken out. Well, that’s easy. The correct amount of tax to take from me is zero, so I just do the math.
- Spirit
- Why do you think they haven’t come after you?
- Kelly
- Well, they have come to collect taxes. But I don’t have a savings account, and I don’t own anything. The IRS is like my spiritual director [laughs]. I don’t know how to drive a car, and I’ve never owned any place that I’ve lived in. I just don’t have anything to take.
- Spirit
- So has the IRS given up on even trying to collect?
- Kelly
- Once they came out to collect in 1998 when I was taking care of my dear Dad, who was wheelchair-bound, and a bit slumped over in the chair. Dad liked to listen to opera and I had a really awful old record player playing a scratchy record. I had been in the back of the house and I didn’t know she was coming, so I ran down to answer the door while the record player was making such a horrible noise. The apartment was fine but it only had a few sticks of furniture.
- The woman asked me if I was going to get a job, and I told her I couldn’t leave my father. Then she asked if I had a bank account, and I said no. She said, “And you don’t own a car?” And I told her I didn’t even know how to drive. Then she just kind of leaned toward me and said, “You know what? I’m just going to write you up as uncollectible.” And I said, “That’s a very good idea.” [laughs] They’ve never tried to collect since. There was just nothing to take! Zero. Nothing.
I think “the organization of which I am a member” may have been War Resisters International. Gandhi’s response to this point is an interesting one:On your side, you state that those who set themselves against Western wars pay, nevertheless, taxes, which are used by the State for war and the oppression of the colored peoples. That is quite true. In fact our anti-militarist struggle also is as yet only something very relative, and it must go on extending. But in any case, we have fixed clear and inflexible borders: we refuse absolutely all direct, personal participation in war and in its social and moral preparation. But several of us employ still other means of fighting against it.… Moreover, a few of us have already decided individually to refuse to pay any taxes, whilst the organization of which I am a member has already several times been the propagandist of collective refusal of taxation. But whereas refusal, even on a very restricted scale, to do military service has been morally and socially efficacious, the refusal to pay taxes by a restricted number of citizens only has so far had very little result, as the authorities, in confiscating property and inflicting fines, take possession of sums much larger than a direct payment of taxes would have brought them. From this point of view, your compatriots have already given some impressive examples of collective refusal, although they also were not able to avoid regular unfair demands of the Government.
You can find more of Bart de Ligt’s thoughts on tax refusal, non-violent struggle, and Gandhi’s campaigns in the essay The Effectiveness of Non-Violent Struggle, also on the Satyagraha Foundation site.A non-violent man will instinctively prefer direct participation to indirect, in a system, which is based on violence and to which he has to belong without any choice being left to him. I belong to a world, which is partly based on violence. If I have only a choice between paying for the army of soldiers to kill my neighbours or to be a soldier myself, I would, as I must, consistent with my creed, enlist as a soldier in the hope of controlling the forces of violence and even of converting my comrades.
And from the academic and related worlds:
