How you can resist funding the government →
other ways the government is funded →
seigniorage / printing money / inflation
If the government, instead of taxing us or borrowing money to pay its bills, just printed money and used that instead, what would happen?
Well, for one thing, the increase in the money supply would cause inflation, which would mean that everybody’s money would be worth less.
But wouldn’t that just be the equivalent of a relatively frictionless, efficient, and difficult-to-evade flat-tax on cash deposits and income?
Why doesn’t the government use such a method to fund itself?
Steve Saville suggests that part of the reason is that in order for such a scheme to work, the people the government needs to pay must continue to believe that legal tender is valuable.
One way of doing this is to insist that everyone use legal tender to pay their tax bills.
This creates a more-or-less universal demand for the currency (since everyone needs some to pay their taxes), which gives it value.
So the government cannot wholly rely on “just printing more money” to pay its bills, but must supplement this with widespread demands for the money it prints.
Interesting argument; I wish I was more economically literate and could wrap my mind around it a little better.
I know that the powers that be manipulate the money supply and the value of currency for their benefit, but I have a hard time nailing down just what this means quantitatively.
For instance, if the money supply were not being manipulated in this way, how much would the government have to beg, borrow, or steal to make up the difference?
From time to time, I’ll read an article on a libertarian or paleocon site that bemoans the end of the gold standard, and dreams of a day when we can replace those worthless fiat banknotes we carry around in our pockets with some form of money that’s firmly backed by something of real value.
Fiat currency leads to inflation, which whittles away the savings of people who try to store up their value in money.
It also is a sort of grandiose, slow-burning Ponzi scheme, which strikes some people as fundamentally dishonest.
But attempts to establish a new medium of exchange that is backed by something concrete have had a hard time getting off the ground.
In part, this is because the government jealously guards its monopoly on issuing legal tender (with some exceptions).
But also, most people really don’t pine for the days when they could take a $50 silver certificate to the U.S. Treasury and demand fifty silver dollars.
People seem content to use inflationary fiat currency as a medium of exchange, and to use other mechanisms to attempt to store economic value.
, the United States Postal Service began issuing a non-inflationary, value-backed currency in the form of its “Forever” stamps.
A sheet of 18 stamps, about the same size as a dollar bill, will “forever” (that is, as long as the Postal Service honors its promise) get 18 first class envelopes from here to there, which seems to me a more constant measure of value than even a particular weight of gold.
These sheets have a built-in exchange rate with U.S. currency (currently one sheet is pegged at $7.38).
I wonder that the gold bugs haven’t yet converted their greenbacks to stamp sheets.
was all about the pre-revolutionary tax resistance against Great Britain practiced by rebellion-minded American colonists in an organized swadeshi-like campaign against the use of taxed imports.
When the American Revolution became a hot war this raised tax resistance issues of a different sort: from the pacifist Christian sects, particularly the Quakers, who were a major presence in the colonies, and who had to resist considerable pressure to support the patriot cause.
Not only were war taxes demanded in areas held by the revolutionary army, but the rebel Congress’s fiat currency was wildly inflationary and itself represented a war tax.
As one Quaker group put it:
A concern having often arisen in this committee and [being] livingly reviewed at this time, that Friends might exert themselves in laboring to have their brethren convinced of the pernicious consequences of continuing to circulate the Continental currency, so called, it being calculated to promote measures repugnant to the peaceable principles we profess to be led by, and having [as we believe] greatly increased our sufferings, and brought dimness over many, by continuing in the use thereof; it is therefore agreed to mention it to the Quarterly Meeting for consideration.
Ezra Michener adds, using language that reminds me very much of that used by modern critics of American fiat money:
Friends had strong reasons for objecting to the use of this Continental money.
The creation by law of a circulating medium of fictitious value, for the purpose of a gradual depreciation, cannot be reconciled with truth and justice, however necessity may seem to require it.
To say to the people you shall pass this paper for a certain nominal value to-day, but only at a less value tomorrow, and still less the day following, till it becomes entirely valueless, is a repudiation of a contract, — a refusal to pay a debt by the Government.
As a substitute for taxation, its operation is extremely unequal, and therefore to the same degree unjust.
Viewed in this light, it was strictly a requisition for carrying on the war, which Friends could not consistently pay.
Some Quakers refused to use the Continentals, which was an extremely dangerous form of tax resistance.
It was seen by the rebel authorities as a variety of treason, and could be punished by death.
(One Quaker was nearly hanged for refusing to accept Continentals in return for supplies the rebel army had forcibly requisitioned, when in fact his principles would not have allowed him to accept remuneration of any kind under the circumstances.)
Job Scott wrote of what he believed to be his duty under the circumstances:
Much close exercise of mind I had for a considerable length of time, on account of some particular scruples, which from time to time revived with weight, and so pressingly accompanied me, that I could not get rid of them.
It being , and preparations for war between Great Britain and America; and the rulers of America having made a paper currency professedly for the special purpose of promoting or maintaining the war; and it being expected that Friends would be tried by requisitions for taxes, principally for the support of war; I was greatly exercised in spirit, both on the account of taking and passing that money, and in regard to the payment of such taxes; neither of which felt easy to my mind.
I believed a time would come, when Christians would not so far contribute to the encouragement and support of war and fightings as voluntarily to pay taxes that were mainly, or even in considerable proportion, for defraying the expenses thereof; and it was also impressed upon my mind, that if I took and passed the money that I knew was made on purpose to uphold war, I should not bear a testimony against war that for me, as an individual, would be a faithful one.
I knew the people’s minds were in a rage against such as, from any motive whatever, said or acted any thing tending to discountenance the war: I was sensible that refusing to pay the taxes, or to take the currency, would immediately be construed as a pointed opposition to the present war in particular; as even our refusing to bear arms was, notwithstanding our long and well-known testimony against it; and I had abundant reason to expect great censure and some suffering in consequence of my faithfulness, if I should stand faithful in these things; though I knew that my scruples were unconnected with any party considerations, and uninfluenced by any motives but such as respect the propriety of a truly Christian conduct, in regard to war at large.
I had no desire to promote the opposition to Great Britain; neither had I any desire on the other hand to promote the measures or success of Great Britain.
I believed it my business not to meddle with any thing from such views; but to let the potsherds of the earth alone in their smiting one against another; I wished to be clear in the sight of God, and to do all that he might require of me, towards the more full introduction and coming of his peaceable kingdom and government on earth.
I found many well-concerned brethren, who seemed to have little or nothing of these scruples; and some others who were like-minded with me herein.
Under all these considerations the times looked somewhat gloomy; and at seasons great discouragement came over my mind.
But after some strugglings, and a length of close exercise, attended with much inward looking to the Lord for direction and support, I was enabled to cast my care upon him, and to risk myself and my all in his service, come whatever might come, or suffer whatever I might suffer, in consequence thereof.
I was well aware of many arguments and objections against attending to such scruples; and some seemingly very plausible ones from several passages of scripture, especially respecting taxes; but I believed I saw them all to arise from a want of clear understanding respecting the true meaning of those passages; and I knew I had no worldly interest, ease, or honour, to promote, by an honest attention to what I believed were the reproofs and convictions of divine instruction.
I well knew, not only by reading, but experimentally, that “He that doubteth is damned (condemned) if he eat;” and that which is contrary to faith and conviction is sin: therefore I chose rather to suffer in this world, than incur the displeasure of him from whom come all my consolation and blessings.
Things turned out just fine:
Having for declined taking the paper currency, agreeably to the secret persuasion which I had of my duty therein, as before mentioned, I have now the satisfaction of comparing the different rewards of obedience and disobedience.
For though, from the very first circulation of this money, I felt uneasy in taking it; yet fears and reasonings of one kind or another prevailed on me to take it for a season; and then it became harder to refuse it than it would probably have been at first; but growing more uneasy and distressed about it, at length I refused it altogether, since which I have felt great peace and satisfaction of mind therein; which has, in a very confirming manner, been increasing from time to time, the longer I have refused it: and although I get almost no money of any kind, little other being in circulation, yet I had much rather live and depend on divine Providence for a daily supply, than to increase in the mammon of this world’s goods, by any ways or means inconsistent with the holy will of my heavenly Father: and the prayer of my soul to him is, that I and all his children may be preserved faithful to him in all his requirings; and out of that love of things here below, which alienates from the true love of and communion with him.
In general, he found tax resistance to be less daunting than he had anticipated it to be:
About , an old acquaintance of mine, being now collector of rates, came and demanded one of me.
I asked him what it was for.
He said, to sink the paper money.
I told him, as that money was made expressly for the purpose of carrying on war, I had refused to take it; and, for the same reason, could, not pay a tax to sink it, believing it my duty to bear testimony against war and fighting.
I informed him, that for divers years past, even divers years before the war began, and when I had no expectation of ever being tried in this way, it had been a settled belief with me, that it was not right to pay such taxes; at least not right for me, nor, in my apprehension, right in itself; though many sincere brethren may not at present see its repugnancy to the pure and peaceable spirit of the gospel.
I let him know I did not wish to put him to any trouble, but would be glad to pay it if I could consistently with my persuasion.
He appeared moderate, thoughtful, and rather tender; and, after a time of free and pretty full conversation upon the subject, went away in a pleasant disposition of mind, I being truly glad to see him so.
Divers such demands were made of me in those troublesome times for divers years: I ever found it best to be very calm and candid; and to open, as I was from time to time enabled, the genuine grounds of my refusal; and that, if possible, so as to reach the understandings of those who made the demand.
The tough nut to crack, as it often seemed to be for Quakers, was taxes “in the mixture” — that is, taxes that were paid into a general fund that the government used for a variety of activities, including war.
Quakers typically felt that they couldn’t pay war taxes, but also felt that they were required to pay ordinary taxes without complaint.
At what point does a tax cross the line from being a benign “mixed” tax to being a war-tax?
How little does the government have to disguise the use of a tax that’s meant to support war before a Quaker must stop being concerned about the morality of paying it?
Job Scott again:
At our Yearly Meeting this year, , the
subject of Friends paying taxes for war, came under solid consideration.
Friends were unanimous, that the testimony of truth, and of our Society, was
clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid
Friends manifested a lively testimony against the payment of those in the
mixture; which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial
grounds, arising and spreading in the authority of truth.…
Joseph Walton relates the case of Eli Yarnall, who was drafted to be a tax
collector (something that seems to have been done to Quakers out of spite
from time to time by a revolutionary administration that interpreted their
pacifism as Toryism):
In , when he
was about twenty-six years of age, and while the various exercises which were
preparing him for the work of the ministry were heavy upon him, he received
notice of an appointment from the commissioners of Chester County as
collector of the taxes in the district he resided in. Besides the taxes at
that time assessed — most of which must go to the support of war — there were
to be collected fines for not taking the test oath or affirmation. Of course
Eli Yarnall could not conscientiously do aught under the commission, which
had, no doubt, been conferred upon him with an evil intent.
On considering the subject, it seemed to him best, in refusing to act, to
furnish the commissioners with his reasons for so doing, and he accordingly
addressed a letter to them. In this letter he says: “Ye may read, that it was
said of old, by way of comparison, ‘The fig-tree said unto them, Should I
forsake my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the
trees?’ In like manner, I say unto you, shall I forsake that spirit of
calmness, tenderness, and humility that breathes peace on earth and good-will
toward all men, with which I am, through mercy, measurably favored, and
accept of that power offered by you, and exercise the same by tyrannizing
over the consciences of my brethren, violently distressing and spoiling their
goods? Nay, surely, I dare not do it, let my sufferings in consequence
thereof be never so great. I make no doubt but ye have been informed, that we
cannot, consistently with our religious principles, have any hand in setting
up or pulling down governments. Part of this, that is called a tax, is a fine
for not taking a test of fidelity to one government and abjuration of the
other, which would immediately make us parties.”
The letter is throughout well written, and sets forth the blessed, peaceable
nature of the Christian religion, and the contradiction manifested by its
professed believers in their oppressing tender consciences and spoiling the
goods of their brethren, whose only fault lay in their endeavors to be
faithful to what they deemed the commands of their God. Soon after, Eli
Yarnall was called on to exhibit Christian patience in suffering. For his
refusal to collect these taxes, he was fined by the commissioners, and on
, a valuable horse was taken from him to satisfy that fine.
This was but the beginning of this kind of trial, for he had afterward to
witness various parts of his property seized, because he could not muster as
a militia man, and because he was as much opposed in conscience to paying
another to fight for him as to fighting himself.
James Mott went so far as to stop corresponding by mail when Congress added
a war tax to the price of postage:
Must our correspondence by mail be at end, in consequence of the extra
postage? or shall we pay it, and thereby contribute a mite to the support of
measures calculated to destroy men’s lives and property? Perhaps I may be
alone in refusing to pay postage on letters. Only a few cents — what can this
do, it may be said, towards enabling government to prosecute the war? Very
little, I own: but the great sum required is made up of littles; and if all
those littles are withheld, the effusion of human blood may be at an end. To
have much or little company in doing what we believe to be wrong, in itself
is of no avail. I have endeavoured carefully to weigh and examine the
consistency of paying taxes and imposts that are expressly for carrying on
war (which the present increased ones, doubtless are) not only with our
principles and belief as a society, but with the precepts and example of him
who is or ought to be our guide and judge; and I cannot, consistently with my
idea of either, believe it best for me to pay the present demand of
additional postage, little as it is, and alone as I may stand.
After the patriots won independence, Congress tried to pay off its war debts
by increasing import duties, and so the old revolutionary tactic of eschewing
imports became a tool of the careful pacifist tax resister. Joshua Evans
related:
, I understood a law was made
for raising money to defray the expenses of war, by means of a duty laid on
imported articles of almost every kind. This duty, I believed, was instead of
taxing the inhabitants, as had been done some time before. I had felt myself
restrained, , from
paying such taxes; the proceeds whereof were applied, in great measure, to
defray expenses relating to war: and, as herein before-mentioned, my refusal
was from a tender conscientious care to keep clear in my testimony against
all warlike proceedings. When the matter was brought under my weighty
consideration, I could see no material difference between paying the expenses
relating to war, in taxes, or in duties.
Although for several years past, I had made very little use of goods imported
from foreign countries, because of the corruption attending the trade in
these things; yet, on hearing of this duty, and considering the cause of its
being laid on imported goods, my mind was much exercised. I saw clearly that
the blessed Truth stood opposed to all wars and blood-shedding; teaching us
to do unto all as we would have them do unto us. Though I had much refrained
from using imported goods, in general; yet, as I was frequently engaged in
travelling in the service of Truth, I saw great difficulty, as I thought, in
refraining from the use of salt; as people generally used it in almost every
kind of food.
On this subject my mind was again led into deep exercise; but as I
endeavoured to apply, as at the footstool of my heavenly Father, for counsel
and preservation upon the right foundation, I was made sensible, that it
would be better for me to live on bread and water, than to balk my testimony.
I likewise believed he would not lead me forward, though in an uncommon path,
without giving me strength to maintain my ground, as I humbly put my trust in
him. I therefore thought it right for me to make a full stand against the use
of all things upon which duties of that kind were laid. Since which, I have
to acknowledge, my way has been made much easier than I looked for.…
So the national debt has never been higher and this year’s federal budget
deficit may be a record-breaker too. Washington has just formally taken on a
bunch of debt with the housing bailouts, and Congress is thinking of giving
away money to everyone in the form of another stimulus package. The economy is
in the receiving end of the outhouse, which means that tax receipts will be
low this year (fewer capital gains in the income-tax paying classes, lower
corporate profits, more people unemployed). Meanwhile, both frontrunner
presidential candidates are promising to cut taxes and increase the size of
the military and give everybody a pony.
All of which might make you wonder whether in fact there are any sorts of
reality-based restraints on federal spending at all. If the government can
just spend as much as it wants without bothering to come up with any
reasonable claim to be raising the money it’s spending,
why does it bother to go through the
farce of raising money at all?
Why is it that talk of tax policy doesn’t seem to have a relationship to
policy generally? Whether it’s a bailout of subprime mortgage holders, large
investment banks, or going to war, whether or not the resources exist to do
these wonders rarely enters into the equation. Why is it that tax cuts don’t
curb the government? And why do politicians not feel the need to tax us more
when they spend more?
You might at first say that the answer is simple: they just go into debt by
running an annual deficit. And the debt today stands at some figure that has
no real meaning, because it is too high for us to even contemplate. What does
it really mean that the debt is $5 trillion or $10 trillion? It might as well
be an infinite amount for all we know. At least that’s how the political
class acts.
Reference to the debt only begs the question. You and I have to pay
our debts. We cannot run up an infinite amount of it without getting
into trouble and losing our creditworthiness. In the private sector, debt
instruments are valued according to the prospect that the debts will be paid.
The likelihood that it will be covered is reflected in the default premium.
But the debt of the
U.S. government
doesn’t work that way. The bonds of the
U.S. Treasury are
the most secure investment there is. It is valued as if it will be paid no
matter what.
If not through taxes, and if not through infinite debt, how is it that the
U.S. government
gets the money it wants regardless of other constraints?
Tucker suggests that the government, via the Fed, is essentially just powering up the printing presses — or, at least, implicitly keeping this option in reserve.
Should push come to shove, the government will pay its debt by devaluing it (and everyone else’s dollars) to a manageable level.
Or something like that. I dunno.
When I hear libertarian types go on about the gold standard and the Fed and sound money and so forth my eyes glaze over and I get the same sort of feeling I get when I hear Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists — maybe they’re right, but they sound a little batty, and I’ve got other things to do than educate myself enough about the issue to evaluate the arguments intelligently.
But whatever is the mechanism that makes these shenanigans possible, the fact that government growth and activity doesn’t seem to be at all restrained by government income poses the same challenge to (some varieties of) tax resisters that it has to advocates of the “starve the beast” theory of small-government.
If you’re a tax resister because you hope that if enough people resisted their taxes, the government might be unable to do some of the nefarious things it does, or that the government might reform in some way in the hopes of winning back some of the revenue its lost to disgruntled ex-taxpayers, you may be fooling yourself.
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.
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.
Some notes from this discussion are included on the new NWTRCC page, along with the following:
George Salzman’s “Inheritance and Social Responsibility” — about how he creatively used an inheritance in socially productive ways while keeping the IRS’s hands off of it.
A debate on interest between Juanita Nelson and Bob Irwin. Nelson sees interest on loans and bank deposits and such as inherently unethical, Irwin disagrees.
Another collection of writings looks at various issues associated with Nonprofits and Tax-Exempt Status. While becoming tax-exempt and then defending your tax-exempt status may seem like it should be a no-brainer for folks who are tax resisters, tax exempt status comes with strings attached and may be more trouble than it is worth.
Prisoners in at least six Georgia state prisons have gone on strike, refusing to leave their cells to work in government-run prison slave labor industries.
The unusual strike is being organized by the prisoners via contraband cell phones.
I’ve been working on a series of pages for NWTRCC under the tentative title of “Where Else Does the Government Get money to Make War, and What Can We Do About It?”
These pages are meant to supplement the current NWTRCC site focus on the federal personal income tax and telephone excise tax, and to talk about other government funding sources and the resistance strategies appropriate to them.
It is slow going, and surprisingly controversial (there is debate about to what extent taxes like the payroll tax are really dedicated to non-military trust fund spending and to what extent this is an illusion).
Prison labor is one way governments extract value from people at gunpoint (and, seeing as how the Department of Defense is a big user of prison labor-produced products, I suppose it counts as a “war tax” also).
Another tactic governments have often turned to is seigniorage — simply printing up money and spending it and implicitly taxing people by making their money-denominated savings less valuable.
But according to a recent article in Forbes, seigniorage doesn’t work as well as it used to, as investors now have more tools to evade or counteract its effects.
The Initial Public Offering of stock from the formerly-public, then government-owned General Motors is another odd source of government revenue.
According to a Treasury Department press release, the government brought in $13.5 billion in by selling GM stock.
(Actually, according to the press release, “Taxpayers” received the money, but that’s only true in government fantasy-land.)
Did you buy any?
Did the mutual funds in your 401k or IRA?
If so, you helped the federal government get a return on its investment.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration publishes a list of management priorities for the IRS every year.
This year they’ve got a new top priority: keeping their employees safe from “a surge of hostility towards the federal government” from irate taxpayers.
Over the course of several issues in and , the Friends’ Review published excerpts from the journals of David Cooper, parts of which concerned Quaker war tax resistance during and after the American Revolution:
At the Yearly Meeting, in the fall of , under a sense of the judgments now in our land, and the many deviations from the simplicity and purity of our profession, into which we, as a people, had slidden, and thereby as justly perhaps as any other of the inhabitants, provoked the Almighty to inflict this scourge; Friends became deeply exercised that under this humbling dispensation a reformation might take place.
For this purpose, a recommendation was sent to Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, to appoint committees; which was done in our Quarter, and they attended Conferences at the several meetings.
A select number visited the ministers, elders, and overseers, and some time after the families of Friends generally.
In the service I assisted.
It was a humbling, laborious season, and the desired effect, it may be sorrowfully said, has too little appeared: too few of us being sufficiently careful to confirm by example what we recommend in words.
A sense of this brought diverse things more closely into consideration, whereby they appeared to me different from what they had heretofore, as respecting dress, Congress money, our peaceable testimony, etc. To bear this testimony faithfully, I clearly saw that I could do nothing which manifestly aided or abetted those who were actually engaged in war, which those who pay taxes directly raised for the purpose of supporting soldiery, do in an essential manner.
For this reason, I have paid no tax for war during all these commotions, nor received a penny of their money for bedding, clothing, provisions, hay, grain, etc., which they have taken from me, offering money or orders therefor; nor have I sold to their commissioners anything I had.
Nor was I free to receive, out of a forfeited estate, a large debt which was due to me, as I considered the selling of those estates, for the most part, cruel and unchristian.
I also found a restraint from having anything more to do with continental currency, which had become a vehicle of such public mischief, that few could touch it without suffering thereby, or causing others to suffer.
This was a pinching trial.
My interest was likely to be greatly affected.
I stood wholly alone among my friends, and expected censure from them, for I had been an advocate for a contrary conduct in both cases.
I also saw how feeble precept is, unless strengthened by example, and being sometimes engaged to enjoin simplicity, and to recommend others to confine themselves to things necessary and useful, I found it obligatory to set an example in these respects.
In the alterations into which I was thus led, I felt the reasoning and struggling of nature harder to overcome, than ever I had in greater matters; therefore, whoever may read this, beware that you account nothing to be a little thing, which the light within you shows you ought to deny yourself of.
In , I had appointed to join Mark Reeve in visiting meetings in the counties of Philadelphia and Bucks; but a few days before the time of starting, my horse, which would readily have brought forty pounds, was taken by a constable for a tax of about four pounds.
Thus I seemed prevented, but Mark was earnest to have my company; I therefore purposed to borrow a beast and to meet him on Fifth-day in Philadelphia, where he was to attend Monthly Meeting.
A severe storm prevented my obtaining one, and I relinquished the thought of going; but on Fourth-day evening a neighbor’s lad brought my horse home.
As he could give no account upon what terms he was returned, I hesitated about receiving him lest I might subject myself to be charged with double dealing.
On weighing the matter, however, I felt easy to take him…
[The Rhode Island] Yearly Meeting was sitting….
By a previous rule, such who paid any tax wholly for the support of war, should be dealt with as offenders, but Friends were allowed to pay mixed taxes, a part whereof was for civil purposes and part for war, nor were the sufferings of those who declined to pay these taxes received or recorded.
This subject now occasioned much debate, which resulted in a minute directing such sufferings to be recorded as their testimony against war.
The committee on Sufferings, appointed in , had in reported that the statement of sufferings sent from Evesham should in their judgment not be sent forward, but remain with the Quarterly Meeting’s papers, as being so clear and explicit as to answer the direction of the Yearly Meeting.
This report was confirmed.
In the standing committee reported that statements of sufferings unmixed and wholly for declining the payment of war taxes, ought to remain among the papers of the Monthly Meeting, and go no further.
This report was objected to, and a minute was made suspending a final decision upon it, till the sense of the Yearly Meeting could be obtained.
In it was moved to appoint a committee to aid the clerk in framing a minute for the Yearly Meeting; the necessity of which in so plain a case caused a little debate.
Ten Friends were, however, appointed, in which number I was included, and we met on seventh-day preceding the Quarterly Meeting at Salem at this time, when the object of the appointment appeared very obvious, from the means employed to prevent the matter being sent forward.
The effort failed, however, and our statement of the subject being laid before the Quarterly Meeting was approved, and the clerk directed to send it to next Yearly Meeting.
Thus it stands at present.
This matter appeared rather marvelous to me, when I consider the very small number in this large Quarterly Meeting who suffer on this account, and the great opposition that has constantly been shown, and endeavors even in a Quarterly Meeting capacity, to deny such distraints as being sufferings for our peaceable testimony.
Whether, under the very great falling away from this scruple that we have seen of late, any advantage will arise from sending it up at this time, remains to be seen.
Could the directions of the Yearly Meeting have been simply complied with, it would have been abundantly my choice, in preference to sending up this question.
These New England Friends were truly exemplary in their conduct and conversation.
They declined using West India produce, as coming through the channel of slavery.
Joseph Mitchell had other scruples which did not feel to me of equal weight.
He avoided going to the houses or partaking with those who imported or retailed such produce; he also avoided wearing silver and the use of silver utensils….
At our Yearly Meeting in , were John Storer, from Old England; Job Scott, from New England; Daniel Haviland, Edward Halleck, and Tideman Hull, from York Government.
The question sent from our Quarter, respecting war taxes, was referred to a committee of thirty-six Friends, including three, who, in our Quarterly Meeting, had opposed the sending forward of sufferings on that account.
This committee reported their unanimous sense that an account of such sufferings ought to be kept and sent up as other sufferings are.
This report was confirmed without one word of opposition.
John Storer informed the meeting that he had attended each of the sittings of the committee, and was sensible that Divine good attended their deliberations.
Thus the clear, full, united sense of the body is given, owning those sufferings to be for the testimony of truth; which, I trust, occasioned in many minds reverent thankfulness to the Master of our assemblies, and tended to strengthen and encourage to faithfulness in suffering for his cause and truth.
For, indeed, that this matter should be so calmly and unitedly resulted, appeared marvelous in the eyes of some of us.
At the end of this last excerpt, the editor of the Friends’ Review added: “This question of taxes appears to have elicited much discussion, which was carried on with warmth, and, on one side at least, with no little sophistry, evidence of which is contained in letters now laying before us.
Our Lord’s miracle, providing for the payment of tribute, was much harped upon.”
The Review also printed the text of a letter to Cooper from his nephew, Joseph Whitall:
I read with singular satisfaction the piece which you lent me respecting taxes, as it was very strengthening to my mind, which before was somewhat encompassed with weakness on this account.
Whenever the matter came before me, it appeared very plain that it would be an inconsistency for Friends to pay this tax.
But what weighed in my mind was this: Whether I as an individual had so known the truth and a stability in it, as to lay myself open to suffering by refusing to pay; believing that unless the building is laid on this foundation the storms will overthrow it.
The evening after you first mentioned the subject to me, as I returned home, the matter was brought into more close consideration than I had known it, apprehensive that the time of trial was not afar off.
Several discouragements at that time presented; my situation as being entirely dependent on my father and having no property of my own, I must either consent to his paying it or submit to go to prison; as also the thought of what elder Friends, who did not refuse, would judge of me for so doing.
In this situation, I was engaged to feel after resignation and quietude of mind, which I was favored in some measure to experience, believing that if I should be so required, I should be strengthened to bear up under it.
After I had returned home, and sat awhile in retirement with (I believe I may say) a single desire to be rightly guided in this weighty matter, several Scripture texts were presented to view, and the thing appeared so plain to me, I had then to believe that if I ever consented to the payment of such a tax, I should be condemned by the Light which maketh manifest: and my confidence was greatly strengthened in the holy Arm of Power, which made and sustains all things.
But I have since felt much weakness, and had come to no solid conclusion of mind, until I read your little manuscript, which caused my heart to rejoice, under a feeling sense that it is the truth which leads those who walk and abide in it to hold forth this testimony unto the world.
And oh, says my soul, that I may yield faithful obedience to its monitions, let what will be the consequence.
Soon after I had read the piece, my father came home, when I asked how the present tax was to be appropriated; and being told that none of it relates to war, I was glad notwithstanding that I had felt such a settlement of mind.
During the American Revolution, independence-minded colonists began issuing their own paper money as a way of financing their military operations.
This caught Quakers in a bind.
Their creed instructed them neither to provide direct support for war nor to collaborate with insurrections.
But they’d never encountered the seigniorage route of war- or insurrection-funding before, so there wasn’t much in the way of precedents for conscientious Quakers to follow.
So some Quakers had to think this out for themselves and lead the way.
One was John Cowgill.
Thomas Hale Streets, in his book The Stout Family of Delaware, reproduces some documents about the Cowgill case.
First is a declaration of the Committee of Inspection and Observation for Kent County, a group associated with the rebel Continental Congress:
In Committee, Dover
Resolved, That the keeping up the credit of the Continental currency is essential to support the United Colonies in their virtuous opposition to ministerial oppression, and that the refusing to take the said currency, in payment of debts, etc., will tend to depreciate the value of the same.
Resolved, That it appears to this Committee, by the confession of John Cowgill, a residenter of Little Creek Hundred, in this County, that he has refused, and, from conscience, shall refuse, to take said Continental money in discharge of debts, or for other purposes, when tendered to him.
Therefore unanimously Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the aforesead John Cowgill is, by such his conduct, an enemy to his country, and ought to be treated as such by every friend of American liberty; and that they ought to have no further dealings with him.
The second document is a brief mention from a Quaker meeting from Duck Creek on in which “an account of the sufferings of John Cowgill for refusing Continental Currency was given, read, approved and sent to the Quarterly Meeting Committee.”
The third is a letter from Cowgill’s daughter Mary Corbit recounting, many years later, her memory of what happened:
I hope you will excuse me for not having before now complied with your request to give you an account of the particulars, so far as my memory serves me, of the sufferings our dear father underwent during the Revolutionary War.
I will now endeavor to state the leading facts as they occur to me.
Many interesting particulars are lost in the great lapse of time, which might have been preserved had they been taken down years back and handed down, as they ought to have been, entire, as a bright example not only to our children, but to others.
The cause of his persecution was, as you know, the faithful testimony which he considered it was his duty to bear against war in all its branches, and his consequent refusal to accept or deal in continental money, which he believed to be a war measure.
This became publicly known, it is probable, on his requesting one of his tenants to pay his rent in specie.
Soon after this he was arrested and taken before the Assembly at Dover, and charged with traitorous conduct in refusing to deal in continental money, as on its free circulation depended in great measure the successful prosecution of the war, and that for such an offense he was threatened with a heavy fine, which if he submitted to and paid, he should receive protection, or otherwise he would be declared a traitor and left to the mercy of an exasperated people, many of whom were assembled in Dover.
On his declining to take part at all to encourage war in any case, he was dismissed, and on his coming out was not molested by the mob, but suffered quietly to walk down the street.
His horse which had been taken was returned him, and he afterward expressed that he never had his mind more favored than at this time with a full confirmation that he was in the strict line of his duty, thus in bearing testimony against war, even at the risk of his life and property.
For some time after this he remained at home undisturbed, except that his cattle, sheep, and grain were occasionally taken off, but no personal violence offered, till going to Meeting on a fifth day, mother and I being in the chaise, and my father on horseback with one of my little brothers behind him, we were met by a man in regimentals who turned and rode on with him about half a mile, where they were met by a party of armed men.
When mother and myself came up, my father was surrounded and a prisoner.
The child was taken from behind him, and he was ordered to dismount and get into a cart which they had brought to carry him to Dover.
By this time a number of Friends had come up on their way to Meeting.
The officer commanded the music to play and the party to march forward.
We followed on behind as far as the Meeting House, when my father called out and bid us farewell, and they continued on towards Dover.
A paper was pinned to his back, on which something was written in large letters, which I have now forgotten.
The calm and composed frame of mind in which he was under all these dangerous circumstances led the Captain to suppose he was insensible of his situation, for ordering the cart to stop just before entering the town he addressed my father in these words: “Mr. Cowgill you are not aware of the danger you are in!”
To which my father replied: “I fear not them that can kill the body, and after that have no more power that they can do; but I fear Him who after he has killed the body, has all power.”
After driving through the principal streets in Dover, followed by the mob, they arrived at what was called the “Liberty Pole,” where it was publicly proclaimed that there was no protection for him, that all persons were forewarned at their peril to have no dealings with him.
Even the miller was threatened with the destruction of his mill if he ground for his family, and the school-master forbid receiving his children at school.
After this he was allowed to depart, and many Friends returned with him to his home.
When we went to bed at night we did not know what would be the issue before morning, and in this way we lived for several years, but through mercy were favored with protection from a Superior Power.
I will mention a circumstance as related to a friend of ours long after the war, by one of the party that took my father, and which furnishes a striking proof even from the mouths of his enemies, of the power a good man often has over his persecutors amidst the greatest dangers.
The roads at the time were wet and muddy, and my father seeing this person walking near the cart, in the most kind manner observed: “You had better get up and sit with me, as the walking is wet and I am fearful you will take cold.”
The unaffected anxiety with which it was spoken, the time and occasion, all conspired to make a lasting impression on his mind, and as he stated, he never had regretted any act of his life more than being concerned in this affair against one of the best of men, and that no power on earth could ever induce him to do the like again.
The “Radical Libertarian Alliance” was founded in and lasted until — making it one of the earlier organizations in the modern libertarian movement.
It was small, decentralized, and part of the left/libertarian outreach of that period — with free-market anarchists Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess among the more prominent members.
It for a time issued a publication called The Abolitionist.
The issue featured an article by Jerome Tuccille titled “What Happens Now: Some Thoughts on the Movement” that tried to anticipate the future of libertarian influence in the counterculture, the anti-war movement, and the loose coalition of groups who had given up on the centrist strong-central-government consensus.
Among his predictions of how libertarians would change society for the better:
The major changes will come about through the use of revolutionary strategy, and this is the most valuable tactic of all as far as immediate change is concerned.
Libertarians will continue their efforts in the realm of non-violent revolution, concentrating most of their energies on the anti-draft and anti-tax issues, the two bête noires of Right Wing libertarians.
Potentially, tax resistance is the most effective means available to reduce the power of government, and the one feared the most by political authority.
It is the one tactic which is likely to attract the interest of middle-class Americans, over [a] sustained period, and it is valuable from that standpoint alone.
It is also vitally important since it deprives government of the capital it needs to finance its own institutions.
While it is true that government does have the capability of printing more paper currency as long as it maintains a monopoly on our money supply, this would inevitably lead to the destruction of the state money system and the state’s credit standing in the international marketplace.
It would also bring about the destruction of the state-controlled and state-regulated economic structure.
People would be forced to find a new medium of exchange as the state currency plummeted in value; in short, it would lead to the creation of a more stable and viable form of “people’s money,” probably gold and silver-backed certificates, which would be more acceptable in world markets.
