Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The ·individualist anarchist appears to have the
bet t e r 0 f the iss ue • Fir s t, v 0 ting i s a h i gh 1Y rna r gina
I act for the vas t rna j 0 r i t Y 0 f cit i zens, so itse em s
doubtful that government could be financed by the "poll
tax." Second, the gift method would create an incentive
to evade payment. Whether this would create an
insuperable problem is an empirical question. Its prop
0 n e n t s, s u c has Ra nd, bel i eve t hat solongas govern ­
ment was 1 imited to the provision of defense and court
services its cost would be so small that little or no
competitive edge could be obtained by not contributing.
Moreover, such a society is seen as being so prosperous
that the payments, small to begin with, would become
increasingly less burdensome as the standard of living
rose. Whether these factors would alone make the gift
proposal feasible cannot be answered by recourse to
the 0 r y a Ion e. Th i r d, sincern0 stind i v i d ua I s pr e sen ted
with a choice between no protection and paying a stipulated
fee would be likely to pay the fee, the "voluntary
taxat ion" method would be the most likely to succeed.
But the individualist anarchist is correct in
pointing out that to the extent that their proponents
conceive of these proposals as establishing a purely
voluntary society they fail, for all are contingent
u p 0 nth e e xis tenceo f a sin g I e agen c y rna i n t a i n i ng a
rnonopolyof the use of force within a given geographical
area. Thus, the concept of "voluntary government
fin a n c i n g " i samy t h : tothe ex ten t t hat i t wo u 1d be
successful, it would not really be voluntary; to the
extent that it would be voluntary it would not be
successful.
8 • DEM