Iran Politics Club      
             
   
Website For Thinking Iranians
 
Back to index  

Eternity Book Series
Part 7 – Politics

 

Eternity Book Series 4 Books – 8 Parts
Part 7 – Politics

(Book 4: The Way)
Anwar Shaikh
1st Edition: September 20, 2014
2nd Edition: August 28, 2016


Islam offers the infidels: Quran or Sword?
Convert to Islam or Die by the Sword!
There is also a third choice: High Taxation!

Book 4: The Way
_______________
Part 6 – Free Will and Ethics
Introduction
Chapter 14: Harmony
Chapter 15: Free Will
Chapter 16: Ethics
Chapter 17: Psychology
Chapter 18: Sociology
Chapter 19: Law
Part 7 – Politics
Chapter 20: Politics
Chapter 21: Taxation
Chapter 22: Economics
Part 8 – Mysticism
Chapter 23: Mysticism
Postscript
Glossary
Bibliography

*

Part 7 – Politics

Chapter 20: Politics

What is state?

It is difficult to define it. Political scientists, however, agree that it refers to a certain territory, population and a government which holds supreme power over all internal affairs and thus controls the fate of the people within its jurisdiction. They also believe that the state has a purpose which is the "promotion of the common good or general welfare".

The state is a part of politics which concerns the science of government especially the issue of sovereignty - the right to rule, power structure, the constitution of political parties, their behaviour in relation to morality and general methods of achieving the stated goals. In fact, the role of the state has become so wide that it covers the whole life of people through prescription.

Sovereignty

I shall, however, confine this discussion to the issue of sovereignty in its relation to people and the state.
Whom does the sovereignty, the supreme power, belong? The people or the state?

I do not know why such a silly question has to be raised when the answer is so obvious: I have repeatedly stated that life begins with the emergence of free will. Therefore, it is the nature of every human to be free, and he can be free only when he retains all the power that ensures his freedom. Therefore, sovereignty belongs to the people because they cannot be free without it. Yet in practice, the opposite is true because it is the state that holds and wields the supreme power. Therefore, the question that I have just raised is not silly after all.

In theory, the state is a play of golden words but in practice, it is the manifestation of the Gubernatorial Will because it is primarily there to gratify the dominance urge of those who hold power, the ideals of welfare and national aggrandizement are nothing but skilful ploys for increasing the powers of the dominant. Thus the state and government become synonymous because the entity of the state comes to depend upon the conduct of its operators.

Sovereignty is the greatest addiction that there is. Since power corrupts, the addiction emerges as the abuse of power, because use of power, on the contrary, s constructive and entails hard work which negates the pleasures of addiction. It is why the justification of a government has been denied on ethical grounds. Maybe, it is for this reason, Friedrich Engels stated: "With the disappearance of classes the state too will disappear".

Yet people submit themselves to the rule of power-hungry men. Shift of sovereignty from people, the lawful claimants, to the members of the gubernatorial class, the usurpers, is a major event. Why does this happen? It has been said that the rulers possess the coercive power to subject people to the yoke of their authority This is an over-simplified cause, and is only partially true. People accept commands of the state for several reasons: Causes of government

1. Togetherness is a part of human nature. Therefore, individuals are inclined to become members of groups which form society. The grouping needs cohesion which may basically be supplied by customary practices but they prove inadequate for this purpose. This social infirmity is exploited by the power-seeker who knows the art of converting other people's weakness into his own strength. He takes over the society as the government by force or trickery and his word becomes the law which drives people like cattle.
2. Alternatively, a gubernator may exploit people's inferiority complex which drains their self-confidence and they find it difficult to stand on their own feet. Amongst the exploiters are gods, gurus, messiahs and messengers who claim that God has sent them with the scriptures that reveal the divine law which people must obey. These divine codes are nothing but the representations of their own gubernatorial ambitions which seek to deprive mankind of free will. This is what led to establishment of the most autocratic theocracies under the influence of Christianity and Islam.
3. The spirit of age as determined by the philosophy of the period has equally strengthened the hand of the state. One has only to look at certain theories to reach this conclusion:

Organic theory

a. The organic theory describes the state as an organism and the citizens as organs. It holds that every organ has a particular function which is performed best in the service of the organism to justify the purpose of its own existence. As an eye performs its natural function by guiding the organism, an individual whose whole life is dominated by the ideal of state, acts naturally and purposefully when he places himself at its disposal completely. An individual has no value of his own, and can be eliminated in the interest of the state. The marxist doctrine though economic in nature, receives its deterministic social attitudes from the organic theory.
The supporters of this theory draw their inspiration from the social insects which live in colonies and perform different tasks according to the differences in their structures and functions. For example, the queen lays eggs and the workers undertake other chores such as tending the nest and procuring food. These enthusiasts cannot see any difference between an insect colony and a human society. Like the members of the former, the members of the latter are expected to act mechanically to suit the purpose of the community. The individual members of the society are considered like the cells or organs of an organism, and thus not allowed the human virtues such as free will, conscience or individuality. Instead Of Suggesting a higher role for man to enhance his magnitude, these theorists want him to live like ants, bees, wasps and termites. The whole idea behind this type of theorization is to enable the power-seekers to rule ordinary folks with impunity. It is amazing how these theories have kept mankind under a similar sway as infatuation holds a demented lover, or cocaine rocks its helpless addicts.

Theory of general will

b. The theory of general will as propounded by Jean Jacques Rousseau, and further developed by Hegel and his followers, explains this point. It argues that a moral rule is a moral rule only when it is self-imposed, and therefore, the problem of political authority is mainly of self-government. Thus the law is binding on us only when we have ourselves made it. The tone of this theory clearly alludes towards a democratic government which involves the participation of every adult. But this is not the case. By interpreting the ethical aspect of man, the theory concludes that as "the good" is the same for all rational men, the real selves of all individuals will be identical, and thus the state can be presumed to have a single will i.e. the general will. It means that the state has a will which is over and above the wills of all the people it governs and possesses a unity of self which is even higher than that of an organism. Thus the state is supreme in relation to the people. Hegel and his followers raised it to an object of deification by describing it as "the march of God upon earth".

This monistic viewpoint of Rousseau and the Hegelians, which treated the state as the single supreme association, was challenged by the pluralists who thought of the state as a complex of voluntary associations, and thus sought to dilute its sovereignty and over-reverence. Despite all these efforts the "monistic" theory, long before the times of Rousseau and Hegel, has reigned supreme. All theocracies laid down unquestionable laws demanding total submission to God, the real ruler The Bible spoke of Yahwe as the jealous God and the Koran declared that the kingdom belonged to Allah who does not tolerate the participation of a peer in His government. All the rulers on this earth were despotic; the fascist dictatorships of the twentieth century were also grounded in the monistic philosophy of the state. Worse still, Marxism which advocated pluralism and preached disintegration of the state when the classless society emerged, perpetrated the worst type of a totalitarian state.

Traits of Power

The truth is that the state represents the Gubernatorial Will, that is, the lust for power that permeates the entire person of the dominant. While discussing the anatomy of power in ``Taxation and Liberty", I came to the conclusion that t is the tendency of power to be absolute, self-augmenting and ostentatious. The state being the symbol of power, naturally contains these three elements, namely absolutism, self-augmentation and ostentation. It is obvious that an entity which has these vices as its main features, is more concerned with its own preservation and elevation than the welfare of its people. Its promises do not contain sincerity but the magic of make-believe, which induces people to turn their backs on reality for living happily as dreamers, and its deeds carry the aura of a mirage whiCh' in politics, is the art of making things appear exactly opposite to what they really are.

However, there is a remedy for every ailment. Like other forces such as electricity' power can be harnessed to impart it a humane and beneficient character. To achieve this end I propounded the theory of Marginal Unity of People's Power in '`Taxation and Liberty". I shall restate it here briefly to explain the political power-structure However, before doing so, I ought to illustrate its background:

Gubernator

The state, as described earlier, is the manifestation of the Gubernatorial Will What is a gubernator? It means a "governor" but I used this word in an extended sense which denotes a person who has a burning passion to govern and is eager to dominate through any means such as trickery, sophistication or brute force Though he knows the difference between right and wrong, in practice, right is what serves his purpose and wrong is what frustrates him. He wants people to bow, bend and crawl before him. He hates accountability and loves absolutism Hyprocirsy is the chief trait and tool of the gubernator: he has the ability to run with the hare and the hound simultaneously; he is capable of crying when he should be laughing and vice versa. A gubernator has the same relationship with the masses as a spider has with flies: through his telary skills, he weaves such invisible and alluring webs that ordinary folks walk into them unknowingly, and sometimes eagerly.

Urge of dominance

The gubernator owes his dominant nature to the urge of dominance which I have already described in this book. This urge forces its possessor to assert his authority over the rest by humiliating them and weakening their means of defence which guarantee dignity, honour and freedom. The urge of dominance makes power the most enjoyable thing. As a general rule, it prefers the sadistic delights to genuine pleasures of life.

The elite

Population consists of 150lo elite and 85% masses. Though the gubernator belongs to the elite group, everyone of the elite is not a gubernator. Possibly, 5% of them qualify as the gubernators for possessing the immense desire of attaining maximum power. The rest of the elite are the people endowed with greater intelligence and capabilities and thus occupying a higher position in the social hierarchy.

The masses

In direct contrast to the gubernatorial class stand the masses; they are usually happy-go-lucky people who enjoy life without delving into its complexities; they possess a fairly high degree of intelligence which remains dormant for lack of use because they take things at their stated values; thus their faculties operate at moblevel which is not the individual but average level; this makes them docile, credulous and manipulable. On the other hand, they are rigid when it comes to observing customs and traditions. These opposite attributes of docility and rigidity enable the gubernator to exploit them through a carrot or stick, depending upon his convenience.

Gubernatorial will

The gubernator is mad about power. In fact, power to him is what blood is to an organism, heat is to fire and beauty is to a flower. This is the foundation of his personality and he cannot exist without it. Thus, when I refer to the gubernatorial will, I mean the most fervent desire of the gubernator to amass, assert and abuse power. Why abuse power? The reason is simple; use of power implies rule with a sense of duty and restraint which can be a headache because it brings no direct benefit to the gubernator and becomes a source of displeasure whereas the whole idea of power is to maximise personal pleasure which springs more from its abuse and less from its use. It is the corruptive influence of power which is enjoyable owing to its sadistic delights. It is not to say that pious and dutiful rulers are non-existent; they do exist but they are rare. It is their rarity which exalts them to the status of a god and thus excludes them from the list of gubernators. Now, perhaps, it is clear what I mean when I say that "state is the manifestation of the gubernatorial will".

Instinctive will

Opposed to the gubernatorial will is the instinctive will. What is instinctive will?

human baby is guided by its instincts right from its birth. Its search for mother's nipples to avoid starvation is an example of instinctive behaviour which is not all mechanical but partially volitional, that is, free will or personal choice plays a part in it. Thus, at least at the infant stage free will and instinctive behaviour are synonymous because without the agreement of choice and action, survival will not be possible.
In fact, instinctive behaviour does not end with the passage of infancy or childhood; its certain aspects last from cradle to cremation. Reactions of the muscles which consist of push and pull, are the foundation of all our actions. This pattern is deterministic because every push is automatically followed by a pull and vice versa.

This determinism is the foundation of instinctive behaviour because if things were not determined the way they are, they could not act automatically to provide the necessary guidance for survival. This is exactly what the instinctive behaviour is. It does not contradict free will because it helps survival which also appears to be the initial aim of free will because we usually choose what prolongs our survival and pleases us. Idealistic goals belong to the realm of ethics, and emerge at a much later stage of an individual's life.

Liberty

Of courSe, instinctive behaviour is subject to modification but all of it does not yield to the environmental vicissitudes; some instincts stay in the background to influence fundamental choices which also seem to be connected with the moral development of an individual. As dominance is the instinctive behaviour for a gubernator, liberty is the instinctive behaviour for an ordinary person (belonging to the masses).
What is liberty? Believe it or not, liberty is the ultimate choice or goal of free will because nothing excels it in nobility, dignity and magnitude; independence, that is, freedom to choose and act, is its integral part. Again, the concept of liberty rests on sound morality owing to the element of mutuality: it means that I can be free only if I respect your right to freedom: if I harm your liberties, you will harm mine. Thus, a truly free man is the person who is interested not only in his own freedom but also the freedom of other people. Again, liberty is not an acquired characteristic. It is an innate trait. Thus it is instinctive, and also the main motivating force of behaviour. This is the reason that nobody willingly wants to be a slave or a second-class citizen. The desire to smash the restrictive barriers is so intense that liberty ranks as the instinctive will.

Clash of wills

Liberty is the antithesis of dominance. Entire human civilization is an expression of the continual strife between the gubernatorial will of the dominant and the instinctive will of the masses. According to the Hegelian principle of history, the friction between the opposites i.e. thesis and antithesis, leads to synthesis - the end product which is something new or different from the contending factors. But this interpretation does not apply to the struggle between dominance and liberty. There is no amalgam or compromise between the two. Like the natural opposites, e.g. negative and positive electric charges, they are antagonists: one has got to be ascendant over the other. History shows that so far the gubernatorial will has prevailed over the instinctive will. Why? Because the former is not only callous, calculating and catapultic but also the master of hanky-panky, hypocrisy and humbuggery. On the contrary, the latter is docile, dithering and defensive and its virtues of love, loyalty and liveliness can be easily manipulated to make a libertarian carry the cross of servitude. The relationship between the two is the same as exists between a predator and prey. The predator is ferocious and forceful enough to stand on his own but the defence of his victims lies in the communal unity. A natural example of this fact is provided by a tiger and a herd of buffaloes. The former will pounce upon a lonely buffalo but when they join together and line up to express their charging zeal, the beast leaves them alone. Unfortunately, the masses are always divided, either through ideologies or varying secular interests, and thus easily fall victim to the gubernatorial will which thrives on the usurpation of liberties.

Since every human baby is born with a free will, and the desire to be free is the greatest of all choices, sovereignty naturally belongs to the people because they cannot maintain freedom without retaining the reins of power. However, it is usually the state which holds sovereignty on the pretext of being people'S representative though, in fact, it is an association of the power-seekers and thus a manifestation of the gubernatorial will. This is the reason that a gubernator' and in this context, the state, attracts the appellations of "hanky-panky, hypocrisy and humbuggery".

Marginal utility of people's power

This background discussion now enables me to state the theory of marginal utility of people's power referred to earlier in this chapter:
What is marginal utility? It is an economic concept. In economics, utility means the power of a thing to satisfy a want, irrespective of its usefulness or moral desirability It stresses that the utility of additional units of a commodity diminishes with an increase in its supply. If I am thirsty, the first glass of lemonade shall have the maximum quenching power, the second glass shall be less satisfying and the third glass may even lead to disutility, that is, it may make me ill.

The principle of marginal utility of power in relation to people's sovereignty however, is exactly opposite in its sense and application to the economic concept of marginal utility which holds that an increase in the supply of a commodity leads to reduction in its satisfying power, and, therefore, the last unit becomes the least satisfying. On the contrary, the doctrine of marginal utility of people's power advocates that in the field of politics, it is the last unit of people's power which is the most satisfying because the last unit of people's power is the unit which effectively operates against all gubernatorial tactics and usurpative attitudes to protect civil liberties. Of course, it is not always easy to tell when this point has been reached but it can be deduced from the quality of statutory laws, judicial decisions powers of the state officers and their attitude towards people. The last unit of people's power is like the last straw which decides whether a camel shall remain operative or not.

It is the nature of the state to amass power at the expense of people's liberties. Losing the last effective unit of people's power to the state does not denote loss of people's reverence for liberty but a condition of humiliation and disgrace. It cannot remain permanent because the instinctive will of people, as a natural law gradually becomes active like the fierce volcanic activity under the calm surface of the sea. However, the loss of the last effective unit renders the remaining units of people's power ineffective because its collapse precipitates the domino effect causing rapid fall of the remaining units. It is like the pillar which carries the entire weight of the building: the destiny of the edifice is tied with the safety of the pillar. Thus the dimunition of every successive unit acts as disutility to people because it correspondingly strengthens the state which will use its inflated authority to deflate the dignity of the masses and cause them discomfort. As one vote may decide the fate of a democracy or as a pound ceases to be a pound by the loss of one penny, people's sovereignty may turn into servitude by the loss of one unit of power. Since the loss of the last effective unit of power indicates the start of the erosion of people's sovereignty, its normative value must constitute the maximum satisfaction to people. It warns them to defend their liberty, the most precious human asset. If they stand up and fight for their rights, there is a good chance for them to stay free. The law of nature is displayed by electricity which shows that a current flows from the region of higher potential energy to the region of a loner potential energy. When state representatives are kept under check, they occur people's wishes but when the masses follow them blindly, they dictate them.

Of course, the theory of marginal utility of people's power cannot be measured or calculated mathematically. Then, is there a political theory which lends itself to this type of precision? However, its value lies in practice and not in its imaginary flight. There are two reasons for this assertion:
1. It stresses the inherent friction between dominance and liberty to establish that freedom is the fruit of constant vigilance and struggle against the gubernatorial passion of ruling at all costs. This concept makes it abundantly clear that nothing is predetermined politically: the poles of dominance and liberty are equal and opposite. Whichever pole is ascendant, determines the magnitude of society in terms of rights and repression. Strife between the two is eternal but the luck of the contestants depends upon the quality of their struggle. When the state is all-powerful, the masses are driven like cattle and expected to swallow all sorts of nettle, but when power belongs to the people, the state or gubernator becomes an agent of service, suavity and civilization.
2. This theory is grounded in moral sense because a free society is possible only when people's relations with one another are governed less by law and more by the dictates of morality, law represents coercive force of the state but morality refers to free will which means that people care about the rights of their fellowbeings and make responsible choices.
Of course, governance of a society is not a game; it is the discharge of the greatest responsibility, and, therefore, the state must have sufficient powers to cope with all difficult situations, yet these powers should be minimal because this is the nature of power to be autocratic, self-augmenting and ostentatious. This is what makes power corruptive, an absolute government is bound to be evil though it may cover its ugliness with the golden mask of patriotism or welfare.

Democracy

Man cannot be forced to be free. The freedom based on compulsion is a form of servility because it contains an element of dominance. Therefore, concept of liberty is based on self-discipline and moral integrity of the individual, thus making the working of social relationships fairly easy. This situation is bound to reduce the coercive role of law, and must confine it to the background. In a free society, the state augments its authority by the respectability of its commands which appeal to people's sense of fairness and urgency. The concept of marginal utility of people's power assumes that people need the least coercion because they have sufficient moral strength to conduct themselves properly. They live by their moral traditions and not by the legal dictates. Thus the lesson of the theory of marginal utility of power is quite clear: people must learn to govern themselves through a system of equal power-sharing the equality must be in terms of rights, and opportunity to prosper and rise higher according to ones individual endowment This doctrine is called democracy but it is not all honey, and for this reason has been arraigned by wisemen. Wealth distribution in the name of economic equality is its real enemy because it turns it into a taxocracy which enables the poor to rob the rich legally and turns the government into a bunch of political thugs who act as Robin Hoods for tax-gathering through organised bribery. Of course, democracy is founded on numerical strength but it must not be allowed to become its sole basis. Democracy cannot count as the self-rule unless it is grounded in moral force. Thus numerical strength of democracy must be infused in moral sense which teaches an individual to respect the rights of fellow-beings. A truly free Society reflects the moral strength of its members.

Does it mean that law withers away in a truly free society? Not at all. The law provides objective standards of judgement which are absolutely essential to weigh up the conduct of individuals in relation to one another. There will always be civil disputes; people will always sin through misunderstanding, misinterpretation or sheer malevolence. The moral society is the one whose virtue is ascendant over vice, and not non-existent. Therefore, we need law but its application must be minimal because maximum law means the maximum application of force which is inimical to liberty. It is only the maximization of moral force which can lead to the minimization of law. Though in reality, morality and law are compatible in practice, they are given polarity by the conflicting interest of dominance and liberty.

Since weakening of morality leads to the stregthening of law which is practically a command of the powerful to the powerless, and thus constitutes the real source of state-power, one is inclined to enquire into the causes which enable the state to augment its power through the mechanism of legality at the expense of morality.

There is really no mystery about it. It is the abuse of the stated purpose of the state that enables it to become autocratic. For example, there is no nobler purpose for the state than being a welfare state but the concept of welfare is inflated to such an extent that it begins to cover all aspects of life and the state intrusion Into the privacy of an individual begins to cover all aspects of life and rank as the general rule against the principle of liberty. This enormously enlarged commitment requires extremely large sums of money and the state becomes a Mafia organization except for its name. Thus taxation acts as the chief tool of inflating the state power. This fact is not restricted to a welfare state but to all sorts of states because they all thrive on their power to tax people at will.

I shall examine the nature of taxation briefly in the next chapter as an extension of poetics. The readers interested in the in-depth study of the subject ought to refer to my book: "Taxation and Liberty".

Chapter 21: Taxation

Taxation is the largest single source of evil. Why? Because it reverses the paternal role of the state into a rapacious one. Rulers love power but it costs money to secure and maintain it. The more money they have, the merrier they feel. As a result, legislators, judges and civil servants use such corrupt practices which are beyond the ingenuity of Lucifer. All this is done in the name of law, duty and welfare. These attitudes turn the state into a Mafia Organisation whose vice ranks as virtue provided it maximises tax-collection. This is what makes tax-gathering the worst method of financing the state.

State, the Taxpayer

Paternal role is the only true role for the state. As tax-gathering turns the state into a Mafia Organisation, it ceases to be the proper way of financing the state affairs. Again, the state can be truly paternal only if it relieves people from the yoke of taxation. In other words, it is not for the people to pay taxes to the state, it is for the state to pay taxes to the people.
Yes, it is not for the people to pay taxes to the state; it is for the state to pay taxes to the people. Why? Because taxation, especially the abject-taxation, has the most dehumanising effect on mankind. How? To answer this question, I shall analyse the reality of taxation with reference to various aspects of life.

The basic premise

I may start with the premise that taxation and liberty exist in inverse ratio: the higher the incidence of taxation the lower the magnitude of liberty and vice versa.

Peck order and Len behaviour

The type of people whom I have labelled as members of the gubernatorial class Suffer from the burning passion to dominate the masses. They pick on others not because they have done them any wrong. In fact, it is an expression of the law of the jungle known as "might is right". The evil nature of the dominance-urge is exhibited by the dominance-hierarchies found in domestic fowl, birds baboons, bumble bees, crabs etc. Take chickens, for instance. They demonstrate what is called the "peck order". If you watch them play, it will not go unnoticed that the bird "A" pecks the weaker bird "B" and "B" pecks the still weaker bird "C". Under such conditions, it is not necessary for "C" to be always pecked by other chickens. If it becomes strong, it will peck other birds including "B" and "A". This aggressive behaviour does not require an external cause; it springs from the dominance-urge which seems to be a remnant of the most primitive conditions of life. An even better understanding of this concept is provided by the "lek behaviour" which refers to a communal area where two or more males of a species fight ferociously to establish their dominance for securing priority to sex, food and water. This is what dominance is all about - the mania of self-preference to the total exclusion of others.

Wheel of History

In the previous chapter I stated that civilisation is an annotation of the continual strife between the Gubernatorial Will (of the elite) and the Instinctive Will (of the masses). Now, I may restate the same truth differently and add that the wheel of history is turned by the friction between the tax-gatherer and the taxpayers. Have I changed my mind? Not at all. In this context "gubernator" does not mean anybody who holds a high position in the administrative hierarchy such as a minister, judge or top civil servant, but the real governor and the actual members of the tax-gathering fraternity.

Taxation versus liberty

The reason for the restatement is simple: the gubernator uses taxation as the tool of dominance. Why? Because wealth or the worldly possessions of a person have the same significance to the liberty of a person as power of attraction has to a magnet, wings to the flying ability of a bird or roar to a lion. It is difficult to subjugate a wealthy person because he can find means to fight the aggressor the only way to crush him is by paralysing his source of defence which is his financial ability.

Again, an ordinary worker works hard to secure a certain amount of freedom from hunger and illness; he may improve his skill through education or apprenticeship, or he may work much longer hours. The purpose of this drudgery is to earn more money for extra security by way of buying a house or saving for old age, and even providing oneself with leisure for enjoying life. Here, the real point is not earning extra money but keeping it. It is obvious that if a person can keep what he earns or spend it the way he likes, he becomes independent. And we know that independence is another word for liberty. As there is a basic co-relationship between wealth and liberty, the most effective way of usurping one's liberty is through usurpation of one's wealth. Since dominance is all about usurping other people's liberties, the gubernator uses taxation as the tool of dominance with the same instinctive fervour as a dog pounces upon a cat or a cat chases a rat. Thus the real strife comes to exist between taxation and liberty because dominance and taxation become synonymous. It clearly shows that the magnitude of liberty depends upon the corresponding retention of one's wealth.

Taxation and Plunder

To explain this point further, I must add that the initial purpose of military campaigns of the conquerors was more than a search for prestige or economic benefits. It sought gratification of the dominance-urge by plundering the vanquished. Plunder is a form of tax-gathering. If you don't believe me, look at modern Britain where Income Tax rate rose to be 98% And this was m addition to the many other enormous taxes. If this is not plunder, then what is it? After the preliminary depredation, the victor would subject the vanquished to an annual payment of tribute. The safety of the conquered depended upon payment of this imperial imposition. If he did not, the conqueror returned with a vengeance to give the defaulter a blood bath. This punishment was not indicative of financial loss to the emperor but a symbol of frustration which hurts the urge of dominance most rudely. After all, submission which gratifies the dominance-urge is confirmed by the promise to pay tax or tribute. No tax, no submission, no gratification of the dominance-urge. Once the dominant has established his right to collect taxes, the economic benefits and prestige follow automatically.

This trend is equally visible in the relationship between the state and citizens who are called taxpayers. Non-payment of the levies is deemed a crime against the state though, in fact, it amounts to an act of defiance against those who run the affairs of the state, because the state is representative of the Gubernatonal Will.

Taxation and Robbery

There is no difference between taxation and robbery. When a thug extorts money out of you under the threat of violence, it is called "robbery" but when the state wrings wealth out of a citizen under the threat of legal violence through a "judicial" process enforceable by police and jail wardens, it Is described as taxation.
In fact, taxation is worse than robbery. If you empty your wallet to the robber, this is usually the end of the matter because he may not come back for more. But it is entirely different with the state. Once you have paid one tax demand, it is likely to be followed by yet another.

atisfaction value of taxation

Why does taxation gratify the urge of dominance more than anything else? It is because the tougher the barrier of resistance a dominant breaks down, the more elated he feels. It is an open secret that people have tremendous love and reverence for their wealth because of the security and dignity it offers. Therefore, they hate parting with it. Now, it Is obvious that what people don't want or care about has no satisfaction value to the urge of dominance because it involves no resistance or breaking down of the barrier. Since dispossessing people of their wealth involves a real struggle, taxation has the greatest satisfaction value to the gubernator. The tendency of the gubernator to express his dominance through the mechanism of taxation, and the tendency of the masses to evade payment of taxes through all sorts of ruses including armed conflict, create an eternal abrasion between the tax-gatherer and the taxpayers and thus moves the wheel of history because in the main, history is a process of a conquest and submission, which turns on the polarity of tax-gathering and tax-evasion. Even the major social events such as the Magna Carta, the American, French and Russian Revolutions emanate from the friction between tax-gatherers and taxpayers.

Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great provides a good example of this fact. Of course, historians have invented many stories for his conquest of the Persian Empire; one of them being that he wanted to avenge the Greek honour. He was a Macedonian, therefore, avenging the Greek honour was less important to him compared to the desire of amassing the dazzling Persian treasures of gold and diamonds. Before he started bus campaign, he was a debtor to the tune of 500 gold talents. At Susa (the Persian capital) alone, his pillage came to 50,000 gold talents, a staggering amount both by the old and modern standards. Through pillage, he grew so rich that he arranged a funeral ceremony for his deceased friend Hephaestion costing 10,000 talents This rite which was performed in the autumn of 324, was so expensive that it has not so far been excelled by any person or nation. The majesty of this tax lord can be gauged by the fact that his ordinary dinner parties involved an expenditure of �400 every day. To realise the worth of this sum in terms of time, think of Edward the Black Prince of England who received only thirty shillings a day for his expenses, and that was around 1367. What would be the value of �400 seventeen centuries earlier?

To evaluate the magnitude of dominance-urge, we should know that Alexander the Great believed in the institution of universal monarchy; he did not think that there was enough room for two kings on Earth at the same time. This is the reason that he claimed that he was God. This is the last boundary of dominance because there is nothing beyond Godhead. Thus he demanded deification i.e. the right to be treated and worshipped as God. His wish was carried out throughout his Empire.

Alexander the Great achieved the ultimate desire through his power of tax-gathering. He was not the only one to become divine through the right to levy and collect taxes; the Pharaohs of Egypt had attained this position long before him by saddling their subjects with the heaviest burden of taxes as well as through a process of plundering their Asian colonies. All Roman Emperors were apotheosised i.e. proclaimed gods, at death, and this honour emanated from their ability to reduce foreigners to the status of tributaries.

Divinity and Taxation

Divinity is the apogee of the dominance-urge. This is the stage where a gubernator wants to appear as a symposium of most brilliant virtues Irrespective of what he really is. He wants to be treated as divine so that people should obey his laws as a matter of reverence and obedience to him long after he Is gone. It shows that the urge of dominance does not perish with the gubernator's death because he wants to command people even from his grave! Strange as it may seem, Divinity or Godhead Is grounded in the right to levy and collect taxes.

Religion and Taxation

Since divinity belongs to the realm of religion, and this is what this book is all about, I should explain the concept of taxation and divinity with reference to religion:

Jewish tax philosophy

Jewish claim to tax-collection was based on the pretext that God wanted then. to take over foreign lands through a system of taxation based on genocide.
Chapter 31 of Numbers and Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy clearly state that the Jewish tax philosophy consists of the following:
1. Give a city the option to become Jewish tributaries i.e. taxpayers who should serve their Jewish masters, and if they don't,
2. Murder all the men and take over everything as spoils, including women, infants, cattle etc. The Book of Joshua lays down that in relation to foreigners, genocide is an integral part of tax-gathering: all the cities such as Al, Makkedah, Hebron, Jericho, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Debir etc., that Joshua conquered, he utterly destroyed them including the infants (Josh 10, 28-42).
3. While the two rules referred to above explain the Jewish tax philosophy in the exotic lands, its internal canons of taxation discriminate between the Children of Israel and the non-Jews.
Some of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites had managed to escape the Jewish campaign of genocide. Solomon levied the tribute of bondservice on their children (I Kings 9: 20-22).
It implies that a function of taxation is to keep Israel a racist state by discriminating between the Children of Israel and those who are not Israelites even if they were born in Israel. They are required to pay taxes as a bondserv~ce and not in cash or kind. This is what Jews themselves were required to do m EgsP.

Widsom of Solomon

We hear a good deal about the wisdom of Solomon yet his tax policies led to the destruction of Israel and its people. On the one hand, the tax treatment of the non-Jews contributed to their disloyalty, and on the other, the Jews themselves were unhappy with the state because they were made to carry an excessive burden of taxation to build the Temple, Solomon's palace, Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer.

Solomon's Life-style

Maybe Solomon's own house was far more expensive to build and run because it heaved with the fragrance of seven hundred wives and three hundred choicest concubines whose beauty and delicacy stood far above the imagination of a poet, skill of a painter, and adroitness of a sculptor. These one thousand beguiling females equipped with the erotic charm far more lethal than the thunderbolt of Zeus, must have demanded a very high standard of living compatible with their royal station. With jewels, pearls, rubies, amethysts, and costly apparel went not only a host of maids, servants, cooks and cleaners, but also an army of chamberlains who managed the royal bedchambers. Besides these costs of gaiety, were the expenses of royal grandeur associated with the gratification of dominance-urge which required the most expensive maintenance of the cities which Solomon needed for keeping his slaves, chariots and horsemen. In addition, he carried out extensive building works throughout his dominion.

Christian tax philosophy

Jesus had no particular love for the tax-gatherer. In fact, he thought of them as psychologically diseased people prone to sin and perversion. This is the reason that the publicans or tax-collectors of his time were hostile to him.
1. Matthew 9: 10-12 clearly states that: People of that time, as of all times, thought it odd that a good man like Jesus should share the eating table with such a debased person as a tax-collector.
2. Jesus ate or mixed with the tax-gatherers because he believed that they were morally perverted and spiritually diseased people and thus needed him for his healing powers.
Why does the Bible treat tax-collectors as evil people? It is because they are inclined to overassess people. John told them not to make improper demands on people (St. Luke 3: 12-13).

John the Baptist

John the Baptist has very aptly pointed out the taxman's disease: it is the impulse to over-collect coupled with the authority to plunder, and is akin to the sharp beak and talons of a falcon powered by the tremendous ability to fly which makes it a bird of prey. Not only in the past but in modern times, every state has set up special departments variously known as Investigative Bureaux or Enquiry Branch to hound people on the pretext of tax-evasion, whereas the truth is that such tax officers are nothing but glorified thieves who specialise in over-assessing taxpayers and then shooting them down with their diabolical powers through the due process of law,'. In ``Taxation and Liberty", I examined in detail this due process of law in a chapter headed: "Gubernatorial Law" which reveals the evil nature of tax laws and the high-handedness of those who adjudicate and enforce them.

Reality of overassessment

Over-collection or overassessment is an act of state-theft because it makes undue tax demands on the taxpayer. This is exactly what is meant when John says: "exact no more than that which is appointed you".
The Bible guides not only as to the methods of tax collection but also lays down the principle of tax-fixing. Sadly, it has become the most forgotten Christian rule but it is there in St. Luke 20: 21-25:
When Jesus was asked about the legality of paying taxes to Caesar, he remarked that as Caesar is the lawful ruler, render him what is his, and to God what belongs to Him.

The fact that the questioners were being crafty and wanted to trap Jesus, clearly establishes that he looked down upon the tax-gatherers for their malpractices, and they were hostile to him.

Since the coin of the realm bore the image of Caesar, it proved that he was the lawful ruler, and thus entitled to taxes according to the custom of his time because the administration of government costs money. However, he could not claim the lot because God was yet another claimant, thus the government's share of taxation was restricted. However, a government cannot claim taxes just for being the government. The Bible is quite explicit about what makes this entitlement legal.

Biblical Canons of Taxation

Romans 13: 3-7 states that a ruler is God's minister for doing good work and deterring the evil. Therefore, render him the due tribute and customs.
Here are the Biblical canons of taxation:
1. The basic function of government is to fight the evil and establish the good. Unless a government is righteous in deeds, it is not a Christian government and thus not entitled to taxes.
2. A Biblical tax demand is not a command of the ruler to the ruled; it is payment of a due, that is, something owed as a return for the services rendered. Thus legality of tax demand is intrinsically connected with the performance of government s duties.
3. Since a Christian tax is a due and not a command, it is not an arbitrary imposition but subject to certain objective measures. Therefore, it anticipates a regular, reasonable and respectable machinery for calculating the size and nature of taxation.
4. It follows that not only the determination of actual taxes is subject to regulations but their collection, and any disputes arising from collection and enforcement are also the problem for a judicial machinery which will be guided by the rule of righteousness and not by the needs of convenient legality.

Papal violation of Christian canons of taxation

If it were not for the gross violation of these Biblical canons of taxation, Christianity might have become the vehicle of righteousness in the world affairs. What did go wrong with Christianity?
Simply stated, the excessive power which Matthew 16: 18-19 bestowed on popes the successors of Peter, the rock, on which the Christian Church was founded. Thus, a Christian's entry into heaven or hell came to depend upon Pope's pleasure.
Pope, the representative of Peter, claimed to be invested with all these powers, and a lot more. As the papal grip over Christianity strengthened gradually, up went the papal claim to divinity. Popes asserted that they had greater power even than the Christ Himself, and people began to believe in their infallibility, that is, the Holy Father cannot do anything wrong in relation to the faithful, because whatever he may do, is a matter between him and God. This became the basic principle of the faith and it controlled the entire psychological mechanism of every Christian. They all looked to him for secular and spiritual guidance, and disobedience to him meant disobedience to God. A noble, prince, king or even an emperor held his power subject to the pleasure of the Pope.

Pope, the Secular Prince with divine powers

Had popes stuck to their spiritual authority, matters might not have deteriorated as much as they did. The rot started with popes becoming secular princes in their own right when in 755, Pepin the Short, laid the foundation of the papal state by giving the Church all those territories that he had won from the Lombards. Stephen II was the first Pope to become a mundane ruler. However, temporal powers of popes soared high when at Reims in October 816, Stephen IV crowned Louis I the Pious, and his wife, as Emperor and Empress because this event gave the pope the exclusive right of anointing a Christian monarch, thus making papacy not only the medium of king-making, but also laying down the principle that the ruler anointed by the pope was his lieutenant and the secular arm. The reality of papal power revealed itself when St. Nicholas I (The Great) claimed the right to legislate for the entire Christendom and asserted to be the supreme judge with final authority to settle all doctrinal disputes.
During 1050-60, the Roman curia took on royal splendour and Lateran palace, that is, the papal residence was reconstituted; the chancery, the treasury and the judicial tribunals - along with an army of officials, were given a new outlook which favourably compared with the elegance, grandeur and sublimation of any royal court - Christian or pagan. Papal expenditure rose and means had to be found to meet it. The Spanish prelate Alvaro Pelayo wrote On The Lamentation Of The Church, that, whenever he entered any of the ecclesiastic chambers, he found brokers and clergy engaged in weighing and counting heaps of money which were large and plentiful.

Pope, the feudal landlord

Where did this money come from? Originally, the Pope had enhanced his moral authority during the 6th Century by acting as protector of the civil population of Rome against extortion by the tax collector and abuse of power by the government. An act of 554 by lustinian acknowledged this fact. But now the defender become the aggressor because his needs resembled less the former and more the latter. The loving rule of St. Peter was converted to the loathesome function of a feudal lord. Acting as his representative, the Pope entered into contracts which gave protection to his vassals in return for military services o money payments. By the beginning of the 13th Century, the Pope became the largest feudal lord in Europe: Sicily, Sweden, Denmark, Arragon, Poland, England and Ireland were parts of his feudal empire.

Papal impositions

Over centuries, papal attitudes like everything else had been subject to the law of change. But as an overall picture of their monetary measures, it is correct to say that their exactions were far more severe than their royal competitors. When Henry II of England heard a complaint against the malpractices of the Archdeacon of York, he said sorrowfully that archdeacons and rural deans extorted a lot more money every year from his subjects than what he himself received in revenue. A reference to the Avignon Popes gives an idea of the papal rapacity. Each time a bishop or abbot was inaugurated, he had to remit an inaugural fee to the Curia. This sum was colossal because it amounted to one third of his estimated income for the year, besides, he had to pay considerable sums of money as gratuities to those who had acted as his intermediaries in recommending his nomination. Though elevation to the dignity of an archbishop carried a mark of blessing, it also proved an ambassador of financial blight because he had to pay heavily for the archiepiscopal palluium which constituted the insignia of his office. What a price for a circular band of white wool it was! Clergies at all levels prayed for the long life of the pontiff, but not out of love or sincerity but because his death hit them financially: the election of the new pope involved every ecclesiastical benefice in the payment of a holy tax more suited to the infidels: it was called annates and equalled the full revenue for one year though thereafter it dropped to a tenth of the annual income. However, in an emergency, such payments became automatically payable, and were frequent because political activities of popes had given emergency the status of normality. Death duty seems a papal invention because at the death of an ecclesiastical dignitary such as an abbot, bishop, archbishop or cardinal, all his property reverted to the Church. During the vacancy of such posts all revenues went to the pope who deliberately prolonged the interval for gaining the maximum financial benefit. Worse still, the new appointee was held responsible for all the financial dues that might not have been paid by his predecessors Papal justice was a specimen of holy extortion: people had to employ lawyers to plead for them and they demanded heavy remuneration because pleading in the papal court involved hefty licence fees. Every judgement carried a hidden charge by way of gratification because the winner had to grease the palm of the Curia officers for admitting and directing his case. It cost money even for obtaining permission to be ordained.

The Christian monarchs whose own salvation depended upon the favourable attitude of the Pope, wondered at his salutary ways and practiced them with impunity. The Christendom breathed in a sinister environment: the pope could not admonish them but could pardon them for a gift of money. This was the major cause of the feudal tax rapacity and low morality.

Papal extravagance

The lifestyle of these holy men was surprising and sordid. For example, Pope Clement VI had a retinue of some four hundred persons whose deportment was the envy of the royal households; they all were laden with diamonds, rubies and furs, and acted as knights, squires, chaplains, chamberlains, musicians, poets, chefs etc. Though their salaries were very high, yet they were low compared to their extremely exaggerated tastes which, in addition to pretty nuns, secretaries and maids, required an establishment of jesters, falcons and dogs. Cardinals, who happened to be the princes of the Church, vied with one another in displaying their splendour whose kink was killed by a kaleidoscopic hypocrisy.

Papal character

Pope was the spiritual master of the Christendom, and the spiritual piety required a sense of humility, crowned with frugality, sincerity and probity. Of course, these are the virtues of devoutness but there is a contradiction between piety and mastery. Masters cannot be humble because they belong to the gubernatorial class, and therefore, they must be assertive and dominant. Thus, Pope was a secular ruler who suffered as much from the urge of dominance as any mundane suzerain and wanted to extend his domain of influence. As taxation Is the tool of dominance, popes needed a pretext to impose and collect taxes. So, they thought of crusades, the holy war against the Moslems which raged for centuries. It is amazing how every Christian became a beast of tax-burden and lived and died for paying the holy impositions to eradicate the infidels for securing a seat m the Heavens! I have given the details of these taxes and methods of Collection in "Taxation and Liberty,,. Here, it should suffice to highlight the character of a few popes though some of them were really fine men.

Pope Sixtus IV

Status IV (1471-84) was very fond of Pietro and Girolamo. He called them his hoes. But it was also believed that they were his lovers, and rightly or wrongly, e was reputed to be a sodomite.

Pope Innocent VIII

Innocent VIII (1484-92) had at least one son and one daughter though the real number of his children was thought to be considerably more than this. Of course, the Romans were broad-minded enough to tolerate weaknesses of the human flesh despite the Christian doctrine of celebacy. However, the whispers turned into a roaring laughter when the marriages of his children and grandchildren were celebrated in the Vatican.

The Pope's son, Franceschetto Cibo, was a well-known scoundrel. Using his father's authority, which always came to his rescue, he made it a habit to force his way into private homes for deflowering virgins; ecclesiastical courts deliberately imposed big fines so that he could have the lion's share. He was a compulsive gambler, one night he lost 14,000 ducats or nearly $250,000 to Cardinal Raffaelle Riario and complained to the Pope that the Cardinal had cheated him. The Pope intervened but to no avail because the Cardinal had already spent the money on his palace.

Pope Julius II

Guiliano delta Rovere secured papacy as Julius 11(1503-13) through conspiracy and bribes on 31st October, 1503, but his coronation was postponed until November 26 on the advice of astrologers who predicted a propitious junction of stars for that day.

Julius II had three illegitimate daughters. He was a stern man and felt happier during war than in peace. Though a sexagenarian, he was a warrior; he was usually clad in a military uniform and it was rare to see him dressed up in papal robes. A man of tremendous courage and physical strength, he was immune to the rigours of fatigue. Even during illness, he mounted campaigns to the utter surprise of his enemies. He loved to erect camps, besiege towns, and train guns at his opponents. This apostle of Christian love was the most foul-mouthed person of his age because his tongue knew no bounds of rudeness. One wonders at this divine emblem of mercy because he rode in front of his troops fully dressed as a warrior, with a sword dangling at his side. He found the art of mixing divinity with a military necessity: before encountering the enemy, he would issue a bull of excommunication against them and offer a plenary indulgence to any man who should kill any of them!

Election of Pope Alexander VI

One of the most difficult tasks for any person who claims to be a human Is to surpass Rodrigo Borgia in perversion, indignity and inhumanity. Known as Alexander VI, he was the most interesting pope of the Renaissance period. Having become a cardinal at 25 and head of the entire Curia as the Vice-chancellor at 26, he became the richest cardinal by the time of his coronation in 1492. The force of wealth removed all the hurdles from his way to the pontificate. Many God-fearing cardinals who specialised in preaching grace, were quite happy to have their palms greased by Rodrigo. After all, if God's grace is good enough for other Christians the grace of a future Pope, who is God's lieutenant on earth, should be equally good for the cardinals, faced with the most difficult task of providing the Lord with a deputy to guide His Church. All the riches and the promises of high offices that Rodrigo showered on the cardinals to steady their wandering and unstable minds for securing their votes, should not count as bribes but grace, because they resulted in a holiness as great as the pontificate.

Caesar Borgia

The Holy Father had not only several mistresses but also practiced incestuous relationship with his pretty daughter Lucrezia, who was also entangled in a love triangle with her two brothers. His son Caesar Borgia was so wicked, unprincipled, sly, dishonest and ruthless, that he deserved to become the hero of Machiavelli's "Prince", the most corrupting and debasing treatise on political morality of rulers.

There is a strange but true anecdote connected with the birth of Caesar. Sixtus IV in a bull of August 16, 1482, declared Caesar as the son of Rodrigo (Alexander VI, the then bishop and vice-chancellor). Alexander wanted to make him a cardinal but as bastards were excluded from cardinalate by the canon law, he (Alexander) issued the bull of September 19th, 1493, declaring Caesar the legitimate child of Vanozza and L'Arignano!

It is amazing how Sixtus IV allowed Rodrigo to retain his high ecclesiastical office despite his nerve-raking immorality and how Alexander could tell such a daring lie in a papal bull. Not only that, Alexander VI was equally involved in all the evil activities of Caesar, his beloved son, who was the Devil-incarnate.

Alexander VI and tax-gathering

He invented novel schemes for collecting taxes; he appropriated the estates of the dead cardinals. When sufficient number of pilgrims failed to turn up for the jubilee of 1500, he issued a bull on March 4 of that year announcing what payments the faithful ought to make for securing papal blessings without coming to Rome; giving dispensations from certain Christian obligations and allowing divorces, became a part of the invisible papal taxation; even people indulging in incestuous relationships, and the clergy practicing simony could have their sins pardoned for suitable sums of money. Alexander started forging extra high offices for selling them to the highest bidders without any reference to their eligibility: on September 28, 1500, he created twelve new cardinals and exacted the sum of 120,000 ducats from them; he also named additional nine cardinals and extorted even greater amounts from them; this year also witnessed the burgeoning of extorted nihilo eighty new offices in the Curia, each yielding 760 ducats. Yet another stratagem for widening the tax net consisted of arresting the wealthy ecclesiasts such as bishops, archbishops and cardinals on trumped up charges; they had to pay high fines for avoiding the disgrace of going to prison and losing their lucrative offices Jews who believed that they had the divine right to hoodwink the Gentile for depriving them of their worldly possessions, were in turn given a holy dose of the papal medicine which charged them with heresy. It was a serious offence; Jews were frequently arrested on this charge and were required to prove their orthodoxy by making heavy payments to the papal treasury.

Taxation by poisoning

Cardinals were wealthy, for sucking blood of the faithful and were healthy for eating juicy steaks of the animals they hunted with Satanic fervour. During the last years of Alexander VI's reign, the cardinals lost their appetite for wealth and even pretty damsels whom they regularly seduced as a prevention against the pains of celebacy. They thought that the good Lord approved of their doings because He was dependent upon them for preaching, and keeping His name alive. They might have been correct in this assumption but the good Lord could not afford to sadden His Chief Vicar, the Pope, to gladden these second-rate creatures. He sided with the Pontiff and approved of the unusual papal scheme which can only be described as "taxation by poisoning". He made use of a slow-acting poison known as Cantarella; it was based on arsenic, and as a powder could be dropped into a drink or food to engineer precocious and leisurely death which escaped the highest skills of human detection. Many a cardinal had got used to the uncivil habit of keeping the good Lord waiting for too long through a plan of longevity requiring extensive use of wines and brandy, puddings and roast meat and the choicest sex, preferably the defloration of beautiful virgins. These holy men despite enjoying life-spans of eighty and ninety still refused to seek a rendezvous with their creator. Alexander started inviting them to banquets and administering the Cantarella which favoured both the good Lord and Alexander because the former was able to enforce a rendezvous on them and the latter took over all their possessions, according to the canon law which clearly stated that the property of the deceased ecclesiast would revert to the Church unless the Pontiff decided otherwise. Some of them, having become wary of the papal conduct, resorted to the subtlety of securing dispensation by making large gifts of money to the Pope!

Pope John XXIII

John XXIII was yet another star in the firmament of inglory; he seduced over two hundred nuns, virgins and secretaries. Even young widows were not Immune from his sexual tyranny. His tax rapacity became proverbial: he taxed usury, gambling and prostitution!
It is amazing how the organised priesthood of Christendom defied its own canons of taxation. But why? It is because popes also being secular princes, were perpetually engaged in wars for maintaining and enhancing their dominance. The need for money was further multiplied by their lifestyle which was extremely sumptuous though sordid in essence. It was only the abject taxation which could facilitate such colossal sums. People paid less for fear of physical torture and more for fear of eternal hell whose leaping flames could be kept at bay by the divine powers of the pope! One wonders about the potency of faith and its lethal effects on human character and dignity.

Papal hold over Christian monarchs

Man is an engine operated by faith. It is not that the Christian faithful were unaware of the papal character. The Holy Father had become so holy that even the gross misconduct formed an integral part of his holiness. The Christian monarchs whom popes fought openly or through intrigue, despite knowing the truth about the Pontiff, kissed his feet through the force of faith and for political Convenience because they could not rule their truly Christian subjects without showing reverence to their Holy Father. It is not surprising that the Emperor Charles IV in 1368, came to Rome in a humble manner for leading the Pope's horse from Sant' Angelo to St. Peter's and served him at Mass. Charles VIII of France who intended to depose Alexander VI and went a long way to execute his plan of deposition, ended up offering three genuflections to the Pope who graciously stopped him from kissing the papal feet. Henry 11 of England, had to do penance at Canterbury for the murder of Archbishop Becket: the English king humbly submitted himself to the lashings that the sturdy monks inflicted upon him as a part of the divine forgiveness. Henry IV of Germany incurred excommunication, and as a price of apostolic mercy, he had to strip off all his regalia, wear woollen clothes and stand bare-footed for three days before the gate of the castle at Canossa in 1077. It was then and only then that the burning humility of his sighs and tears broke through the frigid barrier of papal compassion which took him back into communion and restored his kingdom. Fredrick Barbarossa, the Holy Roman Emperor was required to kiss publicly the feet of Pope Alexander 111 for the sin of not acknowledging him as Christs' vicar: just kneeling was not sufficient to secure papal forgiveness. What a fine example of the dominance-urge it is!

Islamic taxation

Contrary to the Judaic and Christian traditions, Islam does not have an organised priesthood. Instead, its appeal is in promising freedom from fear of death, economic misery and sex starvation. The solution to these three solicitudes is sought through the doctrine of taxation which is based on a Divine political philosophy:
Islam divides mankind into two nations: those who believe in Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad, and those who do not. The former, i.e. the Moslems are Allah's friends and the loved ones, but the latter or non-Moslems are Allah's enemies and the most despicable beings. Just confession of faith is not enough to be a Moslem. He must live as a Mujahid i.e. the divine crusader whose only purpose of life is to smash non-Moslems by converting them into tributaries:
"Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day . . . until they pay tribute out of hand and have been vanquished". (Repentance: 25).

Islamic taxation and division of mankind

These verses clearly divide mankind into two permanent groups - Moslems as the tax-gatherers and non-Moslems as the tributaries. This barrier is fundamental:
'Muhammad is Codes Messenger, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful, one to another . . ." (Victory: 25).

A Moslem cannot be ruled by a non-Moslem

One basic characteristic of a true Moslem is that he does not submit to the tu e of a non-Moslem because this is sure to reverse their roles in the field of
"O Prophet, fear God, and obey not the unbelievers and the hypocrites" (The Confederates: 5).

Divine promise of spoils

The Moslems themselves are required to bear the least burden of taxation. Their obligations for contributing to the welfare of fellow citizens are moral and their legal obligation is restricted to the Tithe. Some Moslem scholars believe that the tithe is also a moral tax. It is the non-Moslems who must pay taxes and their tax obligations are unlimited: the Mujahedeen (the Moslem crusaders) are entitled to have the conquered as slaves and their wives, sisters and daughters as their concubines. It is for this reason that Allah promises:
"With God are spoils plentiful" (Women: 95).
Ability to extract tribute from non-Moslems is the proof of Islamic faith.
However, Allah is not prepared to fight their battles. A Moslem has to be a. least twice as good as a non-Moslem. Otherwise, how is he going to exact tribute from the infidels?
"O Prophet, persuade the believers to fight . . . if there be a hundred of you, patient men, they will overcome two hundred: if there be of you a thousand, they will overcome two thousand by the will of God; God is with the patient" (The Spoils: 65).
Since nobody likes to part with his possessions, Allah lays it down:
"It is not for any prophet to take prisoners until he carries out vast slaughter in the land" (The Spoils: 65).

Legality of loot and murder

It is to persuade the believer that they need not have any conscience about the carnage of the non-Moslems. To make sure that human thoughts of compassion and mercy for one's fellow-beings do not hinder the faithful to pursue their struggle for spoils, Allah declares:
"Eat of what you have taken as booty, such as is lawful and good;"
This legalises acts of loot and murder. Yet Allah claims to be compassionate and the Creator of all beings despite commanding His followers to plunder and kill those who do not believe in Him! To encourage them still further, the Koran says:
"God has promised you many spoils to take;" (Victory: 20).

Laws of distributing the loot

Possession and distribution of spoils is subject to some basic rules:
1. "The spoils belong to God and Messenger" (The Spoils: 1).
2. "Know that, whatever booty you take, the fifth of it is Gods, and the Messenger's" (The Spoils: 40).
(Of course, "Messenger's" does not imply the personal property of the Prophet but his share of the loot as the state for spending it on the needy, orphans, those vho lost their loved ones in the battle, wayfarers etc.).
To make tax-gathering the basic way of life for every Moslem, the Koran declares:
"Laid down for you is fighting, though you may hate it.
Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing which is better for you; and it is possible that you will love a thing which is worse for you; God knows, and you know not" (The Law: 210).
To enhance the fondness for war, the Koran decrees that the believer who is killed in a battle against the non-Moslems, dies not:
"And say not of those slain in God's way, 'They are dead', rather they are living, but you know not" (The Cow: 145).

Taxation as panacea

Islam relieves the three solicitudes of death, economic misery and sex starvation through Jehad or holy war, that is, turning the non-Moslems into tributaries through determined fighting. How?
1. If a Mujahid, i.e. the Moslem fighter, is killed in the battlefield, he goes straight into the paradise where no fewer than seventy two houries, the most delicate women with wide eyes and swelling breasts, await him. In addition, there are pearl-like youths and an abundance of choice food, wines and fruits. He is destined to live forever in the surroundings which defy the imagination of any poet or artist.
2. If he lives, he gets an abundant share in the spoils which remove his fear of economic misery. As women of the conquered people become his property, he can have as many of them as concubines as he likes. Having sex with them is neither a sin nor a crime. He cannot be sex-starved.

Plunder, the fountain of Islamic glory

Now let us look at history to see how the political aspect of taxation contributed towards the spread of Islam.

The Prophet and predatory raids

There was an old Arab tradition of plundering caravans pursuing their legitimate commercial interests. It was called Ghazwa - pi. ghazwat, and has been translated into English as razzia meaning a plundering raid. The Prophet Muhammad authorised the continuance of this tradition. In fact, he himself led three such raffias during 623. Owing to the betrayal by hypocrites, they all failed but eventually in January 624, the Moslems successfully attacked a caravan near Mecca, coming from Yemen.

Battle of Badr

In March 624, the Prophet marched at the head of 315 men to waylay a rich Meccan caravan returning from Syria. It was led by Abu Sufyan, the head of the Ummayah Clan, and because of its financial significance, was supported by a force of 800 men commanded by Abu Jahl,the chief of the Makhzum Clan. Though Abu Sufyan thought it prudent to escape the Prophet through a devious route, Abu Jahl decided to teach him a lesson. The opponents, on March 15, 624, had a head-on collision near a place called Badr. Compared to the 14 Moslems who went to paradise, 45 Meccans ended up in hell, and another 70 were taken as prisoners.

The loot was divided according to the Koranic law, that is four-fifths went to the raiders (or in Islamic language, the Mujahedeen who fight for the glory of Allah) and one fifth to the Prophet to discharge his public duties. The share of the martyrs went to their dependents, and the martyrs themselves entered an eternal life to enjoy the company of houries attended by youths.

Development of doctrine of plunder

Now, robbing the caravans was moulded into a basic doctrine of Islam which was at once both religious and political. Its religious connotations assured martyrdom and paradise, and successful depredation led to riches and political dominance. Taxation, as already stated, is a form of robbery. The rapine guaranteed comfort and suzeranity in this life, and death in search of rapine promised even greater advantages of paradise.

Battle of Uhud

The Prophet led larger forces to plunder hostile nomadic tribes. He was also aware of the fact that the the Meccans would want not only to avenge their defeat at Badr but also take necessary steps to stop him pillaging their lawful caravans. He was right. He met a much greater Meccan force of 3000 by the hill of Uhud. This was an indecisive battle though the Meccans held the upper hand. However the military leadership of the Prophet was impeccable. The Moslems suffered because they disobeyed the Prophet's instructions not to abandon their positions. As different tribes of Arabia started embracing Islam one after another, the Prophet sincerely enforced the Koranic law which states that Moslems are kind and brotherly to one another but harsh and hostile to the non-Moslems. It was impossible for Moslems to plunder Moslems. Therefore, he directed their holy zeal of tax-gathering against infidels. His greatest razzia occurred at the end of 630 when he took 30,000 of his followers to the Syrian border. It was a month's journey. Without doubt, this military excursion had a doctrinal and instructive value aiming at teaching faithfuls the benefits of disciplined tax-gathering and political manoeuvering. During this razzia he made agreements which became models for his followers in dealing with the vanquished people. The precedent of plundering the non-Moslems was seriously taken up by his followers when they invaded Syria after his death.

Plunder as piety

All conquerors have been motivated by their tax-gathering zeal but it was never based on a sense of piety: its fountain was always dominance but in the case of Islam depriving the non-Moslems of their possessions, converting their women into concubines and reducing them to the status of tributaries, was an act of righteousness adored by Allah. Women were a special attraction to the Arabs whose female population was not large enough owing to an evil custom which required a father to kill his daughter if he wanted to avoid the stigma of being a father-in-law. When the prophet raided Khaiber to plunder the Jews, he beheaded their chieftain Kinana and took over his seventeen year old fiancee Safiya for a wife.

Taxation and spread of Islam

During his ten years in Medina, the Prophet had planned no fewer than sixty five campaigns and razzias to train his followers in the art of tax-gathering which he declared was sacred and pious. At the death of Muhammad, Arabia had acquired the status of a state and all Moslems were bound to it by the payment of a religious tax called Zuka or Tithe. Some Arab tribes which had embraced Islam only loosely, refused to pay this tax and thus became the subject of apostasy. In fact, it was an act of rebellion as deliberate non-payment of legitimate taxes will be in any state. When the Caliph, Abu Bakr, the successor of the Prophet, insisted on payment of the tax, they marched on Medina but were defeated by the Caliph's hastily-improvised army. Non-Moslem historians claim that it was an act of forcing Islam on people. No, it was an act of suppressing the rebellion. There is no evidence that the Prophet ever forced anyone to believe in his prophethood. He had laid down the law: "there is no compulsion in religion", and he observed it sincerely. It is equally unimaginable that his immediate successors, who believed in him with the utmost fervour, would compel people to become Moslems. The Islamic military excursions into foreign lands were not meant for converting people to the new faith. Their true purpose was to turn people into tributaries for directing the zealous energies of the faithful to a better use. This policy really worked. The Bedouins, who found it hard to put up with the pangs of hunger, readily accepted Islam to reap a rich harvest of taxation by carrying the flag of Islam in the name of Allah. It is not surprising that early in 633, Khalid, a formidable Arab general, was invited by a nomad frontier tribe to lead them in raiding a neighbouring community on the other side of the Iraqi frontier. Khalid accepted the invitation and with a total force of 3,000 men invaded the Persian soil. However, the real conquest of Persia started in 624 when Muthanna, the general, wrote to Omar the Great, the Second Caliph that Persia was engulfed by chaos and could be easily conquered. The final battle was fought at Kadisiya. The Persians fought with their usual velour. Their courage, tenacity and fearless spirit asserted itself with a vigour rare in history, yet the Arabs showed no sign of retreat, fatigue or despair. The piety of tax-gathering spurred them with greater enthusiasm the more resistance the Persians demonstrated. On the fourth day of this fierce battle, Allah decided to support the faithfuls for suppressing the Persian infidels. All of a sudden, there appeared the most vehement sandstorm in the direction of the Persian stalwarts blinding them with an unknown fury. The Arab warriors fulminated with their most sacred slogan ``AIIah O Akbar" (God is Great); the skies echoed with its roar and the Arab sword flashed mercilessly mowing down the Persian heads. Rustam, the proud Persian Commander was killed and his soldiers dispersed, enabling the conquerors to enter Ctesiphon which had allured the Arab tax-gatherers with its mighty arch, marble hall, jewelled throne and splendid carpets. It took the vast Arab force ten days to carry the loot. When Yezdegird gathered another army of 150,000 to avenge the Persian honour, be met a disaster at Nahavand which the Arabs call the "Victory of Victories": 100,000 Persian soldiers fell victim to the Arab sword, sealing the fate of the Persian glory forever.

What were the Arabs after? They were chasing the largest treasure on earth; even more luminous and more dazzling than the Byzantinian hoards of gold and diamonds. It consisted of nearly five hundred million dollars - a staggering sum at that time. Of even greater interest to the Arabs were the Persian women whose beauty had been the source of verve for poets, painters and sculptors. Their large, dark shooting eyes had never failed to pierce the most stubborn hearts. The Persian verse based on courtly love had raised to fictitious proportions the already-stunning facts about their delicacy, deportment and dalliance. The Arabs would rather have them than the houries. And so they did. They did not even bother to marry them. They were part of the booty which Islam had declared sacred and legitimate. Why waste time in conducting the un-Islamic rites? After all, the Persians were infidels and deserved no respect. On the contrary, Alexander the Great, was a pagan, yet he forbade seduction of the Persian women when he conquered this land of the gallants, centuries earlier. He arranged the greatest nuptial ceremony on earth by marrying 10,000 Greek soldiers to 10,000 Persian damsels. Alexander obviously believed that the Persian wealth formed legitimate possession of the conqueror but the Persian women did not. Alexander, despite being a pagan, knew the difference between human dignity and lustre of precious stones.

The Prophet's ingenuity

Tax-gathering or booty as a symbol of righteousness and divine love, was the mark of the Prophet's ingenuity. Contrary to the opinion of the hostile historians, who say that the purpose of these wars was to spread Islam, there is sufficient evidence to show that the conquered people were discouraged from embracing the new faith to maximise collection of Jaziya, i.e. the Poll Tax. This doctrine served the Arabs very well for five hundred years but as other warrior races of Asia accepted Muhammadanism, they realised its dominance-value and showed an intense desire to practice it.
During the days of the Prophet, it was easy to direct the combative energies of the faithful against the infidels for enforcing the Koranic law:
"And whose slays a believer wilfully, his reward is Gehenna (hell). Therein living forever, and God will be wrath with him and will curse him, and prepare for him a mighty torture" (Women: 95).

Rebound of the booty doctrine

Pillage is not sacred but putrid. It involves violating human rights of possession, life and limb. As the number of Moslem nations multiplied over a period of time, the respect for booty soared but the reverence for the Koranic law slumped. However, insult to the Islamic principles was not direct or open. There grew the art of hypocrisy for proving the believer as the infidel, and vice versa, by misinterpreting the Koran for twisting contemporary events to justify murder of fellow Moslems for the sheer joy of collecting booty. What had once served as the foundation of Arab glory, became their bane as the wheel of time gathered momentum.

God and taxation

As stated earlier, taxation is the tool of dominance. He who can establish the right to levy and collect taxes, acquires the right to dominate for exposing people to his commands, rational or irrational. Even God or Allah, as I have demonstrated, depends upon taxation to make humans carry the yoke of His authority. This is a form of Divine Taxation though wrapped in philosophical sophistication to give it supernatural credibility.

British taxation

When talking about taxation, one cannot ignore Britain which, once, gained saintly status by seeking to regulate taxation for the first time in history. The Magna Carta represents the English insight into this subject.

Taxation is despotic by its nature, and is especially so when a suzerain such as the state or a dictator lays taxes by command without giving any reason or promise of return performance for it. When the rate of taxation soars upward of, say 10% it begins to assume the character of pillage. The British Income Tax which rose to 98~o is not only an example of inhuman rapacity, but also of first degree treason against the nation because it destroys the moral fibre and the entrepreneurial spirit, thus precipitating an economic and moral crisis which leads to social and political fall. This fact is abundantly proven by the British decline. Having told this story in "Taxation and Liberty", I hardly need repeat it here.

There is no room for taxation, especially the abject taxation, in any civilised society. It is too big a source of evil to have any social validity. However, emergency may be an exception. Tax-gatherers are a shrewd, sly and sophisticated lot. They do not always use brute force for collecting taxes but employ such ruses that provoke people to get entangled in the lethal net of abject taxation as a piece of cheese coaxes a mouse to walk into the trap. Law is one of such ruses and thus serves as the tool of taxation; fear of chaos goads people to accept the authority of the law. Members of the gubernatorial class exploit this fear to spread their net of dominance around them. To express this fact, I included a long chapter in "Taxation and Liberty" and headed it "Gubernatorial Law" to expose the evils of convenient legality.

Law is a potent tool of dominance; it treats the taxpayer as a crook and thief, inclined to evade payment of taxes. Therefore, he is presumed to be guilty irrespective of his personal integrity and honesty. For making it easy to plunder him, he is denied civil rights as a taxpayer, but on the contrary, diabolical powers are given to the tax officials who begin to specialise in overassessing people for robbing them legally. As a consequence, this tax rapacity has given birth to what is called Back Duty. This phrase refers to the taxes which should have been paid in the past but have been evaded. In fact, it is indicative of the fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely because these "tax-evasions" represent the manufacturing skills of the tax inspectors who want to maximise tax collection for advancing their own careers. Over-assessment by a tax-inspector is an act of theft by the state, yet the law protects the state-thieves at the expense of the taxpayer who is usually "guilty of innocence". In Britain, during 1987 recovery of the "evaded taxes" amounted to �750 million but in 1989, the figure jumped to �2.4 billion! Possibly, the Back Duty is the only expanding industry left in this country. One ought to applaud the Devil for his ingenuity.
To avoid the rebellion that direct force is likely to provoke in tax collection the dominant usually use the indirect force of socio-economic doctrines which perpetrate harsh systems and make people carry the slavish burden of abject taxation of their own volition.

I shall discuss this topic in the next chapter under the heading of "Economics". Usually, taxation is considered a part of economics whereas the truth is the other way around: economics is a branch of taxation.

Chapter 22: Economics

Economics as a system is the tool of taxation which seeks to impose gubernatorial hegemony without appearing as an instrument of dominance.

Apparently, it is an extraordinary statement but, in fact, it is not. However, before I explain it, I must state what is meant by economics. Unfortunately, nobody has so far put forward a satisfactory definition of this subject since the days of Adam Smith, the father of economics.

Scope of Economics

Ordinarily, economics refers to the forces which determine prices of goods and services as well as prices of the resources required to produce them. The process of production needs an organization which systematizes the sequences of men, machines and land to make them productive and creates a functioning market punctuated by a regular rhythm of buyers and sellers seeking satisfaction of their needs. Prices cannot remain absolute and come to be interrelated, thus forming a market mechanism which not only indicates the interrelationship of prices but actually emerges as a social system which begins to govern the way of life based on such questions whether people are free to charge what they like, or should prices be controlled? As prices are linked with wages and profits, should people have the discretion to use their incomes the way they like or is it for the Big Brother to specify whether they should spend their incomes on vodka or a house-purchase? Again, the level of prices creates the problems of inflation and unemployment, giving the dominant (the state) the commanding role to regulate the social rhythm of society by imposition of taxes, monetary restraints and many other restrictions such as minimum wages, rent controls, tariffs, budgetary measures, and so on.

Economics as the Material Religion

In modern times, economics has gained the status of a Material Religion which controls human way of life through a mixture of viciousness and vivacity with the same vigour and vehemence as did the divine religions such as Christianity and Islam. The social division of the world into two camps - Socialist and Capitalist' each equipped with lethal weapons and the readiness to use them, presents a threat of annihilation, far beyond the means and imagination of the Crusaders.

The economic activity is mainly directed to one end i.e. production of wealth to satisfy needs (wants) but though air, sunlight etc are agents of satisfaction, they do not constitute wealth in the economic sense because of their abundance. Economic goods or wealth imply scarcity, and entail effort or sacrifice in their supply. It requires a process of production based on the factors of labour, land capital and enterprise. However, people do not produce for the sheer love of it they produce to consume which entails distribution.

Theory of distribution

The theory of distribution, in the first place, attempts to determine the prices of the factors of production, and secondly, it tries to resolve the problem of distributive shares, that is, proportionate distribution of national income among the factors of production. As production and distribution are integrally related they form concern of a single theory called "neoclassical theory" which states that incomes are earned in the production of goods and services, the value of the productive agent indicates its contribution to the total product, and the value of the final output depends upon the marginal productivity of the productive factors which are themselves subject to the law of supply and demand.
The Neoclassical theory advocates the marginalist viewpoint. But there are many other theories which argue quite differently about the allocation of rewards to the factors of production. For example, Marxist theory states that economic wealth is created by labour only, making distribution the major source of strife, and permanent class division the cornerstone of human culture.

Economics, as tool of taxation

The gubernatorial urge of dominance has brought economics within the magic circle of politics through the mechanism of distribution which has become the greatest single source of mischief because distribution is not distribution but redistribution, thus making economics a tool of taxation which seeks to implement the gubernatorial ambitions by plundering people. The state, which represents the gubernatorial will, acts as a Robin Hood by pillaging the rich as the ambassador of care and compassion though its real purpose is to bribe the masses for securing their votes to gain power. All its acts resemble misdeeds of the Mafia, yet it ranks as the fountain of legitimate authority, and the model of respectability. It is like achieving the impossible, yet it has been done. How?

Economics and equity

The unachievable becomes achievable when the end is made to justify the means. The state-depredation is legitimised on the basis of "equity"; it ceases to mean moral justice because it is projected as the principle which seeks to equalise everybody irrespective of one's talent and devotion to hard work with a view to eradicating all economic differences as applicable to the wise and fool, the righteous and vicious, the patron and scrounger. To achieve this end, people are incessantly given overdoses of social egalitarianism to make them forget all their social responsibilities which require a sense of justice based on the tenet of "first deserve and then desire". Thus ordinary folks, who suffer pangs of hunger and ignorance are easily misled to believe that economics is all about equal sharing of the national product irrespective of personal contribution. This sharing is affected by the following means:
1. Equality of sharing is proclaimed as the Divine Command i.e. a person claims to be the vicar of God and declares that he has been sent by the Almighty to establish a regime which must enable all men to hold property and women m common ownership.
2. Equality is proclaimed as the way of life based on an economic dogma, enforceable by law.
3. Welfare theories are employed in the name of social justice to secure equality through redistribution of wealth.

Now, let us look at these bases of equal sharing, one by one:
1a. Equality as Divine Command (Mazdakite Communism)
Iran, the fountain of many religions, produced Mazdak in the late 5th Century A D. What he preached was an offshoot of the Manichaean dualism resembling Gnosticism. To these tenets which had been known to the Persians since the times of Zarathustra, Mazdak added his own principles: the community of property and wives. He proclaimed himself to be the Messenger of God who had sent him to preach that all men were born equal; they all should hold everything equally and nobody had the right to possess anything exclusively especially in the field of property and marriage. He declared that the institutions of property and marriage were artificial and ill-conceived, and therefore, all goods and women should belong to the communal ownership.

King Kavadh I

The inherent fascination of this doctrine attracted the have-nots and the sexually starved men in their droves. Even the King Kavadh I (488-496 and 499-531) embraced this faith out of political convenience. Neither he lacked women because his harems contained hundreds of most beautiful concubines nor did he wish other people to have a share in his property. It was a ruse for destroying the power of his nobles who had persistently tried to unseat him. He wanted to weaken them by exposing their wealth to popular plunder in the name of equality. This rising class of communists led by the Prophet Mazdak, was happy to spare Kavadh I's property and women as long as they could seize the property and women of his opponents, the nobles. These holy looters happened to be the members of various guilds. In the name of brotherhood, they pounced upon the most beautiful and delicate mistresses of the nobles which they themselves had plundered when depriving the weaker nations of their liberties. With these lovely creatures went diamonds and rubies which adorned them, and also the lofty palaces that housed them The nobles, used to pillaging others for "remedying" their faults, did not fancy this medicine for themselves, and rose against their king. They deposed Kavadh and imprisoned him in a dungeon, and raised his brother Djamasp to the royal dignity. Kavadh, however, had the good fortune of escaping his captors and regaining his crown with the help of the Ephthalites. This apparent royal protector of communism, having secured his position, turned on the Prophet Mazdak and his thousands of followers. He not only beheaded Mazdak but also carried out carnage of his disciples.

Power of Iranian economic guilds

Why did Kavadh I indulge in the massacre of his own people? It is because the labour force of his kingdom had become very strong through an effective economic organization. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the decrees of the council of state were no longer held valid unless they were signed by the heads of the major guilds along with the princes and prelates. In modern language, t was an act of union-bashing.

The "Veiled Prophet"

The natural principle of social organization is hierarchical and not egalitarian; this is the reason that people don't want to be equal but pine to surpass others Despite this fact, the precept of equality has a great fascination for the man-in the street who is usually happy with the routine life and doesn't like being bossed and pushed around. Perhaps this is the reason that the ghost of equality reappeared in Persia during 772 with the birth of Hashim al Muqanna - the "Veiled Prophet" of Khurasan. He declared that he was God incarnate and the purpose of his appearing in human form was to restore the communism of Mazdak to glorify the tenet of equality. He grew so powerful that he defeated several royal armies and ruled northern Persia for fourteen years. However, his luck ran out in 786 when he was captured and killed. Strange though it may seem, the Persian communists carried Surkh Alam, that is, the Red Flag, to demonstrate their identity. Though Muqanna fell, the Red Flag kept fluttering. In 838, Babik al Khurrani repeated history by declaring his prophethood to renew and enforce the principle of equality in the name of God. The band of his followers is known as Muhammira, i.e. the Reds. Their fanatic zeal showed superiority of courage and disdain of death in every battle against the enemies of equality. They seized Azerbaijan and held it for twenty two years. It is said that he slew no fewer than 255,500 imperial soldiers before he could be taken captive. At the behest of the Caliph Mutasim, Babik's own executioner cut off his limbs one by one.

The Ismailites - Ibn Qaddah

The communal appeal of property and women was hard to resist. Most communists who had survived the ravages of time were attracted to Abdullah Ibn Qaddah who made himself the leader of the Ismailites, a sect of Shi'ites. He sent missionaries throughout Islamdom to preach the doctrine of the "Severers", and his appeal lay in the initiation rites which the novices had to perform for entering the sect. Every entrant had to take an absolute oath of secrecy and pledge to obey the Grandmaster of the Order (Dai-d-Duat). The instructions bore similarity with the Greek methods known as esoteric and exoteric, and the convert had to believe that after passing through nine stages of initiation, the veil of ignorance which separates man from God, would disappear, and taleem or the Occult Doctrine, i.e. "God is All", revealed to him. The members of the sect confided in one another and nobody else, and thus formed a society within a society 1 to protect their religious, political and commercial interests. Survivors of the old communist movement sought membership of this sect because it promised advent of a Mahdi or Redeemer who would lay the foundation of a society based on the principle of equality, brotherly love and justice.

Qarmat

Eventually this confraternity grew so strong that it founded the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and North Africa. After the death of Abdullah ibn Qaddah in 874, Hamdan Ibn Al-Ashrath, an Iraqi peasant, also known as Qarmat, became the leader of this movement. It was a strange form of mystical religion: it adopted an allegorical interpretation of the Koran based on free thinking, advocated a communism of property and women, preached universal equality and sought organization of workmen into guilds. Communal ownership of property and women as well as allegorical interpretation of the Koran against its wording are utterly un-lslamic, yet they called themselves the true Moslems. These Qaramita (the Carmathians), as they came to be known, established an independent state on the west coast of the Persian Gulf and started raiding and pillaging the centres of Islam such as Syria up to the gates of Damascus, sacked Basra and Kufa, and then in 930 plundered Mecca itself, the pivot of Islam. They slew no fewer than 30,000 Moslems, loaded a large train of camels and asses with the richest booty that Allah had allowed His followers to amass in this holy city by murdering and looting the unbelievers. The impiety of these so-called Moslems knew no bounds; they even carried off the veil of Kaaba and the Blackstone! Eventually the excesses of this communistic movement created a large body of dissenters who did not mind sharing other people's property and women but their own. Though this sect was weakened by the increasing number of deserters and their retaliatory measures, it was never finally laid to rest. Instead, in the next century, it reappeared as the Ismails of Alamut, the hashish-inspired assassins.

The Assassins

Hasan Ibn Al-Sabbah, the Ismaili leader, seized the fortress of Alamut ("Eagle's Nest") about 1090. This stronghold in northern Persia lay some 10,000 feet above the sea level. From this geographically safe den of savagery, he declared a Holy War (Jehad) against the opponents and persecutors of the Ismaili faith which was declared to be the true Islam but, in fact, descended from the Persian Mazdakites, the Sasanian communists. Nobody could join this sect unless he undertook to be a Mujahid, i.e. Crusader against the antagonists of the Ismaili faith. Applying the Koranic principle of salvation, Al-Sabbah assured his followers that those who were willing to plunder and murder the unbelievers and thus add to the numbers of their widows and orphans, would go to paradise where most beautiful women (houries) awaited to carry out their commands of whatever nature. To make sure that nobody could doubt his word, he built a paradise on earth. The fascination of this fact has been a source of verve to many poets, painters and novelists. What was it really all about?
1. The modern Masons are considered an offshoot of this sect for these reasons.

Assassin's paradise

As-Sabbah, copying the Koranic description of paradise, built a huge garden behind the walls of the castle. He had also heard of the splendour of the Babylonian gardens whose fabulous beauty has charmed the human mind throughout centuries. What he created was not only a symposium of architectural grandeur and horticultural magic, but an emerald meadow containing small streams of milk and honey, or at least this is what they looked like. Ever-blooming and fructifying trees of all colours and shapes that had been imported from the east and west, and meticulously arranged in mind-boggling patterns, cast their dancing shadows on the most attractive and delicate women in their prime, to give them the appearance of multicoloured butterflies. Even more devastating were their deportment and manners of speech which had been imparted to them with a great deal of pain and patience. Above all, these nymphs possessed skill of dalliance, the ultimate of artistic imagination. If we were to believe the eastern poets, the Devil would gladly repent to qualify for just one of these dazzling dollies simmering with youth, zest and carnal inspiration.
In fact, this paradise was the training centre for loot and murder. There is no crime that was not taught in this biggest brothel on earth where women and property equally belonged to all faithfuls who had the good fortune of being there though only for a short while. The more ruthless, atrocious and idiotic a follower, the greater his chances of entering the communistic paradise because the purpose of this hoax was to create a blind faith in the divine powers of their Master.

Method of entering paradise

The method of admission into the paradise was absolutely stunning. Before entering, the candidate was served with especially tasty hashish in a golden goblet. The more he drank of this nectar, the more he wanted of it; the moment he fell under the unfailing attack of stupefaction, he was carried inside the paradise. As the grip of torpor eased, he found himself surrounded by exquisite beauties equipped with the art of ravishment, and happily willing to catharise his repressed instincts with their erotic sorcery. He was allowed an orgy of wine and women for about five days after which he was again drugged with hashish and carried out of the paradise. As he recovered his senses, the whole earth felt like a blazing hell and he wanted to return to the paradise at any cost. This is when the crunch came: he was told that the paradise was meant for the faithful who obeyed the Master truly and absolutely. He was promised that if he took the oath of allegiance sincerely and honestly and thought nothing of this secular life in carrying out the command of the Master, he would receive the blessing of re-entering the paradise much sooner than he thought. After taking an oath of loyalty, the candidate ranked as a Fidai - the one who would live and die to obey the commands of his master. This Sasanian communism in the guise of Islam, was a secret fraternity with many grades of initiation, and a Grandmaster. Its purpose was to promote the cause of its own members at the expense of non-members. As Sabbah, during his thirty five years of reign, waged a campaign of murder against the anticommunists (opponents of Ismailis) to such an extent that monarchs in both the east and west trembled in their beds. It was eventually the murderous hand of Hulagu, the Mongol, who captured Almut and other Assassins' centres and eliminated these lovers of equality who always wanted to be more than equal themselves.
Ismaili leader, the Agha Khan, who has enthusiastic adherents in Persia, Syria, India and Africa, is said to be a scion of this Ismaili sect, and his followers, who are usually rich businessmen, annually pay him a tenth of their revenues for his powers to accommodate them in paradise!

Equality as economic dogma

Now, we come to the second part of this enquiry, that is, how equality is demanded on the grounds of an economic dogma enforceable by law.

Theory of needs

2a. Marxism provides a good annotation of this fact. Marx was quite right in assuming that man has needs which he must fulfill to survive. It requires means of production to satisfy needs and the satisfaction of these needs opens the door to further needs. Thus human activity becomes a struggle with nature which must provide man with the means of satisfying his needs; these needs are not confined to eating, drinking and protection against the cold and hot, but also entail development of man's intellectual and artistic abilities. Through this struggle, he realises: "all that is known as history is nothing but the process of creating man through human labour, the becoming of nature for man. Man has thus evident and irrefutable proof of his own creation by himself".
While the theory of needs cannot be disputed, the basic thesis is vitiated by his overemphasis on the role of labour, which mostly means physical labour and discounts the true value of intellectual labour such as the work of a philosopher, scientist, politician, administrator, inventor, etc.
Again, as man creates himself with his own labour, there is no God. It is "an opium for people". This is the reason that Marx believed in the disappearance of religion as society progressed. Therefore, he seeks to substitute moral values with materialism.
He further stresses that in a capital society which thrives on exploitation of labour, man cannot be free. He becomes an alienated being, and this alienation is caused by the fact that his product, which is the result of his labour, is estranged from him. Thus, usurped labour (product) denies the fullness of concrete man. Therefore, man becomes alien to himself. When this precept is carried to its logical conclusion' private property becomes "the product of alienated labour".

Theory of surplus value

Basing his thesis on the analysis of economic conditions of the 19th century England' he asserts that the wealth of a capitalist society is acquired through "an enormous accumulation of commodities". To draw attention to this viewpoint, he states how a capitalist ploughs back his profit (which is the usurpation of labour's rights) and how this repeated movement transforms itself into capital This transformation, according to Marx, is facilitated by the fact that the capitalist owns the means of production, including the labour power of the worker. Thus he forges the theory of Surplus Value which briefly stated, is the difference between the wages that a capitalist pays to the worker and what he ought to pay him As capital is nothing but accumulated labour over a period of time, the economic concepts such as rent, interest, profit, have no legitimate identity of their own because they all come from labour.

Though Marx's critics usually say unkind things about him, I shall confine this discussion to facts because I believe that he was a great man and meant well but his vision was distorted by his own circumstances:
a. Marx lived in extreme poverty and painful misery, especially from 1850 to 1864. Creditors chased him frequently and his children learnt to lie: "Mr Marx is not upstairs". It was in 1850 that he was evicted along with his four small children, and their belongings were seized. This event proved to be very tragic because it caused the death of some of his children, notably his son Guido and daughter Franziska for whose burial his wife ran frantically to borrow money for a coffin. He spent six most miserable years as a tenant of two rooms in Soho where the Marx family subsisted on bread and potatoes. Unfortunately, like most philosophers, he was not very keen on earning his living. Instead of accepting some of the blame for his sorrows, he imputed his pains of life entirely to the rich, and thought of his son Guido's death: "a sacrifice to bourgeoise misery".
This contributed to his extreme hatred for capitalism, and absolute patronage of labour.

Biblical rule of equality

b. Though his father Heinrich Marx was baptised in the Evangelical Established Church, and Karl himself was baptised at the age of six as a protestant, he was a man of Jewish descent which is likely to leave an indelible mark on one's character owing to the doctrinaire upbringing which change of faith may not eradicate. Being a learned man, he was obviously familiar with the Biblical teachings as both a Jew and a Christian. His idea of equality which sought distribution related to one's needs, and contribution to one's capacity, emerges from Exodus 16: 15-18 which relates to the conditions prevailing in the wilderness and requires every Jew to gather manna or bread - an omer per person, "according to his eating" or need. Those who flouted this rule, found that their gathering had been equalised by the Lord and everybody ended up with one omer irrespective of how much he or she collected.

This rule of eating according to one's need, which was fixed by the Lord as one omer per person, was inviolable. But this law applied to the conditions of emergency which prevailed in the wilderness. Karl Marx remembered the rule of equality by divine command but forgot its relevance to abnormal conditions. It is strange that he advocated, man has needs which must be satisfied but failed to emphasise that needs vary from individual to individual, and those who contribute more, usually have greater needs and therefore cannot observe the rule of equality.

Marxist gospel of materialism

Because of these circumstances, Marx's opinions became extreme. Thus, instead Of qualifying as an economist, he ought to rank as a missionary who preached the gospel of materialism based on the following considerations:
a. Family of man is based on brotherhood but individuality has no place in it. Thus, his rhetoric of freedom carries no clout at all.
b. As the Lord had the right to determine individual needs of the Jews, the state is entitled to adopt deterministic policy towards the people to decide what they should love and what they should hate, what they should give up and what they should taste. Worse still, they must think of themselves as monks and nuns and live a communal life without any regard to individuality. Yet Marxism advocates materialism! This is a contradiction in itself.
c. He believed that history is nothing but a class-struggle. Yet he stressed that in a true communist society, class-structure, along with law, will perish. According to his dialectical reasoning, strife between the opposites is permanent, and thus communism cannot keep itself alive without a struggle against capitalism.
Since a communist society is deterministic, it cannot survive without a strict application of law and a diabolical host of enforcers. It is nonsense to think that law will perish in a totalitarian society.
d. In fact, Marxist communism is not much different from the Sasanian communism because it advocates violence by the proletariats against the capitalist for taking over their wealth, i.e. means of production. Its concept of equality is based on plunder of the rich but once the number of the wealthy has dwindled considerably, equality cannot be maintained.
e. If there is wealth, there will be someone to possess it. In a Marxist society, individual capitalists cease to exist, but their place is taken over by the state capitalism which represents a far more hideous situation.
f. The concept of ownership is the foundation of individual security and liberty. Depriving people of this right is an attempt to convert free men into slaves because it is only slaves who possess nothing.
g. I cannot see how a system which treats labour as the sole source of value, can qualify as an economic system. Production is the goal of economic activity: no production, no consumption. Though labour as a human element, is the most significant factor, as a production agent it ranks next to the enterprise (entrepreneur). The relation of entrepreneur to the other agents of production such as labour, land and capital is the same as exists between a commander and soldiers. The latter may be great guys in themselves but their fate in terms of defeat and victory depends upon the magnitude of the commander's leadership. Whether a combination of labour, land and capital will be profitable or source of bankruptcy, depends upon the judgement and organizational ability of the entrepreneur. It is his skill which produces profit, and it goes without saying, no matter how skilled and trained the labour force, it cannot claim any reward in the absence of profit because there is nothing to lay a claim upon. In economics, profit is the master word which is more closely related to the entreprenurial skill than anything else. However, it does not mean that labour, land and capital are irrelevant in production. Of course, they are agents of production, but the magnitude of their productivity, as already stated, depends upon the organizational efficiency of the entrepreneur.

Karl Marx made the fundamental mistake of overemphasizing the role of labour, thus turning his economic doctrine into a social cult which wishes ill to the entrepreneur, the chief producer of utilities. The sudden collapse of communist regimes in eastern Europe like a house of cards, is due to this reason. Further, he tried to make Marxism as the way of life enforceable by law. An economic doctrine is always discretionary, because to be productive, its application is subject to revision, retrial, and even reversion. Its purpose is to produce at the lowest possible cost to serve mankind and not to dictate the human way of life to give itself the power of a secular faith.

Capitalistic communism

3a. Finally, we can now discuss the last pillar of economic equality whose propriety is asserted on the ground of common welfare. Of course, it is the welfare of people that really counts in the last analysis but one should remember that it is not only the poor who deserve justice, the capable, the hard working and the rich are also human and therefore, must be respected and rewarded according to their contributions to the national economy. On the contrary, the welfare theories are founded on the concept of redistribution of wealth which is a form of Robinhoodism, aimed at persecuting the rich to please the poor for gubernatorial considerations. In fact, it is nothing but Capitalistic Communism. This is a strange phrase. Allow me to explain it:

Communism seeks to abolish the institution of private property and claims that all national assets are held by everybody in common. In fact, the theory of communal ownership is an illusion because in a communist society nobody owns anything: everything belongs to the state, though under the label of "People's Property". This type of social system divides citizens into two groups: the powerful, and the powerless. The first category commands all means of production including labour and thus controls every movement of workers who are degraded to the status of a factor of production .or being the supplier of labour. They carry the yoke of authority to such an extent that they are not allowed to go abroad on holidays without state permission and women may have to seek consent for having babies. Their wages are arbitrarily fixed by the government, and the worker whose production is worth �50 may be paid only �10 thus, state usurping the ``surplus value" like a capitalist. Worse still, money loses more or less all its value because a worker is not allowed ownership of anything valuable such as a house or jewellery. Thus his money cannot work for him and he practically becomes subject to 100~o taxation. This is a symbol of slavery.

This brief description shows that a modern communist regime reintroduces the old villeinage in the disguise of care, compassion and welfare. The relationship between the powerful and powerless turns out to be the same as between a rider and horse: the former commands and the latter obeys.

Nature of welfare society

A welfare society, though run on capitalistic lines, is no less extortionate and repressive than a committed communist state. Why? Because it may raise taxes as high as 98%. The net result is the same. People are allowed to earn as much as they like but they are not permitted to keep any more than a communist state may allow. In a communist country, people live in state houses, in a welfare society, half of them dwell in council houses, and homes of the other half are mortgaged to banks and building societies for lacking the means of buying them. A communist state relies on the severity of its secret police but a welfare society depends upon the excruciating skills of the tax-inspector whose money-extracting powers are far greater and more effective than the Devil's art of mischief-making, sin-creating and crime-disseminating. Brute force is the essence of a communist society, whereas a capitalist society survives on hypocrisy. The former may require a wrong-doer to face a firing squad but the latter exposes a taxpayer to the rapacity of tax-gatherers who plunder him in the name of law and social duty, and then leave him to die through chagrin, of his own free will! Again, a communist land is usually run by one party and people are not allowed choice. On the contrary, a capitalist state may offer a choice of several candidates belonging to many political parties but their choice is deliberately confused by the stunning party propaganda machine and people are made to vote as if they were hypnotised.

A communist state owns all means of production directly, but a welfare society which claims to be capitalistic owns national means of production indirectly. How? Because through abject taxation it takes away 98% of the share of national income and profits. In fact, it does not concern itself with the headaches of keeping a cow; it simply claims ownership of the milk. What an ingenious political philosophy it is! May be, now it is clear what I mean by "Capitalistic Communism".

Even more exacerbating aspect of the Capitalistic Communism, is its show of respectability It is as much based on a dogma as is, say, Marxism. Its basis is the welfare principle which is propounded through various jargons such as Ability-to-Pay or Least-Sacrifice theory.

Ability-to-Pay

Ability-to-pay has some validity during an emergency when everyone should do one's best to restore normal conditions. Otherwise, it is an attempt to enforce brutality in the name of beneficence, a ruse to practice cruelty in the disguise of compassion. It is wrong to compel people to live at the apex of their ability as a rule of life. Ease, leisure and relaxation constitute man's normal mode of living, whereas the behaviour ``to be at best" though desirable, implies Psychological tension, and even artifice. Let man be man under ordinary circumstances. If we do not accept this proposition, then a worker is likely to be in greater trouble than a capitalist because it means that we will have to devise a machine to assess the productive ability of every worker for forcing him to yield his top performance under all circumstances. It means that if he can weave two bolts of cloth a day compared to the fellow-weaver who can produce only one bolt, he must do so without expecting extra wage for the additional product because this is the social interpretation of Ability-to-Pay or bear.

"Least-Sacrifice theory"

Similarly, various kinds of "sacrifice theories" are just intellectual exercises and carry no mark of reality. Take for instance, the least sacrifice theory of A. C. Pigou, the leading pupil of Alfred Marshall. For justifying progressive taxation, he suggested:
1. Different people have about the same level of satisfaction, that is, both A and B have similar appetities and capacities of satisfaction. This hedonistic standard does not hold good when we realise that one person may be happy to remain a soldier all his life whereas another is not satisfied until he becomes a General or the Commander-in-Chief. Does the same standard of satisfaction apply to a miser and a philanthropist, or a virile person and a eunuch?
2. The more ingenious part of this theory is based on the doctrine of Marginal Utility which states that the more of a thing the less its satisfying power. More precisely, it means that every additional unit of a commodity adds less and less to its satisfying power. After the last satisfying unit which also happens to be the least satisfying, a further addition in its quantity leads to disutility.

To explain this jargon, let me say that I am thirsty. The first glass of milk shall have the most quenching power compared to the second and third, and the fourth may cause disutility, that is, act against its intended purpose of satisfying thirst and may harm me. From this, it is argued that utility of money like the utility of, say, bread, decreases with an increase in its supply. Since Marginal Utility refers to the satisfying power of the last unit of consumption, i.e. the last morsel of food in satisfying hunger, it is claimed that the utility of the last pound of a millionaire is nil compared to the utility of the last pound of a labourer. Therefore, robbing the rich is no robbery because it does not affect the utility of their money and thus causes them little or no sacrifice; on the contrary, it is socially held desirable because it increases the overall utility of the community when the plundered wealth of the well-off is redistributed. Thus, they believe that the last pound of an ordinary worker taken in taxation causes him a good deal of sacrifice.

Analysis of marginal utility

In economics, utility means the power of a thing to satisfy a want, irrespective of its usefulness or moral desirability. Therefore, satisfying power of a commodity is associated more with its multiety of uses than as a single commodity. Thus milk has much greater utility than, say bread: one can turn milk into cream, butter, cheese, curd and several other products. Its increased uses multiply its demand several times over, augmenting its utility correspondingly. Thus, bread which has a comparatively restricted use, is more subject to the law of Marginal Utility than milk. On this principle, the satisfying power of money is unlimited owing to its limitless uses - economic, political, social, religious, and so on. This is the reason we do not meet a person who is ill because he has too much wealth. In fact, the more money one possesses, the more one wants to have. Since it has no disutility, it is not subject to the rule of Marginal Utility.

Again' the concept of Marginal Utility is associated not only with its multiety of uses but also its durability. Other things being equal, a strawberry has little utility compared to a diamond because the former may last only a couple of days or a week but the latter serves as a storehouse of value for ever. Thus, in terms of security and value, contrary to the normal concept of Marginal Utility, its satisfying power does not diminish but increases. One must realise that in terms of satisfaction' possession of a diamond over a period of time is like consumption. Its utility keeps increasing owing to its ever-soaring price. The satisfaction derived from the possession of a diamond is eternal compared to the satisfaction derived from the consumption of a strawberry which is ephemeral. Therefore, the theory of Marginal Utility provides no justification for depriving the wealthy of their wealth through a system of abject taxation, to make everybody equal.

Economics as a tool of taxation

I think that I have devoted sufficient space to explain the significance of economic equality as compliance to a divine command, as an ideological way of life, and as a welfare system. Equality is sought through communal ownership of the means of production or the redistribution of wealth. No matter, what method is used, the tool of execution is always taxation - the abject taxation. Ordinarily, the purpose of production is consumption which requires distribution. If distribution meant reward related to effort, economics could be thought of as the science of producing utilities (commodities) for satisfying needs, but distribution is used for political motives which are realised through abject taxation. Since abject taxation is the tool of dominance, economics begins to rank as an instrument of taxation. As this is an extraordinary statement, I may explain it further with reference to the role of taxation in modern economics.

Maybe the reader remembers, I remarked that taxation is the greatest single source of evil; the feudal system was invented to facilitate easy tax collection. Greek and Roman democracies suffered demise owing to abject taxation; the Marxist system of Russia was held together through an invisible method of 100~o taxation and the British lost their glory through abject taxation. Why? Because dominance is the gubernatorial dream which is realised through taxation. Since people do not like being dominated, members of the gubernatorial class use taxation with such a refined subtlety that it begins to look the most important prop of the society and thus curse begins to appear as cure, beastliness puts on the mantle of beauty and vice projects itself as virtue.

Now, let me state the role of taxation in modern economics to justify the above remarks:
Economic activity is all about making a living. However, some people make their living out of wages, some out of profits and others out of rents or interest. Therefore, anything that may raise the standard of living is loved by people; what particularly pleases them is the increased liberty which automatically accompanies the material amelioration. But this is something which is as annoying to the gubernator as presence of a lamb is to a wolf or of a rat is to a cat. It is because less liberty for people means more power for the gubernator. Therefore, he contrives to regulate economic activity which is the jugular vein of every man, woman and child. It is done through taxation but with extreme sophistication. The gubernatorial ruse in this respect though completely dishonest, deserves applause for its effectiveness: he turns democracy into taxocracy where people are born as taxpayers, live as taxpayers and die as taxpayers; people are legally presumed to be guilty of tax evasion and tax-gatherers are given diabolical powers to treat them like dirt for maximising revenue but in the name of law and duty. Yet through various ploys, people are encouraged to indulge in economic activities without being allowed the reward of their risk and drudgery. This most enigmatic operation is conducted through the mesmerising, alluring and coaxing process of taxation, and it is all done in the name of social justice!

They clamour that liberty has no meaning without economic equality. Therefore, in the name of social justice, they want to make the unequal, equal without realising that it is foolish to contradict the laws of nature which promote diversity and not uniformity. The type of equality they demand is perversion of justice because it entails a good deal of brute force to deflect things from their natural course. How do you make a sparrow equal to an eagle? How can a monkey be given the status of man? How can satan be treated as a saint? Is it justice to treat a traitor as a patriot or a fool as a wiseman? Yet they have devised criteria of social justice in the field of taxation:

Tax Classification

The first principle is the "equity" test; it refers to impartiality of taxes in their application, and therefore, means equal taxes on persons in like circumstances and reasonably differentiated taxes on persons in unlike circumstances. To achieve this end, people are converted into taxpayers who are made to wear the straitjackets of classification according to wages, incomes, and gains for assuring them impartial treatment. Effective rate structure is an example of such classification: People may be subjected to progressive, proportional or regressive taxation. This differentiation refers to the ratio of tax liability to net income. Taxation is progressive when a person pays a greater percentage as his income rises; it is proportional when tax rate is constant, and it is regressive when percentage declines as income rises.
In fact, the concept of equity in this context, as I have used all along, is coextensive with the economic equality because modern taxes are designed to reduce economic inequalities. Progressive taxation, thus, becomes the major tool for redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx, Pigou and others have suggested this remedy for levelling down the society. By such ruses, political rulers have transferred their burden of financing the society to taxpayers. It is like a sea-captain expecting passengers to steer the ship, a host expecting his guest to bring food for him or a Nazi expecting a Jewish beauty queen to fall in love with him. Why? As I will show in due course, it is the unalienable duty of the state to provide finance from its own sources for managing the governmental affairs, otherwise it cannot protect and enhance the liberties of the governed. Since taxation is as opposed to liberty as cold is to hot or bright to bleak, a patriotic governor cannot spread the net of taxation around people for his own convenience, under normal conditions. It is wrong that fiscal policies should govern not only the income and expenditure of the state but also manipulate the entire economy including savings, investments, trade, employment and inflation. Under such circumstances, monetary mechanism plays a secondary role to the fiscal policies which raise most of the revenue.

In a nutshell, economics is the tool of taxation because even in a free economy, the state encourages people to indulge in economic activity but deprives them of their material rewards through taxation. Thus all economic theories and practices come to have only one purpose, that is maximisation of taxation. Again, personal wealth is an insurance of independence but through abject taxation people become dependent on the state from education to health, and even sustenance. This is the true gubernatorial aim, and is best achieved when people produce the most through economic activity but keep the least through abject taxation.

Economics and Humanity

The subject of economics cannot be understood properly unless examined in its broader human context. It is not just study of man in relation to the comparatively scarce resources because resources can be increased directly or indirectly to meet the human demands. Take land, for example. Its supply has always been considered as fixed but its produce can be increased considerably. A century or two ago, the world population stood at about one billion but now it is touching the six billion mark, yet the cause of famines is political and not lack of food supply.

Basis of Value

It certainly does not mean that scarcity plays an unimportant part in fixing values. Unfortunately, its role has been exaggerated because nothing has any value without reference to mankind. Is gold or diamond worth anything without man? Do cake and pastry have any value to the pigs? Does whisky or champagne mean anything to the fish? Even the light and dark, sweet and bitter gain conceptual status in relation to man. Whatever is there in the universe, is relevant to man who has needs which require to be satisfied. If man has no needs, these things have no values. Thus, things basically, have values in relation to man only and their magnitude rises and falls according to the intensity of human needs which govern and may be governed by the laws of supply and demand. Human need is the real creator of values and the utility or satisfying power of commodities rank next to it. Even then utility draws its legitimacy from needs because in the absence of needs utilities serve no purpose.

Significance of Needs

Without needs, strange as it may seem, man is not man, and the greater magnitude of needs gives man a proportionately higher status as a being. This fact is well illustrated by the technological progress which seeks to satisfy increased human needs: Since the human race consists of billions of people, each having needs, there is naturally going to be a struggle for acquiring things to satisfy individual needs, and this struggle is not confined to scarcity; it relates both to the quantity and quality of needs. Quantitatively, scarcity matters but qualitatively its significance drops because satisfaction comes to be linked with a personas taste which may be refined or vulgar, having an impact on production, and the way of life.

Morality and Economics

Satisfaction of wants (needs) is essential to human life but the method o, satisfying them is more vital to the quality of human life. I can steal a loaf of bread to satisfy my hunger or I can pay for it to avoid starvation. However, when I steal, it is wrong but when I pay it is right. It means that method of satisfying a want has a direct bearing on the magnitude of humanity. This concept of right and wrong or moral sense which emanates from one's inner self, decides whether man is man or just the higher form of animal. Since eternity is a concern of man, and not of animals, morality is an integral part of economics though unfortunately, it has been banished from its domain.

Free Economy, Law and Institutions

The method of satisfying a want is of paramount concern to the development of humanity. Primarily, it is a subject of morality but even when it is divorced from the concept of economics, the free economy cannot be run without the force of law and social institutions. The law lays down what people can do legitimately by way of producing, trading, pricing, storing, speculating, and so on. People are deterred from wrong-doing by the fear of punishment. On the other hand, institutions grow up to protect certain rights and duties peculiar to the spirit of the age. Feudalism is an example of the past, and trade unionism is a significant instance of modern times. Both law and institutions tend to be orthodox yet their reformatory and disciplinary influence cannot be denied.

Laissez-faire

Free economy cannot be allowed to deteriorate into laissez-faire which refers to the conditions where might becomes right. it certainly needs some regulation by the government which has the duty to look after the interest of all the people, and not of the business community only. Whereas it guarantees that those who contribute the most, must get the maximum rewards, it has also the duty to assure that the less fortunate secure their human rights which essentially depend upon the fulfillment of the basic needs. When I steal a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger, I commit an offence which equally involves the society. Why? Because bread is the basic human need. Since society is the extension of ego (individuality), it must provide for the basic needs of its members though satisfaction of higher needs is an individual's own responsibility. Why?

Provision of basic sustenance is the law of nature in relation to living beings. Visualise the primitive man when agriculture did not exist. All his basic needs, necessary to support life, were provided by nature. Look at the human baby which is totally helpless at birth; all its basic needs are provided by the parents. Every egg contains nourishment for the survival of its offspring, and this fact equally applies at cellular level of existence. It hardly needs mentioning that air, cater, sunshine etc., the basic ingredients of life, are free gifts of nature. Even the basic steps of human progress are dependent upon the hidden treasures of nature such as coal, oil, iron (ore) etc. These free gifts of nature form the basic part of economic values but are always discounted. Before I continue this discussion, I ought to explain what value is.

Concept of Value

Value is one of the greatest words in economics. It refers to the power of exchange that one commodity has for another. Price indicates the value in exchange as measured in terms of money. Value guides the producer to adjust his supply to demand as expressed by the level of prices; it also guides the consumer because a low value encourages consumption and a high value depresses it. Even distribution is affected by value though its role is said to be less satisfactory in determining the shares of wages, profits, interest and rent.

Unearned basic reward

A productive process involves services of the factors of production and each factor requires a reward for the services rendered: labour must get wages, land is entitled to rent, capital needs interest and enterprise demands profit. Whenever, we do something we usually say: "Is it worth it?", thus meaning if the result is worth the effort or risk. Value is another description of worth. Under conditions of perfect competition, each factor will be rewarded according to its contribution. Here we are talking about individual reward as applicable to a factor of production; and we do not consider the unearned basic reward which each factor of production gets but seldom enters valuation. To explain this point, I may refer to my cotton shirt which I am wearing. A tiller somewhere ploughed the land which is a gift of nature; its growing power is also a gift of nature, and so is the supply of sunshine and moisture. Without these natural gifts, the farmer will not dream of ploughing the piece of land and sowing the cotton seeds. Of course, he works jolly hard and deserves a fair reward for himself but he is certainly not exclusively entitled to that portion of reward which accrues to him as a natural gift.

Though he may own the land which is an accident, he has not created it. The land being a natural gift, belongs to everybody. Therefore, he owes a part of his reward to the community after receiving a fair value for his labour and other factors (assuming he is the owner who also supplies the capital and enterprise). Thus, the true individual value, that is, the value of each factor of production is the total value of the product minus the value of the gifts of nature (sunshine, moisture etc.). Since the value of the gifts of nature belongs to the community, I may refer to it as the Communal Value.

What I have said above is not a fairy tale. Just imagine that the land that the farmer tilled was barren. All factors of production despite their best endeavours would have received no value in return. He would have to build a greenhouse to create the climatic effect which the nature had done for him free of charge This should illustrate the value of natural gifts.

Division of labour

I am afraid that the story of my cotton shirt is not confined to agriculture but extends to the industrial world and beyond; the shirt I am wearing is the result of what is called division of labour. The cotton that the farmer grew passed through many operations such as ginning, weaving, dyeing, tailoring, retailing - not to speak of transportation and the ingenuity involved in inventing and running the modes of transportation.
It simply shows that no one person can create all utilities, that is, produce all the goods he needs. Assuming that there were one or two persons in every 100 who could do so, what would happen to the rest? Their way of living would be hardly any better than those of monkeys and apes. Even those one or two per cent could perish owing to the most hateful jealousy of their fellow-beings.

Economic interdependence

Obviously, the division of labour is less an industrial contrivance and more a symbol of interdependence. This interdependence which is an individual's weakness, forms not only the communal strength but also serves as the fountain of civilisation by welding all humans into a variegated whole. In economic terms, the interdependence creates values which are way above the capacity of isolated individual efforts. Since interdependence is the source of specialization, leading to the creation of extra wealth, which carries an element of communal value owing to its social nature, the community has a right to share in it. This right springs from the fact that interdependence is a natural phenomenon like air and sunlight. This rule of valuation is compatible with the assumption that "provision of basic sustenance is the law of nature in relation to living things".

Status of worker

An entrepreneur plays the leading role in a process of production. He is the leader; labour, land and capital are the led. Therefore, he is entitled to the profit or the lion's share of the product. Without his ability to take risk, and organizational skill, the other agents of production are likely to remain unemployed, and unvalued. Once he has paid a fair share to the other factors he is legitimately entitled to keep the rest and enjoy its fruit. However, though industrially, he is the prime factor, socially, he is not. It is the labour or worker who commands this dignity. Why?

Worker, the entrepreneur

There are two reasons for it. Firstly, humanity, at least 85% of it is composed of workers - the people who live off the value of physical labour. Thus welfare of the wage-earners, ranks the highest in the social hierarchy without despising and robbing the rich. Is it really possible? Of course, it is. We can do so by making everybody well-off. How? The answer to this question forms the part of the second reason. Simply stated, it means raising the status of a worker to that of an entrepreneur, so that in addition to wages, he can also have the reward which is due to enterprise. It involves no violence or class struggle. In fact, it is a part of the harmony that is the precondition of eternity. We can achieve these conditions on the sound economic rule of competition. Allow me to develop this theme:
Wage, unless related to productivity, is a symbol of either repression or robbery: when an employer pays a pittance to the worker instead of what he has earned, it is repression and when workers gang up against the employer for an excessive wage without regard to their productivity, it is robbery. This strife is the source of evil and leads to the lopsided development of personality whereas eternity demands harmonious evolution of one's potentialities.

Economics, morality and after-life

The fact that eternity depends upon one's character, and not grace or intercession, makes economics the most relevant and significant subject in this context; it is because man is an organism operated by needs, and economics concerns itself with satisfying them. This is the reason that economics has ranked as material religion of mankind throughout history. Not only various forms of communism have been respected and defended by their followers with utmost vigour but the attraction of the revealed religions such as Christianity and Islam has also been sustained by their economic interpretations, especially, the concept of heaven where nobody suffers pangs of poverty, and lives a life of extreme material luxury.
Man's material well-being exerts a major influence on his moral integrity. A reasonably well-off person neither needs stealing a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger nor is he liable to suffer pain of disease for lacking the means of securing remedy. Once a person is able to meet his basic material needs, he is in a position to indulge himself in moral and spiritual pursuits. This is the reason that law of nature seeks to provide free basic sustenance. It is a matter of common observation that the materially better off nations are godly despite being atheistic but materially worse off nations are profane despite their high-sounding slogans of divine love. The reason for such attitudes is simple: the poor have just enough time to struggle for a wage to fill their bellies; they do not have time to devote themselves to the Lord practically; all their devotion is verbal, and that is only in return for the Supposed promise of an economically trouble-free place called "paradise" after this life.

Definition of economics

In view of these facts, I am inclined to define economics as the science of improving manes material welfare in relation to the available resources, without adversely affecting human liberties.
I have already stated that all factors of production are entitled to a fair return for the services rendered and nobody's reward, including that of the entrepreneur, can be restricted out of jealousy or other malevolent reasons. I do not have sufficient space at my disposal to discuss values associated with the roles of all the agents of production except labour. After all, this book is about eternity and does not deal with economics exclusively.

Communal value

This is the law of nature that basic sustenance shall be provided free to all living beings, and it is for this reason that every individual value (return in exchange for the services rendered) carries a concealed element of communal value emanating from the free gifts of nature. The communal value equally arises as an obligation to the community in return for the benefits that an individual naturally receives for being a member of the society. Therefore, a worker has a duty of goodwill towards his fellow-workers, and this is what forms the basis of workers brotherhood. However, a golden theory is not sufficient to discharge fraternal obligations. It is possible only when a worker gets a full wage for his effort. A half-starved worker can only contribute misery to his fellow-workers, no matter how much he cares about them. This gives special significance to:

a. the concept of wage, and
b. labour organisation

Fair wage

a. Economists have advanced many theories of wages such as Subsistence Theory, Wages Fund Theory, Residual Claimant Theory, Marginal Productivity Theory etc. to tackle the issue of wages. However, the real question is the nature of wages. What is a wage?
Wage is the reward for labour that a worker puts into a unit of production. Of course, its efficiency can be improved or reduced by various factors such as type of machinery or automated methods of production. In other words, the same amount of labour can produce more or less according to the working conditions and may attract proportionately higher or lower reward for the same amount of effort. Assuming conditions of perfect competition, one may say that a worker has received the due wage, taking all relevant factors into consideration. Has he, really?
A worker's body (including brain) is the fountain of his labour, but human body, like any other mechanical body such as a machine, depreciates as it operates. To make sure that it can be replaced when it is no longer capable of making an economic contribution, the entrepreneur creates a depreciation fund corresponding to the useful life span of the machine, usually a period of five years. Thus through amortisation he replaces the worn out assets.

Emaciation Factor

Man is also subject to wear and tear, and I may call it Emaciation Factor which has not been acknowledged sufficiently. Of course, the ageing process cannot be reversed but inclemencies of old age can be softened. It is true that some workers are given pensions at the end of their service but their pensions are contributory.

Again. when such rewards are claimed to be non-contributory, the payments are actually parts of wages which have been cleverly reduced, and are released gradually over a long period of time. These remarks equally apply to the provident funds and gratuities. Take for Instance, state pensions which are cited as an emblem of the welfare state. They all are paid for by the workers themselves, and employers' contributions are essentially part of the reduced wages which should have been paid in the first place. The state bathes in the fake glory of "welfare" because it does not pay a shilling towards the whole process of care and compassion. It plays the predatory role of Robin Hood in the disguise of redistributing wealth whereas, in fact, it is an attempt to gratify the gubernatorial instincts of sadistic pleasures.

Emaciation Factor refers to that part of wage which is over and above the actual wage and is payable on account of gradual emaciation of the worker. A peculiarity of the Emaciation Factor is, that it is beyond the realm of negotiations, normally conducted for firing wages and salaries. Wage negotiations always carry an element of repression or robbery depending upon the relative negotiating strength of employers and workers. Emaciation Factor is a purely human problem in relation to economic needs and should be recognised and tackled as such.

Having said that, now I may refer back to the already discussed communal value which accrues from free natural gifts. Since they are a contribution by nature for the benefit of the masses, an entrepreneur has no right to pocket them. Workers must legitimately demand and get them. Now, we realise that a worker is entitled to two sets of payment which he has always been denied, namely:
1. payment for the natural gifts, and
2. recompense for the Emaciation Factor.

Since they both are out of the domain of wages, they must have a natural claim on dividends which represent the result of the combined effort of the agents of production Now, the question is, how to determine the share of a worker in the dividends to satisfy his claim on these two counts. One can think of several bases of computation but they all will be a matter of opinion. I may, therefore, estimate them subjectively, and say 5% on each count, that is, 10~o of the net dividend. The aggregate of normal wage and 10% of the dividend is what I call a Fair Wage. This should also be beneficial to the employer whose investments and profits will be protected and augmented by the self-interests of the workers.

Trade Unions

b. Yet Fair Wage is not the full wage. This fact prompts me to touch upon the second part of this discussion i.e. labour organization, by which I mean the role of the trade unions in marshalling the labour and its aims. A trade union is both a saviour and a savage; its beneficence or malignance depends upon its goals and the way it achieves them.

Tolpuddle Martyrs

On the credit side, the trade union movement has nearly wiped out the traces of slavery which lingered on by way of discrimination based on income, property, social status and ancestry. It has helped to restore human dignity by widening franchise, enhancing scope of education, skill and liberties. Though its stupendous accomplishment has been the consciousness of universal brotherhood - raising standards of earnings and improving working conditions have been no mean achievements. The free, fierce and fabulous spirit of the Tolpuddle Martyrs who defied suppressors of the labour movement ranks as the industrial inspiration which has deflated oppression and elevated the cause of workers' rights since 1834. The English can be duly proud of those six Dorsetshire Labourers who set an example which was admirably followed throughout the world.

On the debit side, the Unions' hatred of the capitalist transported them from the land of reality to the realm of fantasy. In Russia, as capitalism collapsed the unions transformed themselves into "production agents", and thus became the instruments of economic administration without playing any important role in determining wages and working conditions. Their mania for dictatorship of the proletariats made them oblivious of their commitment to human rights and the entire working population of the Soviet Union fell victim to dictatorship of the KGB (state police).

As I shall explain shortly, the true aim of a trade union is to raise the status of all its members to that of a capitalist by making them rich and libertarian, and not communists by brain-washing them with the meanest human vice called 'jealousy', which seeks to bring down the highest to the lowest level without ever elevating the lowest to the highest point. As England was the fountain of the Industrial Revolution, the British trade union movement can legitimately claim to be the mother of the Trade Unionism. The medieval craft guilds have only a faint resemblance with the trade union movement, which is committed to improving the lot of its members not only materially but also culturally and socially under the banner of international brotherhood; the former were composed of master craftsmen who also happened to be capitalists and employers.

The British trade unions though deserve the honour of releasing British workers from the slavish conditions of the 19th Century, they equally deserve the infamy of converting this country from a world power into an insular island. Despite the fact that the union leaders have always enjoyed high salaries and prestigious conditions of living compared to those of their members, they have professed to be the champions of equality which they have tried to enforce with the double-edged sword of union power:
1. They have made indiscreet use of the legitimate industrial weapon called "strike" to extract the last penny out of their employers, thus, making industrial enterprise a rewardless venture which became the main source of disinvestment.
2. Worse still, they played into the hands of tax-gatherers. Their egalitarian zeal provoked them to raise Income Tax to 98�70 through political action. This tax was in addition to many other destructive taxes such as sales tax, inheritance tax and so on.

Soul Tax

The British trade unionist even surpassed the Russian Tsar Peter I who invented Soul Tax by creating artificial households to prevent tax evasion. The Soul Tax corresponded to a male peasant of working age thus reducing him to an item on the tax roll. Its management and collection was entrusted to the lords who actually treated them like serfs. Strange as it may seem, the Russians precipitated serfdom in the 17th Century when other European nations were struggling for individual freedom. Through his power of tax-collection, the lord became the agent of the state, and the worker lost his human dignity and ranked as the lordly chattel.

Invisible Tax

At the insistence of the trade unions or labour movement, as abject taxation reached its apex, the art of tax-collection rocketed in esteem. Politicians, legislators and judges all ganged up against the affluent to make laws which treated taxpayers as born crooks, swindlers and cheats who could be held guilty of tax-evasion by mere presumption of guilt. This encouraged the tax-gatherers to invent the Invisible Tax commonly known as Back Duty. It is supposed to be the amount of tax which should have been paid in the past but was evaded. In fact, it is a figment of the tax-gatherers imagination. He has found methods of raising spurious assessments to collect extra revenue for the state and also advance his own cause. Even in genuine cases of tax-evasion, the evader's tax bill is inflated out of proportion by subtle methods of counting two and two as twenty two. In my book "Taxation and Liberty", I calculated that the British tax-gatherers had murdered one million taxpayers since the Second World War, for collecting back duty but so great is the reverence for this Invisible Tax that nobody has taken any notice of it!

Fallacy of unions

Where have the unions gone wrong?
They have blundered in adopting capital-bashing as the goal of their movement and thus fallen victims to a perpetual class-war under the influence of Marxism. Yet they claim to believe in the unity and brotherhood of mankind! What is wrong with capitalism? Don't we all want to be rich? Is there anyone who wants his children to suffer the pangs of penury? Again, it is quite wrong to equate a capitalist with an extortionist. He is someone who is materially resourceful, industrially and commercially adroit, adventurous and activating. These qualities in themselves are adorable, and not deplorable. It is laissez-faire which stigmatises the virtues of capitalism and thus requires reformation and not elimination. Replacing capitalism with antilibertarian ideologies is the greatest human folly, and transferring it from individuals to the state for creating dictatorship of proleteriats' is the most serious crime against mankind; the sudden collapse of the communist regimes in eastern Europe is a congent proof of this fact: a worker needs affluence with freedom; he does not want to be a well-fed dog with a diamond carcanet around his neck. The only way to achieve this goal is by making him a capitalist. Since a labourer, usually, does not have the ability to realise this aim single-handed, it is the foremost duty of a trade union to seek fulfillment of this dream through its collective strength and organizational power.

Full Wage

With this background, I am now in a position to explain the concept of Full Wage, the final goal of the labour movement.

Difference between Fair Wage and Full Wage

Wage is a barter for a labourer's working ability. When it is paid, taking account of his productivity plus communal value, that is, compensation for the natural element and the Emaciation Factor, it is a fair wage. By doing so the entrepreneur has discharged his obligation to the worker but the trade union leadership has not. Why? Because irrespective of the wage level, a worker is subject to emaciation and the older he gets the less secure he becomes owing to his impaired working ability. As a labourer, he lives day to day and cannot save to secure his future against the hazards of old age. It is not that he is stupid; it is because being a labourer he is easy-going and lives in the present. This is his psychology, the essential ingredient of his nature. Yet he needs greater security as the stallion of life gallops on. It is the function of the trade unions to provide this security which is a part of their professed responsibility of improving the earning standards and working conditions of their members. This security can be made available by the provision of productive assets only, and this is not possible unless unions are prepared to adopt a capitalistic role. Thus difference between Fair Wage and Full Wage is represented by lack of the financial contribution towards its members that a trade union would have made were it an entrepreneurial organization. Until such time that trade unions start owning means of production to adopt the entrepreneurial role which gives them a legitimate right to appropriate all profits for the benefit of their members, they cannot provide the security which is more important to a worker than his weekly wage irrespective of its size. As this security is synonymous with the financial contribution emanating from the entrepreneurial role of unions, their claim of stewardship depends upon the provision of this security. Non-provision of this security means that they have not acted to the best of their ability. It is especially true because a trade union leader is capable of running an enterprise as efficiently as a capitalist. The mere fact that he is the chosen head of a body of workers, shows that he has the qualities of leadership. As a member of the union, he is trusted and respected by his fellow-members and thus likely to be more effective as a business manager. With funds of the union behind him and a greater guarantee of repayment - springing from the regular contributions of the members, he is in a position to raise business finance more easily than an ordinary businessman who is about to start an industrial or commercial venture. However, if a union leader does not have the business acumen himself, the union can hire professional managers like any enterprise.

It is wrong to rob others. Bargaining power has the same value to a union leader as talons have to a falcon, a beak to a vulture or paws to a wolf. Being the head of a workers' organization, a union leader is expected to be rational, cultured and prudent, but in practice he is as much a predator as a robber or a wolf because instead of running his union on the principle of a productive concern, he waits for the employer or entrepreneur to make a profit and then snatches it with the brute force of restrictive practices and industrial strikes. It is like stealing someone else's milk rather than keeping one's own cow. It does not mean that strikes or restrictive practices are illegitimate tools of the union; they are undesirable and should be used in the last resort only.

Function of unions

A worker is entitled to a full wage and the function of unions is to realise this ideal How can this be done?
1. To start with, the entrepreneurial goal must be the stated aim of a union.
2. Secondly, the law of the land must lay down that the entire union property belongs to its members according to their individual contributions. Again, the rights and obligations of worker to worker, worker to union and union to worker, must be distinctly stated.
a. When a worker leaves his employment, the union must be legally bound to purchase his shares from him. If he wants to join another firm or factory, he must be required to buy a certain number of shares with cash or on credit.
3. The rights and obligations of workers to unions and unions to workers must be clearly stated. It means that the democratic decisions of the workers are binding on the union. It also implies that the verdicts of the union-executive are binding on the workers unless there is a written procedure which allows the workers to override the decisions of their leaders.
4. The mutual rights and obligations of the unions and employers must be laid down distinctly, and each side must be legally responsible for its actions.
a. There must be a conciliatory machinery to solve industrial disputes. Arbitration should be carried out by outsiders and ought to be binding on all parties.
5. Obviously, a union enterprise cannot be set up like an ordinary concern. Its members will have to buy the shares of the existing factory or firm for which they work. They must have the legal right to buy a controlling share in the concern. However, the small employers must be immune to compulsory take-over bids by the workers. An employer, for example, must employ, say, one hundred workers before they are entitled to make a bid for the business.
a. Ideally, the State must contribute to the union purchases over a period of time, that is, the State contributing pound for pound or in some other ratio for a limited period, and once the union has built up a certain stake, say 25�70, the workers providing the further finance themselves exclusively.
b. Unions can borrow from banks like any businessman, each worker paying his share of the debt.
There are many other ways of financing business projects. In this context, however' what is more important is the considerably widened scope of unions.
6. The main purpose of a union is to minimise fears of insecurity arising from unemployment' sickness and death, and to maximise the benefits of economic security by way of providing education, training and creative facilities. It means that the unions must build hospitals, schools, colleges, universities, technical stitutes, gymnasia and all those "goodies" which they expect from the taxpayer.
a. It is the responsibility of the unions to secure conditions of full employment help their members with housing, pay unemployment and sickness benefits and offer them life-pensions on retirement.
b. Of course, small unions may not be able to carry out these obligations on their own. They should have working arrangements with other unions at district, provincial and national levels. Again, it may not be possible for some unions to be entrepreneurial. They can serve their members by securing fair wage for them, and laying brotherly claims on their more successful cousins. What is this brotherly claim? It is none other than the communal value which accrues to a worker from "natural gifts" and "Emaciation factor". It's lowest value is 10%. The successful entrepreneurial unions must pay 10010 of their net profit to their less fortunate bretheren as a symbol of brotherly love to reduce hardship.

Private entrepreneur

I must state here that I do not preach the doctrine of abolishing individual enterprise in any legitimate form. No matter how strong the unions entrepreneurial success, there will always be non-union enterprises which the unions must respect as lawful competitors. Polarity is the law of nature; without it, organisation is bound to suffer deterioration, but the polarity must be genuine, that is constructive, and not destructive.

Farming cooperatives

7. However, treatment of land ought to differ from an industrial concern because land is the gift of nature. Its private ownership creates dreadful problems of social discrimination and injustice. Again, through inheritance, it fragments into small holdings which become economically disasterous. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh furnish good examples of this fact.
By land, I mean the agricultural land only and not industrial, commercial or housing land. It must belong to the community but under the custodianship of the state which must lease it to the farming cooperatives at nominal rents. All plant, machinery, stock, buildings etc. belong to the members of the cooperative individually and collectively. The cooperatives must be given legal security of tenure and must be constitutionally protected from the corruptive influence and bullying attitudes of the state of finials. The cooperatives must rank as farming unions with similar functions as industrial unions. Ecological conditions may demand the nationalization of land on environmental grounds before long.
Previously, I stated that unions have played an effective role in abolishing the servile conditions of the 19th Century. On the other hand, the blame for creating modern totalitarian states such as the Russian and Chinese which reduce citizens to the life of serfs, also fall upon them. This happened because they played into the hands of the politicians by becoming their economic instrument: once a union assumes the status of an economic unit in its own right with major responsibilities towards its members, it is likely to resist political pressures, and maintain its members' standards of living and liberties. One must remember at all times that it is possible only when a union can guarantee Full Wage to its members by acting as an enterprising concern. That is, it keeps the profits of its labour through its Own enterprise, and not by robbing the other entrepreneurs.

Trade union as a political blessing

I am not an advocate of anarchy, yet I believe that power belongs to the people who delegate it to their political representatives. Since nobody wants to be ruled like a slave, people transfer just enough power to their elected rulers according to the already stated principle: "Marginal Utility of People's Power". However, a politician loves power a hundred times more than Romeo loved Juliet but he will not die for Juliet; he will kill her a hundred times to gain power. With this mania goes his superb ingenuity of administering poison as panacea, and vice versa. Equipped with a miraculous smile which seals the lips of every complainant, he has the power to make people feel certain when they must be dubious and feel mirthful when they ought to be miserable. Of course, a good politician is a god but godly politicians are rare. Most of them are predators of layman's liberties because less power for people means more power for the politicians. Since unions are responsible for the welfare of their members who are lay people, it is the fundamental duty of unions to act as breakwaters against the unruly waves of the politician's ambitions. In this context, a trade union ranks as the most reverential institution of the society because it plays the role of pluralism, that is, it clips the wings of the state eagle which restlessly soars higher and higher to reach the pinnacle of absolute power. Thus unions' entrepreneurial role provides security to the whole society by economic and administrative decentralization.

Honouring a union leader

This is, indeed, a great social achievement which makes a union leader the focal point of reverence and entitles him to a salary and honours commensurate with his great office; a union leader having a following of, say, one million members surely deserves a salary of one million pounds (sterling) per annum. Is an annual contribution of �1 per head really a big burden to carry? At retirement, he should be given a title by the state to acknowledge his value and services to the community, and the union must offer him a good pension.

Redistribution of wealth

The state gains absolute power through its multeity of functions. That is, the greater responsibility it assumes, the more power it wants. Redistribution of wealth serves as its major and effective weapon. If the string of its duties stretches from birth to burial, it secures the commanding position to claim all or most of the national wealth. But when unions take over the function of looking after their members' then they need all their money, and the state cannot argue for redistributing wealth which is the most evil gubernatorial mechanism of transferring power from people to rulers. In fact, it is the principle of redistribution which turns economics into the maid of taxation.

Who should pay taxes?

I have already stated that it is not for people to pay taxes to the state; it is for the state to pay taxes to the people. Stated more simply, it means that under normal circumstances the state must find all its finance through its own efforts to run the business of government as well as meeting its obligations to the people Since this is an unusual statement, the reader is entitled to an explanation:

Grants and aids

What I have just said is compatible with history. At least, in the European countries, rulers used to appeal to their subjects for financial help in times of social and political emergencies. Response of the ruled when materlalised, was called "grant" or "aid". It shows two things:
a. Tax was, originally, payable in a national emergency only, and
b. it was not a command of the ruler to the ruled but an appeal for a favour.

Taxocracy and Taxicution

However modern taxation has assumed an entirely different role; it has become an imposition; taxes are collected under the threat of penalty and imprisonment without promise of any return performance by the state. This increased authority of tax-collection has corrupted the minds of the rulers and their agents; this fact is fully expressed by the laws of taxation and the way they are enforced under the label of duty and justice. The modern democracy has degenerated into a taxocracy where people are born as taxpayers, live as taxpayers and die as taxpayers, and the act of tax-gathering has become synonymous with taxicution, that is, the art of murdering lawfully and subtly those taxpayers who are not prepared to be robbed by the state-gangsters known as tax-inspectors. This is what turns a government into a Mafia organization. Having enumerated its evil methods and misdeeds in "Taxation and Liberty", I need not dwell on the satanic aspect of taxation here.

Paternal role of rulers

Throughout human history, the role of the ruler has always been held as paternal by the people. It means that the subjects expected fatherly care of their suzerain and wanted to be treated with affection and dignity. The concept of paternity touched its apex when people thought of their king as a god with divine powers. They bestowed this most reverential dignity on him in the strict belief that he would lead them to heaven where fear of hunger, disease and death did not exist.

Altruism

This concept of paternity is quite compatible with the birth of a human baby; it arrives into the world totally helpless; it neither possesses the sources of subsistence nor the ability to use them. It is always for the parents to struggle - and struggle hard to provide their baby with the best, even at the point of giving up their own comforts. Biologists have noted this point and they call it ``Altruism" which forms the foundation stone of humanity. Altruism is even more needed in the relationship of the ruler and the ruled. It is evident that the relationship between the ruler and the ruled as a tax-gatherer and taxpayer is unnatural and the most sordid. Thus a government has no right to levy taxes on its subjects under normal conditions; its legitimacy is governed by special or exceptional circumstances only.

Abolition of taxation

Lovers of taxation have advanced a hundred-and-one reasons for taxation. The roost important is: how will government meet its social and administrative Obligations without tax revenue?
The nature of this argument is puerile. Of course, government like everybody else, must have money to run its affairs, but why does it have to come from taxation? Everybody else earns his keep, and so should the state In fact, it is in a better position to do so but it does not, because governing is the greatest source of enjoyment when it is synonymous with commanding, when it becomes a laborious and tedious task, it loses its delights which emanate from turning, twisting and torturing others. Sadistic pleasure, which is another description of such delights, is an integral part of the gubernatorial authority and rests mainly on abject taxation and the most sordid methods of collection. Until such time that abject taxation such as Income Tax and Value Added Tax, are abolished government will continue to be more a tool of vice and less an instrument of virtue because freedom from financial worries gives people at the helm of the state too much time to devise and pursue schemes of self-aggrandisement and sadistic pleasures. Thus virtuous government is not possible without a keen will and the ability to earn money for financing itself. How can it be done? I made detailed suggestions in "Taxation and Liberty" to this effect but they were in the British context. Though they are equally applicable to all cultures, I may endeavour to say just a word or two about them:

1. First of all, the state must be governed by a written constitution which must lay down categorically, that taxation is unlawful except in an emergency.
2. When abnormal conditions prevail, their probable duration must be estimated and declared in no uncertain terms. For example, Income Tax was introduced in England during 1799 as a temporary War Tax to fight Napoleon. Now, after two centuries, it is still prevalent in Britain yet the tax-collector is audacious enough to call it an annual tax! It is automatically renewed every year. What an ingenuity it is!

VAT

Even indirect taxation is a source of evil in a virtuous society because it produces similar servile conditions as the direct taxation. Take Value Added Tax, for example. It was introduced in Britain on the pretext of simplicity. The fact is that it is not only complex but also an ambassador of slavery. Let me state the corruptive and tyrannical effect of taxation with reference to England:

Trimoda Necessita

In old England, there prevailed the custom of Trimoda Necessita which consisted of three compulsory services; one of them was bridge-building. As time went by rulers used this custom as the law to force all able-bodied people for rendering ree services to the King. As a result of the armed revolt in 1215, King John Conceded in clause 23 of the Magna Carta:
'No vill or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old are legally bound to do so".
In modern times "who from of old are legally bound to do so" must mean "who are paid to do so" yet every businessman in Britain is compulsorily required to collect Value Added Tax free of charge whether he likes it or not. This is certainly the resurgence of old serfdom but in the name of public duty. VAT in Britian is an unconstitutional tax, yet people pay it to save their skins.

Magna Carta and Amercements

In a taxocracy i.e. the tax-ridden society where taxation sounds the most sacred word, taxes may not be imposed or demanded openly yet they are collected stealthily by the gubernatorial authority of the law and tax-collector. Previously, I mentioned Back Duty or the Invisible Tax. It is amazing how it is demanded and exaggerated through a string of penal devices beyond the imagination of Lucifer. The Magna Carta in clause 20, says:
"A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way saving his means of livelihood .. and none of aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good men of neighbourhood".
This law is ridiculed with such an impunity in Britain that the law itself has become the major source of crime (and sin) through what is called "In-depth Investigation".

3. Even in an emergency, the government in its capacity as the executive, must have no power to levy taxes on people without the consent of the Second Chamber. Such a chamber introduces polarity in the system of government and ensures that power does not contract into one organ of the state. The constitution of the United States provides a fine example of this fact: the President i.e. the Executive has no power to levy taxes directly. The executive power is counterbalanced by the authority of the Congress which is further split into Senate and House of Representatives.
4. Taxation has a temporary validity under exceptional circumstances only. The tax-suggestions that I made in "Taxation and Liberty" formed part of an emergency but the message was misunderstood. I stand for the complete abolition of abject taxation such as Income Tax and VAT. However, as we live in a practical world, one has to realise that there may be room for indirect taxation depending upon the social and economic conditions of a society but even then it will be accepted as a necessary evil and the incidence of its mischief shall be controlled constitutionally with great vigour. Its rate cannot be more than 10% and must be collected at the point of sale and not as VAT. The good government is the one which lives of its own without imposing any taxes at all. The more a government relies on taxation, the more evil it becomes.
5. There is a pithy English maxim: "penny saved is penny earned''. To be able to conduct itself responsibly, the state must trim its expenditure. For example, offering sound education free of charge, is a duty of the state but giving grants for board and lodge is not. The state must reduce its functions and enable people to look after themselves; it is only the sick, the old and the needy who should form the focus of its care and compassion. Once the union entrepreneurial culture is established, the bulk of the state-responsibility is taken over by the workers themselves.
a. Most of the money comes from trade, industry and the like. The state must undertake commercial enterprise like all other business concerns to make profit but its enterprise must be limited - say, no greater than one-third of the total national economy, and must be controlled constitutionally. Any appreciable increase in the state share of the economic activity is likely to lead to totalitarianism.
One can say "why one-third, and why not half?" It is only a convenient guess work; 50% state ownership seems too high for the comfort of the libertarian. Once workers have accepted the responsibility of self-care, limited enterprise on the suggested lines must produce abundant revenue to manage the state affairs and its welfare obligations to the people.

It can be said that as an efficient business seeks to expand, it means that stateenterprise should also be allowed to multiply itself. No, this is not what I have in my mind. The lay-bodies constitutionally set up for assessing the size of the state-enterprise, must force the state to sell its extra assets to individuals or corporate bodies. The state must give a part of the sale proceeds to its workers as shares in its undertakings, as well as grants to workers in the union-enterprises, and spend the rest on general welfare of the people. Such periodic sales of the extra state assets will enable the state to keep expanding without transgressing its allotted boundaries.
Yet there is another difficulty in assessing the share of the state-enterprise i.e. how to determine when the exact limit has been reached. It may be calculated with reference to its contribution to the gross national product, its absorption of investment resources or the productive employment it has engendered.
Since the state is deemed to act in the public interest, it has the right to choose certain industries exclusively on the grounds of profitability, social care, national interest and even convenience. However, exclusiveness does not imply monopoly profits: state-enterprise shall be subjected to the same standards of efficiency as applicable to private concerns, and such tests shall be carried out by people's representatives especially elected for this purpose. The state-industries shall enjoy neither legal immunities nor any preferential status compared to private enterprise.

Chief obligation of the state

Finally, why should state finance its governmental affairs from its own economic effort?
The answer lies in the fact that liberty is the most sacred and the most precious thing of all. When people accept the governmental yoke of authority, they lose a part of their independence in return for something. What is this "something"? This "something" is relief from fear of injustice, fear of hunger, fear of disease fear of ignorance and fear of old age. People want the state to alleviate these fears and provide them with security. This is the noblest task for the state to accomplish, but cannot be done without sincerity. The government which solves this problem through progressive taxation is dishonest, a thief and a tyrant because taxation is not only a form of pillage but also the major source of political corruption. Since a noble aim requires noble means of accomplishment, a good government cannot pass the buck on to the taxpayers to discharge its responsibilities. It is not for the taxpayers to relieve hunger, disease and ignorance; this Is the basic obligation of the state which it must discharge with the utmost integrity. However, helping one's fellow-beings is the moral obligation of an individual, and no value is greater than philanthropy. Piety, the secret of eternity, is another description of love for mankind. An individual is at his best when he voluntarily spends his wealth to alleviate social misery.

I think that in a book like this, one cannot devote any more space to the subject of taxation and economics. Whatever I have said is by way of suggestions and their validity depends upon experimentation. However, human society cannot be made righteous without abolishing taxation, especially the abject taxation because civilisation has come to rest on the strife between tax-gatherer and taxpayer. Again, class-struggle has also been made the basic doctrine of economics. Thus mutual friction and mistrust have become the social pillars. By turning worker into an entrepreneur and depriving the state of its taxing power one can hope to eliminate abrasion between worker and capitalist on the one hand, and tax-gatherer and taxpayer on the other. This is the only way to replace discord with harmony which forms the corner stone of spiritual development leading to Godhead.

Significance of harmony

Harmony is a must not only for a serene and rational social order which is absolutely essential for the formation of souls but is also the chief trait of a soul itself. This serves as the cohesive power of souls to unite themselves into Godhead; it is very much like the gravitational attraction which binds things together to create order in the universe.

Spiritual life Is an integral part of physical existence, and this fact Is well illustrated by the mechanism of the human body which automatically creates the mind. This is exactly the relationship between a harmonious social order and the expected spiritual order, which is likely to arise out of the former. For better understanding of this point, I may add another chapter: `'Mysticism", which should throw more light on the subject.

Next Part

Eternity Part 1
Eternity Part 2
Eternity Part 3
Eternity Part 4
Eternity Part 5
Eternity Part 6
Eternity Part 7
Eternity Part 8
Back to Eternity Book Index
Back to Anwar Shaikh Index
Back to Islam Index
Back to English Library Index
Back to Philosophy Index

 
Support IPC
 
 
 
IPC operating since March 30, 2000
 
 
 
  Duplication of contents are allowed, only by naming the source & link to IPC
All rights are protected & reserved by Iran Politics Club © 2000 IPC