People came first
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/31>

      Despite those who believe in the need for government it has little support in the either recorded history, anthropology or reason. Should farmers need defense from marauders they certainly did not need all the trappings of a government simply to organize and train with weapons. There would be no obvious need for a standing army.
      Cities only arise when there is a need for them. One of the first uses is to protect granaries for the lean years. Here governments are needed to build the granaries, collect the taxes to pay the artisans that design and build them but certainly there is no need for a pervasive code of laws. Building and organizing the defense of granaries would be less than the responsibility of a small town mayor.
      The need for a government arises only when commerce arises. The government then establishes the basics of commerce, weights and measures, standard coinage, penalties for cheating protection of the lines of commerce from marauders, protection of visiting merchants from crime as they do not have a family locally to avenge them. Once you consider the needs of commerce much of what we considered the basics of government in our constitution (article 1, section 8) become obvious.
      When the value of a larger trading group operating under the same rules became obvious wars of conquest (or perhaps some sort of voluntary agreements) would have lead to a wider range of laws. And in this value of commerce it is clear that some form of taxation to pay for the support of what was needed to enforce the rules and protections. And clearly it was the merchants who should pay it.
      It is all clear and straightforward save today people get the order reversed. Governments exist because of commerce. Commerce does not exist because of government. Commerce may be easier, safer, more profitable even after paying taxes for the services but it can continue without government. But without commerce, a group of farmers do not need a government.
      Our marxist and socialists and liberals hold that government has a primary duty to the people and not to business. That is a noble and perhaps laudable purpose. Save that it often loses sight of the commerce upon which it depends for its existence.
      Clearly a government can tax commerce pay for or order commerce to perform its social objectives. Commerce can either leave town or go out of business also leaving government with no basis for existence and promises it can not pay for. New York City learned this the hard way as have a dozen other cities.
      The US has often learned this the hard way when it taxes and orders have become too onerous and companies have moved overseas. Our Marxist liberals will hold, in a burst of social ignorance, it is to take advantage of cheap labor. Frankly if a country were rich enough to come here and pay me over the prevailing wage for the job in this country I would not care if it was only one percent of the wage for the same job in their country.
      The rational person sees very clearly that all corporations have to make a profit. The knowledgeable person sees that the value of corporate stock is intrinsic to the earnings and that stock value affects every debt instrument of the corporation. An experienced person knows that no corporation goes after cheap labor as its only reason for moving the job.
      It is clear that a government can only offer a quid pro quo for its services. Merchants clearly pay for the services rendered to merchants. When they are required to pay for social services the next town often looks brighter.
      Similarly when the government institutes an income tax such that the citizens pay for benefits to citizens those citizens also vote with their feet as many cities have learned. Even the most dyed in the wool liberal will leave a high tax city for the suburbs while supporting exactly the programs that were the primary cause of his leaving.
      But an income tax is the proper source of income for social programs as the financing of the benefits does come from potential beneficiaries. It is not different from the merchant case where they are paying for the enforcement of rules that only apply to the negligent or crooked ones. But in both case the benefits of the deal offered by the government has to attract people to live there. If the deal is not attractive then the city should fail as it is not a government that attracts citizens.
      The federal and the state governments are no different from city governments. As long as people are free to live where the will and do business where they will governments have to attract them. When governments engage in any expenditure the people are not willing to pay they can simply leave. Thus the expenditure, regardless of how needed or noble, is not an expenditure that government can make and attract people willing to pay for it.
      Clearly, when a city or state or government spends money on welfare at the expense of crime control and increases taxes to do so that government has to offer very clear benefits that will attract people to a high tax, crime ridden city. That a government would go bankrupt and collapse from doing so is simply a demonstration that it is a failed form of government and deserves to go under, perhaps to be replaced by a better government.
      People wanting and needing the services of the government came first. The government came second. Forgetting that will be the demise of any government.