Political Factions and Progressive Tax

James Madison was very much concerned with the potential problem of faction due to his perceived fear of the power of the masses to trample upon the rights of the individual as provided in the U.S. constitution and later in the Bill of Rights.

Before we can go further into the discussion, a basic definition of the word faction seems appropriate. According to Webster, one definition of faction is “a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking.” Another one reads, “party spirit especially when marked by dissension.” Thus a faction, in its basic stripped-down sense, implies a smaller group of people, within a larger group, whose inherent self-interest creates dissension, or some disunity within that larger group of people. In Federalist No. 10, Madison defined it thus, “A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Here, the phrase “adverse to the rights of other citizens” is significant. In its milder and smaller form, Madison saw a faction as harmless and part of the general diversity of a nation. In its larger form, however, Madison saw said factions, as a very real threat to the health, fabric and ultimate survival of a union and the rights of the individual.

In the realm of subject pertaining to faction, Madison felt that such arenas as regime and religion were vulnerable. He was most concerned, however, with “the various and unequal distribution of property.” He thought that according to whether you were a property owner or not, you had distinct and separate interests in the logistics of society. Property owners, in general, have much more of an economic control over a nation, and with such control, are much more able to tilt the playing field of a nation in their favor.

In Madison’s mind, there were two ways to limit the harm caused by faction. The first way towards such limitation would be to remove the very cause of faction from the start; the second way would be to somehow control its effects. In reference to the first way, Madison saw only two real possibilities- to either remove people’s liberties as fought for in the American Revolution (which essentially would result in some sort of dictatorship or monarchy), or, in a sense, create some kind of “utopian” society where people’s interests and opinions create a homogeneous harmony. Seeing the first option as counter-productive to liberty and the second as impractical, Madison concluded that the only practical way to deal with the danger of faction is by controlling its effects.

Towards that end, Madison saw a Republic, or representational Democracy, as a much more viable option than a “pure Democracy.” In an outright Democracy of vox populi, majority rules on all issues including the voting in of specific laws. Because of its concomitant nature, this inherently has the potential to eclipse the rights of the individual that Americans hold so dear. In a small state, or in a nation where states have too much autonomy, such a factional minority can become more of a majority to the point of dominating or downright taking over a state. In a more diverse and larger nation, where representatives are elected from a larger pool and associate with representatives from other states, such a phenomena is much less likely to occur. It is also more likely that such representatives will be more competent. Partly to achieve these goals, Madison took the Federalist stance and saw a strong central government as essential to the preservation of the union and more specifically, the rights of the individual.

It just seems to me that factions can certainly be a hindrance to society when they get out of control, but a society devoid of them, would also essentially be a telltale sign of a lack of diversity. Therefore, a balance must be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of groups of people that form and create special interests. There is nothing inherently wrong with “special interests” as long as they don’t gain special privileges that trample on the rights of the individual. This is, of course, especially pertinent today where lobbyists wine, dine and influence representatives towards their aims, often not in the best interest of individuals who wield less influence. Citizens have a right to form groups and parties to make their voices more strong, but the unequal distribution of wealth which goes hand in hand with a capitalistic economic system, can extend its hand into the political arena and sometimes do harm to the individual.

I don’t think there are any easy answers to these questions. Ultimately, in a Democracy or a Republic, the individuals who vote or choose not to, only have themselves to blame for the state of the union and the protection of their individual rights- providing, of course, the elections are actually fair and free. I think that Madison was right in terms of the need for a strong central government to not only protect the individual rights of its citizens and the diversity of a nation, but also to make it more powerful and safe from the economic and defensive points of view. But no matter what system you have, let’s say a Republic, for example, if the hearts of the people are selfish and corrupt, they can ultimately expect nothing but corruption and self-interest on a wider scale from their elected leaders.

In Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, Paine proposed a representational government combined with social programs to lift the common person out of the grip of poverty through the methods of progressive taxation. Paine was appalled by the glaring extreme between poverty and wealth in monarchies and wanted to ensure the colonies and soon the fledgling nation did not denigrate into what he viewed as an unjust state. He opined that progressive taxation be applied to “excess wealth” in order to level the playing field for all people. He felt that without such a progressive tax, no form of democracy could ultimately be maintained. In Paine’s later work, Agrarian Justice, he applied such an idea to the propertied paying a tax for the ultimate benefit of those who had no property.

Paine thought that property originally belonged to no man and since many who owned property inherited it or obtained it by special favors through an unjust monarchy, those who owned property should contribute to a fund for the common good of those who did not. He felt that those who had property had an unfair advantage over those who did not.

Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson discussed these notions at length- and Paine came up with the view that such a progressive tax was needed to ensure basic human rights to those who did not have property.

Whether you believe that no man originally owned all property, or all humanity originally has a right to all property, or God owns all property, Paine’s treatise in Agrarian Justice certainly must have some appeal on some level. It would seem to me that only those who are in possession of a large amount of land or hope to be some day might object. Even among those individuals, some may still agree on principle, based on utilitarian or humanity reasons. That principle being that no individual in a nation, despite his or her ambition, or lack thereof, should sink below a certain level of sustenance and maintenance is born of a collective consciousness that we are all ultimately in the same boat together. Even many of the wealthy who honor this principle agree with some form of progressive taxation.

Now, while one can easily understand how self-interest can make a wealthy person and property owner be against progressive taxation, it is a little more of a stretch to understand why someone who is not so economically endowed would be against it. But, there are also those who in principle, be they Libertarians (who may have some compassion for others but believe in individual charity) or simply envious self-interested people who may have some hopes of some day being wealthy, who are against the notion of progressive taxation on principle alone. They obviously believe in smaller government and are much more in favor of the rights of the individual, at least in the way that they perceive it.

It is, however, ironic that Paine’s whole idea of progressive taxation is spurned on by his sense of justice in defense of the rights of the individual as well. It appears that from an ideological point of view, both groups of political philosophies and factions, namely those that support some sort of progressive taxation and those who are vehemently against it, are acting out of the sense of the rights of the individual. So the question begs- is there more than one way to achieve the same goal or is one system inherently better than the other for achieving the same means? From Paine’s pragmatic point of view, there was really only one solution.

Paine was expert at explaining complex ideas in such a way to reach the hearts of common people. And as such, he was very much able to do something of lasting value for the common people- whom he felt got the short end of the stick. Particularly when he went to France- he saw first hand the dichotic disparity between the wealthy property owners and the common people and saw it as an abomination upon the very spirit of humanity. He wasn’t interested in big government getting its dirty paws on the wealth that the people worked hard for. Rather, he was concerned with those who monopolized wealth and property and used it to their unfair advantage to fuck everyone else over. He saw first-hand what it could do- so while he believed in Capitalism, he also believed that some sort of socialism must be there in order to ensure that the dream of Capitalism be preserved for all people into the future. In a sense, he was not a man prone to fanatical extremes, although it may seem that way because his views garnered so much controversy in Europe that he was just narrowly able to escape execution.

A person with extraordinary vision is often not very much appreciated when he or she is alive. They may be dismissed as a crackpot or even worse- seen as a dangerous radical. Or they may be honored all over the world in time, while contemporaries from the same town or village will see that person as ordinary. Sometimes they come from humble backgrounds and are people of modest means for most of their lives. But despite the shortage of accolades and remuneration they may receive for the service they do for society, they ultimately go down in history as great individuals. Thomas Paine, although he certainly did strike a chord in pre-revolution America and gained some prestige and honor for that, died pretty much in obscurity compared to the great wealth of writing and influence he left for the betterment of others in the sphere of political philosophy. Whatever your political philosophical beliefs and methods to achieve and preserve liberty may be, although you may not agree with everything Thomas Paine said, you almost have to acknowledge his place in American history in helping to achieve a freer life for all individuals.