Coercion and Rule of Law
by Nonoy Oplas

Coercion is part of government. The government needs coercion to enforce a "rule of law", like law against killing, stealing, bombing, kidnapping, etc. Laws against the bad guys so that the good guys can work and live peacefully. The coercion in taxation is used to finance the state to enforce a rule of law, protect the citizens against the bad guys and bad actions.

Corollary to "rule of law", it is imperative, I believe, that laws should be as few as possible, and not number in thousands, even tens of thousands, from barangay rules to traffic rules to municipal laws to national laws, even international laws.

The purpose of having as few laws as possible, is to make the enforcement of the "rule of law" effective, to make the coercion effective, and NOT make the "rule of men" effective. Another purpose of having as few laws based on coercion, is to have more space, more leeway, for civil society organizations (like your Rotary Club, Lions Club, Badminton Club, Couples for Christ, etc.) to perform certain social functions that rely on volunteerism, on free will of individuals, and not on the iron will of government.

So, the next logical question is: what is the dividing line between coercion and volunteerism? That is, what functions should be enforced by coercion, and what functions should be expected from volunteerism?Another question is, which coercive power of the state are"legitimate" and which ones are "illegitimate"? The answer will depend on the philosophical point of view that one takes. But one test - "rule of law = no exception", of having rules that apply to everyone, governors and governed - will l determine which laws and state coercion are legitimate and which ones are not.

Coercion and Taxation

Not all forms of taxation is coercion. And coercion is a matter of degree, whether in the personal or political level, and that separates one form of coercion from the other. In short, there are varying degrees of coercion.

A child being forced by his parents to stop watching TV at 7pm and start studying or doing his class homework so he should be in bed by 8pm, can claim "coercion" by his parents.

A husband being obliged by his wife to repair a leaking faucet first before she will agree to have sex with him, can claim that he's being "coerced" by the wife.

A shop owner with several employees being threatened to give them 5 more months of extra bonus, otherwise they will strike or sabotage the office or shop, can claim "coercion" by his workers.

A person being obliged by his church to give tithes + other church expenses, otherwise his church will expel him and condemn him to hell, can claim "coercion" by his church leaders.

A well-off farmer obliged by rebels or bandits to give "revolution tax", otherwise the latter will burn his farm, can claim "coercion" by the said armed men.

A small businessman obliged by the state to surrender 35% of his gross profit, otherwise the internal revenue guys and the police will harass him if not put him to prison, can claim "coercion" by the state.

In all of the above examples, the degree of coercion varies (and the effect is very personal). If we cannot make a distinction on the degree or severity of those coercions, then we can conclude that the parents of that child are as coercive as Zimbabwe's Mr. Mugabe. Or the wife or the workers are as coercive as Venezuela's Mr. Chavez. Which are NOT the case. The coercion imposed by the parents affects only their children; the coercion imposed by the wife affects only her husband; the coercion imposed by the employees affects only the shop owner. Whereas the coercion imposed by dictators on their citizens and taxpayers affect everyone in their countries, from babies to old people to working-age adults.

The state's coercive power is a given, and I accept it, to enforce the "rule of law" like law against killing and stealing, laws against the bad guys so that the good guys can work and live peacefully. Therefore, I accept taxation to support the state to do this important function. What I object is the danger of a seemingly endless acts of coercion, or acts of taxation, by the state, and leaving very little space, very little leeway, for individuals and their civil society groups to do rationale acts of volunteerism and voluntary exchange of goods and services.

For instance, too many taxes (personal income tax, corporate income tax, doc stamp tax, real property tax, vehicle registration tax, travel tax, estate tax, value added tax, import tax, excise tax, business permit tax, terminal tax, sanitation permit fee/tax, building permit fee/tax ...), purportedly to allow the state to have plenty of money so it can deliver public education, public health care, public housing, public pension, public nutrition, public banking, public transpo, public toilet, public parks, public basketball courts, everything public, can approach socialism.

So the individual is left with little leeway to pursue personal aspirations. Thus, even if those several dozen taxes are "spent wisely", it is still wrong and oppressive because the individual's needs can be very different from the perceived "needs of the people" by the politicians and those in government.

Bienvenido "Nonoy" Oplas, Jr. is Secretary-General of Philippine Taxpayers Union (PTU), and President of Minimal Government Movement (MGM). Nonoy attended the May 2007 Pacific Rim Policy Conference sponsored by GRIH.