pull down to refresh

by Ryan McMaken
During the Middle Ages, taxation was considered to be appropriate only as an extreme measure in times of emergency, and as a last resort. Kings were expected to subsist on revenues from their own private property.
I think the case might be a bit overstated:
To understand the Scholastic treatment of taxes one must bear in mind that taxation, as we now know it—namely, as a routine, normal, and respectable method of providing for the financial needs of government—is a comparatively modern phenomenon. In feudal times, on the other hand, rulers derived their revenues mainly from personal estates, customary tributes and dues paid by their vassals, tolls on strangers and on traffic on roads and rivers, war booty, rapine and piracy, and, in times of special need, from ‘‘aids,’” subventions, donations, etc., ... All of St. Thomas’ references to taxation that I know of treat it as a more or less extraordinary act of a ruler which is as likely as not to be morally illicit.
"Customary tributes and dues paid by vassals" sounds a bit like taxes to me, just at a different level.
"Revenues from personal estates" also seems to do a lot of work in the argument. Would taking a share of the peasants' crop output not be considered a form of taxation?
reply
Agreed. My sense of the qualitative difference is that those taxes were customary, as opposed to arbitrary.
They didn't have a tax policy that was expected to change regularly and entirely at the discretion of the ruler.
reply
An interesting thing to consider is that even though in the medieval era, kings and emperors had more de jure power over their subjects, the de facto situation was probably a lot more decentralized and locally controlled than things are now. Even though we live in a democracy, I'd venture to guess that the medieval king had less control over a random peasant's everyday life than the President of the USA has over the average American citizen's life.
reply
I'm sure that's true
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 4h
I need to read this but I like to guess when I haven't.
The question is why? What was different?
For one thing. Kings! No illusion of democracy. No "We the People" are the government... so no we can't steal from ourselves.
Hoppe nails this in Democracy the God that Failed.
reply
It's a little misleading to refer to the king's properties as private and the revenues weren't entirely untaxlike.
reply
Tax is always and everywhere theft
reply
Of the people, for the people, by the people's wallet.
reply