Several months ago, I told you about controversy over school funding here in Vermont. A state law, Act 60, decreed that every student deserves an equal education and began dividing school taxes on a statewide, rather than townwide, basis.
In the geography of Vermont, a few hilltops of faux-urban prosperity look down on broad valleys of rural poverty. Act 60 means the 40 wealthiest towns will pay more and the 220 poorer towns will benefit; the 10,000 students in the state’s best public schools may have fewer amenities, but the 95,000 students in the rest of the state will have a better basic education. Like everything else in America, this is part of a trend: New Hampshire, New Jersey and Kansas are all going through similar contortions, and the roadshow may soon come to your state or school district.
I can never think of Act 60 without entertaining the ghost of Jeremy Bentham, the 19th century utilitarian philosopher. Mr. Bentham believed the proper goal of society is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. Act 60 is an ideal law, as seen through the Benthamic lens.
That’s all well and good, but the smaller number of citizens – that is to say, the rich people – are very put out about the whole thing. And although they may be few in number, they have managed to create controversy over Act 60 and keep that controversy on the front burner of Vermont politics for well over a year.
All summer and into the fall, the opponents of Act 60 threatened they would take over the statehouse on election day. When the dust settled and the votes were counted, the anti-Act 60 crowd had increased their representation, but had fallen short of the takeover. Even rich people only get one vote each.
The next act in the drama was soon to come. Taxes owed by the towns to the state were due in the capital on December first. This is the first year in which Act 60 taxes would be collected by the state. Three wealthy towns – “gold towns” in local slang – have refused to send their taxes to the state capital. Officials in these towns say their act of civil disobedience was authorized by local residents. This is shaping up as a 150-year-old philosophical battle royale. On one side, Jeremy Bentham, on the other Henry Thoreau, preaching the gospel of courteous noncompliance.
For my part, I salute these tax rebels. Not that I agree with them. I think their cause is narrow, stupid and selfish, but they have chosen non-violent non-cooperation as their means of protest. Together, these three towns have withheld about one million dollars in taxes. The state budget is currently running a surplus, so this protest does not represent an immediate crisis. On the other hand, the state does not look favorably on the non-payment of taxes. As a penalty, the state charges interest on unpaid taxes, and after 90 days, cuts off all state aid to the delinquent towns. After that, we can expect court orders, fines and maybe even jail time for the town treasurers. I can hardly wait to see what happens next. I hope these tax rebels have studied their Thoreau and Gandhi thoroughly, because the non-violent protester is ethically bound to cheerfully accept the legal consequences of his or her actions.
This is the purpose of punishment in the world of civil disobedience – it separates the dilettantes from the true believers. Are these protesters champions of local control? Or are they just greedy?
The Golden Rule
Several months ago, I told you about controversy over school funding here in Vermont. A state law, Act 60, decreed that every student deserves an equal education and began dividing school taxes on a statewide, rather than townwide, basis.
In the geography of Vermont, a few hilltops of faux-urban prosperity look down on broad valleys of rural poverty. Act 60 means the 40 wealthiest towns will pay more and the 220 poorer towns will benefit; the 10,000 students in the state’s best public schools may have fewer amenities, but the 95,000 students in the rest of the state will have a better basic education. Like everything else in America, this is part of a trend: New Hampshire, New Jersey and Kansas are all going through similar contortions, and the roadshow may soon come to your state or school district.
I can never think of Act 60 without entertaining the ghost of Jeremy Bentham, the 19th century utilitarian philosopher. Mr. Bentham believed the proper goal of society is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. Act 60 is an ideal law, as seen through the Benthamic lens.
That’s all well and good, but the smaller number of citizens – that is to say, the rich people – are very put out about the whole thing. And although they may be few in number, they have managed to create controversy over Act 60 and keep that controversy on the front burner of Vermont politics for well over a year.
All summer and into the fall, the opponents of Act 60 threatened they would take over the statehouse on election day. When the dust settled and the votes were counted, the anti-Act 60 crowd had increased their representation, but had fallen short of the takeover. Even rich people only get one vote each.
The next act in the drama was soon to come. Taxes owed by the towns to the state were due in the capital on December first. This is the first year in which Act 60 taxes would be collected by the state. Three wealthy towns – “gold towns” in local slang – have refused to send their taxes to the state capital. Officials in these towns say their act of civil disobedience was authorized by local residents. This is shaping up as a 150-year-old philosophical battle royale. On one side, Jeremy Bentham, on the other Henry Thoreau, preaching the gospel of courteous noncompliance.
For my part, I salute these tax rebels. Not that I agree with them. I think their cause is narrow, stupid and selfish, but they have chosen non-violent non-cooperation as their means of protest. Together, these three towns have withheld about one million dollars in taxes. The state budget is currently running a surplus, so this protest does not represent an immediate crisis. On the other hand, the state does not look favorably on the non-payment of taxes. As a penalty, the state charges interest on unpaid taxes, and after 90 days, cuts off all state aid to the delinquent towns. After that, we can expect court orders, fines and maybe even jail time for the town treasurers. I can hardly wait to see what happens next. I hope these tax rebels have studied their Thoreau and Gandhi thoroughly, because the non-violent protester is ethically bound to cheerfully accept the legal consequences of his or her actions.
This is the purpose of punishment in the world of civil disobedience – it separates the dilettantes from the true believers. Are these protesters champions of local control? Or are they just greedy?
We’ll find out.