The Assault on Individual Rights at The Ballot Box

Only a positive moral groundswell confidently arguing that our money and property are ours to keep and dispose of will reverse the tidal wave of statist taxation assaults around the country.

Across the United States, a familiar political pattern is a feature of every election cycle: when governments want more money, they advance ballot initiatives and policies to extract more property from citizens, often under banners like fairness or “paying one’s share.” Beneath the slogans lies a deeper issue that is rarely addressed directly. It is not merely political or economic. It is moral. Do individuals have a right to the product of their own labor—or not?

Consider the current landscape. In California, proposals have surfaced for a one-time wealth tax aimed at billionaires, targeting accumulated assets rather than just income. In New York, lawmakers continue pushing similar redistributive policies focused on high earners. Here, in my home state of Colorado, the battle is more subtle and potentially more consequential, not only for Colorado but for the entire country: multiple initiatives seek to weaken or bypass the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).

What is TABOR, you ask? It is not just any fiscal rule. Enshrined in the state constitution in 1992, it limits how much revenue governments can retain, and requires that any tax increase be approved directly by voters. If revenue exceeds its formula—based on inflation and population growth—the surplus must be refunded. In a modern political environment where taxation is often treated as a given, TABOR does something unusual: it asserts that citizens must consent before the state can take more of their income.

TABOR is not perfect. It still allows majorities to approve tax increases, which violates the individual rights of those in the minority—hence the never-ending parade of ballot measures trying to undo it. But it stands as one of the few institutional expressions of a principle largely absent from contemporary debates—that individuals are not subjects of the state.

That principle is precisely why TABOR is under pressure. Recent proposals aim to introduce a graduated income tax, override revenue caps, or redefine what qualifies as voter-approved revenue. Supporters frame these efforts in terms of funding public services or addressing budget gaps. What is missing is any serious engagement with the moral premise of taxation itself. The debate is framed almost entirely around outcomes—how much money is needed, who can afford to pay, and what programs will benefit.

This framing is not neutral. It assumes that individuals do not have an inherent right to what they earn—that their income is available for redistribution so long as a majority approves. Proponents implicitly take for granted a collectivist morality advocating that individual rights must play second fiddle to the alleged “rights” of a group in need or society in general.

If a person earns income through voluntary exchange—through work, innovation, or investment—on what grounds can others claim it? The common answer appeals to need: society requires funding for roads, schools, healthcare, welfare, etc. But need does not establish a moral claim on another person’s property. Without a limiting principle, there is no clear boundary to state power. Once that boundary erodes, policies like wealth taxes or TABOR rollbacks become easier to justify.

Colorado’s fight over TABOR is therefore not just local. It is a test case. If a constitutional safeguard requiring voter consent can be hollowed out through incremental changes, similar protections elsewhere become more vulnerable. What is at stake is not just fiscal policy, but a fundamental principle: that the only role of government is to protect individual rights, including property rights.

Policy arguments alone will not stop this trend. Advocates of expanded taxation speak in moral terms—fairness, equity, shared responsibility. Opponents often respond with technical details, projections, or procedural concerns. That mismatch is decisive. Make no mistake: Moral arguments always outweigh economic ones in shaping public opinion.

What is needed is a counter movement: a positive moral groundswell recapturing the moral high ground. The message must be fundamental: don’t step on my individual rights; what I earn belongs to me. In Colorado, instead of defensively arguing against weakening TABOR, play offense and argue for its strengthening. For example:

• Business owners must speak assertively and confidently about profits they have a right to keep as the result of value they created, not as resources awaiting redistribution. And reject the premise that success creates obligation—that the more productive someone is, the less claim they have to what they produce

• Workers must connect their paychecks to their time and effort, and express outrage that it is partially confiscated without their direct consent.

• Community leaders, intellectuals, writers and activists should tell inspiring stories and cautionary tales that illustrate a simple truth: income is earned, and your property is yours by right, not a societal piggy bank to be raided at will.

Politically, pair this activism with ballot initiatives that increase the protection of our rights to keep the fruits of our labor; initiatives that make it harder or—even better—impossible for majorities to violate those rights through the ballot box.

This doesn’t call for the absence of government, but for a limited state focused on protecting individual rights. Recognizing legitimate government functions such as national defense, law enforcement, and courts does not justify taking individual property for its financing by force. Because then it becomes a rights violating mechanism for subordinating individuals to collective demands.

Reversing the assault on individual rights at the ballot box—in Colorado, California, New York, and elsewhere—requires more than technical objections. It requires moral confidence in championing the respect for and protection of individual rights. Because as long as we accept the idea that our earnings are not truly ours—that they exist at the discretion of political majorities—there is no principled stopping point. TABOR, for all its imperfections, remains one of the last institutional barriers to that idea. If it is weakened or unraveled, the consequences will extend far beyond Colorado.

To learn more about creating a moral groundswell, check out this article.