I have actually been meaning all day to say something about money. What really struck me in reading the interim constitution that's being foisted on Iraq is that the central government has no source of revenue, other than from the sale of the country's natural resources; presumably not just oil and gas, but also the minerals in the mountains, the water in the rivers and even the uninhabited desert lands that might make nice air bases for the US.
The absence of any other source of revenue can't be accidental. The country is being set up to be forced to sell or lease its natural resources.
In other words, the citizens of Iraq are not going to be subject to taxes or fees, except for those imposed by the local jurisdictions. That might seem like a good idea, as does the situation in other Arab states where the resources belong to the ruling families and the revenues from their sale are doled out to the citizens as their leaders please.
America was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" but it would be equally correct to say that there is no representation without taxation. That is, if the citizens don't pay into the state, they have no say in how it performs. The give and take involved in paying for something is the very essence of an egalitarian relationship.
When relationships are authoritarian or domineering, the stronger takes what he wants without a "by-your-leave" to anyone and the weaker are left with the crumbs. So, in fact, there would seem to be a direct relationship between the absence of an equitable and voluntary system of taxation and dictatorship. The dictator doesn't have to rely on citizens paying taxes. He just appropriates whatever suits him at a particular moment in time.
So really, taxes and democracy go hand in hand. Yes, the Democratic party is the party of taxation. Which means that it is not the party of theft.