A Tax on Tents
A modest proposal in the interest of the restoration of public order and the prevention of future unrest.
In the weekend newspapers, columnists with enough barrels of ink expended to take an historical point of view have compared the current situation at Columbia University to the protests and takeover of Hamilton Hall in 1968.
With the ease of obtaining historical photographs on the internet, anyone can readily play this game, even if they were not sentient in 1968. Look at the pictures from 1968 and what do you see? To start, the police were much less equipped in 1968 than they are now and much less frightening. Students were willing to show their identities and they talked and shouted with the press and passersby, engagement and persuasion were considered to be part of their movement.
But look more carefully at the 1968 photographs and compare them with the 2024 scenes. What’s missing? Tents.
The modern protest takeover of any public or university space relies on a sea of brightly colored, modern, bulbous, camping tents made by the likes of The North Face, LL Bean and even Cabela’s. It’s fair to say that these tents, formerly used for camping under the stars and other such harmless and salubrious pursuits, have now been, please pardon the cliché, “weaponized” - much like the drones that used to record weddings and birthday parties and are now used for more nefarious pursuits.
These tents are marvels of technology and comfort. With flexible fiberglass poles and shock cord connections, all it takes is a push and a pop and you have instant shelter, all in your favorite shade of saffron, lime green or royal blue. They are breathable and waterproof, and, with the addition of a good sleeping bag and a closed-cell foam pad, more comfortable than a Morningside Heights dorm room on a warm spring night.
There weren’t many of these high-tech marvel tents in 1968. Most tents back then required real effort – hoisting thick poles, banging metal tent pegs into stony ground, and adjusting a set of ropes as complex as a ship’s rigging to give the shapeless fabric some form and the potential for weather resistance. And once set up, these old tents were unreliable. They leaked, they could blow over in a stiff breeze, and a peg could pull out of the ground, collapsing the whole structure. These tents of yore would be entirely unsuitable in the modern, fast-paced world of university protest and occupation.
It is almost fair to say that the modern protest and occupation movement would not be possible without cheap, colorful, and rather amazing modern tents.
If I were in the office of City of New York Mayor Eric Adams, and I were concerned about current and future occupation of public spaces, I would consider a quick and possibly effective economic measure: tax tents.
This is not as far-fetched as it sounds, as there isn’t a lot in New York City, whether good or bad for you, that isn’t already taxed. But, if these tents were taxed at 100% or 200% of the retail price, it just might cut back on their ready availability for purposes other than what was originally intended.
The other option would be to require a permit for tent holders. An applicant for a tent permit would have to schedule an interview appointment with a bureaucratic police outpost in Kew Gardens or some other far-flung place and bring a notarized application with passport pictures and an application fee. Oh, and the next available interviews are three months out. You would then register the serial number of your tent with the Kew Gardens bureaucracy. Caught setting up your tent without a permit? Dire consequences.
The City could also consider divesting the stocks of any of the companies that make these tents, but I think that would be a step too far.
Drake’s Note –
Although the concept of the tent tax is intended to be purely Swiftian (Jonathan, not Taylor) satire, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it taken up seriously by someone, somewhere in government. We will be on the lookout to see if they give ol’ Drake any credit for this novel idea.
Drake, I LOVE this. Although I am not "pro-tax" (even on soft drinks), or should I say "pro-more tax," or dare I say "pro-more and more tax," this tax has universal merit, in my opinion.
I enjoyed the playfulness in this piece, particularly the use of "weaponization."