Decriminalize objection to violence, war (BARF Alert)

Daily Nebraskan (U. Nebraska) ^ | 4/2/04 | Collin W. Sullivan

[NorCoGOP]

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Over spring break I did something for which I'm having trouble forgiving myself. The cowardice and selfishness involved is infuriating, but it's not something I can take back. I can't fix it, and I can't change it.

I'm a coward because two weeks ago I paid my taxes.

This is my first time paying any sort of tax, other than sales. Last year I finally made enough money to merit taxation (a double-edged sword). This isn't to say that I made a large amount of money, nor is it to say that I owe an exorbitant amount.

In fact, I only owed $13 to the federal government, mostly for summer work. Even though I'm a dependent college student with no real steady source of income during the school year, $13 doesn't really faze me. I normally wouldn't mind paying $13 or more to a cause that I felt merited my support.

The dilemma lies within the use of that money.

According to various accounts, about 28 percent of federal income tax for fiscal year 2005 (or about $3.64 of my money) will be spent on current military interests. This is, essentially, the Department of Defense's budget, which includes spending on nuclear weapons (but not their delivery systems). Eighteen percent ($2.34) will be allocated for past military interests, which includes veteran's benefits (something I have absolutely no problem with) and a significant percentage of the interest on the national debt.

Three percent ($0.39) will actively fund U.S. activity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thirty-nine cents of my money is going to support attacking a population and forgetting about it. That money will support a war to depose a leader who grew strong with U.S. support. It will assist a military wing that jumps to conclusions, takes action behind faulty evidence and deceives the very people to whom it's supposed to answer.

Again, the amount of money doesn't bother me. But that $0.39 could go towards something better. I think Wally Nelson put it best: "What would you do if someone came to your door, cup in hand, asking for a contribution to help buy guns to kill a group of people they didn't like?"

Well, I certainly didn't have much of a choice. I'm a 19-year-old college student pursuing a bachelor's degree, one who relies heavily on federal funding. It's safe to say that if it weren't for federal student loans, I would not be attending this university.

This is where the issue becomes upsetting. Were I to keep that $13 for myself, I would be subject to all kinds of fines and threats.

Can they take my house? Well, no, because I don't own a house. Can they take my car? Probably not, because I'm not the official owner. But federal student aid is something they have the ability to take from me.

Of course, that's bigger than any house or car could ever be. They could take my future. They could take my ability to earn a degree and move on to graduate and postgraduate work. And what would stop them? So now I find myself in a situation where the federal government is willing and able to scratch my back with one hand and clutch my groin with the other.

Conscientious objection to violence of any type needs to be sought and courted. To criminalize it is to keep intact a structure which breeds aggression.

But where does the problem lay? It's in the nation's best interest for taxes to be a requirement. The government needs money in order to better serve its citizens. Unfortunately, misuse of that money is, for the moment, very difficult to protest. Other than electing different officials, the average citizen has no say in how her or his money is spent.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

For example, there is a current movement, and a bill in Congress, proposing and supporting a Peace Tax Fund. The bill would grant conscientious objectors to war, those who do so citing moral or religious conviction, an option out of supporting militarism. The solution is not that these particular people pay fewer taxes; their tax dollars will simply be relocated into a fund and used for nonmilitary purposes only.

People still would not be able to specify which particular programs their money supports. But they would have the option to dictate that their dollars will not support militarism and violence.

Opponents of the bill will suggest that some people don't prefer to pay for welfare, education or various other expenditures undertaken by the government. Though this is a valid (and popular) question, there is a significant distinction between preference and deeply held moral or religious beliefs. To prefer not to pay for welfare is one thing; to honestly believe in nonviolence as a way of living and as a means to conflict resolution is quite another.

There are numerous other causes my money can go toward. I gladly will pay so another can have the education I'm getting. I would support a cabinet-level Department of Peace, letting my money be used to promote nonviolence and diplomacy as official tools of foreign policy.

The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act must be passed and immediately instituted because conscientious objection to war and violence need not be criminalized any longer.

[Paradox]

Peace Tax Fund.

Oh really? Well how about a "Welfare and Entintelments" fund, to let those of us opposed to the socialism in the coutnry, opt out of paying for it?

[ClearCase_guy]

Hi! I'm 19! I don't have a real job! I don't have to support a family! I've never owned a house! I'm not really educated!

Now that we've cleared away the introductions, let me tell you old farts how our society should be structured and how it ought to function in order maximize what I like to call "socal justice". First, we should put the UN in charge. Second ...

[Support Free Republic]

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER

[Paradox]

Or how bout a Spelling fund for mo-rons..

[DonaldDuke]

Oh well. Simple solution: pay this swine back his 39 cents, and take his student aid. Must be better uses for that money :).

[grellis]

It's safe to say that if it weren't for federal student loans, I would not be attending this university.

Can I have my money back?

[dirtboy]

I would support a cabinet-level Department of Peace, letting my money be used to promote nonviolence and diplomacy as official tools of foreign policy.

Yeah, we all know how effective those methods were against Hitler and Tojo...

[Belisaurius]

Oh Goody, a Dennis Kucinich groupee. They're hard to find. We should capture him so our scientists can study him.

[Gefreiter]

This kid's not getting his money's worth. Or rather, we're not getting our money's worth paying the taxes for the govt to put him through school:

"Thirty-nine cents of my money is going to support attacking a population and forgetting about it." Not sure who's been attacked, but if he means Afghanistan, no one's forgotten anything...unless you're 19 year old undergrad with an attention span of about 10 minutes. Or your primary source of information is Peter Jennings.

"That money will support a war to depose a leader who grew strong with U.S. support." By which I guess he means Saddam, who grew strong largely due to his own ruthlessness and ambition. If you want to point fingers at arms suppliers, I recommend you point your finger toward Paris and Moscow before Washington.

"What would you do if someone came to your door, cup in hand, asking for a contribution to help buy guns to kill a group of people they didn't like?" We're talking policy here, not who likes whom. Try and learn to divorce your personal likes and dislikes and personal feelings from policy. It's a sign of maturity.

"I would support a cabinet-level Department of Peace, letting my money be used to promote nonviolence and diplomacy as official tools of foreign policy." You can promote nonviolence all you want, it will not help you once your people have been killed. Faced with that reality, what would you do then? And please note that "diplomacy" is the art of getting what you want, and is oftentimes successful because you have the power to twist arms.

I think it's promising that such an ignorant person is in school, because that's exactly where this writer needs to be. Unfortunately, the lessons he or she needs to learn will not be taken on campus but in the real world.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"I'm a coward because two weeks ago I paid my taxes.

This is my first time paying any sort of tax, other than sales. Last year I finally made enough money to merit taxation (a double-edged sword). This isn't to say that I made a large amount of money, nor is it to say that I owe an exorbitant amount.

In fact, I only owed $13 to the federal government, mostly for summer work. Even though I'm a dependent college student with no real steady source of income during the school year, $13 doesn't really faze me. I normally wouldn't mind paying $13 or more to a cause that I felt merited my support."


Where to begin, where to begin.....

OK, 1st off - I'm sure if he had a clue, that he'd know (assuming he'd worked at all before this past year) that he HAS been paying income tax before - it's just it was successfully hidden from him thanks to Lefty hero Franklin Dunno Roosevelt and his "withholding" scheme.

Which case points out the crime of the sneaky, underhanded withholding policy *in itself*, much less that the Founders are turning in their graves over the 13th Amend. People would be much more upset if they had to pay, in 1 fell-swoop,... oh... 10x as much as they do in April. Rather than it being stealthily stolen throughout the year so you only "pay" 1/10th as much in April as you are really being charged the whole year.

2nd, oh, boo hoo, a liberal just realized his money mite be taken from him to do something he doesn't like. Well, well, isn't that 1 of the reasons conservatives don't like taxes, much less exhorbitant and sneaky income taxes specificaly? They're just realizing this?

[the OlLine Rebel]

"The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act must be passed and immediately instituted because conscientious objection to war and violence need not be criminalized any longer."

That's funny, concientious objection was always allowed DUE TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - has this changed? However, you had to be part of a recognized religion doctrinally known to object. Lefty Liberalism doesn't count, and don't try to hi-jack it for your use.

[kcvl]

Collin W. Sullivan

Sophomore political science, international studies and Spanish major

I don't know why he paid it either. Who would have noticed $13? There are some people who spend that much on postage to mail their tax returns.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act must be passed and immediately instituted because conscientious objection to war and violence need not be criminalized any longer."

That's funny, concientious objection was always allowed DUE TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - has this changed? However, you had to be part of a recognized religion doctrinally known to object. Lefty Liberalism doesn't count, and don't try to hi-jack it for your use.

[The Old Hoosier]

We need an "opposed to socialism" fund for those of us who don't want to fund gun control, family planning, welfare...

[Monty22]

Can I object to paying for social programs and be excluded please.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Anybody every given any serious consideration to bumping the voting age back up to 21 for people who are not members of the active military, guard or reserves?

[LurkedLongEnough]

Department of Peace

DOP, my butt. The only new department we need is the Department of Deportation.

[Flux Capacitor]

----I would support a cabinet-level Department of Peace, letting my money be used to promote nonviolence and diplomacy as official tools of foreign policy.----

No bets on whether the rest of us unenlightened schmoes would be allowed by this jackass and his ilk to "opt out" of funding this particular boondoggle with our tax dollars.

I'd worry more about doing something about the existing Department of Education, Collin W. Sullivan, 'cause it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot for you.

-Dan

[the OlLine Rebel]

LOL, the ironic thing is we reduced the age for voting even yet in an age when young people were "growing" less & less mature - or is that more immature? 100 years ago the average 18yo was reasonably mature and already working regardless of circumstance. Now they're mostly into self-indulgence and hedonistic partying. I say raise it to 25!