Any other mechanism for funding government other than taxation is suspect...
It is impossible to fund government by anything other than taxation. Wherever government gets its money, if paying up is mandatory, that's what we call "taxation". That being the case, your statement isn't particularly meaningful. The set of "suspect" alternatives is empty. There are no alternatives.
Your mere stating something to be unconstitutional is little more than demogoguery and hyperbole...
Then point out exactly where I go wrong. AFAICT, you aren't terribly clear what I'm referring to at any given moment. Redistribution, in the form of entitlements or other direct transfers, is unconstitutional. Reposing legislative powers in an executive agency is unconstitutional. Each thing I have called unconstitutional is, in fact, unconstitutional. One thing I have not called "unconstitutional" is taxation itself, and as you might guess there's a reason I haven't done that.
Obviously you being the proto for that intelligent species no doubt. </sarc>
Jesus said of the baptist that there is none greater born of women--but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. If it were the case that I was the smartest man on earth, I'd still be considered a dummy by humans who have evolved intelligence. And of course I am not the smartest--far from it. It isn't that I'm smart; it's that most humans are so unbelievably stupid that they can't follow simple directions or think in a straight line. We were evolved to survive, not to think logically.
Your insistance on abolishing taxation in fact places you in a camp that promotes extra-constitutional means.
You clearly don't know what "extra-" means. What I propose is well within the limits of the Constitution: the Constitution places limits on the Federal government, but nowhere does it say that the federal government can't do less than the Constitution allows.
But, as a first step, I'd be happy to get it to stop doing more than the Constitution allows. After that's accomplished, we can talk about streamlining it even further. Until then, I'm foursquare behind any true Constitutionalist.
Which promises more government, the opposite of what you claim is the ideal, the overthrow of all government.
I believe in eliminating human government, because humans are unfit to rule each other. If God wants to take over, I'm all for it. No contradiction there.
It is impossible to fund government by anything other than taxation. Wherever government gets its money, if paying up is mandatory, that's what we call "taxation".
However, it is you who propose that taxation be abolished altogether not I.I do not deny that taxation is the basis of funding government and in fact point out its necessity as the founder saw it an provided for such in the Constititution.
The set of "suspect" alternatives is empty. There are no alternatives.
So you now deny the alternative of no taxation and no government you have proposed. For such, in principle if not in the realm of practicality anyway, is an alternative to taxation. One that you hold out as being the appropriate route to take in revolutionary overthrow of government and tossing all the rascals out in favor or anarchy and everyman for himself.
Then point out exactly where I go wrong.
Your insistance that no taxation is the answer. Where by your own admission taxation is the only mode a governement my implement to fund any of its functions. And certainly you go wrong in deciding money derived from taxation are unconstitutional in any sense of that word. The only thing that can be ascribed to unconstitutionality is the use to which moneys are put when the indeed lay outside constitutional boundries. The money has no such taint.
But where we disagree is that I consider your fixation on changing the modality of taxation to be just such an example of complacence: you're spending energy on how the government gets its unconstitutional moneys, instead of on stopping it.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Now if it is your intention to repeal such programs that do not lay within the enumerated powers of the national government, fine. I even join you in that characterisation and work for the abolishment of all but that few hundred billion necessary to the limited scope that I perceive the national government aught to be constrained to. But taxation and the revenues derived therefrom are not the issue in any sense of the word. The enactment of unconstitutional acts by Congress with no accountability to such action is the real issue and you have not begun to address what actually must be done except through up your hands in despair, revolt and throw out the baby with the bath water.
It isn't that I'm smart; it's that most humans are so unbelievably stupid that they can't follow simple directions or think in a straight line. We were evolved to survive, not to think logically.
And you of course being a superior being above most human are are the misunderstood exception. Others have belieived that of themselves as well, most warlords, tyrants and dictators assume such qualities for themselves. Scratch an anarchist you ultimately find the core of wannabe warlord in the making.
What I propose is well within the limits of the Constitution: the Constitution places limits on the Federal government, but nowhere does it say that the federal government can't do less than the Constitution allows.
What it does do is unambiguously establish taxation as the means funding providing for paying debts and common defense and not alternatives enumerated anywhere in the document. To enumerate is to deny alternatives else enumeration would not limit what government may do.
Your alternative is no government, that is not within the Bounds of the Constitutional gurarantee of a republican form of government which. Your alternative of anarchy denies the existance of government period.
I believe in eliminating human government, because humans are unfit to rule each other. If God wants to take over, I'm all for it. No contradiction there.
LOL, I suggest you start with reading Romans 13:1-7, not to mention Christ's words on the subject, of rendering to Caesar, which clearly suggests that human government derives it basis for the exercise of power from God and exists at God's behest, as a thorn to keep you in line.
If you are figuring on justifying your stand of no govenment until God comes and and hits you in the head with it through religion. I see just a slipshod way to rationalize your no government stand forgetting that religion supports the existance of human govenments and due respect of them including the payment of tribute (i.e. taxes).
Romans 13 1-7.
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Take your baloney and sell it elsewhere.