Posted on 04/12/2007 7:28:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Thanks to our nation's income tax system, individual Americans are not free--they are literally on parole.
If they fail to show up at the designated time and place to testify against themselves, they face the prospect that their material goods will be confiscated and their bodies seized and imprisoned. All this because they are guilty of the crime of doing what the most fundamental law of nature gives them the right to do--procure the means of preserving themselves and their loved ones.
A dilemma
Every year around this time, I find myself in a great quandary, a struggle between my sense of obedience to law and my sense of principle. The reason: it's time to file an income tax return.
Don't get me wrong. I have no trouble with the logic that effective government requires some form of taxation. What I can't understand is how we reconcile the clear provisions of our Constitution with the demand that every citizen testify under oath as to the amount of income they have earned in the previous year.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The common understanding is that every American must file an income tax return or be prosecuted for the failure to do so.
Yet, it also appears to be the case that the contents of the return can be used in evidence against us if and when we are prosecuted for tax evasion or other income tax related crimes, including perjury, if we do not scrupulously comply with the letter of the voluminous tax code.
If filing is compulsory, we are being forced to provide testimony that may be used in evidence against us. This means that we are compelled to bear witness against ourselves, which the Constitution plainly forbids.
On the other hand, those who support the use of the income tax return will say that it does not violate the Fifth Amendment because filing the return is a voluntary act. But if this were truly the case, how could anyone be prosecuted for failure to file a tax return? Prosecution brings the force of law against the individual. Acts performed under the threat of prosecution are therefore not voluntary acts, but acts done under the threat of force.
Shallow legal arguments
I'm sure that the self-interested representatives of the legal profession will spring forward to assure me that the Courts have accepted the validity of the income tax system and cooperated with its enforcement mechanisms (by sanctioning the coercion used to enforce compliance). But we all know that this offers no assurance of constitutionality.
The Courts do not reliably represent the rule of law, since they willfully ignore the plain provisions of the Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land and the source of all their legitimate governmental power. The Courts blithely fabricate and impose requirements that are nowhere found in the Constitution (such as the separation of Church and state) and demand respect for rights that contradict its principles and stated purpose (like the so-called right to abortion).
Given this dismal track record, it's not at all hard to believe that they would cooperate in the imposition of an income tax regime that contradicts the Constitution's plainly worded guarantee against self-incrimination.
Respect for law
If we assume for a moment that the income tax regime is enforced by means that systematically disregard one of the most basic guarantees against governmental abuse of individuals, we realize that it puts conscientious citizens in a terrible position. If they choose to cooperate, they lend credence to the abuse--so that over the course of generations, people become more and more inured to it, and ignorant of the abrogation of right that it represents. Since habitual deference to law enforcement is the only basis for the filing requirement, such deference becomes the source of government authority, rather than the plainly declared and duly ratified will of the people expressed in the Constitution.
Habitual deference to the perceived force of law is far from being characteristic of a free people. Indeed, it is the reason large masses of people in every region of the world submitted to despotism and arbitrary tyranny in the centuries before the influence of Christianity led thinkers to articulate the doctrine of God-given inalienable rights.
We must be careful, of course, to keep in mind the distinction between habitual deference to the force of law and the habit of respect for the law. The first is quite simply the product of fear, the second is the fruit of good civic education.
Courts and all the trappings of so-called law are no strangers to tyranny. They have more often been its tools and servants than its enemies. The preponderance of human history offers examples of tyrannical and unjust regimes that cowed the masses into submission using handy symbols of power to shackle the mind, reinforced by the routine application of brute force.
Constitutional self-government is supposed to achieve respect for law on a very different basis, one that commands obedience on account of the assurance that the transcendent principles of right and justice will be respected in both the substance of the law and the procedures that enforce it.
The issue
Here then is the question: If the administration of the income tax departs from the principles of right and justice plainly set forth in the Constitution, does our cooperation with the income tax regime constitute and encourage the habitual deference to force without respect for right that has been a key support for sustaining tyrannical and unjust government? Does our willingness to cooperate help to shackle the mind and will of our children and of future generations, corrupting their understanding so that they will no longer recognize the distinction between legitimate government by law, and government by force masked with the handy symbols of law?
If we truly care about liberty--which is to say, constitutional self-government based upon respect for our God-given inalienable rights--are we obliged to cease this cooperation, even as, in the founding generation of our country, people ceased to cooperate with a system of taxation that contradicted those rights?
This challenge might be less urgent if the issue involved were not so critical to the material foundations of liberty. The American founders repeatedly alluded to Blackstone's pithy dictum: The power to tax is the power to destroy. How much more so when the mechanism of taxation itself involves the destruction of one of the most vital protections against governmental abuse of the individual: the protection against self-incrimination.
The income tax gives the government the power to attack or manipulate the material resource base of the whole people, determining what share will be controlled by the government and what will be left to the discretion of individuals. It also places every individual under a requirement to reveal to the government the sources of their individual sustenance, knowledge that could be used to attack or sever these lines of supply at will. It places every individual under a reporting requirement which, aside from being incompatible with the Fifth Amendment, can at any time become the basis for embroiling the individual in legal and bureaucratic challenges that consume their time and resources in ways that can threaten their own survival and that of the family and friends who rely on them.
By contrast, Montesquieu defined liberty as the ability to live without fear that others could assault your life, In our society, livelihood is life. Franklin Roosevelt appeared to agree when he cited freedom from fear among the four freedoms for which we did battle during the Second World War. Under our system of constitutional self-government, legitimate power means power consistent with liberty. The provisions of the Constitution aim to secure liberty by establishing a government whose powers are limited by respect for the Constitution's principles and requirements.
Free-market alternative
I admit that we would face an insoluble dilemma if the income tax were the only form of taxation capable of funding our government effectively. If this were so, it would mean that republican government consistent with the U.S. Constitution and its principles is impossible. The best we could hope for would be some less evil form of tyranny.
However, the success of the free enterprise economy made possible by respect for liberty means the existence of a huge marketplace, whose transactions generate an enormous exchange of goods and services. A system of taxation that imposed a modest toll (retail sales tax) on every such open and public exchange in the marketplace would more than suffice to fund the government, without the need to threaten the livelihood or constitutional right of any citizen. In the normal course of their voluntary business and other economic affairs, people would pay for government services, just as they pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and entertainment.
If we care any longer to preserve the substance of democratic self-government, we need urgently to develop and put in place the free-market alternative to the liberty-destroying income tax system now in place. If we fail to do so, we leave the people, as individuals and as a whole, defenseless against the strategies of self-righteous, power-hungry elites who are already manipulating its administration to isolate and demoralize our people, crushing both their individual spirit and their ability to associate effectively for political action.
I've heard it before, but I think it was Reagan who said it.
Maybe a helpful FReeper will come along and set the record straight. :-)
That you had no problem with the poster calling me a communist sympathizer
That's irrelevant. It's also wrong. I will address it anyhow. Regarding your and my discussion, what you did, you did to yourself. What other posters said of anyone else is different, they did it to someone else.
That you had no problem with the poster calling me a communist sympathizer
You don't know that. All you know is what I posted. You don't know what I think about other remarks on this thread, save for the posts where I responded. Besides, because someone else does something that weakens their arguments means that you should too. Isn't that special -- NOT!
That you disrespect me is a badge of honor, sir.
HA! Via your insult you claimed intellectual superiority. Your very next post contradicted that. I found that irresistible to make fun of. Here's where it started, where I first responded to you.
MACVSOG68: Actually, we have someone who can read and write here, and can use a tad of logic. I don't assume simply because you can log into FR that you are in possession of any of those three abilities....to any measurable degree. 65
There's two or three posters effectively debating your arguments. I thought it would be more fun to step in the face of your arrogance. If you're going to imply intellectual superiority via seeming insult you had better not be intellectually lazy. Why set yourself up? Raise the bar, so to speak?
In your next posts. In response to: "While that is true, Alan Keyes has never made a single one of their arguments." you wrote...
MACVSOG68: How did Keyes get into this discussion? 68
Zon: This is just too good not to make fun of. Talk about irony!! ... how does your foot taste? 74
[...I'm thinking of you: Somehow Keyes entered the discussion; should use the find function to see where... I'll look awful foolish if I overlooked Keyes being part of the discussion -- what did I miss?...]
Obviously you didn't do any of that. Incompetence to do basic research to any measurable degree. Intellectual laziness... Intellectual Superiority?! HA! ...Come on, that's funny. The irony? You don't think that's funny?!? I think I know some who does...
"It is better to sit in silence and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain.
No, no judgment intended or implied. Your response was simply completely out of context of the point, and to see that, one had to go back a couple of posts.
And why do they apply? Could it be because the business owner did what he thought was his civil duty and procured a business license...i.e. legal permission of the state thereby 'voluntarily' placing himself under their jurisdiction?
He's already under their jurisdiction. Failure to obtain the license would simply violate the law, not give him any kind of freedom the other owners with licenses don't have.
Something wrong with your hearing?
No, but apparently something is wrong with your logic calculator today.
The free market system? Do I really have to explain that a business owner either pays a fair wage or goes out of business because no one will work for the miserly SOB?
I responded to your statement that what I said below "destroys the right to private property, the free market and the equity of law" :
Because many laws both state and federal may apply, including minimum wage laws, laws pertaining to holiday pay, and a whole host of laws regulating the business itself.
The free market system? Do I really have to explain that a business owner either pays a fair wage or goes out of business because no one will work for the miserly SOB?
A little condescension is always good to liven up a discussion on economics. None of that of course contradicts my statement that a business is highly regulated whether or not it is a small, privately owned one or a public entity. So I still miss your overall point as it applies to what the discussion was.
The law of Equity. You know 'All Men are created equal'. Can I, as an individual DEMAND that a businessman pay a certain wage and legally punish him if he does not?
No, not as an individual, but the both the state and federal governments do it every day.
No, of course not. If that authority isn't possessed by an individual, it CANNOT be possessed by the collective and could not possibly have been given to the collective civil 'state'.
Last I saw, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it does empower the collective Congress to lay and collect taxes, and the Constitution was written by "We the People". So you must be mistaken.
The Fair Tax gathers more support from Congress every year.
All you have to do is pay your 1040 taxes and at the same time write your representatives that you would like to see them support (if they don't already) the Fair Tax bills already in Congress.
In the meantime you will become a wise owl of a person after watching the following film on the internet (you will need a high speed connection):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Henry Ford said that if the people understood the banking and monetary system, there would be a revolution tomorrow.
That's a paraphrase. I heard it again the other day while watching America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version. Good video on how the income tax and federal reserve came into existence. It begins with...
"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell
All you need to know is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Watch every minute of it, all the way to the end.
Wow. I guess we were on the same wave length or something.
That film opens the eyes and makes a peaceful reasonable person angry when they understand finally what has made their life hell.
Thats the truth Big..
Amazing that most all Americans have no idea that the federal reserve Banks are NOT FEDERAL AT ALL.. That they are mostly foreign owned banks and PRIVATELY owned Corporations.. The IRS is a tool of foreign citizens..
If something you OWN can be taxed you do not own it because you are renting it from the government.. All property can be taxed depending on the State you live in.. This fiscal social disease goes beyond federal down to the States..Countys and Local gov'ts..
Taxing Income is extremely parasitical to the host..
producing Socialism which is Slavery by Government..
Always in every iteration from the tax payers to the tax recievers..
Producing a devolution of the public good.. ALWAYS.. ultimately..
Mostly foreign owned? 51%? 80%? 100%?
Who cares?..
The point is they are not federal at all..
Its a ruse to HIDE the true intent in the globalist agenda..
Same with all central banks.. in all countrys..
But especially in the United States..
You made the claim, back it up.
You should tell people to set aside 2 hours for that.....
It would violate a statute, which is not necessarily a 'law'.
-----
Because many laws both state and federal may apply
Federal laws are limited to their Constitutionally authorized jurisdiction:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
****
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
James Madison Federalist #39
-----
Last I saw, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it does empower the collective Congress to lay and collect taxes, and the Constitution was written by "We the People". So you must be mistaken.
First, the Constitution was written by the representatives of the respective States on behalf of the People, not by the People themselves.
Second, that's WHY the Preamble is separate from the body of the constitutional document. The Preamble is a notice of intent, which specifies the reason for the document...to secure the rights of the People.
How can you say taxing people into poverty protects their rights?
-----
No, I don't believe I'm mistaken at all.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the suprerme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
------
So far your argument consists of "The government has the authority to do what it wants because it SAYS it does".
There is no constitutional justification for a direct tax on the People's labor....period.
Easy to find out, extremely easy.. about the federal reserve..
LAZY?... i.e. google..
You want me to prove your stupid assertion? LOL!
Just admit you got it from a goldbug website and didn't bother to find out if it was true.
If you are not a lawyer, you should be.
Scotus gave us such gems as no conflict with “equal protection” and the progressive income tax. Yes, I know the court ruled that as long as each person within each tax bracket was treated the same, it was constitutional.
Scotus also has no problem with our Gestapo, aka IRS seizing one’s assets without court order. Due Process?
Our tax system is an abomination and incompatible with a supposedly free people.
Actually he’s right.
Try not to be too hard on him because he’s learned a truth that most people are unaware of. He’s not a goldbug (not to my knowledge) and neither am I. I have no desire to invest in gold, gold futures and so on.
Please join us in learning more about this.
This internet video is all you need to know. It is high quality, produced by an award-winning Hollywood director and features some very credible and respected people including Ron Paul (and Ron Paul has only a small part in it, so please don’t get distracted if you think Ron Paul’s positions on Iraq and so on are wrong, it’s not about any of that).
It’s an hour and a half. You will need a high-speed connection:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Please watch it. We need everyone united on this.
So show me a link that gives foreign ownership percentages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.