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 just noticed he’s the same on all the threads he clicks into.
He’s what is called a basher on the financial boards, someone whose sole purpose is to hijack a thread and cause disruption over trivialities. It keeps everyone from communicating. That’s his game.
All 15,000? You're a fast reader.
and you’re the same everywhere.
Yes, I call people on their false assertions.
We’re done.
You're running away without telling me who owns the Federal Reserve? LOL!
Trivialities? Foreign banks own the Federal Reserve, run away screaming!!!!
Private individuals own the Federal Reserve. Like Kissinger. Ohmigod! He's a foreigner.
It keeps everyone from communicating.
It keeps everyone from swallowing your stupid BS.
Failure to obtain the license would simply violate the law
It would violate a statute, which is not necessarily a 'law'.
Of course it is. Statutes are laws enacted by a legislative body.
Because many laws both state and federal may apply
Federal laws are limited to their Constitutionally authorized jurisdiction:
And how does that impact the statement I made that "many laws both state and federal may apply"?
First, the Constitution was written by the representatives of the respective States on behalf of the People, not by the People themselves.
You may want to read the Preamble.
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.
Indeed, and as it starts out: We the People. So what's your point?
How can you say taxing people into poverty protects their rights?
So exactly where did I say such an inane thing? Hopefully you are not also taking the position that we have an unalienable right not to be taxed, as other posters have?
So far your argument consists of "The government has the authority to do what it wants because it SAYS it does".
I'm not sure you are following my argument at all. I'll speak slowly. The Congress has the constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes. The 16th Amendment removed the distinction of direct and indirect as factors in the constitutionality of a particular tax. If someone believes that what the government does is unconstitutional, he may take it to a federal court, where a decision will be rendered. If he doesn't like it, he can appeal. If Americans don't want the income tax any more, they can have the 16th Amendment repealed. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that system. Why do you?
There is no constitutional justification for a direct tax on the People's labor....period.
I agree with that. Which is why labor is not taxed. What is taxed is the gain received from that labor. Gains in wealth are generally taxed. Gains are calculated by subtracting costs from revenues. The value of one's labor is not at issue, merely the gain from it.
MACVSOG68 and toddsterpaininthea*s seem to be joined at the hip.
Thanks, though I don't believe that was meant as a compliment.
Our tax system is an abomination and incompatible with a supposedly free people.
Well, then do something to get it changed. For me, I know taxes are a necessity. How much of course is the subject of numerous debates. It may well be far more than many want, but Uncle Sam still will use taxes and royalties as its two primary revenues. If the income tax is intolerable, then the people will change it.
Perhaps you would be happier with a consumption tax, as would many. Look at the Fair Tax proposals.
ROFL!
I would think anyone with a brain who has been around here understands that when someone is mentioned by screen name, common courtesy requires a ping. Of course when a stupid, inane insult such as this is made, I can see why you might refrain. I've noticed one thing. This thread has brought out the bottom of the intellectual barrel. I'm not surprised you all seem to know each other so well. Bottom feeders tend to congregate.
Statutes are positive law. According to this definition:
Statutes are distinguished from common law.
Common law is based in natural law and, in turn, is the foundation for civil law. Thus a statute is not necessarily a 'law' when it comes to the People.
------
Indeed, and as it starts out: We the People. So what's your point?
You act like you know what your saying, but asking a question that has already been answered gives you away.
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782
-----
I'm not sure you are following my argument at all. I'll speak slowly. The Congress has the constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes. The 16th Amendment removed the distinction of direct and indirect as factors in the constitutionality of a particular tax.
A legal document cannot contradict itself. Section 8 denotes the type of taxes the federal government has the authority to impose. If the 16th had the ability to operate in law in the manner you suggest, Article 1 section 8 would have to have been repealed. These taxes were to be imposed on the States and in the manner specified....NOT the People. This was not changed since the 16th conferred no new powers of taxation.
-----
What is taxed is the gain received from that labor. Gains in wealth are generally taxed.
A GAIN implies MORE than what you had before. Since you barter your labor for wages, there is no 'gain', it is an equitable exchange (i.e. private contract)
I notice your still not sourcing anything to back up your assertions.
Your just repeating the mantra of the mind-numbed robot- "They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"...
ROFLMAO!
Peas in a pod! :-)
Common law is based in natural law and, in turn, is the foundation for civil law. Thus a statute is not necessarily a 'law' when it comes to the People.
Please help me here. What exactly is your point? Does it matter what we call a law. If the law exists, it exists. If it is unconstitutional, then challenge it. Do you have any rational point here?
You act like you know what your saying, but asking a question that has already been answered gives you away.
I think I'm sitting in the middle of the real Cuckoo's Nest, here on this thread.
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property. Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782
OK, maybe we're getting somewhere finally. How does this relate to the constitutionality of the income tax?
A legal document cannot contradict itself. Section 8 denotes the type of taxes the federal government has the authority to impose. If the 16th had the ability to operate in law in the manner you suggest, Article 1 section 8 would have to have been repealed.
A constitutional amendment has the same force and effect as the original document. And the 16th Amendment made it clear that the impact was to dismiss the distinctions between direct and indirect. I don't know where you learned that an article within the Constitution couldn't be amended.
These taxes were to be imposed on the States and in the manner specified....NOT the People. This was not changed since the 16th conferred no new powers of taxation.
Congress did not gain any new power to tax. It always had the power to lay and collect taxes and other revenues. The amendment merely changed the character of income with respect to direct v: indirect, eliminating the distinction and making clear that the Congress could lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, without apportionment or enumeration. It is one of the clearest of the amendments.
A GAIN implies MORE than what you had before. Since you barter your labor for wages, there is no 'gain', it is an equitable exchange (i.e. private contract)
Not so. Your labor may have value, but the determination of income is based on cost, not value. Since your labor has no cost associated with it, all revenue received in return is gain, and is taxable. Any costs you can show may be deductible from the revenue.
According to your definition, no income ever occurs, since any exchange between consenting parties involves items representing a fair value. The key is the increase in wealth. If I sell a book for $100, its pretty safe to say the book is worth $100. By your definition, the transaction cancels out tax-wise. But the IRS wants to know how much you paid for the book, the difference being your gain, and presumptive increase in wealth. That is income.
I notice your still not sourcing anything to back up your assertions.
No, I just make everything up as I go along. I'm not going to do your homework for you. If I reference a specific law or case, I will refer to it. As to a general discussion of the meaning of income, you can go to the IRS website. Or you can go and get one of the tax protester's books and read. It will help them make bail.
Your just repeating the mantra of the mind-numbed robot- "They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"...
Yes, I just can't find the intellectual wherewithal to keep up. You guys are just too good for me.
I guess it's safe to say you don't pay any of those illegal income taxes...?
I sent the note below in response to the original poster. Looks like you also need a lesson in posting etiquette, not that it would do any good.
I would think anyone with a brain who has been around here understands that when someone is mentioned by screen name, common courtesy requires a ping. Of course when a stupid, inane insult such as this is made, I can see why you might refrain. I've noticed one thing. This thread has brought out the bottom of the intellectual barrel. I'm not surprised you all seem to know each other so well. Bottom feeders tend to congregate.
You take care, mama T
Then that was between me and the other poster.
Absolutely. I didn't write anything about what other posters may or may not have said about you or to you, or what you said about them. You injected other posters into your and my discussion -- not me, it was you. That you assign to me what you did is a non sequitur at best.
What was your business in it, save to simply try and get attention?
I wasn't in-between you and other posters. You boasted arrogantly of your supposed superior intellect compared to many FReepers. I expected you to demonstrate that superior intellect. In your next post you proved yourself incompetent to do even basic research and intellectual laziness. You contradicted your previous statement. I called you on it by making fun of it.
Nor did I see you castigate anyone else.
So what!? Apparently some other poster(s) have made derogatory remarks about you -- called you names. Perhaps you did similar to them. I don't know and don't care how you and they respond to one another. You brought others into yours and my discussion, not me. If you have a problem with other people it's between you and them. Leave me out of it.
Anyone whose argument is to call someone a communist sympathizer because of a legal argument has a dearth of intellectual capacity. And that goes for those who carry their water for them too.
So according to you. because I make no comment to them or don't castigate them I'm carrying their water? If that's what you meant, your argument is a non sequitur. Not even guilt by association, rather, guilt by non-participation. According to you when I point out an error you made you hold me responsible for pointing out other people's errors. You keep wanting to bring other people into your and my discussion.
Zon: I think I know some who does... 143
By the way, the phase is "I think I know some who do". How's that for intellectual superiority?
I never claimed nor implied I was intellectually superior, but you did. And I called you on it because you were so quick to contradict yourself. That, and because I thought it would be fun.
BTW, regarding: "I think I know some who do" -- Since there was only one person -- Mark Twain -- the correct grammar is someone who does. Thank goodness I didn't go boasting about having intellectual superiority or I'd have egg on my face.
Whether someone is pinged to a post or not, at least some FReepers have the 'nads to name names.
Unlike others who not only post furtive, puerile remarks like 'wingnut' and 'strange types', but also insult everyone's intelligence by assuming no one can deduce who that post is about.
----
You take care as well.
Very good presentation. Did you notice the internet is now bringing out these informational films as a follow-on to webzines, blogs, forums and chatrooms?
The ‘Money as Debt’ video like the ‘Freedom to Fascism’ film centers on money and banking and how they control us through the control of money.
Both identify that government-only issuance of currency would wipe out debt interest. Money as Debt goes on to suggest bartering exchanges. Freedom to Fascism suggests the political process to have candidates pledge to shut down the Federal Reserve.
Both presentations are great at identifying the problems. The replacement solutions need a longer philosophical discourse to guide contingency planning.
Any time I hear a statement start with that, I have a tendency to stop listening. :)
However, I did finish your post, and I'm glad I did. You made some good points. I don't think we're going to get anywhere, though, by claiming the federal government doesn't have the authority to levy income taxes. We'd be much better off calling for the repeal of the 16th amendment, IMO.
Thanks. I was close.
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.