Can liberty survive the income tax?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a cost to every action (labor): it's called opportunity cost. I learned this in basic microeconomics.

So there is a cost involved with every action, although it may not be a monetary cost. Consider this: for an action, you may profit through receipt of goods, products, and services (tangibles) as well as non-tangible benefits. Right now, if I receive a gift card from an employer, according to the IRS, I must report its fair market value and pay income tax on that value.

What if the IRS were to require U.S. citizens to place a fair market value on non-tangible profits and benefits from all activities, e.g., if I read a book and learn something new, I must report some "fair market value" for that learning and pay tax on that value? The definition of "income" is so murky that I can certainly see this happening eventually.

Thus, the income tax would essentially be a tax on the act of being alive.

Taxing an individual simply for being alive is arguably equivalent to depriving that individual of his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as manifested in the right to personal property). That, by definition, is tyranny.

I read the rest of the replies you've been making to other myself and other posters before responding to you.

I've conluded that you're rather pathetic with your decision to commence with your name calling, slurs, insinuations and inuendo.
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.
You, of course, avoid this by making unspecific statements about others as evidenced below...
My only question is why this thread seems to be bringing out so many of the "strange" types.
Which, after all, isn't really a question at all.

I tend to think that those who are so wrapped up in their own little philosophies such that they cannot debate, but must resort to personal insults (like you are doing [and please try to find something somewhere before this reply where I've insulted you]) so as to keep their philosophical house of cards together are themselves in little gulags.
In summation I can only conclude that you lost the "argument" (to use your own word) so you have no recourse but to devolve down.
Have fun in your little gulag. And keep in mind, you set the criteria, not I.

That you assign to me what you did is a non sequitur at best.

Let me guess. You are taking a logic class in high school and are testing out some of the terms?

You boasted arrogantly of your supposed superior intellect compared to many FReepers.

Well, if I thought I had superior intellect before this thread, you and several other "Freepers", so to speak, have certainly done little to disprove that.

I expected you to demonstrate that superior intellect.

Your posts and those of a few others have done far more to demonstrate my superior intellect than anything I could have said or done. Thank you.

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.

In fact it was you who inserted yourself into a discussion between me and another poster. I had not directed any comments to you nor did I insinuate anything derogatory about you, until you made a complete fool of yourself.

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.

You really should stop using terms you think make you look smart. They only do if they have meaning in context. And yes, you are carrying their water for them. Two of us traded insults and you somehow felt it was your place to challenge me alone. You looked for a totally meaningless mistake and decided to take me on, not for the purpose of the thread, but to simply for a food fight. Never mind the numerous errors I have pointed out that you have made. You remind me of Sharpton who was "shocked" at Imus' comments while ignoring all the racial comments of those of his racial background. Your motives, just like those of Sharpton are highly suspect.

I never claimed nor implied I was intellectually superior, but you did.

It's good you don't claim any intellectual superiority. You might find it difficult to substantiate.

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.

You see, the problem with that is that you were referring to other "freepers" who share your "values" here on this thread, not Mark Twain. Your Twain quote was not linked to your statement. Either way though, it was your error, not mine.

Frankly, I've not seen such a group of bottom feeders on any thread as I have here. Several so called Freepers here somehow think they have some special insight into the concept of freedom. They don't, and all the personal attacks they launch against those who disagree will not fortify their case, but merely point them out. I'm sure you understand.

You take care.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a cost to every action (labor): it's called opportunity cost. I learned this in basic microeconomics.

Opportunity cost is an economic term and is used in management accounting to consider alternatives. It is not a taxable item in any way.

No I don't think so. I agree that income is one of the worst ways of determining a tax liability for many reasons, but the IRS nor Congress has not shown any inclination to tax "value growth"....yet. In most transactions, the "basis" of a sold or traded item is its original cost less any depreciation allowed or taken. Accounting rules however, do require such value recognition in certain circumstances, but the IRS waits until a transaction has taken place before requiring a calculation of gains or losses.

I wouldn't use the term tyranny too loosely, as the US has one of the lowest combined tax rates in the civilized world. Still, one does not know what the future holds. I think taxing personal and real property is disgusting, but I'm not going to loose any sleep over it. When I was in California many years ago, it did get very bad, and the citizenry passed Proposition 13 which required a ceiling on the growth of property taxes.

Good points.

I've conluded that you're rather pathetic with your decision to commence with your name calling, slurs, insinuations and inuendo.

Spell check is our friend. Actually, I believe you are referring to your "Freeper" friends. I have never posted an insult except in return for one given. So you apparently haven't looked at many posts here.

You, of course, avoid this by making unspecific statements about others as evidenced below... My only question is why this thread seems to be bringing out so many of the "strange" types. Which, after all, isn't really a question at all.

It's amazing you picked up on that so quickly. Kinda like "dragging a $10 bill though a trailer court". The intended surface quickly, knowing they fit the description.

In summation I can only conclude that you lost the "argument" (to use your own word) so you have no recourse but to devolve down.

Devolving down would be the only way of communicating with you and a few other screwballs here. I don't think I've communicated, so I can only surmise I haven't devolved far enough down.

You take care.

Well, if I thought I had superior intellect before this thread, you and several other "Freepers", so to speak, have certainly done little to disprove that.

Wow. You still don't get it. You disproved it yourself. You are right about it taking little for FReepers to disprove your asserted superior intellect.

Your posts and those of a few others have done far more to demonstrate my superior intellect than anything I could have said or done. Thank you.

Your arrogance has grown as hollow as a dry well. You've been, actually your arguments have been thoroughly trounced yet you still declare yourself the victor. Reminds me of the bloody knight in a Monty Python movie with his arms and one leg cut off continuing his challenge to his opponent, and the opponent replies: "what are you going to do, bleed on me?!"

In fact it was you who inserted yourself into a discussion between me and another poster. I had not directed any comments to you nor did I insinuate anything derogatory about you, until you made a complete fool of yourself.

Yes I engaged you in discussion but not the person you were in a discussion with. I didn't engage or challenge what you were discussing with that other poster. I engaged/challenged you on what you were proclaiming about yourself -- that you proclaimed you had superior intellect compared to many Freepers. I didn't get between you and another poster I got in your face to challenge (and laugh at) your pompous arrogance. And basically have had you eating your own words. Like most of your arguments in your and my discussion your above argument has been refuted.

Two of us traded insults and you somehow felt it was your place to challenge me alone.

I challenged you to back up you claim of superior intellect. You proclaiming your superior intellect is not an insult directed at the other poster. ...It's an assertion you made about yourself. That is what I challenged. Of course, I have already explained this to you so either you chose to ignore it or you failed to comprehend. So much for superior intellect, eh?

You looked for a totally meaningless mistake and decided to take me on, not for the purpose of the thread, but to simply for a food fight.

You set yourself up as the supposed superior intellect compared to many Freepers. In your very next post you demonstrated that was false. That, I thought, was down right hilarious, so I challenged you on it.

Read it and weep...

To: EternalVigilance; MACVSOG68

This is just too good not to make fun of. Talk about irony!!

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
MACVSOG68: How did Keyes get into this discussion? 68

He wrote the article we're discussing.69

MACVSOG68, how does your foot taste? Shall I reload so you can shoot yourself in your other foot.

74 posted on 04/12/2007 1:18:11 PM EDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)

You were quick to shoot your other foot. Continuing on to other limbs with your subsequent posts. You're just like the bloody night.

You are right about it taking little for FReepers to disprove your asserted superior intellect.

Comprehension is also not one of your strong suits. I said Freepers have done little to disprove my superiority (you claim I have). There's a large difference between that and what you concluded. But that doesn't surprise me.

Your arrogance has grown as hollow as a dry well.

Well, when confronted with the total sum of your intelligence, it's difficult not to be arrogant.

You've been, actually your arguments have been thoroughly trounced yet you still declare yourself the victor.

No, that's simply one more of your false conclusions. I never declare victory in a reasoned debate. I merely make my points and let others decide the merits. As for being trounced, perhaps, though deep down I believe you know otherwise. At this point I wouldn't expect any concession from you, though up to this point you've not really discussed anything about the thread itself with me, so I'm not sure how you measure "trouncing".

I engaged/challenged you on what you were proclaiming about yourself -- that you proclaimed you had superior intellect compared to many Freepers.

This, of course, is one more of your little "misrepresentations" of the truth. You have posted what I said a dozen times in a vain attempt to make it into something it's not. I simply responded to an insult that "you have someone who can read and write and use a tad of logic." It was directed to the poster, and you can neither show that I intended it to apply to others or that I somehow intended to imply superior intellect.

I mentioned you might be a high school student earlier taking a logic class and were perhaps practicing. Hopefully for you, it is a public school and you'll pass anyway.

You were quick to shoot your other foot. Continuing on to other limbs with your subsequent posts. You're just like the bloody night.

LOL. No offense, but Knight is spelled with a "K".

As I've said before many times, posters who cannot engage meaningfully in a debate try desperately to bring down the opponent on personal terms. That would seem to be your M.O.

Oh, the bottom feeders are fun....at times.

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.