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.

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Federal Reserve System

Now you have no excuse to make your silly claims.

You forgot to mention that the Fed coughs up any net operating profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Yeah, I love the guys who say we should eliminate the Fed, because they charge us for the money they print. If we printed it without the Fed, the taxpayers would save ....... they never say what we'll save.

Math is hard, especially when you're stupid. And he's the proof.

they charge us for the money they print

Must be those evil gubmint minions at the GPO.

The apocolyptic losers like Hostage will never get it. They think Russo, an idiot who exploits their gullibility and tendency to believe anything and everything which is anti-government, is a hero. They'll never be convinced otherwise, they're so smart, don't you know?

I await yet another baseless accusation that I work for the IRS or some other part of the tax "business."

MACVSOG68 to Zon: Posters such as you are a dime a dozen. I see them on threads where their response to a well thought out post was to criticize the failure to use spell check, or some other meaningless error having nothing at all to do with the thread. 111, 219 and 226
And if you notice, I said "well thought out post". Your posts were anything but.

You're obfuscating. As though Alan Keyes, the author of the article that this thread is about, which in your esteemed intellectual capacity you completely missed. Nor did you have the "tad bit of logic"65 to use the find function on your Web browser to locate how Alan Keyes was entered into the discussion. You wrote, How did Keyes get into this discussion? 68 -- Since I didn't criticize your spelling you can only mean that you thought I criticized "some other meaningless error having nothing at all to do with the thread." But Alan Keyes has very much to do with this thread.

In the red quote above you refer to two parties/persons. 1), a critic, and 2) person being criticized. In short, Zon criticized your post. Zon is person #1 and you are person #2.

Then you infer to Philman_36 that in your well thought out post to him you criticized his spelling. Thus, in your post to Philman_36 you referred to yourself as both person #1 and person #2. You wrote to Philman_36, "I think you forgot the part about the response to a well thought out post." 220 I suppose to your way of thinking (deceiving) that' it's okay to criticize spelling so long as the post that contains the spelling error isn't a well thought out post.

You boasted about "bottom feeders" (your words) who resort to criticizing other people's spelling errors. Then, you turn around and criticize other people's spelling errors.

I can continue, as I have, to unravel your deceptions for as long as you keep making them.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008NNPK/immaculate-books

This film lays out how the IMF operates.

The people that have the gold know that those that come asking for it are putting their heads on the chopping block. They are in effect saying please make me a slave.

Banana Republics cannot compete and cannot take care of their people so they go to the World Bank or the IMF. Some years later they lose everything and the land is taken over in receivership after the local militias have been defanged and replaced. Then if it’s a pretty place, corporate chains move in and set up shop.

The IMF is a predator looking for easy marks. The World Bank is the same but carries the insulting mission statement that their aim is to relieve global poverty.

Anyways, I like to travel and rough it sometimes but I don’t like to be around locals that have grown to hate Americans because of perceived ties with perceived ills caused by the banking cartels.

I suppose to your way of thinking (deceiving) that' it's okay to criticize spelling so long as the post that contains the spelling error isn't a well thought out post.

Finally you are catching on. My responses to both of you do not fit the model I set forth, because both of you were the original attackers, neither of you responded to the arguments in the thread, and neither of you posted a well thought out argument. So when someone criticizes me for a structural as opposed to a substantive "error", they have reset the rules of the game, and should not whine because I throw it right back in their faces.

I know you want to believe you are thinking logically, but you have violated a number of the rules of logic. Several of you initiated ad hominem attacks, you in particular are guilty of moving the goalpost, arguing by gibberish, arguing by changing the facts, pigheadedness, arguing the same thing ad nauseum, using selective observation, using this red herring to change the discussion, and a few more to boot.

So if you actually want to learn something about debate and logic, first try and understand yourself and what your motives are. If you spent half as much time researching the topic of the thread, which I assume you agree with, you might actually be able to put on a fairly reasoned debate. As it is, you are merely pi$$ing on the fringe of the topic hoping to leave some lasting impression, by splattering all those you can't effectively argue with.

As I said before, bottom feeders galore here on FR.

For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks.

But nobody 'owns' it.

However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System.

... and ownership of a certain amount of stock is...but nobody 'owns' it.

The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Uh huh... those with 'ownership' get a 6 percent dividend in a 'nonprofit' company they don't 'own'.

So who best to ask about 'ownership' of the 'Federal' Reserve than the 'Federal' Reserve itself from their own website?

Orwellian doublespeak anyone?

This unadulterated pablum falls in the same category of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" or Ken Lay's September 2001 announcement to Enron's stakeholders and employees that Arthur Anderson had certified the company was on a sound financial footing.

The 'Fed' Reserve is 'within government'? There are fools and lemmings and people that believe such tripe.

And you sir probably believe that the poweful never lie.

Uh huh... those with 'ownership' get a 6 percent dividend in a 'nonprofit' company they don't 'own'.

6% dividend? Wow, not much considering they get to print all the money. What about a share of the profits left over after the dividend is paid? Where does the rest of the money go?

So who best to ask about 'ownership' of the 'Federal' Reserve than the 'Federal' Reserve itself from their own website?

A clown like you who said it's owned by private individuals? LOL!

A clown like hosepipe who said it's majority owned by foreign bankers? LOL!

However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

My favorite kind of stock to own, one that I'm forced to buy, one that I can't sell, trade or pledge as security.

[ A clown like hosepipe who said it's majority owned by foreign bankers? ]

That depends on the federal reserve bank (percentage of foreign ownership)
My point is that federal reserve Banks are NOT FEDERAL AT ALL.. but of private ownership.. Whoever owns the federal reserve OWNS America..

Thats why Central Banking Systems were fought tooth and nail most of this countrys history..

Debt as Money is a good video as is America Freedom to Fascism. Here's another good one. The Money Masters.

"As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of your Monetary Reform Act...You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception…I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail in your successive revisions... Best wishes. Milton Friedman," Nobel Laureate in Economics; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace -- http://www.themoneymasters.com/reviews.htm

The Money Masters - Part 1 of 2 -- 1 hr 43 min

The Money Masters - Part 2 of 2 -- 1 hr 46 min

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.