Can liberty survive the income tax?

RenewAmerica.us ^ | April 12th, 2007 | Alan Keyes

[Zon]

Well worthy of repeating...

Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.

[MACVSOG68]

Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.

Well, if the unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that just about encompasses everything. Are you saying that freedom from an income tax is one of the unalienable rights?

[MACVSOG68]

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

I gave the poster the credit for the article, not Keyes. Is that important to you somehow? Do you have anything intelligent to add to the actual discussion? Considering your other post, I doubt it.

[philman_36]

Try not paying...try not filing...

But isn't that simply complusion through coercion? Do 'such and such' "or else"!
That's just plain wrong on so many levels.

[EternalVigilance]

Glad you like it. New tagline...

[EternalVigilance]

Are you saying that freedom from an income tax is one of the unalienable rights?

Yes. I think that while the income tax is very much compatible with its source, the Communist Manifesto, it is utterly incompatible with American freedom.

[MACVSOG68]

What I hear you saying is that the citizens of this country exist economically at the pleasure of government and whatever it is that they decide they’ll allow you to have and keep.

No, you don't hear me saying that at all. In fact, you have heard me say that I don't care much for the income tax, as I think there are better alternatives. But at the same time, as long as it is the law and is constitutional, I'm not going to spend much effort on changing it. Others can, and I support that. Taxes of some sort are a necessity to maintain our military, our infrastructure, and to carry out the laws of the state and Nation. How much and what those laws are are discussions for another thread.

The very existence of the income tax is, in a practical sense, an acknowledgment that government owns every single thing that you can produce, either by your skill or by the sweat of your brow. Any portion you get to keep is based on their whim.

But as you know, the people get the last word. And as long as the people make no effort to amend the Constitution or to otherwise force the Congress to change tax systems, it will remain so.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh, I take liberty very seriously, but if I pay too much attention to every kind of protest here on FR involving differing opinions of liberty, at the end of the day, I'd mentally be in a gulag.

My sense, from seeing your posts here, and in other contexts on FR, is that you already are.

[EternalVigilance]

No, you don't hear me saying that at all. In fact, you have heard me say that I don't care much for the income tax, as I think there are better alternatives. But at the same time, as long as it is the law and is constitutional, I'm not going to spend much effort on changing it. Others can, and I support that.

Ah. The loss of liberty through laziness. That's a pretty common affliction throughout history...

[MACVSOG68]

Kinda like Giuliani and Clinton "hate" abortion?

So that's your whole argument? So if I understand your logic here, I must either agree with a frivolous legal argument, or that means I am siding with the other party?

[EternalVigilance]

But as you know, the people get the last word. And as long as the people make no effort to amend the Constitution or to otherwise force the Congress to change tax systems, it will remain so.

But...but...you just said that, while you know the income tax is bad, you're not willing to expend any energy to change it.

[Zon]

You've implied a few times on this thread that you are intellectually more capable than many posters on FR yet within a few posts you prove the opposite. The facts are on record, thanks to you.

Clearly you have poor reading comprehension and lack of even minimal research skills -- How did Keyes get into this discussion? 68

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the actual discussion? Considering your other post, I doubt it.

Your incompetence caused you to be in error. Then when I point out that error to you, you have the gall to turn it on me. You're compounding your error. But hey, that's your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

You're a hoot.

[EternalVigilance]

So that's your whole argument? So if I understand your logic here, I must either agree with a frivolous legal argument, or that means I am siding with the other party?

Actually, I think you're just trolling.

[MACVSOG68]

But isn't that simply complusion through coercion? Do 'such and such' "or else"! That's just plain wrong on so many levels.

So if we didn't have an income tax, but a consumption tax, the small business owner would not have to file a tax return indicating how much he had collected? Compulsory filing of forms happens throughout the Nation by governments at all levels. All laws are "do such and such or else".

[philman_36]

Actually, I think you're just trolling.
Ding, ding, ding, ding...We have a winner, folks!

[Leatherneck_MT]

Ping for your info

[MACVSOG68]

Yes. I think that while the income tax is very much compatible with its source, the Communist Manifesto, it is utterly incompatible with American freedom.

Perhaps, but taking it to the "unalienable right" level is a little over the top. I think economically, it's certainly not the best way of bringing together revenues for the government and economic growth, but somehow specific methods of accessing those revenues doesn't seem to reach the importance of an unalienable right.

[philman_36]

So if we didn't have an income tax, but a consumption tax, the small business owner would not have to file a tax return indicating how much he had collected?
Why do you ask a hypothetical question that can't be answered?

[Zon]

The inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is freedom from the  initiation of force, fraud and coercion. Prohibition of initiation of force, fraud and coercion respects and protects the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[MACVSOG68]

My sense, from seeing your posts here, and in other contexts on FR, is that you already are.

I don't know. 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 so as to keep their philosophical house of cards together are themselves in little gulags.