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.
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.