Tax Heroes

The Rational Argumentator ^ | June 8, 2003 | Michael Miller

[Willie Green]

Was Commons not a representative body?

Not for "The Colonies".

[Alberta's Child]

Do you feel as if your interests are being represented in the U.S. government, even by your "representatives" in Congress?

When you consider that the U.S. government no longer even plays by the rules that were put in place to define its functions, I would say that there is no longer a moral imperative to obey it.

[Willie Green]

Do you feel as if your interests are being represented in the U.S. government, even by your "representatives" in Congress?

No. But that's why I continue to vote in every election and post my views here on FreeRepublic. I am working within the system to change the system.

[G. Stolyarov II]

But why can you not, while adhering to your methods, admire those who venture a step further, perhaps out of desperation that the lawful processes are either too cumbersome or outright incapable of furnishing them the liberty that they desire?

While you may be confident of the system's ability to correct itself, others may possess a grimmer outlook, perhaps proper to their particular situations, as the tax burden in Canada is substantially larger than here in the United States.

In essence, this is the question that this article poses.

[Willie Green]

But why can you not, while adhering to your methods, admire those who venture a step further,

For the same reason I can't admire any other hoodlum, criminal or crook who crosses the line.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Could you truly label "hoodlums, criminals, and crooks" 77% of a country's population, who would not likely breach the law in other respects, and would not have breached it in this one had they seen an avenue for action to the contrary or had their burden not been as oppressive?

The following is a quote by Locke (Concerning Civil Government, 1693, Second Essay, Ch. 19) :

"Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected..."

Is this not the case presently, and would, by your standards, the great Locke himself be classified as a hoodlum, criminal, or crook?

[Willie Green]

Could you truly label "hoodlums, criminals, and crooks" 77% of a country's population, who would not likely breach the law in other respects, and would not have breached it in this one had they seen an avenue for action to the contrary or had their burden not been as oppressive?

As a lawabiding taxpayer, YES,

BTW, please add "lazy hypocrits" to the list of "hoodlums, criminals and crooks".
77% is enough to change the law within the system if they really wanted to.

[G. Stolyarov II]

The problem, as Miller recognizes it, is that all but 3% of these people evade taxes only on a pragmatic, and not a moral level, and are not yet aware of the philosophical case for abolition. The purpose of this article is precisely to transform their vigilante evasion into a unified, legal abolition movement.

[babyface00]

Not for "The Colonies".

From the colonist's perspective, or from the perspective of the members of Commons?

[Willie Green]

From the colonist's perspective, or from the perspective of the members of Commons?

Could you please elaborate on the perspective of the "members of Commons".
I'm unaware of any legitimate claims that the colonists' views were adequately represented.

[babyface00]

The colonists were British subjects. The House of Commons was a representative body for British subjects. I've had a hard time finding any information either way, but I presume that the British government of the time considered the colonists adequately represented. Had they not, it seems as if it would have been prudent to make a provision for representation, rather than sending troops halfway across the known world.

My point is that, just because the government says you're represented, doesn't mean you are. Correspondingly, just because you have a vote, doesn't mean you're only recourse should be to "work the system" or else you're a "hoodlum, criminal, crook and lazy hypocrite".

I think you're drawing the line much too high - would you consider those who resisted Hitler to be hoodlums, criminals and crooks? After all, he was put in power by election and a representative body. Even the U.S.S.R. had elected representatives.

Perhaps the question is, does the system allow for changes? I don't think the mere existence of voting (as exemplified in the U.S.S.R.) is enough.

While I don't condone anarchy, nor mob rule, I also don't believe in blind allegiance to a government, or system of government. Personally, I think its the so-called representatives who are the hoodlums, criminals, crooks and hypocrites in the case of income taxes. As the author pointed out, income taxation is partial slavery. Just as slavery was once legal and was abolished, so should income taxation be abolished on moral grounds alone.

[Willie Green]

Perhaps the question is, does the system allow for changes? I don't think the mere existence of voting (as exemplified in the U.S.S.R.) is enough.

I agree that the system must also allow for introduction of opposing points of view to facilitate change.
I also maintain that the author has failed to demonstrate that this criteria no longer exists in Canada, and his praise for scofflaws, hoodlums, criminals, crooks and lazy hypocrites as "heroes" is irrational and baseless.

[theKing]

There was a doctrine at the time known as Virtual Representation, basically stating that every member of parlament represented every subject of the British Empire, even those that didn't live in said member of parlament's district. This doctrine was what the members of the house of commons were laboring under. It is also false, a member of a representitive body only represents people who vote for him on election day, not people in some colony.