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.

He convered the courts and gave a good argument, one I agree with, why you can't trust anything the courts say. They have the power to rule however they want and they will rule for government most of the time, and everytime when money is involved.

I read his article in its entirety, thank you. His whole argument was based on the assumption that all the courts including the tax courts, district courts and appeals courts are all in cahoots to violate the Constitution in order to ensure adequate income to the government. That is simply bogus, as a reading of any of the tax court rulings would conclude. Many go against the government. Almost none of the tax protester arguments go against the government because most are simply frivolous on their face.

Saying the courts ruled against the 5th amendment argument means nothing, as I said, he covered that argument in the article.

The distinction is that they explained their position; he didn't. Their position is that yes, one cannot be compelled to state where their illegal gains came from, but they can be compelled to file a return. If that return is incomplete or otherwise fraudulent, the IRS then has the power to investigate. But at no time does a filer have a requirement to self incrimination if that self incrimination would bring out their criminal activities. So there is no conflict.

IOW, if one sells illegal drugs, the tax code requires that the income be shown as a taxable item, but the 5th Amendment would protect the filer from having to state where the income came from if that would incriminate him.

Then we have to also state that the original constitution didn't allow for an income tax, there was a good reason for that, it is invasive and, as far as I am concerned, unconstitutional. We need to repeal the 16th and do away with the income tax.

Of course it's not unconstitutional because of the 16th Amendment. Will it be repealed? Hardly. I'd try and get used to it. You may not like the income tax, but the fact remains that the US is one of the lowest taxed 1st world nations. I think there are better options such as a consumption tax, but the bottom line is I will likely pay a somewhat similar amount of taxes, no matter how it is collected.

Agree that the National Retail Sales Tax is a logical waypoint en route back to a fully Constitutional system.

Before this nation can return to that FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL system, we’ll have to get rid of the current government school — er — INDOCTRINATION system where every spring they distribute booklet provided by the IRS (”free,” of course) teaching the high school kiddies how to COMPLY with the present Marxist system.

We should embrace the laudable concepts of federalism and free market competition. The taxes needed to run the federal government should be collected directly from state governments, with each state’s percentage based on how many members it has in the House of Representatives. Failure to pay would mean loss of the representatives votes. Leave it up to states to figure out how they want to generate the money to pay.

Two big benefits to this are:

1) Productive people and businesses would quickly migrate to states with non-onerous taxation systems, forcing all states to develop a non-onerous system.

2) There would be a much more direct relationship between the will of the people of the level of federal spending. If the tab is too high, people will vote for state government reps who will vote not to pay some or all of the tab, and to forgo having some or all of the state’s votes in Congress. Salary and expenses (including staff salaries) for Congressional Representatives should be determined by and paid by the Representative’s state (and presumably the amount citizens of a state would be willing to pay for a non-voting Representative would be quite low). This would force Congress to slash the federal budget to the level which the citizens are willing to pay. A Representative’s failure to vote for measures that would slash the federal budget would mean voting him/herself out of a job.

Almost none of the tax protester arguments go against the government because most are simply frivolous on their face.

While that is true, Alan Keyes has never made a single one of their arguments.

I think there are better options such as a consumption tax, but the bottom line is I will likely pay a somewhat similar amount of taxes, no matter how it is collected.

When it comes to taxes, the "how" is even more important than the "how much," if you care about liberty.

You miss the point. When you sell that labor to others, what you get in exchange for it is not income because the value of the money received is the same as the value of the labor given. The net balance is zero. Value out of 10 - Value in of 10 = 0. Income is profit above and beyond the value of the labor you put out.

You are missing the definition of income, which does include accessions to wealth. With your definition, nothing could ever be taxable. The value of any transaction is considered equal from a value to value comparison. Gains on transactions, however are how income is defined. Your labor may well be worth exactly what you received, but the cost of that labor was 0 plus any additional expenses the IRS would recognize as deductions from that gain.

It is pathetic to have this argument today, quibbling over what is constitutional income. It wouldn't even be discussed except the communists have won and established power in this land.

Pathetic perhaps, but it is quite logical. As long as the income tax remains the main source of revenue for the government, your argument above is not a valid determination of income.

The vast majority of tax returns are wrong. Shoot, virtualy all of them are. The IRS Code is too complex for almost everyone to understand, much less obey. IOW, the tax code has made the entire citizenry into criminals, since, after all, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

I don't need to defend the tax code. Every time it is "simplified", it tends to get more complex. But since most returns are based on W-2 income, and the standard deduction has been increased substantially, it is difficult to see how many of them are incorrect. When one gets into hedging and most trades, yes, there are many ways of making a mistake.

But the code certainly recognizes the distinction between civil and criminal activities. One must have the intention of committing fraud to be handed over to the criminal statutes. Purposely omitting substantial income, or fraudulently reporting income or other items are criminal offenses.

By your reasoning, simple breach of a civil contract means jail time. That just isn’t so, except when it comes to the IRS.

False, misleading or otherwise fraudulent statements, or knowingly withholding the payment of taxes on income, if substantial, constitutes criminal activity.

Almost all mistakes on a tax return are civil matters and are handled by interest and civil penalties. So whether you like the IRS or not, and most don't, one cannot simply "fall" into a criminal trap.

Can the return they filed then be used against them? You know...the return they were COMPELLED to file?

Sure, just as if I filed a fraudulent property tax form. If you refuse to file a return, you do face criminal sanctions for your refusal to file, but again, you do cannot be compelled to state the nature of your illegal income. By your logic, only criminals would be free from filing a return.

That's similar to the requirement to apply for a social security card in order to work if I am an illegal alien, because to do so would incriminate me. And yes, the BOR does apply to illegals.

Money must be gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin must be money, exclusive of any other forms.

There isn't enough gold to back our money supply. Do you favor massive deflation? Is deflation a good thing?

Currently, all money ultimately terminates in a debt contract somewhere.

Wow, a debt contract! Sounds scary. So now you'll tell me that the FR notes in my wallet are debt. Do I owe interest to someone on these notes, or does someone owe me?

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.