Replies

You say you disagree, but then don't indicate why. I submit that the reason you do not provide any rationale is that you there is not actually one, and you're just repeating the habituation you've been subjected to annually like Pavlov's dog.

Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me unthinking/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation.

But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility. This is to say that the usefulness of the work is also a factor and why a brain-surgeon's wage is not going to be equal to a short-order cook's. — moreover, there is also the agreement with the employer (who in essence judges the utility of the laborer), there is a parable in the bible where a group of people were operating under your:

(Matthew 20:1-16)
“For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work. “At nine o’clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o’clock he did the same thing. “At five o’clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, ‘Why haven’t you been working today?’ “They replied, ‘Because no one hired us.’ “The landowner told them, ‘Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.’ “That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day’s wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, ‘Those people worked only one hour, and yet you’ve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.’ “He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’ “So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.”

To assert that there is only the fundamental exchange equivalency WRT work and wage is to set up the foundation for a framework of labor-laws which would strip the hirer of the ability (a) to evaluate the utility of the labor [and laborer] and [when aggressively enforced] (b) to be generous.

A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state.

Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.)

A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally.

The graduated/progressive income tax is therefore a violation — while it could be argued that a flat tax rate is proportional (on income, rather than the debt's amount). Amendment 16 says: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — by that, it seems that a income tax may indeed be without proportion.

As far as independent presentments being inappropriately removed as valid process, that never occurred by any law, or even official precedure, but actually occurred as a result of the Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not actually a part of that Rule 7 itself, but rather only a Note 4 to Rule 7 by the Avisory Committee,

Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?

Much like the decision of Sparf, the right of nullification by the jury exists but there's no obligation to inform of the right... and the judge can apparently declare a mistrial if it is brought up by an officer of the court. So, by forced ignorance, the right is lost.

But, in short, I do not believe that the current relation of the government to the jury (either grand or petite) is healthy or as it should be. You yourself brought up the indict a ham sandwich saying, and that is directly a result of stripping away the power of presentment because all that leaves the Grand Jury with is the indictment. So, like the Federal Reserve whose only tool is print money! the grand jury can only indict under this system. As for petite juries, nullification was mentioned, but there's also the will you convict even if you disagree with the law? questionnaire and judges have been known to deny them access to the text of the law.

In short, I do not believe that the juries should be subordinate/dependent on the government — to do so is to make them into rubber-stamp appearance-of-legitimacy style organizations beholden to the government [which even you must agree is corrupt] rather than actually being about justice.

OneWingedShark: "Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me "unthinking"/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation."

Impute you? particularly? I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.

I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation. I've provided historical evidence and argument as to WHY rights themselves are to be observed by the States, and also the 14th itself overall is odious in that it serves as justification for the federal government to police (and award) rights, when those rights are intended to prohibit government action. Also the final section of the 14th Amendment does not grant Congress any new powers that are not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and writing laws policing rights and awarding rights do not become "appropriate legislation".

I was presenting a consistent and supported argument, not talking out of both sides of my mouth.

OneWingedShark:"But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility."

Eh, nowhere a part of my argument does it involve that labor necessarily having the same consistent value, but rather only that the laborer and the employer agree upon the work and the value in advance. If the laborer is making birdhouses from that wood and tools, and suddenly there are others in the market making the same birdhouse, suddenly the time spent building bird houses is of less value because it is in less demand. Under those conditions, the employer might dismiss a number of workers, producing less birdhouses, or he might negotiate to pay the workers less, or perhaps find another market item to build using the wood and tools. However there's a good chance that the new market item, other than the birdhouse, might have a lower market value for the item, given the financial incentive to build that birdhouses rather than the new item in the first place.

None of this diminishes the fact that the labor is exchanged for a recognition of the work itself having a certain (but not necessarily constant) value. By taxing wages, the government is essentially saying that is all profit, ignoring the expense by the laborer of the labor itself.

Your reference to Matthew has no bearing on the argument at hand whatsoever, as it is merely an individual choosing to give laborers more than what was otherwise owed them.

Nowhere does what I argue involve setting up any sort of "foundation for a framework of labor-laws", for a whole range of reasons, but primarily because nowhere do I argue that labor has an absolute value, but rather only that it has an agreed-upon value -- it's called Free Market Capitalism.

OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."

Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.

As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment, the Court went out of its way to assert that the 16th Amendment provided no new taxing authority, insisting that income tax for employment were never a "direct" to-the-person tax, but always an indirect "excise" tax. Yet an excise tax an "event tax" paid upon the event of a purchases of a specific good, such as gasoline. I should not have to go to the extent of arguing the profound difference between employment and purchase of something, but contrary to your claim, by the very fact that wages are reduced to just a "sale", it reduces the labor provided to having no value. Furthermore, unlike the employer who when subject to excise sales tax on those "birdhouses", where the employer can charge more for the value of the birdhouses, the laborer is not free to charge more for the value of his labor to compensate for the theft of that labor by the federal government - which is enslavement.

While wages for labor may be paid at a single point, the "pay period", that is only by convenience, as it is actually earned at every point along the way. However it is a difficult argument that payment for gasoline, or clothes, is at all similar by being an accumulated obligation for use of gasoline or cloths along the way.

As recognized in the 1787 Pennsylvania Ratification contention notes, in being subjected to a direct tax on wages, a worker will pay all that he has to preserve "his head", but with an excise tax on birdhouses or gasoline sales, the provider of these services is not subject to the same sort of coercion. This is why such a direct income tax was recognized as "so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments." Direct taxation essentially enslaves people to the government. Contrary to Obama and others claim that "you didn't build that", I'm quite certain that the federal government is not a partner in my labor, or existence.

What you fundamentally argue for is the legitimacy of that despotism, but then claim foul on my part when I only provided you the explanation that we have all been habituated to the belief in the validity of a direct income tax. If you intend to validate our enslavement by legitimizing a direct personal income tax, then you need to find your own excuse now to do so. Thus far your argument has not provided any such excuse..

OneWingedShark indicated, "Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?"

You were responding to my reference to "independent presentments" being made by a grand jury, without any direction provided by the Court system. While the 5th Amendment indicates that no person shall be made to answer for a capital crime without " presentment or indictment" by a grand jury, nowhere does that involve that idea that every presentment by a grand jury must followed -- which is a flaw of logic.

Furthermore your argument ignores the penchant for grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich." And, NO, the recognition that the conclusions of grand juries might be flawed, or wrong, does not involve, as you indicate, "stripping away the power of presentment." No such body or singular individual should have that singular authority. Just being "the people" does not grant them with enlightenment or wisdom, as those same "the people" occupy every other position in government too, and all are flawed.

Even the power of indictment held by a legitimate grand jury, does not empower any ad hoc group of individuals calling themselves a grand jury with any authority at all, particularly not extending to anything beyond that group itself. We don't recognize mob rule, in whatever form, no matter what fabricated, corrupt rationalization might be applied to justify it.

While the claim that the independent presentments are no longer valid, is a false fabrication stemming from only one advisory note comment having no legal authority, this does not imply that all presentments must be followed, as they are not necessarily valid. So, no, an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary for the court to ignore an independent presentment.

OneWingedShark previously commented, "Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.

I forgot to address this comment in my previous response..

I do not see how the welfare state would at all be "resolved" by 1) a move to a physically-based currency, and/or 2) limitation on the amount of debt assumed.

Neither having a currency based on physical asset, nor any limit to debt would at all effect the welfare state in any way. These are both falsehoods, based on.. I-don't-know-what.

The only thing that would directly affect that welfare state is to get the government out of exercising 'agendas" whatsoever by limiting the government exclusively to the enumerated powers. Those enumerated powers do not provide for a welfare state, and do not allow government to write Any LAWS directly applicable to the citizenry of the several States. This would prohibit a slate of federal laws now wrongly deemed above and beyond state laws, prohibit "hate crime" legislation, and would prohibit the EPA, FDA, DOI, USDA, and a host of tyrannous government agencies from acting on the people themselves.

And it would prohibit anyone in the government from pronouncing that they would make the price of energy "necessarily skyrocket". There would be no federal authority to advance the corrupt fabrication of anthropogenic "Climate Change", even having the ignorance to declare CO2 a pollutant.

However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.

Thereby we "the people", from the actions of those "delegates", a bunch of unknown and unelected buffoons, would have our implied consent, yet nowhere provided and often contrary to our will. What a Convention of the States is a sure-fire cure for is finding cause for bloody, violent revolution, wherein those delegates themselves are the enemy. (I do not believe it a coincidence that the map for Jade Helm 15 indicates red areas of the southwest to be "hostile" or "insurgent", and these corresponding to areas more likely to reject fundamental changes to the Constitution.)

There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity. Furthermore, if the government just accumulates more debt (under that welfare state), it will then demand ever-more taxes. And you seem okay to shackle our employment wages with that debt, harnessed slaves pulling along that the welfare state with our every breath.

There should be no taxation on personal labor wages whatsoever. Taxation on income from properties or investments are another story.