Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ek_hornbeck

Firstly, a tax on assets would be a direct tax as the Supreme Court interprets that term, and so would have to be apportioned among the States.

Secondly:

“It was once said, in this country, that taxation without consent was robbery. And a seven years’ war was fought to maintain that principle. But if that principle were a true one in behalf of three millions of men, it is an equally true one in behalf of three men, or of one man. 

Who are ever taxed? Individuals only. Who have property that can be taxed? Individuals only. Who can give their consent to be taxed? Individuals only. Who are ever taxed without their consent? Individuals only. Who, then, are robbed, if taxed without their consent? Individuals only. 

If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, a single honest dollar in its treasury. 

*If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.* 

If any man’s money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists. 

*That your whole claim of a right to any man’s money for the support of your government, without his consent, is the merest farce and fraud, is proved by the fact that you have no such evidence of your right to take it, as would be required of you, by one of your own courts, to prove a debt of five dollars, that might be honestly due you.”* ~ Lysander Spooner, _Letter To Grover Cleveland_ => http://lysanderspooner.org/LetterToGroverCleveland.htm

“No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either ‘taxation without consent is robbery,’ or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the same natural right to defend his property against a taxgatherer, that he has to defend it against a highwayman.” ~ Lysander Spooner


5 posted on 09/02/2015 9:15:22 AM PDT by sourcery (Without the right to self defense, there can be no rights at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sourcery

Great comments.


18 posted on 09/02/2015 9:31:13 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: sourcery
“It was once said, in this country, that taxation without consent was robbery. And a seven years’ war was fought to maintain that principle. But if that principle were a true one in behalf of three millions of men, it is an equally true one in behalf of three men, or of one man.

The founders fought against taxation without representation. Taxes are necessary and the concept of no taxation without individual consent is ridiculous.

20 posted on 09/02/2015 9:32:59 AM PDT by pgkdan (But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson