When the Revolution was fought, incited by (among toher things) the Stamp Act, taxes were taken from the citizenry, and given to a quantifiable recipient, the Monarch.
every one knew the Monarch for all intents and purposes OWNED the Country, so any Tax levied, was a profit to the Monarch. This very direct realization, ensured a low tax rate, as any tax would be met with grumbling and Ire.
THEN, Democracy came along, and as long as Monarchical frames of reference still existed, taxes were still kept in check, but with the passage of time, and the evolution of the amorphus public good, That direct link was blurred, and then lost... Now, the argument is always made that the taxes that are confiscated from you go to the public good, including your own, hence the lessening of the ire, that once kept taxes in check.
2. Consistent with this principle, Zubly taught: "The electors cannot confer any right on those whom they elect but what is inherent in themselves."
This means: If individuals don't possess the right to rob their neighbor; they cannot empower representatives to rob for them!
Ok, he's 100% right and stating something painfully obvious yet virtually unknown. Now, would somebody explain to me why if I, as a fellow citizen and holder of inherent political power can't force you to pay me personally for the "privilege" of driving your car, our alleged representatives can? By the way, spare me the incantations danced around the Constitution and the obvious about "police power."
"The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal, and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions." (Federalist 21)
That's voluntary! The removal of the income tax, and the return to relying upon import taxes, or a national sales tax as the only legitimate tax, would honor the right to property, while providing for law and order and public safety.
Ok, it's obvious to me that Hamilton meant that there would not be across-the-board taxes on everything by virtue of the fact that the selected the term "judicious selection of objects" and at the same time, the author is calling for exactly that as a national sales tax!
What is wrong with this picture? This guy is on the right track but he still has some homework to do.
This seems to be one of the things we are finding out with the current administration.