mick wrote on August 10, 2008 11:52 AM: sunday aug. 10-U speak like a politician Y don't U just say legalize drugs, tax them and stop the war on drugs. the first state that does this will not need the help of the GOV. the income from the tax would support the hole state. the only reason they R not legal is because of the drug&alcohol companys, doctors & lawyers mick

J wrote on July 26, 2008 04:48 PM: Awesome artcile on a repressive gov't.

Roger C.H. wrote on July 23, 2008 11:37 PM: John F.,

Yes, I see where you are headed there, and I do believe that we are closer on this than we think. You have certainly given me reason to think this through more... and look for alternate solutions to my current paradigm.

I would, at this time, have to agree with "Brutus" in the Antifederalist papers # 23, where he states "It seems to me as absurd, as it would be to say, that I was free and independent, when I had conveyed all my property to another, and was tenant to him, and had beside, given an indenture of myself to serve him during life." As I see any direct tax for any reason as this indentured servitude.

The belief here is simply this. Why do we find it acceptable to allow the government to do to us and others what we would not find acceptable from our neighbors? If your neighbor came to you and asked for help with (insert your program here) you may be inclined to help. But if he came to your house and demanded it with a baseball bat in hand (by force) you would promptly reply with greater force as necessary.

Few of us would allow our neighbors to stake a claim on what is rightfully ours, even if our entire neighborhood association voted with a "majority"' that they should have it. Why is it that we accept this from our government?

The problem I have with your "I believe that things like the..." is that there is no end to what we will allow if we give way to that argument. It simply becomes a matter of who can gain the majority, so they can violate the minorities rights.

That is certainly not what the Founders intended. And we are reaping the consequences now.

John F wrote on July 23, 2008 02:28 PM: Roger C. H.,

I think we're closer on this than you imagine. The framers of the constitution wrote it specifically so there could not be an income tax. Each state had to be taxed equally. Since states were of varying populations it was extremely unlikely that any but a minimal federal tax on the states would ever get through Congress.

The sixteenth amendment changed that. Now such a tax is not only constitutional, it allows the government to do things like create national parks and social security that it never could have done without the tax, regardless of how you interpret the general welfare clause. There just wouldn't have been the money for it.

Where we differ is that I believe that things like national parks, the Marines, and social security are worth paying taxes for; that they advance the general welfare to the point where taking a portion of everyone's income (even by force of law) is justified.

I agree with you and Paolo, however, that much of what Congress does these days does not promote the general welfare. The farm bill is a great case in point. So is our tax code itself. The government uses the tax code to try and get us to behave in certain ways favoring some at the expense of others. To my way of thinking that is a clear violation of the fourteenth amendment. Taxing wealthy people at a higher rate denies them the equal protection of the law (and no, I am not wealthy - this is about fairness).

We certainly need to rein in our government; it has arrogated to itself far too many powers, but we needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. At least not yet.

Thank you also for excellent, provocative posts.

Roger C.H. wrote on July 23, 2008 10:08 AM: John F.

Thank you again for another good post. I think I am starting to see what you are getting at...

If you are asking me if I find all taxes immoral, yes, certainly I do, and you are right, no argument from me.

Now, while I find them immoral, I am willing to roll back to the original intent of the founders, and that is simply this...

The federal government is authorized by the U.S. Constitution to have some form of income to operate with, and as plainly laid out by the founders and what worked exceptionally well for our forefathers for over 130 years was the system that they had put in place.

The system of import and export tax was a system that worked, because it limited the federal government by making them keep the taxes high enough to collect income on, yet low enough to collect income on. They had to keep them low enough if they wanted income, or like I said before, you could tell them to take a flying leap. Then the decision was theirs to make, reduce the tax, or go broke this year... hu... that's a tough one...

My point here is, that system of even being allowed to tell them to take a leap is infinitely better than a direct tax on 95% of the people's income, which was never the founders intent, rather than profits gained from business. Then it was take a bit of a bite, and make them balance their budget or go broke. As things are now, they just keep taxing because they don't have a limit to what we can produce and that they can extort from us.

John F wrote on July 22, 2008 11:02 PM: Paolo,

Well...no.

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional since the Marbury decision over 200 years ago. The Court has ruled that social security and national parks are constitutional. In doing so they did not break with precedent. These things have never been held to be unconstitutional. The fact that national parks didn't exist in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is not cause to assume they were and are unconstitutional exercises of federal power.

The constitution specifically bans warrantless searches. It singles them out for special attention in the fourth amendment. I don't see anything in the constitution that specifically bans the creation of a national park.

I agree that the farm bill is a usurpation of power on the part of the government. In order for a governmental program to be constitutional it must be for the GENERAL welfare. The farm bill promotes the welfare of big agribusiness, not the general population.


Roger C. H.,

The government never had the right to make you export, but your logic also says that the government doesn't have the right to keep you from exporting by taxing you either.

But all taxes are coercive in that if a good, service, or income is taxed and you want to purchase or earn said good, service, or income, you must pay the tax associated with it and failing to do so is punishable by law. So the question still remains, and it's a philosophical one. What makes something, anything, so important that we should take people's money by force?

But I think framing the question that way is wrong because we elected the people that passed these taxes in the first place. If we want to get rid of the taxes we only need elect people who will do that. People like Ron Paul.

Mutineer wrote on July 21, 2008 01:11 PM: We've changed in the last 100 years? Really?

Entered for discussion: The Teapot Dome Scandal (1921 - OK that was 87 years ago...I owe you some)

Highlights include:

--Federal land grab of oil reserves

--Favorable treatment to companies by members of the Fed

--Bribes (loans) accepted by members of the Fed

--Records mysteriously disappearing upon investigation

--BI breaks in and wiretaps offices of members of Congress that exposed scandal

While technological advances leap forward at an incredible pace, human nature has been the same for thousands of years; stop deluding yourself.

Paolo wrote on July 21, 2008 05:43 AM: Let's try it one more time:

Article One, Section 8 begins with the phrase about laying and collecting taxes in order to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Of course, the next clause about uniform taxation is superseded by the 16th amendment (to all our detriments, I might add). Then, a semicolon, introducing the next enumerated power, followed by a handful of other enumerated powers.

Up until the late 19th century, with some exceptions when the politicians knew no one was looking, Congress stuck with the enumerated powers.

Does this mean the Federal government has no authority to establish a National Park System? Exactly. No power to establish a Social Security Ponzi scheme? Exactly. And so forth.

Now, McCulloch vs. Maryland stated that state action may not impede valid federal action. Exactly. And those actions not enumerated in the Constitution itself are invalid. This also includes farm bills (unless they fall under a narrowly-construed concept of "regulating interstate commerce.")An individual state could create and enforce a "farm bill," or create a state park, since these are "powers reserved to the states."

But again, fear not--your welfare/warfare state is perfectly safe. After all, the Constitution is now "interpreted" by black-robed criminals, who twist its meaning to whatever they want it to say.

If Congress can pull the power to create National Parks out of thin air, then I suppose Bush has the power to authorize warrantless spying, too. After all, it's for the "general welfare," isn't it? And maybe even for the "common defense."

Roger C.H. wrote on July 20, 2008 10:15 PM: John F.

Thanks for the reply, and the spelling correction, I am obviously public schooled handicapped as well. Now that I have eaten my crow, back to our regularly scheduled debate...

So what if there were "...no automobiles... airplanes... multinational corporation."? There were no microwave ovens, Velcro or about half a million other things we have today, what does that have to do with the argument?

"Further, taxing me to export my goods... seizing money from me against my will. Right?"

Wrong. How do you compare the two? If you look at the tax you when you want to export and you think it's unreasonable or too high, you can tell them to take a flying leap. You will make your tax free profits stateside and leave them with nothing... The government never had the right to MAKE you export.

If you as a consumer saw an imported product that was too expensive due to taxes or not, you could tell them to take a leap, again the government lost, you won, as no one could make you purchase.

So no, "...that isn't that what all taxation is, no matter in what form."

To answer your last question: "So the central point still remains... funding the courts makes taking someone's money by force justifiable?

Nothing. Nothing makes it okay to fund either if you have to enslave a people to do it. Either do it via the historic established and Constitutional methods, or don't do it at all.

In either case, it is the fox guarding the hen house, a primary conflict of interest. Would you give you kids to a corporation to educate? Especially if that corporation levied your paycheck in order to provide for everyones children? Do you think that they would teach your kids about other corporations or lines of thought that show alternatives?

Sad Summerlin wrote on July 20, 2008 08:51 PM: Vin's articles always bring out the best comments and great debate. I learn equally as much from the posters as I do from Vin... nice to see us keeping the discourse pleasant for once around here...

(all "moron" comments ignored... there's always few).

Read All Comments