So, if I create a trust out of my own property, that gives me the right to tax you?
Only if I accept being a beneficiary of the trust.
I disagree.
Based on what? You have a right to offer the trust. What supermajority has ratified it? If I don't like the terms I renounce the benifice and go my merry way.
But if you think otherwise, the tax bill for this year that you owe to the trust I've set up is $50,000, payable immediately.
What does it offer me in protection and service that I don't already have under the Constitution of the United States and what provision are in it? How am I better off?
Show us the trust document, and go through the ratification process for adoption and we'll see. Otherwise, I simply renounce your "gift" and stay with what I have, the Constitution of the United States.
I think the Founders would be shocked to discover, that their Constitution, whose purpose was to form a government for the purpose of protecting and defending the rights of the people (including the rights to Life, Libery and Property,) was in fact nothing more than a stealth taking of all property from all private individuals, with the effect that the government would be the de facto owner.
They were well aware of the extensive powers of the taxing clauses. Looking over the debates, they were quite aware of the broad extent of the Constitution's powers to tax the individual and Madison among others argued specifically to assure those powers had no boundries in amount. Interesting that they proposed and ratified it to tax as much as necessary to assure the continued survival of the nation, isn't it.
Also, I don't see any documentation from 1789 (or any time, for that matter) that actually sets up a trust such as you describe
Constitution for the United States of America:
It certainly is not a contract.
It's true that a club can set whatever conditions for membership that it wants, so long as there is nothing about those conditions that would be intrinsically wrong morally. This follows from the right to Liberty, which is the right to do whatever is not morally wrong.
Sorry the Constitution is not a Club. A measure of morality? Which measure do you intend to adopt. Christian?, Moslem?, Hindu? Jewish?, Buddist?, Zorastrian? Humanist? Agnostic?, Atheist? Communist? Third Reich? ...
Better leave it to a least a supermajority ratification of charter members to kick it off the launch pad.
sending armed men to your home and evicting you from your community, on the grounds that only members of the chess club can live in the community?
The community was established under the charter of the Trust (i.e. Constitution). Sorry your analogy simply does not fly. You are provided an all expense paid vacation at club Fed by operation of law under due process instead if you decide to stick around but don't pay the dues.
If you don't like that you may renounce membership and depart the jurisdiction.
By what right does the club do either of these things?
The Constitution is not your club. Your hypotheticals fail to meet the conditions of a ratifiable trust charter thus do not fall within the parameters of a reasonable conjecture. Quit throwing up meaningless strawmen arguments.
My problem with the US tax situation is precisely analagous to the problem you would have with the chess club in the example.
No parallel exists, your chess club is an unratifiable imaginary hypothetical strawman with no existence in reality. Anyone can construct there own tightly constrained hypotheticals all day and shoot them down. That establishes nothing more than your imaginative abilities.
Therefore, the US has no moral right to remove me from my own land
Sorry but a tax debt is as valid as any other kind of debt, if you are unable to pay such debts then a sale of property can be morally ordered under due process and there is certainly a moral right to remove from you any possessions sufficient to service a debt owed.
So my apparent continued "acceptance" of the club's rules is invalid, because it is coerced by the threat of having my inalienable right to Liberty, Free Association and Property violated (in other words, by extortion).
Again you have tried to use a strawman argument to bluff your way through.
The only threat that arose was out of your decision to not renounce citizenship and still expect to not pay the tax. Due process under the provisions of the trust charter set the ultimate and predictable result. Be current in your debts, then renounce your membership and depart, no problem other than those you have created for yourself by make illconsidered decisions in your attempt to extract more than is due you under the Trust provisions.
They certainly had the Liberty right to create a trust. They didn't, though.
The Constitution certainly is not a contract. By your own arguments and admission.
Trust or Will is all that remains. Which is it? The qualities of the Constitution are those of a charter, establishing the provisions of a Trust. Your mere assertion otherwise, is neither useful to the debate nor consistent with your own arguments.
But even if they had, they still would have no right to do what is morally wrong--
True, but the only practical measure of moral is the supermajority ratification of chartermembers.
such as violating the rights to Liberty, Free Association and Property
Such rights pertain to the charter provisions governing the protection of rights through trial and due process.
of those who don't care to be beneficiaries of such a trust
Those who don't care to be beneficiaries simple recind any protection by the trust. Sorry but that is life.
(or members of the club, which is a more accurate analogy of what actually pertains).
The strawman doesn't fly.
The only right they didn't have, was to violate the rights of others.
Shall we look then at whose rights you intrude on in attempting to demand protections as one who has renounced protections of the Trust?
What right do have as an alien to the trust to call upon the trust member's consideration or concern in jury. That certainly is an imposition on those citizens for one who has renounced participation in the provisions of the Trust. Due process is a function of the established trust. The courts and rules therefore are provided in the trust. The members operate in accord with provisions of that trust and fund those operations through the trust provisions of taxation.
When you stand outside the trust jurisdiction, you have your rights, but it is incumbant upon you to protect them.
Liberty? As long as a warlord with a bigger guns and a gang doesn't want something from you.
Property? As long as you can protect it from the wolves circling round.
Life? You might get to keep it if your strong enough, or run fast enough giving up the other two to the wolves. Then it only becomes a matter of how long you survive, knowing you cannot impose on the rights of the members of the trust.
The society you renounced owes you nothing. The wolves are always there, circling, and they care not for your "Rights" only their own personal gain.
I see the Constitution as the deed of title whereby those who voted in favor in 1789 granted certain authority to a designated agent for certain specified purposes.
And how does this concept of "deed of title" of yours differ from the charter of a trust? Descriptively I see a trust charter being described, with a name substitution which apparently pleases your fancy. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
On what resource has that agent been specifically authorised to draw on to facilitate the exercise of that authority and pay the debts and incurred costs advancing those certain specified purposes appropriately.
I will offer you a moral reason for taxation of each and every citizen;
To appraise the electorate of the true burdens of their demands for largess or more from government, that the historical imperative of Tytler may be impeded:
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Without that substantive and necessary feedback of the cost of general government operating in common, and introduced into, the life of each citizen, the electorate cannot and will not excerise due diligence or that Eternal Vigilance that is their duty and obligation to preserve Liberty, or any other rights.