Posted on 04/16/2002 2:29:49 AM PDT by sourcery
However, the thesis I am making here is that the Constituion--and those who wrote it, approved it and voted it into effect had and have no moral right to impose taxes on me as a condition for living on my own property.
The Constitution is a bequest established by one generation in its capacity of sovereign authority passed on to its Posterity in the form of a trust.
The bequest of a trust theory does not condition the payment of taxes for living on your property or any where else for that matter, nor receipt of any benefit beyond mere access to it provisions of protection.
Payment of taxes is a pure obligation of the status as a beneficiary of the trust to adhere to its provisions and support its existence through a financial participation.
You may renounce your status giving up access to its provisions of protection on your own unilateral decision at any time.
What is your point? Is it okay to steal from someone if they have more than you?
What is it paying taxes is keeping you from getting?
Peace of mind?
And if the vast majority decides that handguns must be banned, or that you're not allowed to be a Methodist in this country, should gun owners and Methodists just have to leave?
I agree that a national handgun ban or a Methodist ban probably won't happen. But for argument's sake, let's say that we get both bans. Or better yet, let us say that your religion/personal philosophy has been banned.
From your last post, I get the idea that you would move, because that would be the only realistic option open to you. But would you agree that you should have to move? Would you accept the majority's decision as a legitimate law?
My question is this:
Who is more immoral:
1] the 'tax protester' who doesn't pay, but supports himself and 'takes' nothing from the system or
2] the person who doesn't support himself but lives off the earnings of hard working people who do pay taxes or
3] the government that imposes such a system on it's citizens?
I translated your comment into French, and then back into English. The result: "I already gave at the office."
Ok.
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Morality functions according to the principle of cooperation towards achieving a common goal. The motivation to live according to moral principles is that doing so maximizes an individual’s ability to achieve his goals without interference from others. The purpose of a moral code is to establish the terms of a common agreement to cooperate towards the achievement of the one goal we all have equally: the free exercise of our will. The opportunity to achieve our goals is significantly enhanced if others agree to rules that specify the conditions under which they will not actively interfere with the free exercise of our will. Of course, others will have no reciprocal motivation to respect such rules in our favor, if we have the reputation of not respecting the rules that are in their favor. So rational morality is motivated by rational self-interest, because of the common goal of freedom, the power of cooperation, and the principle of reciprocity.
Reciprocity is why it is not in anyone's self-interest to either permit another to deprive him of his rights, or to let anyone else's rights be deprived: because respect for the rights of each individual depends upon respect for the rights of all. Rights therefore require reciprocal respect for the rights of others. Reciprocal respect for the rights of others requires trust. And trust requires predictability of behavior and a reputation of commitment to moral principles—especially in extreme situations.
On this, we totally agree.
The bequest of a trust theory does not condition the payment of taxes for living on your property or any where else for that matter, nor receipt of any benefit beyond mere access to it provisions of protection.
Payment of taxes is a pure obligation of the status as a beneficiary of the trust to adhere to its provisions and support its existence through a financial participation.
You may renounce your status giving up access to its provisions of protection on your own unilateral decision at any time.
Well, I see you think you've found a novel argument. You haven't. I predict that the argument will go back and forth over this issue, though.
If someone wants to give me a gift, that is their right. And I have the right to either accept the gift, or to reject it. The same is true with respect to a debt (a negative gift, so to speak).
A trust is a valid example of the sort of gift that a parent may give to his or her children, or to all his or her heirs in perpetuity. The giver of such a trust has the right to set the conditions under which the heirs may make withdrawals from the trust--and those conditions may rightfully include fees that must be paid in order to withraw from the trust, or interest that must be paid on funds borrowed from the trust, or an equity interest that must be granted in the enterprises into which funds obtained from the trust may be invested. So far, your analogy holds up well.
But what if the person who set up the trust had no right to do so, or had no right to give what the trust documents say are the property of the trust? This is where I think we will differ.
We can clarify the situation if we go back in time to 1789, thus removing the issue of heirs entirely. For if what the Constitution purports to do be not moral in 1789, then it is not moral now, and talk of trusts and heirs is moot and non-sequitur.
By what right did a supermajority of citizens in 1789 give themselves the power to tax everyone who might ever be under the power of the US Government? I have no right to tax whomever I choose, so I cannot grant this right to others. And if I have not this right, and you have not this right, where did the voters in 1789 get this right, so that they could grant it to Congress in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?
I assert they had not the power to grant this right to Congress, because they didn't have any such right themselves. Back to you.
I have not and will not give my consent. I pay my taxes, and sign my tax forms, because of the threat of force (extortion). I maintain my citizenship because without it, I will be forcibly expelled from the place of my birth, where my family and friends all reside, and where the culture and language are familiar. The fact that I own my own property here won't protect me. Were the situation reversed, and I was the one with the preeminent power, requiring everyone else to leave unless they pay taxes to me, perhaps we'd be hearing differnt tunes from the peanut gallery.
Aren't they fighting a war somewhere right now over the issue of the right to live in one's own homeland?
You're here, aren't you?
By what right did a supermajority of citizens in 1789 give themselves the power to tax everyone who might ever be under the power of the US Government?
By the fact that the trust they created was out of their own rights, properties, and wealth. The same as any parent may create at trust out of what that which they own.
They had the right to obligate themselves to the provisions of the trust, which they did. They had the right to pass that trust on to their Posterity, and to make whatever provisions for those who voluntarily applied for and accepted membership (i.e. naturalization).
The conditions of membership in that trust include the financial support of it.
One is not forced to remain within the jurisdiction of that trust, one if free to unitlaterally renounce their beneficiary status (citizenship) and depart.
I have no right to tax whomever I choose, so I cannot grant this right to others.
You have the right to obligate yourself to the financial support of any instution or person you wish. You have the right to create a trust and expect that its provisions will be honored by those who are beneficiaries under that trust.
You may not force any individual to remain under the trust, but then the Constitution does not demand that either.
I assert they had not the power to grant this right to Congress, because they didn't have any such right themselves.
Your assertion misses the point, They had the right to create a trust obligating themselves, and selecting from themselves those representatives(a Congress) to maintain and exercise the provisions of that trust in their behalf. They had the right to pass that trust to suceeding genertions.
The only right they did not have, is a right to force anyone to remain beneficiaries. Thus the each citizen retains the right to renounce that citizenship and depart.
If you voluntarily remain in America, you are within its jurisdiction and are subject to its laws.
TANSTAAFL
Alk this instead of opening a book or two.
I have no clue where you got the arguments for taxation that you proceed to dismantle: most certainly, you have omitted the economic ones given in most economic texts. And the arguments that you do impute to the proponents are misrepresented.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.