# April 15



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

> quote:
> *Good day, fellow serfs
> 
> By Doug Casey*
> ...


****



> quote:
> *Slightly up from slavery
> 
> By Doug Casey*
> ...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

What is the alternative? Abolish government, so that everyone can consume more? Does this man have any clue as to what he's talking about? I can understand those who say that taxation in their particular jurisdiction is unreasonably high/ineffeciently collected/unfair, &c, but I just don't get these shrill 'taxation is theft' arguments.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

I can dig it, Harry. The size of government I would like to see in this country would not require more than a 5% tax rate. It's a pretty sobering thought that if a guy were to choose not to pay taxes men with guns would forcibly remove him from his home and put him in prison. 

What point in American history did we fall under such domination by the government? I feel like it has to do something with the establishment of the income tax.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Such tiresome stupidity really has no place here.

Please take it to one of the many lunatic right wing websites which infest the internet.

------------------


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Such tiresome stupidity really has no place here.
> 
> ...


Gmac,

The only thing tiresome is your incessant and uninformed posting. I have yet to see you engage in serious debate. You instead resort to dismissives because you frankly don't seem to have the needed abilities to engage in actual discourse.

If you want to try to make a case for the way American taxation is implemented, then make it. Otherwise, it would be best to let the grown ups talk.

Harry,

I agree with Casey and I put forth that the ways the government engages in transaction cost manipulation in order to cover up or obscure the realities behind our tax system are evidence that they are aware that they are engaging in theft.

For example, the government has long maintained that one half of FICA is payed by the employers (i.e. we supposedly pay 6 1/2 % and our employers supposedly match it). In reality, the money supposedly paid by the employer is actually paid by the employee in the form of lower wages. Employers know that they have to "match" your FICA "contribution". Therefore, your employer lowers what they would pay you if there was no FICA by 6 1/2 %. The government is fully aware that in reality this entire tax burden is paid by the employee and not matched by the employer.

I would also take Casey's point in the second article a little further and include the people who live off of the government dole as accessories to the crime.

In order for a man to survive, he can either live off the fruits of his own labors. OR he can live off the labor of others (i.e. theft). When someone agrees to take money that the government has forcibly extracted from the labors of private citizens he becomes party to the theft. He has asserted his rights to the toil and effort of another man. The only case when the acceptance of anothers fruits is not theft is when the individual who the products or wealth belong to gives them willingly.

Furthermore, our government was never granted the rights to tax in the manner that they do. The US constitution limited the powers of government to very specific areas. Redistribution of wealth was not one of them.

The government of the US has circumvented the amendment process and expanded into areas that are specifically denied to it by the constitution. Their purview grows without the requisite granting of powers by the people.

Certainly, I want a justice system and security. These are specifically granted to our government by the documents that formed our union. However, I am not willing to have security given to me through loss of liberties that are clearly stated as my rights in the constitution.

Through judicial activism and manipulation of information available to the citizenry, the people's power has been removed from them and replaced with a system of dependency. We must recover that which is ours and refuse to let our government continue its theft.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Such tiresome stupidity really has no place here.
> 
> ...


It's every bit as appropriate as your hate filled drivel.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

As a non smoker, it seems like the idea of a $200 per pack cigarette tax should be considered.

This would rapidly accelerate government research on cancer cures. They couldn't afford to let these people die.

Just a thought..........

Carpe Diem


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> 
> I can dig it, Harry. The size of government I would like to see in this country would not require more than a 5% tax rate. It's a pretty sobering thought that if a guy were to choose not to pay taxes men with guns would forcibly remove him from his home and put him in prison.
> 
> What point in American history did we fall under such domination by the government? I feel like it has to do something with the establishment of the income tax.


It is sobering. But it's not just taxes -- ALL regulations and government activities, no matter how benign they seem, are backed up with a gun.

It's strange that, for as much as government dominates life, I bet not one person in 100 could explain what they mean by a "government." I imagine most would have no coherent answer, and the rest would give some simplistic, high school civics class pablum about it being "us."

The answer is that a government is an agency of violence. Everythng governments do involves violence or the threat of violence. I look forward to a day when people see governments (people trying to reorder the world to their liking through violence, like barbarians) the way we see slavery today, as backwards, unethical and immmoral.

Some of the few who recognize this may argue that the ends justify the means. But besides being backwards, immoral and unethical, violence simply doesn't produce the results that are promised -- the means never materialize. Governments' promises to eradicate certain types of guns, arbitrarily chosen drugs, poverty, illiteracy, crime, lack of health care, lack of education, and on and on, have not only not succeeded, they've produced disastrous consequences across the board.

As an example that relates to taxes, politicians play on the envy of the economically illiterate by promising to steal money from the rich to give to the poor.

This sort of policy HURTS the poor. Most of the net worth of the mega-rich is saved or invested. Those savings and investments are used to start and expand businesses that give people (including the poor) much-needed jobs and create new products and services that increase everyone's standard of living (including that of the poor), or to give loans to poeple to buy things like homes.

As a very obvious (and admittedly overly-simplistic) example, there are roughly 300 million people in the U.S. Suppose one person in this country has $305 million and everyone else is poor (at least compared to him). So the government tells him he can live more than comfortably on $5 million, so they'll "allow" him to keep that much, but they're confiscating the other $300 million to "help" the poor. If they distribute it equally, everyone in the country would get a check for $1. No one's standard of living has been improved and the rich man's has been drastically diminished -- as has that of the poor, who missed out on the benefits of all of the productive investment his money could've done.

Then again, many egalitarians don't seem to care if their plans impoverish people as long as they make everyone more "equal." (People have disparate levels of intelligence, ambition, education, desire for money, "things," social respectability, etc, so income inequality is inherent in a free society and is nothing to be concerned about as long as no one is making their money from fraud or violence.)

It's sickening to see politicians making such proposals and to see people in the crowd who will be adversely affected cheering for them, like idiots.

There may be some value in police, courts and prisons when they go after true criminals (those who have encroached on others' bodies or property, like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.). But the governments of the world murdered 200 MILLION people in the 20th Century through things like wars and genocides. How many were killed during the same period by common criminals on the street, acting without any state authority? (Whatever the number is, I'm sure it's a tiny fraction of 200 million, and it would be even less if there weren't governments around to create black markets and various legal disincentives for people to defend themselves and their property). When you look at the facts, it seems obvious that the alleged protector is more dangerous than what it's supposedly protecting you from.

Even so, if the federal government existed solely to provide a missile defense and border and shore patrol to repel incoming military invasions, a court system to hear appeals from states and hear charges of treason, piracy and counterfeiting (the only federal crimes the constitution authorizes), and a few other minor functions, and there was no income tax or other direct contact with the feds for peaceful people; and at the city or county level, there were jails, courts and police for violent criminals and to decide civil matters, all supported by a 1/2% or 1% local sales tax or something, and that's basically all the government there was, and people who don't intrude on others' bodies or property could be left alone, that would be acceptable to me. It might be better if even that wasn't there, but it would be a very minor inconvenience at most. Unfortunately, we're a long way away from that.

The Civil War seems to be the first major turning point, but I agree that the income tax was the major shift. I believe the direct election of senators -- enacted in the same year -- was another major factor, because senators were then no longer beholden to block encroachments by the federal government against their states. Maybe the biggest factor was government taking over education around 1865-1895; for one thing, the fact that by 1913 several generations had endured the 12-year brainwashing that the state is their savior may have been one of the reasons that they were willing to tolerate the imposition of the income tax.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Hear hear!

Taxation is theft, JLPWCXIII. The alternative to taxation is not to abolish government, but to devise a more fair method of funding the government. There are several reasonable alternatives that are based on free choice rather than the threat of death. 

I can tolerate taxation for certain things, however. I am perfectly willing to pay for the national defense so long as it isn't bloated by useless military contracts or pointless foreign wars. I am willing to pay for the machinery of the valid parts of government (salaries for the legislature, president, etc.) and I am willing to pay for courts and police.

There is a certain baseline of functionality that any government msut have in order to actually be a government, and the above list is all that there needs to be. Anything beyond that is theft, and unjustified theft at that. The government collecting money for anything beyond the necessary tools of defense, law and police by force is inherently immoral and evil.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

How I miss being an expat. You didn't have to file until August 15th and the first 84k was tax free. A pity Bush didn't begin his second term by pushing for a flat tax. 

karl


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. Probably the worst mistake the Founders made was not figuring out a way to make the constitution self-enforcing (although, in fairness, I have no idea how that could've been done either).

Except for setting up the basic framework of the branches of government, the constitution is 100% dead. The 10th Amendment explicitly states that the federal government is prohibited from doing anything that the constitution doesn't expressly authorize. Jefferson said that was the cornerstone of the whole document.

Politicians were already using the "general welfare" clause to get around that and justify unconstitutional activities shortly after the constitution was ratified; Madison said the clause did not authorize the federal government to do anything it wanted, and asked the obvious question of why the constitution would specifically enumerate the government's powers, only to throw it all away with a loophole that allowed the government to do anything, so long as it justified it as being in the "general welfare." I think Madison would know a little something about what any part of the constitution was intended to mean, since he wrote it.

That's why the amendment process is there -- to add authorizations.

There is no authority anywhere in the constitution for Social Security, any federal involvement in healthcare, the FBI, DEA, BATF, EPA, FDA, any laws about drugs, any gun control, unprovoked attacks on other countries for any reason, or lots of other things. According to the constitution, easily 95% of what the federal governent does today is illegal.

That concept was largely understood even 90 years ago; the income tax, Federal Reserve Act and Prohibition all required constitutional amendments.

The turning point was probably the income tax, which gave the government the money and power to do anything it wanted.

Today the concept of constitutional restraint is totally gone; is there any proposal to expand government in any way that any Congressperson or Senator could make that would get him or her laughed off the floor today? If anything, suggesting that the constitution limits government is all that would get one laughed off the floor and ridiculed by the media today.

Nazi Germany and the USSR both had constituions similar to ours. They don't seem to do much good, do they?

Jefferson believed the government couldn't do anything not expressly authorized in the constitution. He also not only believed that state governments could nullify federal laws; the entire concept was his idea. If he were alive today, he'd be considered a lunatic.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Dr. Ron Paul, pretty much the only person in Congress about whom I can say one good word, wrote this article last week about the income tax. Among other things, he points out that federal spendng is so out of control that the income tax could be totally repealed if the budget were cut back just to the year 2000 level.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

In the last three months I have attended innumerable budget hearings for the two towns I cover - Sharon and Kent, Conn.

The elected officials - all but two receive a small stipend and can hardly be called professional politicians - really go over these town and school budgets, questioning every line.

That's because these people have to answer to their neighbors when it comes time to set the mill rate.

It's boring as hell to cover for a newspaper, but I really think such local control makes for much better government.

And it's interesting to note that a lot of these NW Connecticut towns are scrambling to get grants and such from the federal and state governments for various projects. There's an instant disconnect - the same people who are trimming every ounce of fat from the town's road maintenance budget cheerfully ask for funds from state and federal sources. The distance to Hartford or Washington seems to make them forget that's their money, too.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

That's true too. Governments are probably less tyrannical at the local level, in part because the people running the government know that the things they do affect their family, friends, neighbors and others whom they personally know. 

It's also much better for power to be decentralized in such a way because cities, counties and states compete with each other; if any petty local tyrants turn up, people can fairly easily move to another jurisdiction. (That's why one of the few things the constitution authorizes the federal government to do is to prevent states from erecting physical borders, like walls and fences.) If a locality loses enough people, it'll lose enough tax revenue that it'll have to change whatever is making people leave, or else it'll have almost no money or citizens left.

Such a system also makes it more obvious when government programs are causing problems. If all significant power today were at the state and local level, if one state had a government like the U.S. of today and a neighboring state had a government like the U.S. of 100 years ago, the quality of life in the freer state (with the 1906-style limited government) would be so much better that it would be obvious that these government programs are to blame for (insert problem here). And, as I said, people would be moving en masse to the freer state, which would force the less free state to change or lose its tax base.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Amen, Harry96!

I preach these (lost) Consitutional concepts often to my middle daughter. It almost makes me ill that so much of it is considered so very politically incorrect these days. States' rights, so vitally important to our Founding fathers, is passÃ©.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> Gmac,
> 
> ...


Hey Badrabbit! Nice to see you have cheered up a little. But no more funnies for us? I've been waiting impatiently for more of your biting satirical wit.

I'll come back to the American tax system and point out how completely harebrained it is for all you extreme right wingers to call it "theft at the point of a gun".

But maybe I'll leave it a while, see how high your blood pressure can get before your head actually explodes.

------------------


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

The federal government has been forcing the collection of taxes by force since the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. George Washington himself called out the militias of three states, put together nearly 15,000 men and led them himself to Pennsylvania to enforce the tax on whiskey. 
Complaining about taxes, refusing to pay them and then being forced to at gunpoint isn't new, it's as old as our government. Well, nearly as old, the constitution went into effect in 1788 and 6 years later they forced payment of taxes. 
Not exactly modern thinking is it.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> Amen, Harry96!
> 
> I preach these (lost) Consitutional concepts often to my middle daughter. It almost makes me ill that so much of it is considered so very politically incorrect these days.


The constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

------------------


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was one of the main reasons the constitution was written in the first place. The Articles of Confederation didn't allow any ability to tax and that was a great weakness for the government.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I doubt you'll ever step in with anything of any substance. Then again there is a first time for everything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harry96_
> 
> Nowhere, except perhaps in a few newsletters, which are preaching to the choir, do you ever hear an attack on the principle of taxation itself. Rather odd when, in point of fact, taxation is theft. My dictionary defines theft as "the act of depriving another of his property by force or fraud." It doesn't go on to say "unless you're the government, then it's not theft anymore." Or, perhaps, "unless the money is used for good purposes."


So it appears that Mr Casey is attacking the principles of the constitution of the United States.

He compares the founding fathers who created the constitution, including the provisions that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, and their successors to muggers and thieves.

And so, isn't this an indictment of the concept of goverment as a whole. Isn't this an indictment of the beloved constitution of our country.

Well, you can do what you want to us but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!

Gentlemen!

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> I doubt you'll ever step in with anything of any substance. Then again there is a first time for everything.


Then I have to doubt whether you have actually bothered to read the threads that I have posted on. Too busy thinking up your hilarious one-liners?

I'm getting bored of your boorish surliness. I think I'll just ignore you for a spell (see how easy it is?).

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> The constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:
> 
> "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."


That doesn't include income tax, until you hit the 16th amendment, which may or may not have been properly ratified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Controversy

Problem- The copies of the amendment the states ratified varied in punctuation, mis-types, capitalization errors, and some differing words. Only four were exactly the same as the wording that was entered into Congress for consideration.

The case for- The errors were minor and the gist of the amendment was clear to the state legislatures.

The case against- In legal writing, every comma, period and word makes a difference. Many people belive that the comma in the second amendment means that private citizens, not under the authority of an army or militia, are not permitted to own firearms. For something as critically important as a constitutional amendment, every single copy the states ratified should be exactly the same, or the ratification should be invalid.

As I see it- The lawyers I know are fanatical about any official writing they do, usually having secerataries and paralegals double check everything they submit. This is for relatively minor real estate transactions. Something as major as an amendment should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, hundreds of times. That's one of the reasons you have every state legislature eyeball it. If there were ANY differences in the copy received by the state legislatures, congress should have kicked it back for another go-round. Of course, the fed wanted MONEY NOW, legal procedure and ethics be damned.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I would like to point out that I do believe,the Framers specifically forbade a "head tax" which is generally construed to include an income tax. Please correct me if I am incorrect, I well could be. I do also seem to remember when reading _The Federalist Papers_ that the Framers wanted the States to have more power to raise tax revenues that the Federal government, something that is no longer the case.

Lastly, I would like to caution people that seem to have recently read _Atlas Shrugged_ not to take John Galt too seriously. Taxation is not a statement equivalent for "theft".

Warmest regards

P.S. Do not feed the trolls.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having the power to collect taxes would seem to me to include any sort of tax the congress wished to pass. No?

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> I would like to point out that I do believe,the Framers specifically forbade a "head tax" which is generally construed to include an income tax.


Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Why would a head tax be construed to mean income tax? Surely a much more likely interpretation of head tax would be a flat tax levied per person, a poll tax?

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> Having the power to collect taxes would seem to me to include any sort of tax the congress wished to pass. No?


In general, monetary regulatory powers vested to the federal government only apply to interstate commerce. It took an amendment to give the federal government the power to take money directly from citizens in affairs that don't cross state borders.

This has changed radically with the recent marjuana decision by the supreme court, which held that the fed can regulate drug policy, even if the drugs do not cross state lines. At this point I'm not sure why we even bother with states anymore, when we have a giant federal bureaucracy making decisions for us. Horray for central planning! (Argh...)

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info, however, my post had more to do with his later posts in the thread (but I didn't want to muck up things with a huge "quote"), and not a challenge to the authorization of the gov't to impose tax.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just don't see where that comes from.

The article reads:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Now, I am no constitutional scholar but it seems plain to me that Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution expressly allows for the collecting of taxes.

Why they felt th eneed to bring in the 16th amendment i don't know - seems superfluous to me.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let us seek what Article I, Section 9 has to tell us. Specifically, Clauses 4 and 5 which limit direct taxation.

_No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. _

This was taken to preclude income taxation by the Federal government. It was the 16th Amendment that allowed the Federal government to get around the original Constitution. As I specifically stated, "the Framers", this precludes the 16th Amendment from my statement, as it occurred well over 100 years after the ratification of the original Constitution. Please feel free to disagree with this information gmac.

Warmest regards


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

Great post.

It is true that government has swollen far beyond its intended size, in all countries I think.

I wonder what the percentage of the government budget is spent simply keeping the government afloat? Buildng, staff, etc.

I DO beleive that we should have taxes, without them there would be no disaster relief, highways, military, police. However, their spending should be curtailed and the general populace should have to vote on any tax increases.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

OK, fair enough.

But then the 16th amendment expressly allows such taxation.

So what's the problem?

The original article does not specifically refer to income taxes, just taxes - such as those allowed by the framers of the constitution. As such, Mr Casey still seems to think of the original framers as mugggers and thieves.

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> Now, I am no constitutional scholar but it seems plain to me that Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution expressly allows for the collecting of taxes.
> 
> Why they felt th eneed to bring in the 16th amendment i don't know - seems superfluous to me.


See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

Part of the problem is that, originally, the US was set up more like the EU than a traditional country. Each state was pretty diverse, economically and socially, and the US, as a country, was set up to regulate interstate trade, keep England away, and make a common legal system to promote trade and commerce. Since then, more power has shifted from the states to the federal government, which causes all kinds of problems since the fed wasn't set up for that level of responsibility.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> OK, fair enough.
> 
> ...


The problem? Well, you seemed to have one with my statements. Please take this as evidence:



> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:
> ...


My original statement was posted in regards to your assertion a poster was attacking the Constitution. I pointed out that in actual fact, it was quite correct the Constitution did not allow for a federally collected direct income tax. You disagreed with this asking me to show you where this was stated. I did. No problems. I was quite correct, you were quite incorrect, the world is as it should be 

Further, you of course decided to argue with me over only part of my original post. The part where I pointed out Ayn Rand was also without merit re: taxation = theft you ignored. This is again an instance of my Three Group Tripartite system where those of Group #3 that attempt reason, balance, and objectivity come under immediate scrutiny by members of Group #1 and #2.

Cheers and Warmest regards


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Wayfarer, are you suggesting that ammending the constitution is bad? I really thought that the ability to ammend and interpret through time is what gave the constitution the flexibility to be as valid a document today as it was 200 years ago. Do you really think the founding fathers meant for the document to be interpred literally and not changed? It seems that the easiest solution to the problem of the government taking liberties with the document is simply (not really that simple though) to elect lawmakers that take a different view. We can certainly see through history that what's a good idea today can prove to be a bad idea later and change our mind. Witness ammendment 18. Certainly if the populous stood up and shouted and voted the right way the 16th could be repealed. 
I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm really curious.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> Wayfarer, are you suggesting that ammending the constitution is bad? I really thought that the ability to ammend and interpret through time is what gave the constitution the flexibility to be as valid a document today as it was 200 years ago. Do you really think the founding fathers meant for the document to be interpred literally and not changed? It seems that the easiest solution to the problem of the government taking liberties with the document is simply (not really that simple though) to elect lawmakers that take a different view. We can certainly see through history that what's a good idea today can prove to be a bad idea later and change our mind. Witness ammendment 18. Certainly if the populous stood up and shouted and voted the right way the 16th could be repealed.
> I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm really curious.
> ...


I am sorry Familyman, where did I insinuate that please?

Warmest regards


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Let us seek what Article I, Section 9 has to tell us. Specifically, Clauses 4 and 5 which limit direct taxation.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This was taken to preclude income taxation by the Federal government. It was the 16th Amendment that allowed the Federal government to get around the original Constitution. As I specifically stated, "the Framers", this precludes the 16th Amendment from my statement, as it occurred well over 100 years after the ratification of the original Constitution.


This part of your post above seemed to insinuate that those that passed the 16th somehow betrayed the founders when they went agianst what the founders wrote in. Maybe I was read too much into it but you seemed to think that the 16th was a very very bad idea and that lawmakers should stick to the original wording and intent of the constitution. In order to do that they would have to not ammend it I'd think.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> 
> > quote:
> ...


Well let us dissect my words you quoted.

1) I citied my exact source document and location
2) I quoted said excerpt
3) I provided the standard interpretation I've read numerous times
4) I qualified the time line as I felt sure gmac would attempt an ad hoc rescue referencing the 16th when my statement specifically referenced the Framers and their circa
5) No where is there a value judgment made on the 16th, merely a timeline placement

Yes, I am afraid you are a little "two shooters, grassy knoll" theory on this one.

Warmest regards


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Relax, I'm not attacking you. Your words in context with the conversation seemed to indicate that you weren't in favor of income tax. Would it have been so hard to simply explain where you were coming from insead of being abrasive? I though you were going to leave that role to gmac? (just having fun at your expense there gmac  )The internet can be fun, really it can.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> Relax, I'm not attacking you. Your words in context with the conversation seemed to indicate that you weren't in favor of income tax. Would it have been so hard to simply explain where you were coming from insead of being abrasive? I though you were going to leave that role to gmac? (just having fun at your expense there gmac  )The internet can be fun, really it can.


Oh, no offense taken my friend and I am quite relaxed, comes with being a member of Group #3. This is just how I play the game, as I feel it is nothing but that. I thought I did explain pretty well where I was coming from in a logical, chronological, and easy to read way! When people accuse me of things, i.e. being against this or for that, I merely ask them to point out where I said such a thing. More often than not, as in the above case, it was what the reader brought to my text, not the text itself (damn, now I sound like Foucault!).

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> Relax, I'm not attacking you. Your words in context with the conversation seemed to indicate that you weren't in favor of income tax. Would it have been so hard to simply explain where you were coming from insead of being abrasive? I though you were going to leave that role to gmac? (just having fun at your expense there gmac  )The internet can be fun, really it can.
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________


I don't think he's being abrasive. He is just selectively editing posts in order to avoid questions.

By assigning himself the qualities he sees in his #3 group - reason, objectivity, etc - he fails to realize that those who assign such qualities to themselves are generally the least likely to possess them.

"I am extremely clever"
"I am very tough"
"I'm a very reasonable and thoughtful person"

------------------


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Any debate over whether or not an income tax is a power given to Congress via the Constitution prior to its express authorization via the amendment is ultimately a waste of time. 

Let's say you prove that the intent of the framers was to authorize Congress to levy an income tax, and that an income tax itself is not opposed to the intent of the framers. 

The problem now is that the entire body of Constitutional law which has allowed the government to increase to such a size and power is NOT based on originalist theories about the intent of the framers. This large, intrusive government is the very reason why an income tax exists. You don't need to take huge amounts of money from the populace to support a tiny, limited government. 

Thus you would really end up saying that the intent of the framers is important in deciding whether or not an income tax is justified, but that the intent of the framers is NOT important in determining what the government can do with the money. To me this seems like a very unprincipled and absurd argument. 

As a slight aside, I would be still be interested to hear an argument for why taxation ISN'T theft. If you feel taxation is moral and just, why is it so?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> As a slight aside, I would be still be interested to hear an argument for why taxation ISN'T theft. If you feel taxation is moral and just, why is it so?


Before we do that, let's just confirm that if you think taxation is theft then you agree that the US constitution authorizes theft.

That is the position of those who feel that taxation is theft, right?

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gmac, I must say, you really offer little to any conversation. I notice that you have yet to address where I quite thoroughly sliced up your assertion. Further, I did not edit, familyman quoted me, hence he did the editing. Tch, tch.

I'm sorry, but I can no longer wish you my regards.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Before we do that, let's just confirm that if you think taxation is theft then you agree that the US constitution authorizes theft.
> 
> That is the position of those who feel that taxation is theft, right?


This question is a little involved because it involves both Constitutional interpretation as well as the actual text. For instance, if you interpret the Constitution to include protection of economic substantive due process then you could make a good argument that it prohibits certain forms or levels of taxation. The problem is that the current state of Constitutional law doesn't recognize economic substantive due process.

Thus I would say that assuming current Constitutional law, the answer would be "yes," that the Constitution authorizes theft.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Gmac, I must say, you really offer little to any conversation. I notice that you have yet to address where I quite thoroughly sliced up your assertion.


Sliced up being another way of saying you edited my comments? Then yes, I just addressed that.

I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to edit my posts and misrepresent what I said in order to give yourself some credibility. Still, it's less boring than your constant droning on about your three group system, including the constant self-aggandisement.



> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> I'm sorry, but I can no longer wish you my regards.


That's fine - just don't edit my posts anymore.

------------------


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, that's abrasive, that's what I meant. You don't have to say how much better than us you are, just go about proving it with your wit and insight. I'm sure the majority will come around. Maybe not gmac of course. [}]

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> Thus I would say that assuming current Constitutional law, the answer would be "yes," that the Constitution authorizes theft.


OK, that is a good place to start. Is it grounds to strike down the rest of the constitution? How is the government supposed to run, even at the most limited levels, with zero income.

On the other side, since the government does steal from you and millions of others, can we assume that you eschew all governmnet services paid for through these ill-gotten gains? You don't drive on public roads, enlist the services of the police or garbage collectors when necessary (or is local taxation acceptable - and why?) You don't support the armed forces as they are paid for with stolen money?

Obviously one can't live in modern society without these sorts of services. Do you advocate a certain level of taxation to pay for these things?

There's more to say but this is a start.

------------------


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> OK, that is a good place to start. Is it grounds to strike down the rest of the constitution? How is the government supposed to run, even at the most limited levels, with zero income.


I don't think it is grounds to strike down the rest of the Constitution. There is a lot of good in the Constitution, even though there is some bad. Remember, the Constitution used to sanction slavery and we managed to get rid of that without trashing the entire document and starting over.



> quote:
> On the other side, since the government does steal from you and millions of others, can we assume that you eschew all governmnet services paid for through these ill-gotten gains? You don't drive on public roads, enlist the services of the police or garbage collectors when necessary (or is local taxation acceptable - and why?) You don't support the armed forces as they are paid for with stolen money?


As I said earlier, the police, courts and armed forces are a special case. As for everything else, to live in America you simply cannot avoid benefiting in some manner from government projects or services funded via taxation. Perhaps one could become a hermit and avoid them, I don't think becoming a hermit is a solution to the problem though.

The moral thing to do I think is to simply avoid government funds where possible or practical. Basically I think the rule can be boiled down to, "Don't ask the government for anything you have not earned."



> quote:
> Obviously one can't live in modern society without these sorts of services. Do you advocate a certain level of taxation to pay for these things?


There really are only a few basic "services" a society really needs a government to provide. These are the courts, the police and the military. You can't have a nation without law, a way to enforce the law or a way to protect the country from external attack. These things have to be paid for somehow, and I would even say taxation is an acceptable method to pay for them if there is no alternative. There are alternatives to taxation however which could provide the level of funds needed. And even if taxation is necessary, there are good ways to tax and there are bad. A progressively-scaled personal income tax is about the worst. A flat income tax is better, sales taxes are better still.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> There really are only a few basic "services" a society really needs a government to provide. These are the courts, the police and the military. You can't have a nation without law, a way to enforce the law or a way to protect the country from external attack. These things have to be paid for somehow, and I would even say taxation is an acceptable method to pay for them if there is no alternative. There are alternatives to taxation however which could provide the level of funds needed. And even if taxation is necessary, there are good ways to tax and there are bad. A progressively-scaled personal income tax is about the worst. A flat income tax is better, sales taxes are better still.


OK, I understand your point about being unable to avoid using some sort of government provided services.

I don't get how you can consider taxation to be theft but still acceptable at certain levels and ways of doing it.

We can argue for 100 years about what should and shouldn't be provided by government but we can surely agree that there is some social contract in place and that that needs to be funded by the parties to the contract.

What are the alternatives to taxation that you alluded to?

------------------


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I think most people can agree on a role for government and therefore taxation.

What steams people is knowing they are paying for ineptitude - the response to the hurricanes being a fine example of what the Feds can accomplish when they really try.

Or for corruption - witness the outcry every so often about ludicrously inflated prices for military equipment.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I don't get how you can consider taxation to be theft but still acceptable at certain levels and ways of doing it.
> 
> ...


I might go so far as to say that taxation to fund things like national defense is not really taxation at all. Courts, police and the military are necessary and benefit all citizens of a country. They cannot be provided on the private free market, however, nor charged to individual citizens based on how much each "uses" them. Thus allocating their cost via taxation is really akin to the government collecting a debt for services rendered. No rational person can deny being willing to pay for those three services and yet wish to live in a nation-state. Someone who doesn't want to pay for courts, police or a military is someone who doesn't want to live in a country of any kind.

I am not sure what you mean by a "social contract."

As for alternatives to taxation, I would say the best involve voluntary choice. For example the government could provide "insurance" on private contracts which would be required for those contracts to be enforced by the courts. You could always choose to make a contract without the insurance, but you would be unable to get the government to enforce it for you. There are of course downsides to taxation alternatives, I haven't really studied them in-depth.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

What would the citizens of Classical Athens think of their silly descendants who, given such a miraculous technology such as an internet forum, seriously propose that the social contract is so much liberal propaganda and that taxation based upon one's ability to pay is robbery?

I suppose we should bulldoze this old piece of rubbish to make way for private enterprise.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> A central banking system, busines regulation of sorts, and compulsory public education help to maintain a stable economy both domestically and on the world scale. Transportation systems also benefit all and would be difficult if not impossible to create without the government helping out. There are many other things that while not NEEDED certainly make the US a better place for it's citizens and a better neighbor for the world.


I disagree that any of the things you have mentioned improve either the economy or the standard of living for Americans. I also disagree that any of those things "benefit all." All of the things you have mentioned are essentially government methods of taking money from some people by force and giving it to other people.

Public education benefits parents who have children but harms those who don't as well as business and others forced to pay property taxes. Public transportation benefits people with no cars or who use it for some other reason, but does not benefit people who have to pay for it via taxes but don't use it. Central banking benefits the government as a source of funds but harms private banks and private individuals doing business with banks.



> quote:
> You may not need much government becasue you have to means to pay for services that are currently provided by the government. Much of the US however would be SOL and unable to change their position in the world at all without basic services.


So what you are saying is that it is perfectly moral for the government to force me at gunpoint to give my money to some stranger because if I didn't he would be "unable to change his position in the world?"

Even assuming that government hand-outs actually help people (which I doubt) how can such a system be moral? How can robbing people be a means of helping people?


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

As Vladimir mentioned, none of the advocates of government here have yet explained how the assertion that taxation is theft is wrong. If you accept the definition of theft as "depriving someone of their money or property by force, against their will," then do you deny that that is how taxes are collected? If so, why? If not, then why is it not theft? Would you consider it theft if an individual, acting on his own, did such a thing? If not, then I guess you don't believe there is such a thing as theft. If you would consider it theft, then why is it not so if something called a government does the same thing? 

Maybe you don't consider it theft because you receive services from your tax money. If a mugger stole your wallet at gunpoint, and you came home the next day and found him mowing your lawn because he felt guilty, but he refused to return your money, would you feel any less robbed?

With the possible exception of police, courts, prisons and the military (because those things inherently involve force), anything people need or want that's viable to produce can be done much better in the private, voluntary sector. If something can't be done profitably, then that's de facto evidence that it isn't worth doing, because that means hardly anyone is willing to pay voluntarily for it, at least at the price required for it to be worth it to someone to provide it.

Everything that keeps your life from being a living hell is produced in the private sector. Food, clothing, medicine, homes, indoor plumbing, electricity, central heating and air-conditioning, cars, televisions, computers, on and on, were all invented, developed and are provided by greedy, selfish people trying to make money for themselves. But the only way to make money honestly in life is to provide someone with something he values more than the money he's giving up. 

And to whatever extent any products or services aren't more readily availble or cheaper, it's usually because of government regulations that force business to please politicians and beauraucrats instead of their customers.

The wonderful products and services the private sector produces are one of the major things that make life worth living, and we all pay for everything they produce voluntarily, in a mutually-profitable, two-sided transaction. If we don't like something that's offered or don't like the price, we can choose not part with our money, and there's nothing the seller can do but accept it or try to get the us to voluntarily change our minds.

Other than criminals, only governments make one-sided demands, where you're forced to pay what they demand, regardless of whether you want to and regardless of whether you want anything they're providing in exchange. 

Yes, I believe all taxation is theft in principle. But as I've mentioned, if they were miniscule and basically paid for local police, courts and jails to settle property disputes and try true criminal charges (where someone is accused of intruding on another's body or property) and to provide a small national defense to repel incoming military invasions from other nation-states, and maybe a few other, minor functions, it would still be theft in principle, but it wouldn't be worth worrying about in practice. 

But it is worth worrying about in practice when we get to where we are today in the U.S., with a nearly THREE TRILLION federal budget, and to where, when you add on state and local taxes, the average American pays more in taxes today than he or she does for food, clothing and shelter COMBINED. When I waited tables in college part-time, making 10 or 12K per year (which wasn't nearly as bad as it sounds, because I had almost no expenses), by far my biggest expenses were taxes. Are roads, police, the post office and whatever other minor government-imposed "services" you may use worth roughly half your income?

Statements like "I guess you don't use roads or call the police if you need them" are idiotic. Of course I do -- the government has left me with no choice; they've banned private competition or made it many times costlier. 

And I pay taxes too (just like I'd give a mugger my wallet), so I guess I should try to get something back for it. But what I use is worth maybe 1-2% of my income, not 45-50%, nor is it worth all of the problems government causes. 

But, as I said, if the government took 5% or less of my income and just delcared monopolies in things like roads and police, it would still be theft in principle, but wouldn't be worth worrying about in practice. 

But yes, if I had my choice, ideally I'd rather keep 100% of my money, pay to use private roads, private security and whatever other few useful things governments do when I need them, and help others by giving amounts of my choosing to churches, charities and other non-profits (or even for-profits) of my choosing. But governments doesn't give me, or anyone else, ANY choice -- and that's the point.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quoteublic education benefits parents who have children but harms those who don't as well as business and others forced to pay property taxes.


 And what should be done with children whose parents cannot afford private schools? How do you gain from having the vast majority of the populace being even more profoundly ignorant than they are now?



> quoteublic transportation benefits people with no cars or who use it for some other reason, but does not benefit people who have to pay for it via taxes but don't use it.


 Sure it does. Less congestion, which translates into less of your life wasted sitting in traffic (not to mention petrol savings - but since when has natural resource scarcity been a concern of the taxation-is-theft crowd?) There are also many people who use public transportation whom you'd NOT likely wish to be commanding a motorcar on the same road as yourself. This also translates into huge savings relating to assurance premiums, medical costs (via wrecks), &c.



> quote:Central banking benefits the government as a source of funds but harms private banks and private individuals doing business with banks.


 So the US ought to return to the 'golden age' of late Summer, 1929?



> quote:So what you are saying is that it is perfectly moral for the government to force me at gunpoint to give my money to some stranger because if I didn't he would be "unable to change his position in the world?"


 It's only at gunpoint if you default on your contract with the society that created you and your wealth. You would no doubt call upon the government to help you if a private party violated a contract that was to your benefit, so why shouldn't the government - in turn - enforce the most critical and fundamental contract of all (the social contract) if you break it? It seems rather a double standard to me.



> quote:Even assuming that government hand-outs actually help people (which I doubt) how can such a system be moral? How can robbing people be a means of helping people?


 Dr Kaczynski has a cabin in Montana he won't be needing anytime soon. Maybe it's time to turn on, tune in, and drop out?


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> Dr Kaczynski has a cabin in Montana he won't be needing anytime soon. Maybe it's time to turn on, tune in, and drop out?


As I said before, JLPWCXIII, I have no interest in discourse with someone who isn't interested in a rational and honest discussion. Find somebody else to throw your ad hominem attacks at.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

[/quote] It's only at gunpoint if you default on your contract with the society that created you and your wealth. You would no doubt call upon the government to help you if a private party violated a contract that was to your benefit, so why shouldn't the government - in turn - enforce the most critical and fundamental contract of all (the social contract) if you break it? It seems rather a double standard to me.[/quote]

I think the error you're making is assuming that the concept of a "social contract" is some kind of objectively-provable, universally-accepted natural law, like the law of gravity, when it's actually an opinion.

I'm inclined to say the "social contract" theory is inherently B.S. I never signed any contact with any government, or anyone or anything else, agreeing to give up any of my freedom or money in exchange for some supposed protection; I was never even consulted. The idea that a person is bound to a contract that they never signed, agreed to or were even consulted on simply by virtue of being born in a certain balliwick is insane, and there's no situation in the private sector where such an "agreement" would be considered in any way legitimate.

Furthermore, probably 99% of taxes do not go to protection from violence or fraud or to contract enforcement. Am I free to pay only the taxes that pay for such things and withhold the rest, along with agreeing not to avail myself of any other government "services?" Am I free to pay no taxes at all if I agree to have nothing to do whatsoever with the government, including calling on its guns as contract enforcement?

The idea that contacts would be unenforceable without government doesn't make a lot of sense. If someone renegs on his agreements, then he gets a bad reputation and people will choose not to do business with him again. That's not to say it would never happen, but it happens now WITH government. In either case, the world isn't perfect, but then, that's why some people turn to government -- to try to reorder the world through violence so that it's more to their liking.

And by a social contract with "society," you really mean with government. Governments do not create individuals. Nor do they create wealth -- wealth is created by people voluntarily trading with each other to their mutual benefit in any way they voluntarily agree upon. If anything, governments are the major impediment to creating wealth through things like wage and price controls, product bans, regulations and destroying wealth through redistribution. We can only get down on our hands and knees and thank God that we don't get all of the "social contract" that we're forced at gunpoint to pay for.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Social Contract Theory was propounded in the 18th century by the likes of Hobbes, Locke, and I believe Rousseau (it has been a very long time since I had time to read works like this, please forgive if I mis-state). It was given a new lease on life, so to speak, by John Rawls in the late 20th century, with his "veil of ignorance" concept. Basically, it attempts to posit what a fair and just society would/should look like, our civic duties, etc. I think that coming from a secular viewpoint, it is hard to beat the theory of social contractism, one has to apply to natural law or divine revelation otherwise.

I think we need to interject the concept of "externalities" into this conversation. They can be used to justify public goods, such as public education (whether the system is working or not, etc. is a different topic). Public education was deemed to have such positive externalities to provide an educated populace within a representative democracy, that it was tax funded. They can also be used to justify taxation, such as a pollution tax as that is a negative externality of industrialization, therefore tax those polluting.

Economists will tell us all taxes have negative externalities, but some have less than others. If I can remember my economics properly, it would seem our current taxation system is about the best at decreasing over all "welfare" (used in the economic sense, not the government hand out sense). Further, if memory serves, flat taxes turn out to be the best if one is going to tax personal income (interesting to note, all proposed flat taxes in the US are actually not. To be 100% accurate it is a two bracket tax, being 0% and then the proposed flat % thereafter). Other taxes such as Piguvian (sp?) and "Henry George" taxes are interesting to look into.

I think, that as always, we need a balance. Wholesale wealth redistribution is just as damaging as anarchy and zero government services. As it seems the masses always flock to one pole or its antipode, I hold little hope for well thought out, logical taxation to ever occur.

Warmest regards


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> And what should be done with children whose parents cannot afford private schools? How do you gain from having the vast majority of the populace being even more profoundly ignorant than they are now?


You assume private schools are always and perpetually expensive. Public schools in the US usually spend a few hundred dollars per pupil, per year. Those few hundred dollars equate to upwards of a thouand dollars for taxpayers, after the fed and state take their cuts for overhead.



> quote:Sure it does. Less congestion, which translates into less of your life wasted sitting in traffic (not to mention petrol savings - but since when has natural resource scarcity been a concern of the taxation-is-theft crowd?)


Again, you assume that if a city doesn't pay for a bus system, there will be no bus system. There are plenty of private bus lines that are often precluded from operating in major cities to protect the public transit system.



> quote:So the US ought to return to the 'golden age' of late Summer, 1929?


You mean, before perpetual inflation and the politicizing of the economy?



> quote:It's only at gunpoint if you default on your contract with the society that created you and your wealth.


It's in society's best interest that it's citizens are successful. You become successful by fullfilling a need in society, which rewards you with wealth. You owe nothing else in this mythical "contract."



> quote: You would no doubt call upon the government to help you if a private party violated a contract that was to your benefit, so why shouldn't the government - in turn - enforce the most critical and fundamental contract of all (the social contract) if you break it? It seems rather a double standard to me.


If I saw this "social contract" written down somewhere so I could evaluate it, I may agree. However, it seems like a purposefully ambiguous idea that politicans can use to institute any societial control they wish.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> If I saw this "social contract" written down somewhere so I could evaluate it, I may agree.


I often hear/see people say such things concerning social contract theory. People often say, "I never signed this contract, etc". I think people misunderstand, sometimes with purpose, the meaning of this term. It does not infer a standard business contract, an agreement between two people such as a marriage contract, etc. I think much less time would be wasted if the concept had its title changed to a term that did not use the word "contract". The problem is creating a term that is not wordy, such as, "theory that acknowledges we all live in a society, are deeply intertwined socially and economically, that this state is better than barbarism, and now we need to figure out what parameters to order said society that would be the most beneficial, fair, and just."


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has been a good many years since I studied philosophy, and my tastes ran toward Quine, Frege and Whitehead, so please excuse any large factual errors...

The social contract is a theory that was popularized by Rousseau around the French revolution. Its basic premise is as stated by Wayfarer, but its underlying assumption is that the individual must be, in some way, secondary to the state.

There is a lot negative to be said about Rousseau and his theories, just as there seems to be a lot of truth to the social contract. However, I do not believe that it is right. I tend to believe in the theory of Smith's invisible hand rather that Rousseau's social contract. The differences between the two are the differences between capitalism and socialism. For me, the main difference is the primacy of the individual (Smith) versus the primacy of the state (Rousseau).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Iammatt, I agree social contractism is often used to push socialism but I do not think it necessarily has to be the case. Just as one has "act utilitarianism" as a specific sub-set ethos of "utilitarianism" in general, I think a social contract theory could be developed that equally balances individual vs. society. I admittedly tend towards the individual too, as I think it is the worth of the individual in Western society that has brought us so far and that democracy is based on the worth of the individual. 

Warmest regards


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harry96_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm. Seems to me somewhere in this whole discussion something has been missed. Let's accept the definition given, above, that theft is "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another." I don't think the word "wrongful" is being applied properly by those who argue that taxation is theft. After all, the Constitution explicitly allows taxation by the federal government, and the income tax amendment specifically allows taxation of income. So, does "wrongful" mean just "unpleasant?" If you have problems with the law, or the constitution, you are free to work to change it, but in what legal sense is taxation "wrongful" when it is specifically allowed by law? If you want to broaden the idea of "wrongful" beyond the law, in what moral sense is taxation "wrongful?" Is it a "sin?" Does it offend some deity we or the authors of the Constitution or the authors of the income tax amendment have never heard of?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I e-filed Sunday night and received my Connecticut refund today.

In gratitude I will not say anything nasty about Hartford until the check clears.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> I e-filed Sunday night and received my Connecticut refund today.
> 
> In gratitude I will not say anything nasty about Hartford until the check clears.


You pay state taxes! Ha! []
Texas is good for some things I suppose. 

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

The "social contract" as written by Rousseau I would say is an inherently flawed theory. For one thing, it explicitly abandons the idea of a society created to protect the rights of individuals. Second, it is based on claims about human nature likely to be incorrect. Third, the structure of government it posits as ideal is completely unworkable. 

As for a social contract in general, it just seems strange to recognize a sort of unassumed duty to the state. For one thing, once you accept the idea of the social contract there really is no limit to its extent. If the general will wishes to create a Nazi-like state and kill off ethnic minorities (including you perhaps) there seems to be little you can do. Rousseau seems to assume that sometimes dissenters or other undesireables will simply have to be destroyed in order to preserve the state as a whole.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> As for a social contract in general, it just seems strange to recognize a sort of unassumed duty to the state. For one thing, once you accept the idea of the social contract there really is no limit to its extent. If the general will wishes to create a Nazi-like state and kill off ethnic minorities (including you perhaps) there seems to be little you can do.


I think you are falling victim to the slippery slope or "camel's nose under the tent" fallacy here. Acknowledgement of some duty or responsibility if you will, does not mean you must therefore become a mindless drone/automaton carrying out society's will. I will give you points however for the obligatory Nazi reference in threads such as this!

No, I think that while we must hold the individual paramount, acknowledging there is a social contract, that the individual lives in an intertwined social and economic setting that is better than the state of anarchy or barbarism, is something that has merit. An example would be the concept of free speech. This is one of the touch stones of honouring the individual. However, even with this, we acknowledge that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre for no reason would not fall under 1st Amendment protection. Just my thoughts.

Warmest regards


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

I don't disagree that we all feel the need to function in society and that we change our behaviors because of this fact. I think that the pertinent question is whether the individual imposes this on himself, the group (government) imposes this on the individual or whether the market imposes it on the the individual. Ideally you would have the individual impose it on himself. I do not know if it is reasonable.



> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> I don't disagree that we all feel the need to function in society and that we change our behaviors because of this fact. I think that the pertinent question is whether the individual imposes this on himself, the group (government) imposes this on the individual or whether the market imposes it on the the individual. Ideally you would have the individual impose it on himself. I do not know if it is reasonable.


One can always decamp to Somalia or wherever else tax rates are low enough to suit. As Bun Rabbit once stated in _Pogo_: "If you don't like our rules, move to France!"


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> No, I think that while we must hold the individual paramount, acknowledging there is a social contract, that the individual lives in an intertwined social and economic setting that is better than the state of anarchy or barbarism, is something that has merit. An example would be the concept of free speech. This is one of the touch stones of honouring the individual. However, even with this, we acknowledge that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre for no reason would not fall under 1st Amendment protection. Just my thoughts.


I wholeheartedly agree that living in a civilized society is better than living in barbarism. Which is why the "Go to Somolia, where the govt. won't mess with you" line of reasoning is absurd. I want there to be a government. The point where I diverge with Rousseau's social contract is that he saw the contract as the surrendering of man's "natural rights" as the means of entering into the contract. I see a civilized society as simply as the only means of protecting man's rights.

As the Declaration of Independence says, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." This is an idea completely opposed to Rousseau's conception of the contract.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> I see a civilized society as simply as the only means of protecting man's rights.


Perfectly said!

Warmest regards


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're missing the distinction between "moral" and "legal," and between "wrongful" and "illegal."

Taxation is in no way wrongful in any legal sense; it is 100% legal.

Taxation is wrongful in a moral sense because it is theft.

Morality and legality are not interchangeable, nor do they necessarily have anything to do with each other; they can even be at odds with each other. To give an extreme example, in Nazi Germany, it was legal for that government to murder innocents because they were Jewish. If "legal" equates "moral," then by that logic, that was moral.

Governments are not arbiters of morality; they are agencies of force and violence.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

I apologize if I ramble, but from re-reading this thread, I have a bunch of miscellaneous thought's I'd like to share. 

Discussing the subject of the merits of government and taxation is a fascinating philosophical and academic exercise. 

I don't believe that anyone has any moral obligation to "society" (government), due to some mythical "social contract," to pay taxes. 

However, as I alluded to above in discussing the distinction between morality and legality, everyone very definitely has a legal obligation to pay everything the government says they owe. Failing to do so would get one in very serious trouble, just as it would be unwise to resist the demands of a mugger with a gun. 

As, frankly, is evidenced by some who've posted on this thread, there is very little understanding in the world today of what a government is, what "society" is, what freedom is, how wealth is created, and what the distinction is between morality and legality. 

When people speak of the need to "balance" the needs and wants of the individual versus those of "society," by "society," they mean "government." 

Apart from government, the needs and wants of society and of individuals are 100% harmonious, 100% of the time. Society is made up of nothing but individuals, trading and cooperating with each other voluntarily to their mutual benefit. 

The conflict is not between individuals and "society," but between individuals/society and government. And that conflict is inherent. 

It is absolutely immoral under all circumstances to use any kind of violence against anyone except in direct response to violence being initiated against someone's body or property. 

Aside from that, violence is also the most inefficient way of accomplishing anything; not only is it immoral, it doesn't work. 

Some will choose to initiate such violence. If they act on their own, we call them criminals. If they act as agents of the state, we don't. But why?

As far as governments existing to retaliate against those who initiate violence on their own, as I've mentioned, that would be a tolerable role to me, and it's basically the only proper role of a government (if there is one) as far as I'm concerned. 

But the world would almost certainly be better off without even that, without any governments of any kind. Eliminating governments would eliminate all of the violence they initiate. The governments of the world murdered 200,000,000 people in the 20th century. Thank God those governments were there to protect those people from common criminals on the street -- they protected those people to death. 

Regarding common criminals, most of the "crimes" government law enforcement fights are consentual, peaceful acts the politicians dislike and are using violence to try and stop, like non-violent drug crimes, gambling or prostitution. Those things may not be moral, but again, moral and legal aren't necessarily the same thing, and a government is not an arbiter of morality -- it's an institution of organized violence. If you disapprove of any of those things, then don't engage in them. You don't even have to associate with anyone who does engage in them if you so choose.

Regarding true crimes like murder and theft, those would go down significantly if governments weren't around to create black markets and to create legal disincentives for people to defend themselves and their property. 

The elimination of "public" property would likely cause a further decline, as it would be in the self-interest of all owners of property open to the public, such as streets and sidewalks, to make them security-patrolled or to come up with other ingenious safety innovations, because if they don't, their competitors will. 

Would their still be common crime? Of course, and there always will be. The world isn't perfect and it never will be, but it would be a lot better without governments; how could it be any worse?

Could a common thief manage to steal half of your income? Could a common criminal force on you his preferences of what you can buy, what you can sell, and under what conditions? Could he force his mandates on the health care and insurance industries, and then use the fact that his mandates have made them unaffordable as an excuse to force even more of his mandates? Obviously I could go on all day. 

What could any common criminal do to you that would be worse than what government does? The best definition I've ever seen for statism is: "The superstitious belief that the benefits of government outweight the costs."

If my words seem sensible to you, then what's to be done? As others have suggested, the only practical response that I see now is to legally minimize your taxes as much as possible and avoid the government as much as possible. 

Regarding others' comments like: "If you don't like it, why don't you leave?", to a person who sees taxation as theft and government inherently as a cancerous parasite, that's like a mugger saying, "If you don't like being mugged by me, why don't you go get mugged by the guy on the next block?" 

Unfortunately, a society without government, made up of freedom-loving people who won't tolerate violence of any kind, simply doesn't exist today. 

There aren't even any societies with nation-states made up of freedom-loving people who only recognize two laws: Do not commit violence against anyone's body or property, and honor all of your contacts. For the most part, that was the America of the 18th and 19th centuries, but it's mostly gone now. 

Will such a society ever exist in the future? I'm hopeful, if not optimistic. No one in 1800 could've imagined the world without the immoral institution of slavery; by 1900, it was gone from all but the most backwards countries. Due to increasing technology, the trend in the world now is obviously from vertically-structured, centralized power systems into horizontally-structured, decentralized ones. 

Perhaps that trend will someday come to its logical conclusion, where people realize that governments contribute little if anything to their well-being, and what little they may contribute isn't worth the cost and can be done much better and cheaper voluntarily. 

I dream of such a day, when the world sees the wholesale rejection of violence as a means to solving problems.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Apart from government, the needs and wants of society and of individuals are 100% harmonious, 100% of the time. Society is made up of nothing but individuals, trading and cooperating with each other voluntarily to their mutual benefit.


 Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No; I would think it's obvious from the rest of my post that I'm not. The idea that some ambiguous, amorphous "society" needs anything apart from the needs of the individuals which comprise it is totally illogical and is just one of the many excuses the state makes for itself. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, "Society's needs come before the individual's needs" is an almost verbatim quote from Hitler.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Conn. state income tax came to us courtesy of Gov. Lowell Weicker, a grandstanding blowhard's grandstanding blowhard.

Weicker is also the genius that gave behind-the-scenes encouragement to the Indian casinos and failed to initiate proceedings at a time when it would have been relatively easy to demonstrate the "tribes" were concocted out of (mostly) whole cloth. The pitch was the revenues the state received would be "earmarked for education."

Whenever a pol makes that preposterous promise he should be pelted with bricks. The state is broke and the legislature, not content with the gazillions fleeced from the suckers at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, spent the last 12 years raiding the teacher's pension fund, which now sports a $5 _billion_ deficit.

The schools, meanwhile, have disimproved. Towns are now looking at well over 50 percent of their entire budget going into schools that are literally falling down.

To make it worse, there's a small "surplus" of $500 million or so (not sure about the figure) and everybody's tripping over themselves trying to find newer and stupider ways to squander that. The reason i write "surplus" is that it's imaginary, according to a state senator I know. He says it's an accounting trick designed to make the incumbent gov. look, if not good, at least less bad. (And the senator and the gov. are both Republicans, so this isn't a partisan gripe.)

Whoops. Haven't been to the bank yet. So much for my vow not to make nasty comments about our fine state government.


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harry96_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am well aware of the distinction between legal and moral, but I am fraid you have provided a circular definition here. First you provide a quotation from some guy saying that taxation is theft because it is "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another." I say, OK, let's accept that definition of theft; how is taxation wrongful? Certainly not in the legal sense. So address the moral sense. You respond that taxation is wrongful in the moral sense because it is theft. That is circular. I reiterate: how is taxation wrongful in the moral sense? What moral code does it contravene. As far as I can tell, it is not against any religious moral code with which I am familiar; Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu - none prohibits taxation. Details. Explanation. That is what we need, not an attempt to make a questioner appear foolish or ignorant!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harry96_
> 
> As, frankly, is evidenced by some who've posted on this thread, there is very little understanding in the world today of what a government is, what "society" is, what freedom is, how wealth is created, and what the distinction is between morality and legality.


I am surprised you feel this way. I would think that most of us posting on this thread had these understandings coming out of secondary school or at the latest, but the end of first year under-grad studies. Of course, it would seem most of us use these terms in the standard ways that the academics do, if they are code words for a secret movement, then no doubt you are quite correct and I myself am ignorant of the distinctions.



> quote:
> Apart from government, the needs and wants of society and of individuals are 100% harmonious, 100% of the time. Society is made up of nothing but individuals, trading and cooperating with each other voluntarily to their mutual benefit.


Not even Ayn Rand in her windiest best would make such an absurd statement. That has to be in the top five naivest and idealistic statements I have ever read!



> quote:
> It is absolutely immoral under all circumstances to use any kind of violence against anyone except in direct response to violence being initiated against someone's body or property.


Really? I would define many things that could be beneficial as violent. CPR is most violent. Many contact sports? Slapping a drug OD'ed person's face?



> quote:
> Aside from that, violence is also the most inefficient way of accomplishing anything; not only is it immoral, it doesn't work.


I see. So it would be more efficient to "reason" with an 18 month old about to pull a pan of boiling water off the stove onto him/herself vs. quickly slapping their hands aside, with the slap also becoming part of behavior modification to stop future such incidents?



> quote:
> As far as governments existing to retaliate against those who initiate violence on their own, as I've mentioned, that would be a tolerable role to me, and it's basically the only proper role of a government (if there is one) as far as I'm concerned.


Okay, now I am sure. Someone has just read _Anthems_ or _Atlas Shrugged_ as is going through an Objectivist phase.



> quote:
> The elimination of "public" property would likely cause a further decline, as it would be in the self-interest of all owners of property open to the public, such as streets and sidewalks, to make them security-patrolled or to come up with other ingenious safety innovations, because if they don't, their competitors will.


You really need to do some reading or take some basic economic decision making classes, study some game theory, etc. You really need to see what happens to common areas used by mulitiple individuals in lieu of oversight. Unrestricted public grazing is a prime example.

I went through a similar phase myself, it is good you are grappling with these ideas, and much better that you come at things from this angle vs. the socialist one (strictly my opinion there, others will disagree and wish you were starting from the left!). I hope your journey continues and good luck.

Warmest regards


----------

