Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => The Friendly Forum => Topic started by: Brien on August 03, 2005, 10:57:49 am

Title: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 03, 2005, 10:57:49 am
This early 20th Century Amendment needs to be debated.  First, if you believe that the government of the United States requires funding for the essentials to run the country, then please discuss HOW to fund the government.   Let's also define "essentials."  For instance the Military, the Administration, the Congress, and the Judiciary, etc.

Do you believe that an income tax is fair, albeit a flat tax, a graduated tax, or other forms of income levies?

Do you believe it to be more fair to institute a VAT to replace the income tax?

Do you believe in no tax to fund the government?  If this is your belief, please suggest the alternative to no tax, because it is the aim of this thread to discuss HOW to fund the government. 

Therefore, this presupposes you believe we have to fund the government as set up by the Constitution of the US.  So, let us discuss ideas.  ???  :)



Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Gabo on August 03, 2005, 01:32:57 pm
Taxation is unconstitutional, ESPECIALLY the income tax.

Government should be funded by voluntary contributions.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 03, 2005, 02:00:34 pm
Taxation is unconstitutional, ESPECIALLY the income tax.

Government should be funded by voluntary contributions.

Gabo:  I respectfullyu disagree with you.  Taxation is Constitutional.  Voluntary contributions?? ??? ::)  This is a good idea in a perfect world but alas, where is that?  Otherwise,  I would refer you to Article I section 2, 7, and specifically section 8. of the Constitution of the United States.  I will not provide the copy.  Please look it up.  The authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes is there.

As far as Income tax, I would refer you to Amendment XVI.  I may not agree with the Amendment, but it is there.  It could be over turned by Congress but has yet to be done.

Btw, would you recognize the names :  John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman ? ???
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 03, 2005, 02:30:44 pm
What is this discussion doing in the friendly forum.  This forum is for gooie stuff, like Russell being nice to leadership guys.
There are other areas for this type of ancient, worn out, much discussed subject in the FSP forum.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 03, 2005, 03:08:16 pm
What is this discussion doing in the friendly forum.  This forum is for gooie stuff, like Russell being nice to leadership guys.
There are other areas for this type of ancient, worn out, much discussed subject in the FSP forum.

Sooooo  sorry.  I didn't realize this was in violation of some rule.  It was my understanding this forum was for folks who wished to discuss topics in a civil manner without all of the insults and personal crap that gets in the way other places.

Ancient, and worn out??????????  ??? Yep, that's me. 

Also, I didn't realize that this was a " ancient & worn out" subject.  It never seems to go out of style in my libertarian discussions with other people I know away from this site.  I guess it is a "non issue" here  because it somehow has been discussed to death. 

There must be as many "ideas" as to how to fund the government as there are people who participate here, probably more.  Maybe you missed the point.  The thread is about "funding" the government of the United States.  Maybe I missed the point that you folks here have already solved that problem.  If so, please direct me to your answers.  

This place can be so disappointing sometimes.  ::)     :(       Ughh                                                          

"Ancient and Worn out"  Does that apply to the Constitution as well?  Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder?

Btw, do you recognize the names John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman? Huh? ???  Who????

Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 03, 2005, 05:39:18 pm
No
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 03, 2005, 07:22:30 pm
No

I would suggest some research on the United States Constitution. :)
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: jeanius on August 03, 2005, 07:56:53 pm
Ohhhh, thanks Lloyd!  Don't forget, I know what you look like now!  :)

Brien, chances are you're not going to find a lot of folks on the 'how to fund the government' side of this debate.  I think many of us are more interested in getting the government to need less funding first and foremost.  However, use fees are one alternative method.  My husband would argue that no taxes at all are necessary.  I guess I would argue for very limited property taxes.  However, the problem is breaking the current taxing pattern, IMO. 

Sometimes, the *rest* of the forum is unpleasant because heated debate is unpleasant.  Sometimes people are just rude.  I don't think heated debate is a bad thing or disallowed here.  What is important, IMO, is that folks who are new to the FSP can pose questions and not be treated as children for raising issues that while old hat to long time libertarians (and FSP posters) are new issues to them.  In general I hope our goal is to inform and educate and get folks a better idea of libertarianism and the FSP.  I hope we can get such folks to keep coming back. 

Brien, the friendly rule applies to you too.  While I know it is hard when you are feeling provoked, please try to ignore annoying digs and keep on topic.

And Lloyd, Russell likes being nice to leadership guys ... he just doesn't like to admit it!  (shhhhhhhhh)

Jean
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Herself on August 04, 2005, 05:39:55 pm
Why would a government not funded by compulsory means result in the end of modern society?

     Okay, a lot of Federal workers would have to go get jobs instead of shuffling papers, but other than that?  What does the Federal government do for you, Brien, rather than to you?

     No, I don;t accept it; let the Feds have raffles ("Win an all-expense-paid trip for to to McMurdo Sound!  To The North Pole!  To the MOOOOON!  Vacation at Camp David!) and bake sales; let them set out penny jars.  Have them allow earmarking of funds contributed by individuals.  But no taxes!

     As for constitutionality, just because something is constitutional, that doesn't mean it is right.  Slavery was constitutional -- it still is if done as punishment for a crime, in fact.

     --Herself
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Gabo on August 05, 2005, 11:54:21 am
Brien, I don't agree with everything in the Constitution.
The only law that governs me is natural law.

I respect the life, liberty, and property of others, and they must respect my equal rights as well.



The only part of government that could *possibly* be required is a judicial system when people can't settle disputes.
But that could easily be funded by a loser pays system.

All parts of government can be provided cheaper, better, and WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE if done by private institutions.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 05, 2005, 12:32:46 pm
Brien, I don't agree with everything in the Constitution.
The only law that governs me is natural law.

I respect the life, liberty, and property of others, and they must respect my equal rights as well.



The only part of government that could *possibly* be required is a judicial system when people can't settle disputes.
But that could easily be funded by a loser pays system.

All parts of government can be provided cheaper, better, and WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE if done by private institutions.

Gabo: Lets look at what you wrote.     

I agree with privatization in many cases.   But I have written some questions concerning this matter another thread that have yet to be addressed by anyone on this site.  Please be my guest and see the thread.   "A Doomed Cause"  Reply #16                                                                                        

What about the Military as provided in the Constitution by Article I section 8?  Ok, lets forget that one because it takes a lot of money to fund the Military.   So tell that to the Muslim extremists when they are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Or tell them you believe in "natural law."  Or you could defend yourself with the arms you are holding as protected by the 2nd Amendment, which I fully support  The professional "jihadist" would make short work of you.  Just explain to me how you privatize the military. 

Now if you would suggest privatizing the vendors of the military and holding them accountable for what they provide, I am with you.  But we already have the private sector outfit the military.  It is the government idiots in the Defense Department that screw that up.  Yet the military must remain under the control of the government.  The government being made up of the citizens of the US.  Otherwise, American society in the modern world today is headed for failure.  What there needs to be is ACCOUNTABILITY to the citizens for inferior weapons and supplies.  And if the citizens don't control the Military, then this can be as dangerous as the Colonists being forced to live under King George's military.
And please don't tell me that the citizens don't control the military.  Because at the end of the day, the military will not obey just one man, or a group of men, out to destroy our own society.

The only part of the Government required is the Judicial system?  Say again?  How do you plan organize American Society?  No Congress and No Administration?  You would dismantle the two other branches of the Federal Government?

Then sir, I would suggest you do not believe in the US Constitution, nor the American Government, and would ask you to explain what you would replace it with so the United States can function in the modern world today?  And please no rhetoric.  I have had enough of that on this site for an entire lifetime of ten people.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Dreepa on August 05, 2005, 12:48:59 pm
VAT would probably be the fairest.
That way 'poor' people would only be taxed when they bought X items ( food and certain clothing being excluded from the VAT).
People who say would not have to pay much tax and spenders would pay tax.

I think a VAT is fairer than an income tax.


Gabo-- voluntary tax?  Come on who would pay?
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: svillee on August 05, 2005, 01:22:58 pm
Please discuss HOW to fund the government.

The most offensive tax for me is the progressive income tax, because it is not apportioned (in the constitutional sense).  That is, not all voters are paying it at the same rate.  The least offensive tax for me is a property tax, because the cost to the government of protecting someone's property is at least vaguely related to the value of that property.

My ideal way of funding government is through auctioning seats in government.  See my discussion of a constitutional plutocracy (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/8/11921/83519).
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Gabo on August 05, 2005, 08:53:27 pm
I agree with privatization in many cases.   But I have written some questions concerning this matter another thread that have yet to be addressed by anyone on this site.  Please be my guest and see the thread.   "A Doomed Cause"  Reply #16
In that thread, in reply 16, you state some concerns about pollution of rivers.

From what you wrote, you don't seem to understand that a nuclear plant is highly unlikely to become owner of a very important and special river.
Whoever owns the river can tell the damn nuclear plant to stop polluting it.
And if the plant somehow DOES own the river, people can boycott that plant if they think the destruction it causes is a bad thing.

If enough people boycott, the plant will go out of business and thus be unable to pollute the water anymore.



Quote
So tell that to the Muslim extremists when they are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Or tell them you believe in "natural law."  Or you could defend yourself with the arms you are holding as protected by the 2nd Amendment, which I fully support  The professional "jihadist" would make short work of you.  Just explain to me how you privatize the military.
When you look at problems from one point of view, and make a solution from one point of view, you have a plan that works....... in one point of view.

You must ask yourself WHY the Muslim extremists are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Have you been supporting a tyrannical government that likes to use an imperial army to nation-build and interfere with the affairs of everyone on the planet?  Because at this point you are, and THAT is what pisses them off the most.

If we weren't policing and invading the lands these people live in, and if we weren't TRAINING these people in terrorism, there wouldn't be a problem.


Also, I see no reason why a person with a gun couldn't hold off an invader with a gun.  The person could have easily gotten training and could shoot the intruder.
If you are talking bomb-type weapons, then there isn't much you can do.  Even now with all our "wonderful" security measures, a terrorist could easily walk up to someone's house and blow themselves up.
The army doesn't do anything to help stop this.   In fact, mostly what they do is provoke this type of behavior.


Private protection agencies (like militias) could do a fine job defending people and their property.  And unlike a national army, they don't serve the best  interests of the STATE, they serve YOUR best interests.  Also unlike a national army, they aren't funded from stolen money, but from you paying them.  If they do anything you dislike, you can fire them.




Quote
The only part of the Government required is the Judicial system?  Say again?  How do you plan organize American Society?  No Congress and No Administration?  You would dismantle the two other branches of the Federal Government?
Excuse me?  Why am I or YOU or ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL "organizing American Society".  Every person in the country can organize themselves however they see fit.

I admit it would be valuable to have a figurehead for people to look to, but it isn't necessary.

And Congress is a joke.  All they ever do is pass laws that further limit the freedoms of the people.



Quote
Then sir, I would suggest you do not believe in the US Constitution, nor the American Government, and would ask you to explain what you would replace it with so the United States can function in the modern world today?  And please no rhetoric.  I have had enough of that on this site for an entire lifetime of ten people.
Replace it with....... a court system.  One that follows Common Law and uses a loser pays system.

I don't want THE UNITED STATES functioning in the modern world.  THE UNITED STATES is a corporate entity that continually sucks wealth from the american populace.

I want a large group of individual sovereigns to stand together and agree to uphold the rights of one another.
When rights are infringed upon, that is what they court system is for.  Sovereigns could utilize the court system to receive fair retribution if they are wronged.

I have no desire for the STATE to control and order us sovereigns to do anything.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: svillee on August 05, 2005, 09:51:22 pm
I happen to hold a BA Degree in American History from Rutgers University, Class of 1977.

For what it's worth, I don't put much importance on educational degrees.  Over the last few decades, the phenomenon of grade inflation has made it easier and easier for people to get degrees, and so the degrees have become less and less meaningful.  I prefer to judge a person's credibility based on the actual merits of what he has to say.

You keep mentioning these two people, John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman.  Beyond the fact that they represented New Hampshire at the Constitutional Convention, I don't see that they did anything really significant.  The topic here is how to fund government, right?  Did these two people have some unique insight on the subject?  Or do you have some ideas of your own about proper sources of government revenue?  Please enlighten us.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 05, 2005, 09:58:27 pm
I agree with privatization in many cases.   But I have written some questions concerning this matter another thread that have yet to be addressed by anyone on this site.  Please be my guest and see the thread.   "A Doomed Cause"  Reply #16
In that thread, in reply 16, you state some concerns about pollution of rivers.
Also, I see no reason why a person with a gun couldn't hold off an invader with a gun.  The person could have easily gotten training and could shoot the intruder.
If you are talking bomb-type weapons, then there isn't much you can do.  Even now with all our "wonderful" security measures, a terrorist could easily walk up to someone's house and blow themselves up.
The army doesn't do anything to help stop this.   In fact, mostly what they do is provoke this type of behavior.
From what you wrote, you don't seem to understand that a nuclear plant is highly unlikely to become owner of a very important and special river.
Whoever owns the river can tell the damn nuclear plant to stop polluting it.
And if the plant somehow DOES own the river, people can boycott that plant if they think the destruction it causes is a bad thing.

If enough people boycott, the plant will go out of business and thus be unable to pollute the water anymore.



Quote
So tell that to the Muslim extremists when they are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Or tell them you believe in "natural law."  Or you could defend yourself with the arms you are holding as protected by the 2nd Amendment, which I fully support  The professional "jihadist" would make short work of you.  Just explain to me how you privatize the military.
When you look at problems from one point of view, and make a solution from one point of view, you have a plan that works....... in one point of view.

You must ask yourself WHY the Muslim extremists are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Have you been supporting a tyrannical government that likes to use an imperial army to nation-build and interfere with the affairs of everyone on the planet?  Because at this point you are, and THAT is what pisses them off the most.

If we weren't policing and invading the lands these people live in, and if we weren't TRAINING these people in terrorism, there wouldn't be a problem.


Also, I see no reason why a person with a gun couldn't hold off an invader with a gun.  The person could have easily gotten training and could shoot the intruder.
If you are talking bomb-type weapons, then there isn't much you can do.  Even now with all our "wonderful" security measures, a terrorist could easily walk up to someone's house and blow themselves up.
The army doesn't do anything to help stop this.   In fact, mostly what they do is provoke this type of behavior.


Private protection agencies (like militias) could do a fine job defending people and their property.  And unlike a national army, they don't serve the best  interests of the STATE, they serve YOUR best interests.  Also unlike a national army, they aren't funded from stolen money, but from you paying them.  If they do anything you dislike, you can fire them.


Quote
The only part of the Government required is the Judicial system?  Say again?  How do you plan organize American Society?  No Congress and No Administration?  You would dismantle the two other branches of the Federal Government?
Excuse me?  Why am I or YOU or ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL "organizing American Society".  Every person in the country can organize themselves however they see fit.

I admit it would be valuable to have a figurehead for people to look to, but it isn't necessary.

And Congress is a joke.  All they ever do is pass laws that further limit the freedoms of the people.



Quote
Then sir, I would suggest you do not believe in the US Constitution, nor the American Government, and would ask you to explain what you would replace it with so the United States can function in the modern world today?  And please no rhetoric.  I have had enough of that on this site for an entire lifetime of ten people.
Replace it with....... a court system.  One that follows Common Law and uses a loser pays system.

I don't want THE UNITED STATES functioning in the modern world.  THE UNITED STATES is a corporate entity that continually sucks wealth from the American populace.

I want a large group of individual sovereigns to stand together and agree to uphold the rights of one another.
When rights are infringed upon, that is what they court system is for.  Sovereigns could utilize the court system to receive fair retribution if they are wronged.

I have no desire for the STATE to control and order us sovereigns to do anything.

First.  You miss the point of private ownership of the river.  Who do you suppose will "own" the river?  The people?  The government?

The Vermont Nuclear Power Plant is a PRIVATE CORPORATION.    SO you think the people can somehow "boycott" the  very CORPORATION that supplies them with the power they require to heat their homes?  Power, their industry that provides their jobs?

The Muslims don't give a twit for us infidels.  You included.  They seek to control you and extinguish your LIBERTY.  They would make you a slave to ALLAH.  This is their stated goal.  It has nothing to do with what America does in the world theater today.  They seek only one thing.  World domination to ALLAH.  If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.

Even if we didn't "police" the world, the enemies of the US would still invade and  and kill you.  If you think we we practiced Isolationism, it would only be a matter of time.  Do you not understand the lessons of history?  I don't agree with "policing" the world but the FREE WORLD has to draw the line before we are destroyed by enemies that vow to kill you and me.

Congress is a joke because we allow it to be such.  This is why I stress the power of voting.

You wrote: The United States is a Corporate ENTITY that sucks wealth from from the American populace?  That is a SOCIALIST STATEMENT.  Corporations don't suck the wealth of its workers.

You wrote: I  want a large group of individual sovereigns to stand together and agree to uphold the rights of one another.
When rights are infringed upon, that is what they court system is for.  Sovereigns could utilize the court system to receive fair retribution if they are wronged.

I would refer you to the CONSTITUTION of The United States.

Just who do you think are the sovereign citizens in the US?  It is a whole lot more than the FSP

You wrote: Also, I see no reason why a person with a gun couldn't hold off an invader with a gun.  The person could have easily gotten training and could shoot the intruder.
If you are talking bomb-type weapons, then there isn't much you can do.  Even now with all our "wonderful" security measures, a terrorist could easily walk up to someone's house and blow themselves up.
The army doesn't do anything to help stop this.   In fact, mostly what they do is provoke this type of behavior.

They will come with more than you can protect yourself.  Wake up.  Look at the world situation and tell me that you can do a better job than the US military.  Please.

OK.  You fund a private military and see how far it gets YOU and protection of your family.  I would remind you of NAZI Germany.  Imperialist Japan.  And totalitarian POL POT.  Please, give me a break.  Let us talk real politik instead of rhetoric.

You wrote: I don't want THE UNITED STATES functioning in the modern world.  THE UNITED STATES is a corporate entity that continually sucks wealth from the American populace.   

Like it or not, the US is a world power.  Get real!

Also. Then where would you like the US society to function, in ANCIENT Egypt?

You wrote: From what you wrote, you don't seem to understand that a nuclear plant is highly unlikely to become owner of a very important and special river.
Whoever owns the river can tell the damn nuclear plant to stop polluting it.
And if the plant somehow DOES own the river, people can boycott that plant if they think the destruction it causes is a bad thing.

The reality of VT Yankee is that they pollute the river and there is nothing we can do about it.  Except either shut it down, fix it , or find alternative ways to produce power to the people of VT, Ma, And NH.


Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: HardyMacia on August 06, 2005, 07:54:01 am
As for raising taxes for the federal government, I'd like to see it be apportioned to the states again, and then the 50 states can all come up with their own solution. Some states might use a property tax, a sales tax, a VAT, an income tax, a progressive income tax, a pollution tax, a state lottery,...

At the national level, whatever the tax collection method is, I would like to see it as transparent as possible. If we continue to use the income tax then get rid of withholding so that workers need to pay quarterly like businesses do. I'm not sure of the differences between a VAT and sales tax, but my understanding is the VAT is harsher on the economy. If we have a sales tax then put the tax on the sales receipt as a separate line item. Stop hiding the $0.19 federal gas tax. Gas companies should be advertising their gas at their price and then the final bill will have the federal and state taxes added onto it.

If the federal government was scaled back to their explicit constitutional duties defense, courts, treasurer, postal roads,... then we could fund the federal government with an excise tax as we used to fund the federal government.

Hardy
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 06, 2005, 07:59:08 am
I think anyone who mentions his degree in every other post knows something about elitism.
I don't understand how someone with a degree in history can fail to see how the limits to government guaranteed in the Constitution have nearly completely fallen to the side.
I believe that if one extrapolates the zero agression principal to it's logical conclusion, then government is not legitimate, but, I would gladly live out the rest of my days in a country with a government that followed our Constitution.

I modified the above and removed my crack about going to a History degree guy when I needed something useful, because, I discovered, in another post, that Brien works in the useful trucking industry and yet another post where he says he respects my opinion.  Although that may have been many posts ago ;)
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: svillee on August 06, 2005, 09:00:07 am
The Muslims don't give a twit for us infidels.  You included.  They seek to control you and extinguish your LIBERTY.  They would make you a slave to ALLAH.  This is their stated goal.  It has nothing to do with what America does in the world theater today.  They seek only one thing.  World domination to ALLAH.  If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.

Elsewhere you have stressed the importance of backing up claims, and not just spouting rhetoric.  Would you care to provide a link to a statement by some organization that truly represents most Muslims, where they state their goal of controlling me and extinguishing my liberty?
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Rearden on August 06, 2005, 11:07:18 am
I recognize that some taxes are necessary.  I would advocate returning to the pre-Civil War method of funding the federal government:

The localities all have a property tax, funding all local functions to the degree that community members desire.  The state government has a property tax, usually a set percentage of the local property tax.  Once a year, the federal government sends each state a bill for 1/50th of the annual budget.  As part of the return to this system, I'd advocate repeal of the 17th amendment, returning the election of senators to the state legislatures.  In this manner the states have a powerful voice in the size of the bills they receive.  This is a crucial aspect of the original Constitution that we are missing.  It is the missing reins on today's runaway federal government.

Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Gabo on August 06, 2005, 12:54:52 pm
First.  You miss the point of private ownership of the river.  Who do you suppose will "own" the river?  The people?  The government?
The river would be owned PRIVATELY aka NOT publicly.
It is possible the power plant would own it.
It is possible someone else would own it (perhaps an enviornmental group).


Quote
The Vermont Nuclear Power Plant is a PRIVATE CORPORATION.    SO you think the people can somehow "boycott" the  very CORPORATION that supplies them with the power they require to heat their homes?  Power, their industry that provides their jobs?
Because in a free country the STATE doesn't give Vermont Nuclear Power Plant a monopoly on power in Vermont.
Instead, there would be multiple power companies competing to supply power to the people.
Because of this prices would be cheaper.
Also, if Vermont Nuclear Power decides to ruin the river, people can boycott by switching over to Vermont Hyrdo Power.



Quote
The Muslims don't give a twit for us infidels.  You included.  They seek to control you and extinguish your LIBERTY.  They would make you a slave to ALLAH.  This is their stated goal.  It has nothing to do with what America does in the world theater today.  They seek only one thing.  World domination to ALLAH.  If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.
As someone previously stated, you give absolutely no evidence proving your point.  You accuse me of being wrong just because I don't believe what the MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS say.  Coincidentally, the major media outlets print exactly what the government wants, and the government wants us to be angry at the Muslims and nation-build where they live.


Quote
Even if we didn't "police" the world, the enemies of the US would still invade and  and kill you.  If you think we we practiced Isolationism, it would only be a matter of time.  Do you not understand the lessons of history?  I don't agree with "policing" the world but the FREE WORLD has to draw the line before we are destroyed by enemies that vow to kill you and me.
Once again, look deeper.  What has made other people become our enemy?
In a free world, we wouldn't be forcing our troops into over 100 other nations.  We wouldn't be telling everyone what to do.
People hate us because we try to control them (and frankly, I don't blame them at all).


Quote
Congress is a joke because we allow it to be such.  This is why I stress the power of voting.
Voting is tyranny of the majority.  Tyranny like this makes possible things like slavery, elimination of liberty, etc etc.


Quote
You wrote: The United States is a Corporate ENTITY that sucks wealth from from the American populace?  That is a SOCIALIST STATEMENT.  Corporations don't suck the wealth of its workers.
My bad......  THE US is a corporate entity whose owners use guns to take wealth from the american populace (taxes anyone?).


Quote
You wrote: I  want a large group of individual sovereigns to stand together and agree to uphold the rights of one another.
When rights are infringed upon, that is what they court system is for.  Sovereigns could utilize the court system to receive fair retribution if they are wronged.

I would refer you to the CONSTITUTION of The United States.

Just who do you think are the sovereign citizens in the US?  It is a whole lot more than the FSP
I didn't mean the FSP at all.  I was referring to every sovereign in these united states.
It just so happens the people joining the FSP are among the only ones that want to uphold the rights of others.
Thus they are the only ones that will be protected against intrusion on their rights.


Quote
You wrote: Also, I see no reason why a person with a gun couldn't hold off an invader with a gun.  The person could have easily gotten training and could shoot the intruder.
If you are talking bomb-type weapons, then there isn't much you can do.  Even now with all our "wonderful" security measures, a terrorist could easily walk up to someone's house and blow themselves up.
The army doesn't do anything to help stop this.   In fact, mostly what they do is provoke this type of behavior.

They will come with more than you can protect yourself.  Wake up.  Look at the world situation and tell me that you can do a better job than the US military.  Please.
If people weren't FORCED BY GUNPOINT to fund the horrible US military, they would be way more likely to pay for a private militia.
Why?
Because a private militia will defend their houses rather than send tons of its forces to provoke someone into attacking.


Quote
OK.  You fund a private military and see how far it gets YOU and protection of your family.  I would remind you of NAZI Germany.  Imperialist Japan.  And totalitarian POL POT.  Please, give me a break.  Let us talk real politik instead of rhetoric.
As soon as I reach NH I will certainly be joining a private militia.
I know there are some, and I'm 100% sure in an attack they will get there faster than the army who is out in Iraq busy provoking more attacks.


Quote
You wrote: I don't want THE UNITED STATES functioning in the modern world.  THE UNITED STATES is a corporate entity that continually sucks wealth from the American populace.   

Like it or not, the US is a world power.  Get real!
The US derives ALL of its power from the people that it is composed of.
If we all turn away and switch back to natural law and protecting rights, the US won't have anyone to carry out anymore tyrannical actions.


Quote
Also. Then where would you like the US society to function, in ANCIENT Egypt?
I want the US as a corporate entity to die out completely.
The only functioning that should be done is by the sovereigns.


Quote
The reality of VT Yankee is that they pollute the river and there is nothing we can do about it.  Except either shut it down, fix it , or find alternative ways to produce power to the people of VT, Ma, And NH.
There is plenty we can do about it without getting out our guns and threatening the use of FORCE.

We can purchase the river and/or power plant, shut it down, and fix the river.
We can boycott the power plant and get power from another company.
We can even ostracize the owner of the power plant, refusing to sell him services or products and giving him scornful looks when we see him.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Rearden on August 08, 2005, 12:20:58 pm
I recognize that some taxes are necessary.  I would advocate returning to the pre-Civil War method of funding the federal government:

The localities all have a property tax, funding all local functions to the degree that community members desire.  The state government has a property tax, usually a set percentage of the local property tax.  Once a year, the federal government sends each state a bill for 1/50th of the annual budget.  As part of the return to this system, I'd advocate repeal of the 17th amendment, returning the election of senators to the state legislatures.  In this manner the states have a powerful voice in the size of the bills they receive.  This is a crucial aspect of the original Constitution that we are missing.  It is the missing reins on today's runaway federal government.



Brien, will you take the time to respond to this post?  I think it presents a serious answer to your original question.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 08, 2005, 02:55:04 pm
I recognize that some taxes are necessary.  I would advocate returning to the pre-Civil War method of funding the federal government:

The localities all have a property tax, funding all local functions to the degree that community members desire.  The state government has a property tax, usually a set percentage of the local property tax.  Once a year, the federal government sends each state a bill for 1/50th of the annual budget.  As part of the return to this system, I'd advocate repeal of the 17th amendment, returning the election of senators to the state legislatures.  In this manner the states have a powerful voice in the size of the bills they receive.  This is a crucial aspect of the original Constitution that we are missing.  It is the missing reins on today's runaway federal government.



Brien, will you take the time to respond to this post?  I think it presents a serious answer to your original question.

Reardon:  I apologize but I have had my hands full answering much of the rhetoric around here.

I, too may advocate repeal of 17th amendment. The Senate is way too powerful now.  However, some would argue that this would diminish the "voice of the people."  I say nay.  State legislatures are closer to the people who elect them.  And they stand for election every 2 years, not six.   State legislators can be held accountable every two years.                                                                                                               

All of Congress is poisoned by the special interests that money buys.  I sometimes wonder if we should have a direct democratic popular vote on all important issues concerning the government and their effect upon its citizens.  Let the Congress take care of the mundane tasks of the government for which the Constitution directed them.  For instance, let them craft the budgets, provide for common defense, but have the citizens decide whether it is acceptable. Give the citizens the opportunity of the line item veto.  Why should only the President have such privilege? All other important issues of self determination should be put  to referendum to the people on an annual basis.  Let the citizens have the final say on taxes, on International entanglements, laws constructed to protect oneself from him/herself, etc,

I am very much in favor of allowing all taxes to be decided on a local level.  This gives each municipality the option of "opting out" of the welfare system, so to speak.  If NYC or DC wants social welfare, let their citizens pay for it.  Why should I have to pay for 6 children all fathered by six different men in DC when they have no bearing upon me whatsoever.  Let them be responsible, and pay for, their own decisions and actions.  Private charity and other family members will step up to the proverbial plate.

So, in summary, I too believe in strong states rights.  Too many people today are duped into thinking by revisionist historians that the "The War between the States" was about slavery.  Phooey.  It was a war of Federal Government vs State Government and which was more important to the direction of the United States in the mid nineteenth century.  It took 76 years for John Adams to triumph over Thomas Jefferson, but he eventually won out.

And, please don't get me started on Lincoln.  The only President to ever suspend Habeas Corpus.  Gotta go. :)  But one more thing.

 I also think a VAT tax is more fair than income tax because income taxes punish success in the capital system.  I can't tell you how many Mercedes Benz cars I could have bought with the income tax I flush down to DC. >:(

If every citizen had to send 1/4ly payments instead of employers having to do this work for free, then I think the income tax would be gone tomorrow.  I cringe everytime I hear someone say in February, I am getting a government refund!  They don't even realize it is their own money and not the government's! ::)
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: BarryD on August 08, 2005, 04:36:35 pm
Brien, have you looked into the FairTax at all? The book is quite an eye-opener, I must say.
It explains why the VAT is a crap tax since it taxes items at every stage of production.

A voluntary tax that allows me to keep 100% of my paycheck, removes the IRS and tax day, brings corporations back to our shores, and sends me a check every month to pay for basic neccesities while still funding the gov't at the same level sounds good to me. And most important, is equitable. No more funding the gov't solely on the backs of the successful in this world. Look into it.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 09, 2005, 02:23:48 pm
Brien, have you looked into the FairTax at all? The book is quite an eye-opener, I must say.
It explains why the VAT is a crap tax since it taxes items at every stage of production.

A voluntary tax that allows me to keep 100% of my paycheck, removes the IRS and tax day, brings corporations back to our shores, and sends me a check every month to pay for basic neccesities while still funding the gov't at the same level sounds good to me. And most important, is equitable. No more funding the gov't solely on the backs of the successful in this world. Look into it.

No, I have not looked into "The FairTax."  I would be interested. 

The VAT may be crap but it doesn't penalize success.  The income tax is unfair because it forces those who work hard, and earn more money,  to fork it over to the government in a graduated income tax scheme.  I don't believe I said I supported a VAT tax, I did write that I thought is was more FAIR than an income tax.

And as far as voluntary taxes, that is merely nonsense, imo.  Who, even at this site would voluntarily send in tax to the government?  And if you would, how would you determine how much to send in?  Please, take a poll and see how many would send in voluntarily and at what percentage of their income?  1%, 5%, 10% 15% 20%?  And who would verify a citizen's income?  And if the tax was truly voluntary, what would it matter?

No, I believe a voluntary tax just wouldn't work in this modern day American Society.

So, do I understand you correctly to write that you would voluntarily participate in a voluntary tax system?
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 09, 2005, 02:43:43 pm
Please discuss HOW to fund the government.

The most offensive tax for me is the progressive income tax, because it is not apportioned (in the constitutional sense).  That is, not all voters are paying it at the same rate.  The least offensive tax for me is a property tax, because the cost to the government of protecting someone's property is at least vaguely related to the value of that property.

My ideal way of funding government is through auctioning seats in government.  See my discussion of a constitutional plutocracy (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/8/11921/83519).

I agree that the most UNFAIR tax is a progressive income tax.  It penalizes economic success.  And economic success is the very foundation of this country.

At least a VAT tax leaves it up to the purchaser on whether to buy or not to buy.  And if the government taxes every phase of production, and no one ends up buying due to goods becoming too expensive, then they would have to offer tax incentives to business in order to oil the economy.

I am not advocating a VAT tax, just writing it is fairer than a progressive income tax.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 09, 2005, 03:30:19 pm
I think anyone who mentions his degree in every other post knows something about elitism.
I don't understand how someone with a degree in history can fail to see how the limits to government guaranteed in the Constitution have nearly completely fallen to the side.
I believe that if one extrapolates the zero agression principal to it's logical conclusion, then government is not legitimate, but, I would gladly live out the rest of my days in a country with a government that followed our Constitution.

First.  I challenge you to prove your first statement.  You are WRONG.  I only mentioned my degree when YOU forced me to expose my credentials upon challenging my writing.  So don't try and put over anymore of your BS in that respect.  It doesn't fly with rational people.

Your take on the Constitution is entirely subjective.  It is still the most effective tool in any government on the planet.  It can be modified and in fact has been many times since its inception.  Name me one other country where people from other nations are literally dying to enter.  Even you are protected under the document that you so carelessly condemn.  Do you think you would enjoy the same protection of rights in the Middle East?  IN Africa?  In Europe?   In the Far East.  Nope.  So those of you that are so quick to condemn the Constitution and we supporters of it, should first think about ALL of the protection afforded to you under the very document you are demeaning.  Please keep in mind that OUR government is our Constitution.  Your statement that our government has strayed from the very document that supports it is pure rhetoric.  Prove it, or can it.

Since you don't believe that the US Government abides by this document, and is legitimate, please provide evidence of your statement.  I see elections every 2 years on the state level.   Every four years on the National level.  This legitimizes the Federal Government.  Just because you disagree with how the government operates, doesn't means it is illegitimate,   Millions of rational Americans happen to disagree with you because they VOTE.  They agree with the operation of OUR government.  Just because you say it has thrown the constitution "out the window" doesn't make it so.  It is pure rhetoric on your part.   Millions of Americans disagree with you.
                                                                                                                                     

And the last time I read the Constitution, it reads as follows:  We, the people, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.

Did you notice the phrase "WE the people"?  It doesn't read, "I the person".

And now for a few simple questions.

Exactly which Article(s) of the Constitution that involve or government violates your "zero aggression principle?  Please name them.

In the Bill of Rights:

How do The following Amendments of our government violate your "zero aggression principle"?

Amendments #'s 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 13, 14,section #1,& 4, 15, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 26.

The United States government is supported by this Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  And the government of the United States is supported by those millions of citizens who vote.  So, please, explain your post sir.

Is that good enough to satisfy an education beyond JR High Civics? :)
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: BarryD on August 09, 2005, 03:56:02 pm
Hey Brien,

You misunderstood the "voluntary" part of the FairTax. It's voluntary because you are only taxed on goods and services you buy. Nobody forces you to buy anything, hence the tax being voluntary. I admit, it's a stretch of the pure definition, but correct nonetheless. 

BarryD
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: libertyworker on August 09, 2005, 04:50:20 pm
Ok the question is in a civil society who would volunterly contribute to valued public goods such as defense and courts. The question almost  answers itself. If the public goods are truly valued enough they will be funded enough if they are valued by a cross section of income levels, possibly either income level.                                     
   If the  public goods are needed or they are a very good idea and they are not funded volunterly then the society is a very  sorry society and it is going to hell in a hand basket anyway, a  forced tax that violated ZAP would just make things worse it would just force good people to suuport a sorry society that is doomed anyway.                                                                                                                                                   
        If there really was a need for say 100 billion dollars to fund these public goods then 1% of income would be enough if everyone gave, if only 30% gave then it would require around 3.3%, that is assuming national income would not jump a lot because taxes would be elimnated. If only 10% gave then it would require an average of 10% of income.                                                                                                                               
         If you can't find at least 10% to give to such a worthy cause then the society is doomed and you have  very few truly natural leaders who can persuade people to give to such a worthy cause. If your society is so low that it counts on political leaders and political force instead of natural leaders, persusion and noncoresive respect then it would pay to get away as far as you can from such a low down worthless society.                               
          I really don't think American society is near that level of worthlessness.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: libertyworker on August 09, 2005, 04:55:10 pm
  I guessed I messed up, I meant to post this on the political section. Do what you want with it, move it, delete it or leave it be. Sorry Jean, I did not mean to mess up your nice section, it will not happen again.
Ok the question is in a civil society who would volunterly contribute to valued public goods such as defense and courts. The question almost  answers itself. If the public goods are truly valued enough they will be funded enough if they are valued by a cross section of income levels, possibly either income level.                                     
   If the  public goods are needed or they are a very good idea and they are not funded volunterly then the society is a very  sorry society and it is going to hell in a hand basket anyway, a  forced tax that violated ZAP would just make things worse it would just force good people to suuport a sorry society that is doomed anyway.                                                                                                                                                   
        If there really was a need for say 100 billion dollars to fund these public goods then 1% of income would be enough if everyone gave, if only 30% gave then it would require around 3.3%, that is assuming national income would not jump a lot because taxes would be elimnated. If only 10% gave then it would require an average of 10% of income.                                                                                                                               
         If you can't find at least 10% to give to such a worthy cause then the society is doomed and you have  very few truly natural leaders who can persuade people to give to such a worthy cause. If your society is so low that it counts on political leaders and political force instead of natural leaders, persusion and noncoresive respect then it would pay to get away as far as you can from such a low down worthless society.                               
          I really don't think American society is near that level of worthlessness.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 10, 2005, 11:49:41 am
Hey Brien,

You misunderstood the "voluntary" part of the FairTax. It's voluntary because you are only taxed on goods and services you buy. Nobody forces you to buy anything, hence the tax being voluntary. I admit, it's a stretch of the pure definition, but correct nonetheless. 

BarryD

Ahhhh.  Ok.  I have no problem with that scenario.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 10, 2005, 12:06:18 pm
The Muslims don't give a twit for us infidels.  You included.  They seek to control you and extinguish your LIBERTY.  They would make you a slave to ALLAH.  This is their stated goal.  It has nothing to do with what America does in the world theater today.  They seek only one thing.  World domination to ALLAH.  If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.

Elsewhere you have stressed the importance of backing up claims, and not just spouting rhetoric.  Would you care to provide a link to a statement by some organization that truly represents most Muslims, where they state their goal of controlling me and extinguishing my liberty?

Sure pick up any national paper and read about what is happening in Iraq.  Do you not remember 9/11?  Do I need to provide the link for that act of war?  Osama and his buddies "truly" represent Muslims.  They have attacked the US before and they will again.  I hope you are not a causality.  Your cavalier attitude to the the war on terror leads me to believe you think it is nothing to be concerned over.  How wrong you are, and I sincerely hope you or nobody in your family becomes a causality.

Also I have used the term "extremist" time after time.  I understand that perhaps the Majority of Muslims are not Jihadist", yet if you don't understand the current threat of "extremist Muslims" to the free world today, then you have not been awake since even before 9/11.  Remember the USS Cole?  The bombing of the Embassy's in the middle east?   There is a declared war on all freedom loving nations by these Muslims.  And if you don't think they will kill you, you are very sadly mistaken. 
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SteveA on August 10, 2005, 01:27:52 pm
And I've heard propoganda about extremist Christians trying to kill Muslims as well.  It goes both ways.

Back when we were concerned with justice over the 9/11 attacks, we had plenty of support both here and abroad.  We stood a chance of actually detering such actions in the future as well.

What you're seeing now has nothing to do with 9/11.  It has to do with the "You're either for us or against us." declaration by Bush to the world - people are wondering which side of the line to stand on.

Before he escalated this thing, we had a lot of sympathy and help from people in Middle East and were assisted in capturing many people we felt assisted with 9/11.  Such is more difficult and becoming impossible as resistance grows against what is no longer justice but an unprovoked war with the option of neutrality removed.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: svillee on August 10, 2005, 02:51:20 pm
Elsewhere you have stressed the importance of backing up claims, and not just spouting rhetoric.  Would you care to provide a link to a statement by some organization that truly represents most Muslims, where they state their goal of controlling me and extinguishing my liberty?

Sure pick up any national paper and read about what is happening in Iraq.  Do you not remember 9/11?  Do I need to provide the link for that act of war?  Osama and his buddies "truly" represent Muslims.  They have attacked the US before and they will again.  I hope you are not a causality.  Your cavalier attitude to the the war on terror leads me to believe you think it is nothing to be concerned over.  How wrong you are, and I sincerely hope you or nobody in your family becomes a causality.. 

Of course I'm aware of Iraq, and 9/11, and the USS Cole.  I don't have a cavalier attitude about the war on terror.  You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and when others jump to incorrect conclusions you lash out at them.

All I wanted you to do is back up your claim that "the Muslims" (implying most Muslims) have a stated goal of controlling me and extinguishing my liberty.  You did not include the word "extremist" in that claim.

I understand that perhaps the Majority of Muslims are not Jihadist.

This admission is getting there, but I'm looking for more.  As far as I can tell, most Muslims not only avoid jihad violence in their own behavior, but they disapprove of others like Osama Bin Laden doing it.  If you can provide a link showing that most Muslims approve of Osama Bin Laden, then please do so.

This is an important point, because when people make sweeping statements about "the Muslims", then peace-loving Muslims are understandably offended.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 10, 2005, 04:33:15 pm
Of course I'm aware of Iraq, and 9/11, and the USS Cole.  I don't have a cavalier attitude about the war on terror.  You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and when others jump to incorrect conclusions you lash out at them.

All I wanted you to do is back up your claim that "the Muslims" (implying most Muslims) have a stated goal of controlling me and extinguishing my liberty.  You did not include the word "extremist" in that claim.

I understand that perhaps the Majority of Muslims are not Jihadist.

 

This admission is getting there, but I'm looking for more.  As far as I can tell, most Muslims not only avoid jihad violence in their own behavior, but they disapprove of others like Osama Bin Laden doing it.  If you can provide a link showing that most Muslims approve of Osama Bin Laden, then please do so.

This is an important point, because when people make sweeping statements about "the Muslims", then peace-loving Muslims are understandably offended.
Quote

Ok.  I failed to use the word extremist" as I have usually done in my posts in the the past.  And I stand by my statement that the "proof" is in the declaration of war when Extremist Muslims attacked the US by destroying the WTC and The USS Cole.   You SEEM to have a cavalier attitude by your writing.   Plus you asked for your "proof" and I have supplied it.

And if you don't think you can be caught in an attack on our soil, I think you should reconsider your thoughts.  By the grace of God, I was not in the twin towers on 9/11.  I visited there often on business and still retain the business cards of my murdered friends.  I, or other members of my family, could have been in the Underground in London as I have relatives native to England.

I am of the opinion that there are working cells of "jihadists" in America as I write this.  There are radicals who condemn both you and I for our very existence as "infidels".  They teach hatred and murder.  In my opinion they are worse than the KKK or Nazis because they hide behind the shield of religion.  They are Muslims, albeit radical extremist fundamentalists, yet still they are practicing Muslims.  You can't deny that fact.

Other Muslims may "disapprove" of Osama, and his henchmen, but what do they do to stop it?  The good people of Iraq are fighting for their very existence and the American Press hammers the US everyday for aiding their fight against these "exteremists."  Thomas Sowell wrote a recent column on how the American Press consistently highlights the "violence" in Iraq and ignores the heroes and good things that are happening there.

What do the non violent Muslims, as a group, do here in this country do to stem the tide of extremist radical fundamentalism taught by the radical sects?  I have heard rhetoric but I haven't seen any actions upon their behalf.  Do you know of any organized Muslim activity that has contributed to the fallen Americans of 9/11?  If so, please educate me.  I fully understand the difference between non violent Muslims and extremist Muslins.  I am not indicting ALL Muslims but I am advocating and all out war against the extremists that have vowed to kill both you and me.  For the free world to do anything less is irresponsible and inviting terrorism right up to your front door.

American citizens from all walks of life have contributed to the families who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 act of war.  Religious groups have taken up collections.  Organized Charities have participated.  Are any of these Muslim ?  All I have seen is "extremist" Muslims dance in the streets after 9/11 and the London Underground bombings.

Did we, as citizens of the free world, dance in the streets when we invaded Iraq to restore Kuwait's international borders?  Did we dance in the streets when Saddam was removed from power after raping, torturing, and killing entire families?  Did we dance in the streets when Saddam was removed from power because he committed genocide against his own people in Kurdistan?  Did we dance in the streets when the US dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  We all know the answer to these questions.  This is what sets us apart from those who do dance in the streets over the killing innocent people.

No.  We are a nation of compationate and just people.  We will have to meet this enemy head on right here upon our own soil.  They have already proved that during 9/11.  I sincerely hope you and your family remain safe from these extremist Muslims that hide behind the robes of ALLAH.   

And please, I am not "lashing out" at anyone.  Just the opposite, see some of the posts that are directed at me.  I write with emphasis so that you may understand the importance of what I write, not to demean or lash out at any particular person.  As a matter of fact, I have written apologies here on this site which is more than I have seen from other posters when they are incorrect, rude and insulting.  So, please spare me the lecture on etiquette.

I hope you understand. :(
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: svillee on August 10, 2005, 06:32:13 pm
Plus you asked for your "proof" and I have supplied it.

You supplied proof of a modified statement with the word "extremist" inserted.  That proof was unnecessary, because I never questioned the modified statement.

All I wanted you to do is admit that the extremists are in the minority, or else prove otherwise.  As I said, this is an important point for peace-loving Muslims who have endured various forms of harassment since 9/11.  And I stand by my statement that I don't have a cavalier attitude.

Organized Charities have participated.  Are any of these Muslim ?

I know that many Muslims have become afraid (http://www.mpac.org/home_article_display.aspx?ITEM=518) to give to charities since 9/11.

I hope you understand. :(

Again, please refrain from sarcastic emoticons.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 15, 2005, 04:22:49 pm
Plus you asked for your "proof" and I have supplied it.

You supplied proof of a modified statement with the word "extremist" inserted.  That proof was unnecessary, because I never questioned the modified statement.

All I wanted you to do is admit that the extremists are in the minority, or else prove otherwise.  As I said, this is an important point for peace-loving Muslims who have endured various forms of harassment since 9/11.  And I stand by my statement that I don't have a cavalier attitude.

Organized Charities have participated.  Are any of these Muslim ?

I know that many Muslims have become afraid (http://www.mpac.org/home_article_display.aspx?ITEM=518) to give to charities since 9/11.

I hope you understand. :(

Again, please refrain from sarcastic emoticons.

Ok  Check out the Council for American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. 

Bossem Khafagi, director of community relations pleaded guilty to criminal charges in court and was deported.  Ismail Royer, CAIR communications specialist and civil rights coordinator was sentenced to 20 years on terrorist charges.  Sinaj Wahhaj was linked to Omar Abdul Ramhan in the plot to blow up the WTC in 1995.

Ghassan Elashi, founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR was convicted of knowingly doing business with Hammas.  He gave Hammas over 12.4 million dollars.

Omar Ahmand, founding Chairman of CAIR, announced in July 1998 that:   "Islam isn't in America to be equal to every other faith, but t o become dominant.  The Koran... should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only religion on Earth."

So, I agree we should open a true and honest dialog with ALL Muslims of Islam's Faith and separate the "wheat from the chaff", before it is too late.

Why would Muslims be afraid of giving to American and World based charities to help those who have been harmed by the extremist Muslims?  I would think it would be the opposite?  Even if there was some proof, on a per capita basis, that Muslims in the United States were equal in giving to Charities dedicated to helping those harmed by people the of their faith that have caused death and tragic events, they would gain more credibility with those who stand against Muslims who dedicate themselves to kill innocent people.

For example./ There are a few Christians that dedicate themselves to saving an unborn fetus through bombing abortion clinics.  They, or any organization connected to the Christians, do not provide funds to extremists of the same religion.  Nor do they stand by and do nothing while a very few "extremist" bomb clinics or shoot Physicians.  They provide alternatives to the violence.  And certainly, this example is by no means even remotely comparable statistically because almost every Christan who is anti-choice is non violent.  Futhermore, the guilty are hunted down, tried, convicted, and sentenced under our law.

My point here is that Muslims, although many abhor violence, do not do anything to counter the terrorist behavior of their "brother" Muslim jihadists.  In fact, as I cited, some even give millions of dollars to terrorists organizations like Hammas.  So logically speaking,these terrorist organizations are getting their money from other Muslims. It is my belief, unless the non violent Muslims begin an organized resistance to take back their religion that has been hijacked by extremists, they too will begin to suffer the consequences that will befall the extremists.  Unfortunately it is becoming a situation of "either you are with the free world, or against it". They will have to prove their allegiance to a free world that is tolerant of other religions and cultures or become associated with the enemies of freedom and liberty for which the free world is now waging war.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: svillee on August 15, 2005, 10:09:53 pm
Ghassan Elashi, founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR was convicted of knowingly doing business with Hammas.  He gave Hammas over 12.4 million dollars.

Omar Ahmand, founding Chairman of CAIR, announced in July 1998 that:   "Islam isn't in America to be equal to every other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran... should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only religion on Earth."

Yes, CAIR is a scary group.  We all need to keep an eye out for organizations like this.

Why would Muslims be afraid of giving to American and World based charities to help those who have been harmed by the extremist Muslims?

Charity can be a tricky thing.  In the case of Muslims considering donations to a Muslim organization, they may be legitimately afraid that the organization will turn out to be like CAIR.  On the other hand, even if they're considering donations to a faith-neutral charity, it's always possible the funds will be used for other things.  You may have heard about the scandal (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1029-05.htm) involving Bernadine Healy at the Red Cross, where funds earmarked for 9/11 relief were actually diverted elsewhere.  Of course this issue applies to both Muslim and non-Muslim donors, but still, for this and other reasons, I'm reluctant to disparage people simply for not donating.

My point here is that Muslims, although many abhor violence, do not do anything to counter the terrorist behavior of their "brother" Muslim jihadists.  In fact, as I cited, some even give millions of dollars to terrorists organizations like Hammas.  So logically speaking,these terrorist organizations are getting their money from other Muslims. It is my belief, unless the non violent Muslims begin an organized resistance to take back their religion that has been hijacked by extremists, they too will begin to suffer the consequences that will befall the extremists.  Unfortunately it is becoming a situation of "either you are with the free world, or against it". They will have to prove their allegiance to a free world that is tolerant of other religions and cultures or become associated with the enemies of freedom and liberty for which the free world is now waging war.

I prefer not to take this view of "you're either with us or against us".  I don't expect Muslims to prove their allegiance.  I'm willing to treat them as innocent until proven guilty.  To me, that's the American way.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Brien on August 16, 2005, 02:08:52 pm
Ghassan Elashi, founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR was convicted of knowingly doing business with Hammas.  He gave Hammas over 12.4 million dollars.

Omar Ahmand, founding Chairman of CAIR, announced in July 1998 that:   "Islam isn't in America to be equal to every other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran... should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only religion on Earth."

Yes, CAIR is a scary group.  We all need to keep an eye out for organizations like this.

Why would Muslims be afraid of giving to American and World based charities to help those who have been harmed by the extremist Muslims?

Charity can be a tricky thing.  In the case of Muslims considering donations to a Muslim organization, they may be legitimately afraid that the organization will turn out to be like CAIR.  On the other hand, even if they're considering donations to a faith-neutral charity, it's always possible the funds will be used for other things.  You may have heard about the scandal (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1029-05.htm) involving Bernadine Healy at the Red Cross, where funds earmarked for 9/11 relief were actually diverted elsewhere.  Of course this issue applies to both Muslim and non-Muslim donors, but still, for this and other reasons, I'm reluctant to disparage people simply for not donating.

My point here is that Muslims, although many abhor violence, do not do anything to counter the terrorist behavior of their "brother" Muslim jihadists.  In fact, as I cited, some even give millions of dollars to terrorists organizations like Hammas.  So logically speaking,these terrorist organizations are getting their money from other Muslims. It is my belief, unless the non violent Muslims begin an organized resistance to take back their religion that has been hijacked by extremists, they too will begin to suffer the consequences that will befall the extremists.  Unfortunately it is becoming a situation of "either you are with the free world, or against it". They will have to prove their allegiance to a free world that is tolerant of other religions and cultures or become associated with the enemies of freedom and liberty for which the free world is now waging war.

I prefer not to take this view of "you're either with us or against us".  I don't expect Muslims to prove their allegiance.  I'm willing to treat them as innocent until proven guilty.  To me, that's the American way.

I know what you are saying and agree in the "American Way" as well.  However two points come to mind.  The war on terror is a Free World effort so the American Way will not always prevail.  Witness Tony Blair recently expelling Muslims in Great Britain for inciting hatred against the homeland.

And here in America, Americans, in my opinion, are very tolerant, to a point.  Some make light of the 911 act of war against this country because they say it didn't affect them where they live.  Not me.  And the worldwide acts of terrorism in the Philippines, England, Saudi Arabia, and the United States for example, tend to make ordinary citizens very frightened.  And ordinary citizens will do extraordinary things in order to protect their way of life.   I am not advocating a all out witch hunt against every Muslim for extremists residing in the US, but I am saying, it has happened before, and it may happen again.

The peace advocates of Islam could do more to protect their image here in the US and abroad.  Otherwise they may be in for a rough ride when the next terrorist attacks happens upon the soil of the US.  I have heard many so called "experts" state it is only a matter of time when the next attack will come.  I mean look at it this way, we detained the Japanese during WWII against all of the rights and freedoms we hold dear to us.  And they didn't do anything either.  Some say it can't happen again.  I say nay.  When the Americans are attacked again, and the attack is of large proportions again, there is a chance that the citizens of this country will pressure the government to take drastic steps to protect their way of life.  Other citizens who know better will probably be in the minority.     Witness the so called Patriot Act. 


Oh, and yes I remember the Red Cross scandal.  However, that doesn't mean the Muslims can't find, or even start, a charity which would benefit those who were murdered in the 911 act of war.  It would go a long way in helping Americans understand reasonable Muslims practicing Islam the way it was probably meant to be understood.                                                                                                                                     
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: libertyworker on August 23, 2005, 09:24:53 am
I recognize that some taxes are necessary.  I would advocate returning to the pre-Civil War method of funding the federal government:

The localities all have a property tax, funding all local functions to the degree that community members desire.  The state government has a property tax, usually a set percentage of the local property tax.  Once a year, the federal government sends each state a bill for 1/50th of the annual budget.  As part of the return to this system, I'd advocate repeal of the 17th amendment, returning the election of senators to the state legislatures.  In this manner the states have a powerful voice in the size of the bills they receive.  This is a crucial aspect of the original Constitution that we are missing.  It is the missing reins on today's runaway federal government.


                                                                                                                                                                     
  Basically that was custom duties which was very high and studies have shown the benefits that America got from Immrants post civil war was reduced a lot by the high tariffs that the merchantilist GOP pushed. Still for a basic constitutional  federal government tariffs these days would not have to be very high, although they would probally be higher that the across the board average today.                                                                                                                 
       Imports are  over 150 billion dollars and soon will be 200 billion, an across the board custom duty of 5%  to 10% should be enough to raise the 50 billion to 200 billion that the federal government could really use. Of course assement risk could be placed on Country of Orgin, for example stuff coming from China may have a high duty while Canada a very low  duty or even no duty because China is a big miltary threat, while Canada is not.                                                                 
  The  point of collection should also be Constitutional and also be respectful of property rights, thus the federal government has to get the ok from the state legisltor to build a collection point in that state, plus state constitutions may require permission from the county and local governments, and the state must get the consent from the property owner if the collection point is built on private property( see my arguments on the eminet domain/ just compensation thread) or they state must convince a jury why the private propert is owed to the state and they must pay just compensation if the jury and appels courts decide in favor of the state, that just compensation not market value, the jury can award just compensation which may include punitive damages on the state.                                                                                           
      If the federal government cannot get the property it wants, it can move the property back to the place where it can obtain the property.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: libertyworker on August 23, 2005, 09:51:51 am
As for raising taxes for the federal government, I'd like to see it be apportioned to the states again, and then the 50 states can all come up with their own solution. Some states might use a property tax, a sales tax, a VAT, an income tax, a progressive income tax, a pollution tax, a state lottery,...

At the national level, whatever the tax collection method is, I would like to see it as transparent as possible. If we continue to use the income tax then get rid of withholding so that workers need to pay quarterly like businesses do. I'm not sure of the differences between a VAT and sales tax, but my understanding is the VAT is harsher on the economy. If we have a sales tax then put the tax on the sales receipt as a separate line item. Stop hiding the $0.19 federal gas tax. Gas companies should be advertising their gas at their price and then the final bill will have the federal and state taxes added onto it.

If the federal government was scaled back to their explicit constitutional duties defense, courts, treasurer, postal roads,... then we could fund the federal government with an excise tax as we used to fund the federal government.

Hardy
                                                                                                                                                                 
  Hardy, I  sort of agree, a state membership fee would be best or should be a very big part of the federal fee. If the federal government requires 150 billion dollars, that would be 500 dollars per person, NH would be charged around 600 million to 700 million dollars and CA around 25 billion dollars. At least the debt including the social security debt should be passed to the states based on population, then let  each state decide how they are going to pay the debt, they could also re neotate the debt with debt holders, most which are state and local governments and state citizens, federal property and nonUS constitutional assets and operations of the federal government would go to the states.                             
     Another source of revenue that the federal government could get would be from coining money,  if they could buy sliver for 7 dollars an ounce they might coin a 1 ounce coin and charge 8 to 20 dollars for it. Local public credit unions could replace the Federal Reserve, they could produce their own notes, use the federal coins for full or partial backing and they individually would be responsible for not inflating their notes, not the federal reserve, not the federal tresury and not the state government.                                                                                                                                                       
                Patents and copyrights could also be another source of federal constitutional revenue.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: AmateurEmale on August 23, 2005, 10:33:30 am
Do you think the government should charge user fees for the interstate highways?

Or do you think that we could somehow privatize the interstate highways?
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: libertyworker on August 23, 2005, 11:17:31 am
Do you think the government should charge user fees for the interstate highways?

Or do you think that we could somehow privatize the interstate highways?
                                                                                                                                                       
        I would perfer the federal government turn over control of the interstates to the states and I would perfer my state turn over control of the the interstates to the counties and if my county had a interstate I would perfer the county turn it over to the local governments and I would perfer my local government lease not sell the section of the interstate that runs throught its jurisdiction to a private firm.                                                           
     I also would perfer that the federaly controled TVA be turned over to the counties and local governments and I would perfer my county charge a fee for large boat traffic on the river plus lease the public schools and use  the revenue to subsidze school vochers for at least modest and low income familes.                                                   
        I would like to see my county have voluntery miltia group and volunter Sheriffs department with health insurance for mitia and posse members  and their familes, Objectors could get the same benefit by joing a non violent civil defense group, EMT, or volunter fire department.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on October 25, 2006, 01:55:20 pm
At the national level, whatever the tax collection method is, I would like to see it as transparent as possible.....If we have a sales tax then put the tax on the sales receipt as a separate line item. Stop hiding the $0.19 federal gas tax. Gas companies should be advertising their gas at their price and then the final bill will have the federal and state taxes added onto it.

Hardy

Hardy,

You've contradicted yourself there. Which is it? Do you want transparent taxes, or explicit taxes?

A VAT would be a big mistake...look at the EU. Especially if the income tax wasn't abolished. You'll eventually end up double-taxed when it gets reinstated.

I'm a fan of a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more tax you pay. A national sales tax would be the easiest to implement.

Witholding taxes is there for compliance and convenience. The average American isn't going to save up for their quarterly tax bill. What a mess we would have when tax time came around!

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the country with around 2 million employees. That's a lot of jobs to replace, and couldn't happen over night. In fact I think when you include state and local governments into the mix a very large percentage of the population works for government. Yes, the government is over bloated, and needs to be seriously down sized, but it's not going to be easy.

One last thing...Brien...what's up with all of the "?" in your sentences? It's very hard to read.  ???
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Ward Griffiths on October 25, 2006, 02:00:48 pm

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the country with around 2 million employees. That's a lot of jobs to replace, and couldn't happen over night. In fact I think when you include state and local governments into the mix a very large percentage of the population works for government. Yes, the government is over bloated, and needs to be seriously down sized, but it's not going to be easy.

Toss them out in the streets to starve.  While some of them may have skills useful in a free market, most of them don't deserve to swim in the human gene pool.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on October 25, 2006, 02:10:31 pm

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the country with around 2 million employees. That's a lot of jobs to replace, and couldn't happen over night. In fact I think when you include state and local governments into the mix a very large percentage of the population works for government. Yes, the government is over bloated, and needs to be seriously down sized, but it's not going to be easy.

Toss them out in the streets to starve.  While some of them may have skills useful in a free market, most of them don't deserve to swim in the human gene pool.


You understand that there are not 2 million politicians working for the Federal Government don't you? These are regular people like you and me!

Let's follow your logic for a second. 2 million people become unemployed. 2 million people now no longer have income to spend in our economy. Hmmm...

Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: lloydbob1 on October 25, 2006, 02:56:21 pm
They can try to find employment from the net taxpayers who  get to keep the funds these people are paid from.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: maxxoccupancy on October 25, 2006, 03:43:31 pm
One rule of classical economics: When people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, they spend, save, invest, or give it away.  There are an estimated 18 million people working of federal jobs, subsidies, or grants, doing comparatively little for the economy.  Good economic policy means moving people from less productive activities (sitting in a government office pushing forms) to productive activities like those in the private sector.

Historically, all of the great economic booms (20's, 40's, 50's, early 60's, 80's, late 90's) have been accompanied by slower spending growth and/or tax rate reductions.

--Max
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: maxxoccupancy on October 25, 2006, 03:48:14 pm
To make something like this win-win for everybody, we could offer federal, state, and municipal employees (who aren't immediately necessary, a departure bonus, early retirement, unlimited sabatical, or some other offer of pay to leave their job.  This would save money and encourage a reduction in bureaucracy at all levels.

The problem is that the public sector unions maintain their political clout by keeping large numbers of people on the federal payroll.  We are literally being made to pay 18 million people to not work--just to pay dues into the civil service/transit/teachers/ fire fighters unions etc.

--Max
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: RalphBorsodi on October 25, 2006, 05:15:41 pm
Quote
One rule of classical economics: When people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, they spend, save, invest, or give it away.

The original classical liberals (the "laissez-faire" French Physiocrats) tax plan was the collection of land rent (called l'impot unique) and so was the tax plan under the articles of confederation because the founders were concerned with the concentration of power that land ownership brought via government granted privilege.

http://savingcommunities.org/foundersplan/whyfounders.html

excerpt:

Why America's Founders Wanted A Property Tax on Land Value, And NOT a Sales Tax!


Why a Land Value Tax?
Land for ordinary citizens

William Penn wanted to keep aristocrats from grabbing up land as they had in Europe. He declared Pennsylvania a "commonwealth" where each landholder would pay a modest rent that "would put an end to taxes, leave not a beggar, and make the greatest bank for national trade." The first tax in Pennsylvania was a land value tax.

Thomas Jefferson also saw that land monopoly made ordinary Europeans poor, while cheap land made Americans rich. He also proposed taxes on real estate to prevent land grabbers from driving land prices up.
Keeping taxing power local

Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government taxed each state on its land value. Each state would tax each county, and citizens would never have to deal with state or federal tax collectors. Our founders did not trust strong central governments. They believed that people govern their own communities better than powerful states can govern them.
A stipend for senior citizens

Tom Paine proposed to give each citizen over 50 an annual stipend from land value tax for the rest of his life. Paine' proposal was the first (and probably the best) social security proposal.


Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Ward Griffiths on October 26, 2006, 08:30:59 am

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the country with around 2 million employees. That's a lot of jobs to replace, and couldn't happen over night. In fact I think when you include state and local governments into the mix a very large percentage of the population works for government. Yes, the government is over bloated, and needs to be seriously down sized, but it's not going to be easy.

Toss them out in the streets to starve.  While some of them may have skills useful in a free market, most of them don't deserve to swim in the human gene pool.


You understand that there are not 2 million politicians working for the Federal Government don't you? These are regular people like you and me!

They may be like you, they are not like me.  I don't get my income from tax money.  Politicians or bureaucrats or soldiers or police, makes no difference.  They are feeding their families with money stolen from other people at gunpoint.  Theft is theft.  I didn't hire any of these people to work for me.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on October 26, 2006, 02:07:02 pm

You understand that there are not 2 million politicians working for the Federal Government don't you? These are regular people like you and me!

They may be like you, they are not like me.  I don't get my income from tax money.  Politicians or bureaucrats or soldiers or police, makes no difference.  They are feeding their families with money stolen from other people at gunpoint.  Theft is theft.  I didn't hire any of these people to work for me.

I'm sure the majority of those people see their jobs just like you see yours...a job and a way to earn income.

I guess you blame FDR for our huge government? He did put into motion what you see today through his New Deal by putting the government in control of the economy by offering jobs and welfare to the citizens. Along with WW2 it did bring us out of The Great Depression.

So here's the question of the day. How do you Systematically reduce the size of the government in a manner that won't cause an economic collapse, and reduce the populations dependency on government jobs? :)
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Ward Griffiths on October 26, 2006, 02:59:18 pm

I'm sure the majority of those people see their jobs just like you see yours...a job and a way to earn income.

I guess you blame FDR for our huge government? He did put into motion what you see today through his New Deal by putting the government in control of the economy by offering jobs and welfare to the citizens. Along with WW2 it did bring us out of The Great Depression.

So here's the question of the day. How do you Systematically reduce the size of the government in a manner that won't cause an economic collapse, and reduce the populations dependency on government jobs? :)

What part of "Toss them out on the streets to starve" did you misunderstand?  Those with government jobs are parasites, pure and simple.

And without government leeching away most of the productive effort of the population of this country, it would be the biggest economic boom in history.

No, I don't blame FDR.  He just continued what Lincoln started.

Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: lloydbob1 on October 26, 2006, 03:12:27 pm
What Economic Collapse?  30% of the GDP returning to the people is not an economic disaster!  [marthastewartvoice] "Its a good thing' [/marthastewartvoice]
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on October 26, 2006, 03:16:04 pm
What part of "Toss them out on the streets to starve" did you misunderstand?  Those with government jobs are parasites, pure and simple.

And without government leeching away most of the productive effort of the population of this country, it would be the biggest economic boom in history.

Please explain how a loss of 16 million jobs would contribute to the biggest economic boom in history?  ???

Surely you understand the most basic of economic concepts, or are you just not concerned with the collapse of our society?
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on October 26, 2006, 03:20:11 pm
What Economic Collapse?  30% of the GDP returning to the people is not an economic disaster!  [marthastewartvoice] "Its a good thing' [/marthastewartvoice]

There is a cause and effect happening here. You don't think there will be any consequences of what you are proposing? Our economy is a fragile creature subject to the influences of many sources.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: lloydbob1 on October 26, 2006, 05:24:38 pm
Some fallout
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Ward Griffiths on October 27, 2006, 11:53:25 am
There is a cause and effect happening here. You don't think there will be any consequences of what you are proposing? Our economy is a fragile creature subject to the influences of many sources.
The single biggest influence is government.  Getting that vampire off of the jugular would be a major improvement.  Like I said already, I don't give a damn about the effects on government workers -- let them get real jobs or let them starve.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Dreepa on October 27, 2006, 04:50:44 pm


So here's the question of the day. How do you Systematically reduce the size of the government in a manner that won't cause an economic collapse, and reduce the populations dependency on government jobs? :)

Ok
Year one Cut the Dept of Agriculture in 1/2, Cut $1B from Defense budget. Reduce the number of recruits needed for the military.
Cut Dept of Education in 1/2
Year two  Cut Dept of HUD in 1/2, etc etc etc

Do it is slow cuts.  That way there are huge upheavels and the job market can slowly handle the surplus.
It may take 20 years but .... that is better than it is now.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: RalphBorsodi on October 28, 2006, 05:34:27 am

You understand that there are not 2 million politicians working for the Federal Government don't you? These are regular people like you and me!

They may be like you, they are not like me.  I don't get my income from tax money.  Politicians or bureaucrats or soldiers or police, makes no difference.  They are feeding their families with money stolen from other people at gunpoint.  Theft is theft.  I didn't hire any of these people to work for me.

I'm sure the majority of those people see their jobs just like you see yours...a job and a way to earn income.

I guess you blame FDR for our huge government? He did put into motion what you see today through his New Deal by putting the government in control of the economy by offering jobs and welfare to the citizens. Along with WW2 it did bring us out of The Great Depression.


the FDR phenomena was the result of massive over accumulation that had occured in the late 19th century from state intervention in the market place followed by the cycle of under-consumption & under accumulation. It was nothing more than further state interventions that had successively been ratcheted up since that time. See the mutualist Kevin Carson's work in this area.

http://mutualist.org/id87.html

excerpt:
This is potentially catastrophic for the survival of capitalism. Capitalism, paradoxically, requires constant new accumulation, even when it suffers the consequences of past over-accumulation. One temporary solution to over-accumulation is new investment; the latter is essential to keep previously accumulated capital profitable. As Marx pointed out in Volume Three of Capital, the falling rate of profit due to over-accumulation can be offset by increasing the productivity of labor (i.e., the rate of "relative surplus value"). This is accomplished by new investment in improved processes. To paraphrase Al Smith, the solution to the crisis of over-accumulation is more accumulation. The economy is balanced on pinpoint, as in a Ponzi scheme, with further subsidized accumulation necessary to render existing over-accumulated capital profitable. And each such new wave of accumulation, to be profitable, will itself require still further accumulation. So statist solutions to over-accumulation directly impede the further accumulation necessary to keep old investments profitable.

The state may also respond by eating up surplus capital with unproductive outlets like military spending; but this, too, reduces the rate of accumulation which, paradoxically, is necessary to solve the problems of previous over-accumulation.


http://mutualist.org/id88.html

excerpt:
The levels of state expenditure necessary to underwrite the operating costs of capital and render investment productive create a fiscal crisis, parallel to the crisis of accumulation.

Large-scale state capitalist intervention, generally identified with Whigs and Republicans in the mid-nineteenth century, led to a centralization of the economy in the hands of large producers. This system was inherently unstable, and required still further state intervention to solve its contradictions. The result was the full-blown state capitalism of the twentieth century, in which the state played a direct role in subsidizing and cartelizing the corporate economy. Despite such intervention, though, state capitalism was still unstable. As regulatory cartelization advanced from the "Progressive" era on, the problems of overproduction and surplus capital were further intensified by the forces described by Stromberg in the previous two chapters, with the state resorting to ever greater, snowballing foreign expansionism and domestic corporatism to solve them. They eventually led to New Deal corporate state, to a world war in which the U.S. was established (in Samuel Huntington’s words) as "hegemonic power in a system of world order," and an almost totally militarized high tech economy.

A positive rate of profit, under twentieth century state capitalism, was possible only because the state underwrote so much of the cost of reproduction of constant and variable capital, and undertook "social investment" which increased the efficiency of labor and capital and consequently the rate of profit on capital.3 And monopoly capital's demands on the state are not stable over time, but steadily increase

Quote
So here's the question of the day. How do you Systematically reduce the size of the government in a manner that won't cause an economic collapse, and reduce the populations dependency on government jobs? :)

see Jason's talk at the last PorcFest called "The Cannae Tactic"...

http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/cannae_tactic
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on October 29, 2006, 09:41:50 pm
Thanks for the links Ralph. It looks like interesting reading. I appreciate your feedback.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: RalphBorsodi on October 29, 2006, 11:01:52 pm
Thanks for the links Ralph. It looks like interesting reading. I appreciate your feedback.

No problem. I do what I can.

Did you mean the mutualist reading or Jason's talk was interesting (not that they are mutually exclusive - no pun intended)?
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: SeanSchade on November 01, 2006, 10:19:15 pm
I enjoyed both, but I especially liked Jason's discussion of the Cannae Tactic.
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: MyFreeStateName on December 09, 2006, 04:34:57 am
Brien. Why do most of your sentences end in question marks? Just curious. Are you typing in some foreign language?....lol
Title: Re: XVI Amendment
Post by: Poisian on April 21, 2007, 12:10:58 pm
There are perfectly legitimate taxes - but the Federal Income Tax isn't one of them.

How to fund the government?  How did we fund it before we had the Federal Income Tax?

The Federal Income Tax does not go to provide any of us with any services or utilities in any way shape or form.  The Internal Revenue Service is an operation send all the money it collects to the Federal Reserve in interest payments.  All services that are "provided by government" are provided by other taxes - mostly local taxes.

The Federal Income Tax is a direct tax on your labor and the Constitution states specifically that all taxes must be apportioned - therefore the Federal Income Tax is 100% illegal. 

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was never fully ratified by all the states - but they went ahead and started taxing everyone anyway.  Therefore the Federal Income Tax is 100% illegal.

There is no law existing anywhere that says anyone has to file an income tax return or pay the Federal Income Tax.  Therefore the Federal Income Tax is 100% illegal. www.freedomtofascism.com (http://www.freedomtofascism.com)

This country will not survive very much longer without monetary reform.  Without monetary reform, The Federal Reserve will foreclose on America and, as Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their  currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of  all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."  -Thomas Jefferson  www.themoneymasters.com (http://www.themoneymasters.com)