Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: XVI Amendment  (Read 38495 times)

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #15 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.


« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 10:20:36 pm by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

HardyMacia

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • I'm a newfy!
    • Catamount Software
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #16 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
Logged

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #17 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 ;)
Logged

svillee

  • Friend of the FSP
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • I favor a constitutional plutocracy.
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #18 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?
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #19 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.

Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Gabo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #20 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.
Logged
I love my country!

It's my government that sucks...

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #21 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.
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #22 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! ::)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2005, 03:07:12 pm by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

BarryD

  • Friend of the FSP
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #23 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.
Logged
"If you're going to be a sheep, be aware of who's the Shepard."
Me

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #24 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?
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #25 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.

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.
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #26 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? :)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2005, 03:32:43 pm by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

BarryD

  • Friend of the FSP
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #27 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
Logged
"If you're going to be a sheep, be aware of who's the Shepard."
Me

libertyworker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #28 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.
Logged

libertyworker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up