Taxation Constitutional Amendment

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
​

Since the only legitimate authority that the government can have is delegated to it by the individuals governed, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have; and since no individual has moral right to force his neighbor to disclose his income, property, or sales information, furthermore, since no individual has a right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor,-- he cannot delegate such authority to his government.

Therefore, all forms of public taxation of private property, including but not limited to income, property, and sales taxes, are unjust, and therefore are expressly forbidden, and are hereby and henceforth abolished.

To preserve liberty and prosperity of the people, The only sources of revenue allowed to government are these: public property user fees, and voluntary contributions.

Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership.

Public property user fees must be:

​

a) agreed upon by the majority of the people,

b) administered equally among the users, and

c) administered without violation of property and natural, unalienable rights of any individual.
​

If a poor person cannot afford to pay a user fee, he should convince a jury of his peers of that, and be relieved of the fee.

The government shall not raise a user fee above the point where more than 10% of the users are acquitted of it by the jury of their peers.
​

​

Explanation:

ALL of the society's problems are made possible or made worse by taxation.

Why? Because it is a wholesale violation of Private Property. Violation of Private Property is the definition of evil. And when you build a state on evil, you infuse evil into everything the state touches, amplifying all the evils of human condition.

What is taxation? Forceful (coercive) extraction of wealth. It is, by definition, based on aggressive violence, when one taxes the property he does not own.

Aggressive violence is the definition of evil. It is the definition of INJUSTICE. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is rooted in violation of private property.

Now, Private Property is the foundation of Liberty and Justice. Liberty and Justice DO NOT EXIST without Private Property.

What is Justice if not the right to use equal force to offset the aggression of another against your property? Thus, Justice is nothing more than Non-violation of Private Property. (Private Property here, of course, is taken in the broadest sense possible. It includes all the things you own, that you do not have to ask anyone permission to use, as long as you do not violate the property of another; and everyone must obtain your permission to use it. Defined this way, your private property includes you, your body, your mind, your ability to think, to speak, to act, to move, the fruits of your labor, etc..) Non-violation is another name for Non-Aggression (see NAP). It is the same thing.

And what is Liberty if not the right to do with your own property what you desire, as long as you do not violate the property of another?

Thus both Justice and Liberty are completely meaningless without the concept of private property. Anything that violates Private Property violates both JUSTICE and LIBERTY, and is therefore EVIL, by definition, no matter who practices it.

So public taxation of private property is EVIL because it is violation of Private Property via Aggressive violence.

It is THEFT by the strictest definition of the term. It is institutionalized INJUSTICE, institutionalized robbery, and institutionalized aggressive violence, which is institutionalized evil, by definition of the term. (EVIL is defined as aggressive violence.)

The loony idea that the rules of morality and justice do not apply to government is the core of our problems.

You can only rightfully tax the things you own (in the form of rent, user fee, or such), and nothing else. Otherwise you would be committing plunder, albeit legalized plunder, which is still IMMORAL.

The key point here is that government does NOT own you, nor your property, nor the fruits of your labor, therefore it cannot rightly tax you at all, because again, you can only rightly tax (forcefully extract wealth from) the things you own, and nothing else.

As slavery was a flaw in the original Constitution, so is taxation, which is simply a different face of slavery and plunder. It is a violation of the Law of Justice, and thus is immoral. No wonder that this cancer that was embedded in the Constitution has now developed to the point of destruction of the society itself. This gross INJUSTICE must not be permitted to continue if Liberty, and consequently the society itself, is to survive and prosper. Later in this article I will give another strict proof of immorality of taxation in terms of delegation of authority.

Some people argue that there is a "social contract" under the terms of which you are supposed to pay taxes to the public. That is false, because, by definition, for a contract to exist, there must be an individual, voluntary, and explicit consent to the terms of the contract. No such INDIVIDUAL, VOLUNTARY, and EXPLICIT consent exists for taxation.

In fact, by definition, taxation, like robbery, is INVOLUNTARY.

Some say, but you vote, therefore you consent. Not at all. Voting has nothing to do with consenting to taxation. It is not a part of voting procedure.

Some say, but you live here, therefore by mere act of being here you are consenting. Not true. I granted no such consent, neither anyone I know granted such consent. To ascribe EXPLICIT consent where none is given, and then to proceed to use aggressive violence to collect the tax is an act of usurpation, plunder and injustice, by strict definitions of those terms.

And here is a technical, logical proof that government has no moral right to tax in terms of proper authority:
Since government gets all of its legitimate authority by delegation from the governed, the government has no authority to force anyone to do anything accept what you and I have moral right to force him to do. If you, as individual, have no moral right to force your neighbor to disclose his income, you cannot delegate this authority to your government to force him for you. The same goes for disclosures of sales, or property inspections. If you have no moral right to force your neighbor to disclose his sales information, or force him to reveal his property, or forcibly extract wealth from him, neither does the government; because the only legitimate authority the government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have!

According to this fundamental principle of liberty (and I call it the Benson Principle, please see it here), all taxes, including income, sales, and property taxes are immoral, for they require an authority the government cannot properly have, because no one could have delegated such authority to it, because no one has such authority.

So the only legitimate avenues of revenue for the government that remain are public property user fees, and voluntary contributions.

The idea here is, if you use it, you pay for it.

How do you pay for police? First of all, private sector can do justice enforcement and arbitration between parties infinitely better than a government forced monopoly. However if the people choose a public option, they can give the police non-exclusive justice enforcement functions. However, the people have no right to commit theft to pay for it via taxation of private property, (taxation of private property of another is theft). Therefore, if people choose to have public police, it can be paid from public property user fees. But they have no moral right to give the public police justice enforcement monopoly, because no individual has a right to force such a monopoly on his neighbor, and therefore neither does the government, because no one could delegate such authority to it, because no individual has such authority.

911 calls? If you want 911 operator respond to your calls, you better pay the fee to run it, etc. However, if the people prefer a public version of it as well, since they cannot rightly tax private property (only public property), they can finance 911 operators from public road and public sewer user fees, or the like. As long as it is public property, it can be decided by popular vote provided everyone is treated equally, and property of no individual is violated in the process.

What about courts? A government court is a public property. If you use it, you pay for it. And offending party should carry most of the expense. However, public courts have no right to presume monopoly on justice enforcement or arbitration. Privately funded courts in a Free Market are capable of justice enforcement infinitely better than unjust by definition government forced monopoly.

So public option for courts may exist if people choose, but it has no right to a monopoly on justice enforcement whatsoever, because no one has a right to delegate such monopoly to the government, because no one, individually has such right, and therefore such monopoly would violate Private Property and be blatantly unjust.

What about defense? Free Market can handle defense infinitely better than government forced monopoly as well, and it is the only way to provide it justly.

In addition, you can have your volunteer citizen militias at State and local levels. If people choose, federal defense can also be paid for by the States from public property user fees and from voluntary contributions. Bottom line, if people do not choose to pay for their defense they deserve to be conquered, and as with any valuable product, Free Market will deliver defense, i.e. justice enforcement most efficiently, and above all without violating the law of Justice, i.e. the law of Private Property.

At the border, the cost of operating customs can be born by customs user fees, as long as everyone is treated equally and the rights of no one is violated, etc.

As we mentioned before, all of the society's problems are made possible, or made worse by the evil of taxation:

For example, even the greatest legalized plunder of all, i.e. fiat, unbacked currency is actually made possible via taxation and could not exist without it. Let me explain: the government forced monopoly that is the indispensable essence of a fiat, unbacked currency is achieved via taxation. The government TAXES transactions in gold and silver, thus discouraging their use as money. Government demands capital gain and sales taxes on gold used as the medium of exchange in every transaction done with it. It's like going to the bank to change $5 bill into quarters and paying a sales tax on the transaction. Thus, TAXATION is used to destroy Free Competition in Currencies, which Free Competition if it were present would have ended unbacked fiat, which cannot exist without a government forced monopoly. (Government forced monopoly is the opposite of Free Competition and they cannot exist simultaneously. One must unavoidably destroy the other.) This was the proof that unbacked fiat is impossible without taxation.


The immorality of taxation can also be shown from the point of view of privacy:

Privacy = Liberty.

Government hates people's privacy because it prevents them from destroying people's liberty.

1% income tax destroys 100% of the principle of self ownership and 100% of the principle of Private Property (which is Liberty itself), because one can justly tax ONLY the things he owns. By taxing you the government asserts, albeit falsely, that it OWNS you and ALL of your property. Which is a complete perversion of the truth!

Also, 1% income tax destroys 100% of your privacy, because to calculate that 1% you have to disclose to the government the ENTIRETY of your financial life; this is a complete annihilation of privacy! A sales tax gives the government the "right" to monitor all transactions between people. Property tax gives the government the "right" to inspect your property every year. And since you as individual have no moral right to force your neighbor to disclose any such information, neither has the government, for you cannot delegate an authority you do not have!

This amendment is way better than what the Founders offered. For they allowed for import and excise taxes, which means that the government can monitor EVERYTHING you do, everything you produce, everything you sell, everything you buy, to see if a certain excise tax condition was met. Besides, if they don't like a behavior or a product or a service they can just uniformly tax it with an excise tax and thus control the people. Since no private individual under jurisdiction of this government has the moral right to do any such thing, the government has no authority to do it either, because again, no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

My amendment fixes all these problems in the original Constitution.

It also has an iron clad check on the amount of the fees: if the politicians will raise a user fee too high, everyone will escape the fee through the "jury" clause of the amendment, and the government will get nothing, because the jury of peers will acquit everyone. Thus, under this amendment for a fee to be paid, the people in general have to believe it is not excessive. That's the beauty of the jury check on the government. Besides, if jury nullification is spelled out like that in black and white in the Constitution itself (in this amendment) it will be that much harder to hide this power from the people again, (which power they already have, but don't yet know it). It's all about persuasion. The more clear, explicit and persuasive the law is the more likely it will be understood and followed by the people in general, to preserve their liberty. (The need amply demonstrated by last 100 years).

Above all, this amendment, brings the Constitution into greater compliance with the eternal Laws of Justice, thus promoting Liberty, and ultimately the survival of the Nation, because no people can long endure without Justice.

This brief amendment would replace the entire federal tax code, and you would have your freedom!

"Right to Rob You"



Also check out this essay:
The Correct Principles of Liberty and The Errors of the US Constitution.

=====================================
​

This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:

1. 
   [*=1]Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)
   [*=1]The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
   [*=1]Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
   [*=1]Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
   [*=1]No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM)
   [*=1]Nullification - Constitutional Amendment
   [*=1] Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ok, I tweaked the amendment. Is it better now?

Thanks!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I disagree with this "If a poor person cannot afford to pay a user fee, he should convince a jury of his peers of that, and be relieved of the fee." This kind of force could be exploited in a myriad of ways. Either eliminate it, or clarify it. I also don't believe jury nullification is as reliable as you think. It is my understanding that jurors are often not informed of the right of nullification, so they don't even think of it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

What about courts? A court is a public property. If you use it, you pay for it. And offending party should carry most of the expense.

So the legal system will only be for those with money? Well, they do have an advantage already.

What do you consider "using public property"? Going to the park? People would stop going. Driving on a street? Do you have to pay the moment you enter the street or are you every moves on streets tracked and you get a bill every month or so? (I believe you said you were against the government monitoring you so I guess you need a ton of quarters when you drive anywhere).

Plus, if you want 911 operator respond to your calls, you better pay the fee to run it, etc.

"Hello- 911. What is your emergency?"
"There has just been a terrible crash! People are bleeding all over the place! Please send help!"
"Uh, how many victims are there?"
"I don't know- dozens. A school bus just got hit by a tractor trailer rig!"
"OK- let's call it 30. That will be $300 for the call- $10 per person. Do you have a credit card or are you on our autopayment plan?"
"Plan-- what plan- these people need help! I don't have anything on me!"
"Sorry sir, this is a public service. You are required to pay for it in advance before we can send anybody out to your location. "
"Thank you for calling. Have a nice day. "

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

So the legal system will only be for those with money? Well, they do have an advantage already.

Not necessarily. The fees should be very reasonable, established by law, and the offending party should bear most of the expense.

What do you consider "using public property"? Going to the park? People would stop going.

Exactly, so it is not in politician’s interest to make those fees high, otherwise people will stop going. Secondly, not all public property use should be for pay, the people can decide this by popular vote.

Driving on a street? Do you have to pay the moment you enter the street or are you every moves on streets tracked and you get a bill every month or so?

You already pay user fees for driving. That fee is built into your car registration. And no, I don’t want people to be tracked. All these things pertaining to public property can be decided by popular vote.

"Hello- 911. What is your emergency?"

Ok. 911 operators can be paid from say road or sewer user fees, and thus avoid the scenario you described. The bottom line is that all this can be figured out by popular vote as long as people’s individual rights are not being violated, and all are treated fairly and equally.

None of these things is actually spelled out in the amendment, so they can be decided in any fair way. But do you agree with the language of the amendment itself? Do you think it squares with fundamental principles of liberty?

Thank you for you critique.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I disagree with this "If a poor person cannot afford to pay a user fee, he should convince a jury of his peers of that, and be relieved of the fee." This kind of force could be exploited in a myriad of ways. Either eliminate it, or clarify it.

I was concerned about it as well, but thought it nice to have some kind of direct check by the people on the amount of the fee. What would you propose? How would you do it better? Thanks.

I also don't believe jury nullification is as reliable as you think. It is my understanding that jurors are often not informed of the right of nullification, so they don't even think of it.

Nothing human is 100% reliable, but informed jury check on the government is a must for a truly free society. So we got to educate juries about their true power, the power they already have, even if they don’t yet know it!

Thanks for your critique! Please help me to make this better. Thanks again.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You already pay user fees for driving. That fee is built into your car registration. And no, I don’t want people to be tracked. All these things pertaining to public property can be decided by popular vote.

Your registration fee does not cover any construction or maintainance of roads. So I guess you would have all roads be toll roads then? You want to go to visit Grandma or go to the store for food- you pay a toll. Going to work- a toll. Sounds very inconvenient and a detriment to the free movement of people and goods across the country. That would greatly impede commerce and business. A gasoline tax could help with this but you are against any sort of sales tax.

You will have a hard time funding even a minimalist government with your proposal as the only means of taxation.

My brother was stationed in Germany in the US Army for a time. The town where he lived did not have any sort of local taxation (it was very small anyways) so if a service was needed, the residents were given an assessment for a share of the costs involved. If a sewer pipe burst or road was damaged and needed to be repaired, you had to come up with your portion of those costs. Sometimes that meant a couple thousand dollars at once. They needed $6000 for a sewer problem once. This meant that you had to maintain enough savings to be able to come up with the funds and spending less money on local businesses as a result. (Not sure what they did if you could not come up with the funds). This required savings reduced the local spending by more than if you had a general assesment paid regularly into a fund since people would not have to come up with all the funds for a particular problem all at once- spreading the costs out over time. So in this example, the "per use" ended up costing the local economy more than having a general taxation administered.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Your registration fee does not cover any construction or maintainance of roads. So I guess you would have all roads be toll roads then? You want to go to visit Grandma or go to the store for food- you pay a toll. Going to work- a toll. Sounds very inconvenient and a detriment to the free movement of people and goods across the country. That would greatly impede commerce and business.
... So in this example, the "per use" ended up costing the local economy more than having a general taxation administered.

There is no question that you can make anything horrible and inconvenient. Much better user fee administration would be requiring say a sticker on your car saying that you've paid the fee, sort of like registration stickers we get now once a year. Or, say if you wish to use highway system you could have a fee paid once a year that entitles you to passage conveniently, etc. I am open to all kinds of suggestions. I am sure that there is a way to do user fees in a convenient non intrusive way, sort of (again) like car registrations if you are using public streets.

The bottom line is that with user fees you are not violating any fundamental principles of liberty (if you do it right), as oppose to say income, sales, or property taxes, which are fundamentally immoral. And that's the whole point.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Actually sales taxes can be a good form of a user's fee. Those who use the product pay the costs. Take our example of cars on the highway. If you tax the gasoline and use that to pay for your roads. that is a tax which hits only the users of the roads (you don't usually buy gasoline for other purposes- maybe a little bit for your lawn mower). Sure you can lower your taxes by buying a more efficient automobile but that is a positive contribution as well- higher mileage cars tend to weigh less and thus cause less wear and tear on the road. If you just have an annual fee, then a person who uses their car on the road a lot pays the same amount as somebody who hardly drives at all. Is that morally equitable or fair? Unless you again go back to somehow monitoring how many miles people drive in a year and assess their annual fee accordingly. With the gas tax you don't have to know how many miles each car is driven. The tax is simple, fair, and easy to collect.

For utilities like water and gas or electricity your useage is monitored and you are charged based on what you use. Some big users even have a higher rate than a low user.

I understand the principle of what you are trying to do- and there are many applications it can work on. It just gets complicated in the application side in some of them. Common use things like National Defense become hard to try to decide what a "user's fee" would be. Should everybody be charged the exact same amount for their share of the national defense reguardless of income or should it be based on "ability to pay"? Everybody benefits equally from defense. But should it cost five percent of my income while somebody else pays less than one percent of their income for the same benefit? How do you construct a "user fee" for that? Have a "head tax" or a per-person tax on everybody?

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Actually sales taxes can be a good form of a user's fee. Those who use the product pay the costs.

Public property user fees do not violate fundamental principle of liberty.
Private property user fees, however, are the definition of tyranny! Do you have the moral right to monitor your neighbor’s sales? The whole point with private property is that the owner can do WHATERVER he wants with it without asking your permission to do it and without you monitoring what he does with his property, as long as he is not violating the property of others! This is the key difference between public and private property! And it is the key of freedom.

If you just have an annual fee, then a person who uses their car on the road a lot pays the same amount as somebody who hardly drives at all. Is that morally equitable or fair? Unless you again go back to somehow monitoring how many miles people drive in a year and assess their annual fee accordingly. With the gas tax you don't have to know how many miles each car is driven.

Good point. To make it perfectly fair you would have to monitor the mileage. But the loss of privacy may make it undesirable. Maybe a balance could be struck by some middle road approach where only say heavy trucks would have to be tracked per mile with some electronic counter, but personal small vehicles would only have a flat subscription fee? Or you can find any combination in between.

With the gas tax you don't have to know how many miles each car is driven. The tax is simple, fair, and easy to collect.

With gasoline tax you in a way disclose your mileage too, but you do not have the right to monitor your neighbor’s sales of gasoline, therefore neither does the government!

The fundamental principle of liberty must be honored and followed if liberty is to survive.

For utilities like water and gas or electricity your useage is monitored and you are charged based on what you use. Some big users even have a higher rate than a low user.

The only way the government can be justified in charging say for water or natural gas if those are public property. But electricity, if produced privately, could not be taxed by the government. Private property again! You have to honor the principle of liberty or you will lose it! Private property is the very foundation of liberty.

I understand the principle of what you are trying to do- and there are many applications it can work on. It just gets complicated in the application side in some of them.

True. But this is the price worth paying to preserve Liberty and Freedom!

Common use things like National Defense become hard to try to decide what a "user's fee" would be. Should everybody be charged the exact same amount for their share of the national defense reguardless of income or should it be based on "ability to pay"?

It will have to be exactly the same, because you have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor to disclose his income, therefore neither does the government, since the only authority it properly can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have!

I thought national defense could be paid as a percentage of public property user fees and from voluntary contributions. So those who use public property more will end up paying more for national defense as the result.

In the time of WWII many Americans voluntarily sent money to the government for war effort. If people are unwilling to voluntarily pay for their defense they deserve to be conquered!

Have a "head tax" or a per-person tax on everybody?

I was trying to avoid this because of how intrusive that would be.
Do you have the moral right to come to your neighbors house and force him at gun point to pay for national defense? I don’t think so.

Therefore I thought public property user fees and voluntary contributions was a better way to go, because you preserve Liberty.

Thanks.

 

[Liberty Ghost]

I think that your ideas about taxation are right on target! Coupled with the repeal of the amendment allowing direct taxation, of course.

People cry and moan about the fact that with only these kinds of taxes, we won't be able to afford the vast bureaucracies that we support today, but that is entirely the point. This is vastly superior to the stupid "Fair Tax" that many conservative groups are pushing today. Their "Fair Tax" still leans on most of the injustices which we inherit from direct taxation and opens the whole regressive/progressive tax rate complaint for debate, which can only lead to trouble. Well done!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I think that your ideas about taxation are right on target! Coupled with the repeal of the amendment allowing direct taxation, of course.

People cry and moan about the fact that with only these kinds of taxes, we won't be able to afford the vast bureaucracies that we support today, but that is entirely the point. This is vastly superior to the stupid "Fair Tax" that many conservative groups are pushing today. Their "Fair Tax" still leans on most of the injustices which we inherit from direct taxation and opens the whole regressive/progressive tax rate complaint for debate, which can only lead to trouble. Well done!

Amen, brother! Excellent points!

Thank you!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ok. I made it even stronger. Please read the new version at the top of the thread.

Thank you!

 

[Liberty Ghost]

I'm concerned that voluntary contributions will be abused over time. According to the IRS and testimony before Congress, our current tax system is a voluntary one. We "voluntarily" choose to sign our tax returns, which is a voluntary suspension of our 5th amendment rights. Of course, failure to file has also been turned into a criminal offense, so the concept of "voluntary" has definitely been muddied. With such bad precedent, similar language in a new amendment will be almost meaningless from the start. I'm not sure it is necessary to explicitly state that government may ask for donations. I think that if people want to give to government, they will, but I don't know that it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[Danke]

I'm concerned that voluntary contributions will be abused over time. According to the IRS and testimony before Congress, our current tax system is a voluntary one. We "voluntarily" choose to sign our tax returns, which is a voluntary suspension of our 5th amendment rights. Of course, failure to file has also been turned into a criminal offense, so the concept of "voluntary" has definitely been muddied. With such bad precedent, similar language in a new amendment will be almost meaningless from the start. I'm not sure it is necessary to explicitly state that government may ask for donations. I think that if people want to give to government, they will, but I don't know that it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.

It is voluntary in the sense you voluntarily engage in the activity that creates a tax liability.

 

[Liberty Ghost]

I also think that there is a place for a direct tax on services delivered by the government. I'm not sure if that's included in the idea of public property user fees as you have it stated now. I think there are some legitimate services that government can provide, although I don't think I'm too excited about either the Post Office or the Patent Office as being ones that should be expressly authorized. I think that individual states should have the flexibility to set up government services and set a direct tax on them. If the people reject the tax, they are de-funding the service as well and it can either be abolished or sold to private enterprise.

 

[Liberty Ghost]

I think that a provision that limits the threshold of a user fee to some arbitrary percentage is unworkable and probably unnecessary. If 11% of cases in a period are decided for the defendant, does this nullify the tax? What is the period - in the first year after passage, over a 5 year lifespan, or 10 years? If later the percentage rises, does that mean that earlier cases should be reexamined? Without guidance here, I think you are forcing the courts to legislate. I think it would need some careful thought.

If there were no provision, except the provision that the burden to convince a jury is borne by the taxpayer, an excessive rate of taxpayer aquittal will effectively gut the tax anyway, so there would be no need to have a provision that re-states the obvious. If a sufficient number of cases were decided which excepted taxpayers from the tax, it should rise to Congress or the Legislature to repeal or modify the tax and bring it in line with the ability of citizens to pay, regardless of whether the threshold is 5% or 25%.

 

[Liberty Ghost]

It is voluntary in the sense you voluntarily engage in the activity that creates a tax liability.

To the extent that having a gun to your head makes it "voluntary", I agree. I just don't think that is what the Founders intended.

But it begs the larger question, what is it about my "activity" that makes it worthy of taxation? If I use your property, I should expect to pay you for that use. In the case of using public property, I should expect to reimburse the direct costs (with no expectation of profit) to the government. But simply engaging in a voluntary activity, any activity, why should this be taxed? How I fill my time on this Earth is surely my own affair and not the government's. Why does government need the right to interfere with how I lead my life, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others or damage others property?

 

[Liberty Ghost]

In connection with taxation, the question arises; Can the state force an individual to accept services which he is not interested in. If so, can the state tax him to pay for that service?

The Collectivist would say that the state operates in the interest of the "greater good" and that the state has a compelling interest in being able to force both the acceptance of services and payment for the same, whether wanted or not.

As someone interested in individual freedom and liberty, I reject this idea. If an individual cannot force his neighbor to accept a service which he does not want, then he cannot transfer that non-existent right to government, thus government cannot force someone to accept or pay for a service which he does not want. That is tyranny, the opposite of freedom.

Even if, by custom, we have come to see certain jobs as necessary for a community, such as law enforcement or a fire department, those services should only be available to those who subscribe. Those who choose not to subscribe may pay a higher rate for the same service if purchased on a needs only basis (after the robbery or after the fire has started).

Most intrusions on liberty have happened because well meaning individuals want to force others to enjoy the same comfort and security to which they aspire, but this only leads to loss of freedom for all. We should be content to rule our own lives and let others rule theirs.

 

[Danke]

To the extent that having a gun to your head makes it "voluntary", I agree. I just don't think that is what the Founders intended.

Yes, many will argue that there is no justice, or working justice system. So don't even bother, just pay what is demanded.

But it begs the larger question, what is it about my "activity" that makes it worthy of taxation? If I use your property, I should expect to pay you for that use. In the case of using public property, I should expect to reimburse the direct costs (with no expectation of profit) to the government. But simply engaging in a voluntary activity, any activity, why should this be taxed? How I fill my time on this Earth is surely my own affair and not the government's. Why does government need the right to interfere with how I lead my life, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others or damage others property?

As far as the Income Tax, they can only tax Federally connected activities and some State activities by agreements between the Federal and State governments.