no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

It Doesn’t Matter Whether Income Taxes are “Constitutional”

April 12th, 2010

There is no law which will restrain a legislative branch that is set on robbing you blind. And perhaps more importantly, there are no words that any legislature, anywhere, ever, can put on paper or parchment, in order to legitimize theft. All taxes are immoral. All taxes are theft. Pretending that there’s a “legal” way to go about it is conceding defeat.

Responding to “Take the Red Pill,” Jeff Molby comments:

The problem with this type of argument is that the battle has already been lost. Even if you could conclusively prove that the income tax is unconstitutional, what good would it do? The populace wants a government that spends $3+ trillion per year. They’re not even willing to cut expenditures enough to balance the budget, so they’re damn sure not going to let one of the major sources of “revenue” disappear. It would take them less than a week to pass and ratify an amendment that completely undermines your legal victory.

I’ve been mulling over the same idea, more or less, ever since I was first introduced to this sort of tax resistance literature.

Towards this conclusion, Jeff makes a very good point: the “Red Pill” legal or constitutional argument against taxes is a red herring.

If it’s true, haven’t people used this defense successfully? If so, where are their stories. I would expect someone like Butler to have cited at least one case that turned out favorably.

And if it’s true, like Jeff Molby says, the criminals in Congress need only amend the code to close the “loopholes”.

So, if all of this constitutional legal mumbo-jumbo is true, why haven’t they closed these “loopholes”?  At the most, they would ultimately have to ratify a constitutional amendment authorizing taxes. Anyone think this wouldn’t happen if they needed it to happen?

There is at least one reason why the government could not ratify an amendment like this: It may make taxes “legal” and proper from a point in time forward but may not attach retroactively. From which the necessary implication is: every dollar of taxes that the government had hitherto taken from anyone, anywhere, ever was in-fact illegally taken.

Fortunately, they don’t need an amendment because everyone has been sufficiently beaten or threatened in to submission.

One might infer from Butler’s essay, that the code/tax laws as currently written do not violate the highest law of the land — that instead they are only interpreted and enforced in such a manner (primarily by omission and deception). But it’s not “constitutional” and it’s not legal if it’s being applied in a manner that is demonstrably at odds with the letter of the law, and any law which violates the principles of justice is itself unfit.

The idea that the whole IRS/taxation system works — that it’s this massive conspiracy of omission — because the code is constitutional, and that landmark cases in front of SCOTUS have been decided correctly (e.g., Butler’s appendix explains why these decisions applied to specific cases but they probably don’t apply to you as an individual wage-earner even though the IRS implies they do apply to you); only that in the other 99% of the time (i.e., when taxes are illegally taken from everyone else) that the law is simply ignored, that the Supreme Court would sit idly by and permits such usurpations but would readily squash any “legitimized” attempt to levy income taxes, is simply preposterous.

Congress and the IRS do have the authority to rob you, whether you like it or not.  You never gave it to them, but they never asked because frankly your opinion didn’t matter.

Comments

8 Comments

RSS
  • Bill St. Clair says on: April 12, 2010 at 1:42 pm

     

    Yep. They have the authority because they have men with guns who are willing to come to your house and kidnap you, or kill you if you resist kidnapping, if you don’t go along. Until enough of us are willing and enable to defend ourselves, with whatever force is necessary, against those thugs, it’s going to keep hapenning.

  • Don says on: April 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm

     

    Five years ago I argued with Bob Higgs that the gov’t didn’t want your money, for they can print all the money they want. They want to control you. Higgs argued the opposite.

    In 1991 my wife and I had been filing separately for several years because I was self employed and she was employed. The point was that as a self employed person I was required to pay MORE taxes than she, therefore why should she shoulder the burden for my decisions?

    That same year the IRS got in my ass because they said I hadn’t given them an additional $2900 the past year, 2000, so they started harassing me. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. So they called my wife at her job. The IRS wench, with knotted hair and 3″ purple fingernails said this, “Mrs.X, why are you still married to Mr. X, don’t you realize he is ruining your credit?” My wife was terrified and almost brought to tears. That IRS whore tried to sabotage my marriage, and for what? It made no difference to her personally of professionally if I paid my taxes, her salary remained the same. So why did she do that? It wasn’t about money, for I had been paying them massive amounts of money for almost a decade and the records proved it.

    That incident alone convinced me that the IRS isn’t about collecting money, for doing so it just one of their tools. Their primary function is all about destroying people and/or controlling them.

    Four years later, out of nowhere, I got a check in the mail from the IRS for $2900. It was for over payment of taxes in 1991.

    I’ve noticed a tonal change in Bob Higgs more recent articles. Seems he has realized that the gov’t doesn’t really care about money but rather control.

  • David Z says on: April 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm

     

    It does comes down to control, you’re right. But many of the individuals working for the IRS believe that they’re actually employed to collect “taxes” from people, because frankly, that’s what they’ve been told.

    Yes, the government can print as much money as they want, but you and I (and I presume, Bob Higgs knows as well) that they can’t print money forever, and they can’t continue to print at an accelerating pace. So I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle… They don’t *need* your tax dollars, or my tax dollars, but they need *our* tax dollars in the collective sense. Likewise, as long as they require us to pay taxes in FRNs, it creates a “market” for FRNs and subsidizes their “value” and keeps people “employed” in the zombie economy that they control.

    Ultimately, it’s all about empire.

  • JC Hewitt says on: April 13, 2010 at 3:50 am

     

    The real issue with the income tax code is that at this point, there are fewer and fewer sane reasons to continue to maintain a US payroll. If you are even vaguely responsible as a corporate leader, you will outsource as much labor as possible.

    Thanks to the web, few jobs actually need to be physically located in the US.

    In the era of Mechanical Turk, how exactly is the income tax system supposed to continue to function? It was developed in the middle of the 20th century to suit the technology of the time.

    No matter what the state does, it has to cook up some kind of new scheme to keep itself together. I mean, the entire thing exists by fiat, so the *numbers* don’t really matter. It’s just a form of keeping score. If police want to continue to enjoy comfy retirements, and they continue to have the backing of the military, there’s little that any of us can do about it in a real sense.

  • Don says on: April 13, 2010 at 1:21 pm

     

    “….they can’t print money forever….”

    Forever is a long time and politicians don’t stay in office forever. I tend to think of things on an individual level, where the foundation of freedom was born. No individual politician, or the collection of them it seems, is concerned with national debt. On an individual level each politician knows his political life is probably numbered and is prone to spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave and cares not one iota if any individual taxpayer pays his required extortion fee. In a few years after he’s out of office the burden of debt cannot haunt him. Don’t forget, the constitution provides no immediate means for redress to any politician for errant behavior unlike us mere minions. If you or I go into debt there are mechanisms in place to deal with it but none for the politicians. So they just keep on spending. Imagine finding Bill Gates debit card with his PIN written on the back, an unlimited amount in the account, and he never contacts the bank about it.

    What they want is our compliance, our obedience, and this is demonstrated by how they deal with any instance of individual resistance, and most easily accomplished in a (partially) free market economy by controlling our money.

    What can be said for an institution based in the immoral premise of theft on a grand scale, except that from a structural standpoint eventually it will fail?

  • Don says on: April 13, 2010 at 1:28 pm

     

    @ JC Hewitt, the gov’t is 8 times more expensive, and provides 8 times less, than the free market. Its balance sheet fails in both directions simultaneously. It will eventually fail under the weight of its own device. It has to, the laws of physics demands it. You can’t float a 2 ton heavy thing forever, if at all. Lies, deception, deceit and outright fraud hidden from even the most scrupulous of view is the only way this gov’t institution is still in existence. But I feel in my bones that it will all come apart at all its rotten seams in my lifetime.

  • David Z says on: April 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm

     

    Cheers Don – I hope we all live to see it.

  • JC Hewitt says on: April 14, 2010 at 3:30 am

     

    Don, David, I think we will. At least I will, at 23. Not sure what comes next, but if we work hard enough, it’ll probably be better than what we have today.

    The Mad Max gold/guns crowd can go fuck themselves on a mountain of freeze dried food.

    No one ever built a meaningful movement based on an apocalyptic vision.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics