Rightful Liberty: Tax

Rightful Liberty: Focus & Pitfalls
October 10, 2014
Rightful Liberty: Your Action Plan
October 15, 2014

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Benjamin Franklin.

I coincidentally write this new article in the Rightful Liberty series after opening a final notice in the mail for county taxes – vehicle property tax and all sorts of miscellaneous robbery. Explicitly written in the letter was a threat of violence via seizure of my personal property. So just like your land, it is not really yours, because if you don’t keep up with property tax, the state will sanction violence against you. Wow. Let freedom ring!

Anyway, the above is just anecdotal. I’ll write them a check. because I don’t have any choice – I am held to ransom. This post isn’t about that as such, it simply serves to highlight the issue.

So what about tax?

I see many commenters stating that all tax is theft. I certainly feel that way. More so because we live in  a society that is firstly not at all free, and secondly is socialist and believes that those that earn owe a significant amount of their earnings to those who don’t.

Is tax theft?

Is the amount of tax, the burden of it, what makes it theft or not?

Is the destination (redistribution) of your hard earned cash, once taxed, what makes it theft?

How should tax be structured?

A lot of interesting questions.

If you believe in no government, then you rightly agree that tax is theft. You are on your own. If you believe in small government, then you must agree that some tax is necessary as a contribution to fund the operations of that government.  If you are a socialist, you believe in redistribution of wealth. After all, the American Revolution was about ‘taxation without representation.” Although no one likes to pay taxes, the issue at hand was not taxes themselves, but the lack of representation in the government to which the taxes were paid.

There needs to be government of some kind. I think most Rightful Liberty believers would agree to that. Government needs funding in order to perform even limited functions. If you keep government small, and prevent it expanding, then you should be able to keep the tax burden down.

I personally believe that tax should be at a low rate and only to fund those public services that are not provided through the private sector, and that need some amount of government regulation. Infrastructure is a good example. This allows trade and creates wealth, so it is a good investment in  the form of taxes. You can have these things provided by the private sector, but you would still have to pay for them. Tolls are the example for roads. You will still part with cash, and it  may not be profitable for a private company to put a road where you need it.

Tax is not to feed the leviathan of massive government bureaucracy, or to engage in wealth redistribution or expensive social programs. I don’t agree with redistribution wealth. There may be some sort of safety net in society but it should not be comfortable. It should encourage you to get back on your feet if you fall into it. The plight of the poor is traditionally something that is taken care of by charity and philanthropy, rather than taxation.

Should taxation be voluntary? Well, if we live in a country and there is a tax level to pay for infrastructure and services, why should you live there and get it for free? If you don’t want to pay tax, move to somewhere where they don’t levy it, and enjoy the lack of any sort of infrastructure. Because bottom line, Rightful Liberty says you can do what you want. But it is also accompanied by law. Law which keeps some from harming others. If the people in a jurisdiction vote in a tax level, then you can either pay it and live there, or move somewhere else. You don’t get a free ride.

Should tax be a percentage or a flat rate? A percentage smacks of income redistribution – if I pay more tax then you, because I earn more, does that give me more rights? More use of the roads? No. So why should I pay more? Should tax be a simple flat charge, like the charge for trash service for example? What if I can’t afford it? Then you are not paying tax, but how about we move beyond money? If you can’t afford to pay tax, perhaps you can contribute in the form of community service? If taxes are used partly to upkeep the roads, maybe you can spend your Saturdays on a road gang, filling in potholes and thus reducing the cost to the actual taxpayers?

Of course, if the fiat currency fails, then you can’t tax people in money, only in barter items of value. The game changes if there is no dollar to garnish out of your wages.

I see a lot about various forms of financial strike – such as a tax strike – to force a return to Rightful Liberty. I just don’t see it. The leviathan just prints money. I don’t have the facts at hand, but I vaguely recall some statistic that the money for infrastructure comes out of your State taxes and your Federal taxes solely go to pay towards interest on  the national debt, or something like that. Correct me in comments if necessary.

So, it is clear that although I am not fully resolved on all the issues, I think that there is a case for some tax, limited, to pay for the actions of a small government. Not a massive incompetent socialist bureaucracy. I also believe that not everything should be taxed, and not paying tax should not impact your rights to private property. It would be nice if we could make tax voluntary, but of course no one would pay it, unless there was an incentive to do so. That incentive would not be the threat of violence against your person or property. No debtors prisons! I think it is a very interesting topic – the amount of tax that is legitimate to pay for the necessary functions of government, and how to opt in and out of that, and what the benefits or drawbacks would be. Perhaps if you don’t pay tax, you have another obligation, such as some form of community service? So, you either cough up the cash, or pay with your time and labor. It’s just a philosophical thought. What if you choose to do neither?

So, rather than all the various forms of taxes that we now have, we would just have a flat rate government tax. If government cannot be run on that budget, it doesn’t get run. There is no room for massive social programs. If no one pays taxes, they don’t get their roads and bridges and all the other infrastructure that people expect.

There is certainly no easy solution. One thing is certain though – our current situation is intolerable.



  1. Mike Q says:

    Just an fyi. Income tax was firmly established in 1913, just prior to WWI. It was enacted at the beginning of the Civil War and then removed ten years later. (The supreme court deemed it unconstitutional…) The tax income for the government, before personal income tax was enacted, was levied against imports, alcohol, and tobacco products.
    Just some food for thought…

    • Lordchamp says:

      Yes, as per the Founding Documents that is the form of “taxation” that is given to the feral government and that alone. Any other is unconstitutional. The Founders were very clear on that. The intent is that it will keep the out of OUR pockets and also keep the government at the small level it should be.

      The only other taxation would then come from the individual States which we should be able to control too since they are closer to us.

      I don’t support ANY form of federal income tax as it is strictly unconstitutional and yes, it is legalized theft.

  2. RobertR says:

    Fyi- State income taxs and federal income taxes are structured, for all intended purposes, in an identical manner. It’s a neat trick used by the Feds to double tax the American Citizen. Individual States of the Union still derive tax revenue through excise(or Corporate income tax), property, bond measures and sales tax. One could argue the subsidizing from the Fed. Government as a form of tax but what it really is, is a form of well fare, or bribe, depending on how you want to look at it.

    • RobertR says:

      And you are correct. All income taxes, weather derived from State or Federal level, is solely earmarked to service the INTREST on the national debt. Which, if one studies how US currency works, is based on debt.

  3. JeffSags says:

    Because Fuck Taxes That’s Why!

  4. Ben says:

    Along the lines of a philosophical discussion: A national sales tax, on goods purchased other than food, in my opinion would be the most transparent way to tax because everyone would know what they’re actually paying in taxes.
    Of course, there will be those screaming it’s not “fair”, (since everyone will end up paying some taxes; especially the ones along for the free ride).
    By taxing this way, those that spend more will pay more taxes…regardless of where they earned their money, legal or otherwise.
    Tax the consumption, not the earners…we’ve given enough already!

    • Mark says:

      From what I remember about the way The Fair Tax initiative was proposed, that was a tax on the necessities of life of which all would be paying into whether you tried to work under the table or not you are still paying a tax. I wonder just how much money would really go to the politicians if that were to be made law??? Every illegal alien and criminal enterprise would be paying into the government coffers. They would not have a choice. Just shows how stupid politicians are when it comes to subjects like this.

  5. Mike H says:

    I posted a longer response on the forum…I will say here I agree less taxes…targeted to stuff like local infrastructure would be best…with a very small tax maybe a half percent on every dollar of income for everyone that works. This would fund the government and army. If a 9/11 attack would happen under this system then Congress gets together and does what they were intended to do…authorize war and vote to raise a war tax…I personally would not have a probelm with this. Of course under this system members would be paid around 45k a year and would stay in a holiday inn during their sessions…..and of course a majority of social programs and all these agencies would lose their funding thus drying up…I could live with that too.

  6. BBQ'd says:

    For private property to exist, which the founders agreed is a natural right, property tax cannot exist. Otherwise we are simply tenants who are allowed to occupy such property unless or until we no longer pay government for the privilege.

    Now, government, being a necessary evil must be funded. I once heard an economist, Loren Spivak, suggest what he jokingly referred to as “the Spivak amendment” which would guarantee citizens the absolute right to 90% of their income. I wholeheartedly agree.

    Further it is my humble opinion that the one true reason men form governments is to protect their natural rights. I disagree with any suggestion government should be or perform any type of charity. Such programs are invariable wasteful and lead to corruption. Social security anyone? How about welfare, food stamps, or Obama care? Leave charity to Churches, individuals,and or charitable institutions where it is kept local and in the hands of individuals who best know and are most capable of providing for fellow citizens.

    As Mr. Franklin once stated “the worst thing you can do for a poor person is make them comfortable. While private organizations and individuals have no reason to do such things elected officials and government profit from keeping people poor and comfortable.

    The smallest government possible, at all levels, is one of the best insurance policies for liberty.

  7. Leatherneck556 says:

    It’s funny that this post came up today as I have been thinking about this particular issue a lot recently. I agree with so much of what has been written here. Specifically these points:

    1. Property tax is – in my opinion – the most egregious form of tax that exists. If you have to pay a fee to keep your own property, then you don’t actually own your own property. It is crazy to me that property tax exists in our society.

    2. I like the idea of a flat tax – not a tax rate, but a flat tax. Each adult over 18 years old owes a flat amount that is very low (like less than $500 per year) or something along those lines. Very fair.

    3. Usage taxes also work, I think. Just like the early days of the US, tax consumption. Sales tax on things that are not more or less necessities (food, water, electricity). I have no problem with the idea that we build roads using the sales taxes from gasoline, etc.

    4. I don’t think the tax can be entirely voluntary. I think the voluntary component comes in play with you being able to move.

    5. Rather than all taxes going to the federal government and then getting divvied out to the states as one poster suggested, I believe it should run the opposite way: all taxes get paid to the state, and then the state cuts a share to the federal government. Fed starts getting squirrely and doing stupid stuff? The states stop paying them until it gets the pictures.

    6. I said that property tax is the most egregious tax, but there is one that is worse though it is not technically a “tax”: inflation. Our debt-backed currency system is asinine. It is even more asinine that we intentionally devalue the dollar every year. Official number is 2%, though we all know it is more than that. If I have $100 that I have already been taxed on and lock it in a safe or put it in a savings account, then next year it is only worth $98. That is insidious.

    7. The government must be small to run this way – expenditures are the real issue here, more so than revenue generation. No big salaries with full benefits for politicians. This is another topic entirely, but I think we should even go back to the old Greek variant of government where you don’t hold elections, but rather you get drafted. When your number comes up, you go serve one term and get compensated so you don’t go broke while away from your job. Then after your term, you get back to work. The biggest costs of government are social welfare and the military. Social welfare just has to go away. Period. Let private charities and churches handle this. It will work better that way. As for the military, I think we slash costs in a few ways…

    8. The military – I think – should run sort of like the Swiss run it. Have a small core of active duty personnel that do the very technical jobs that make up so much of our military in the modern day: fighter pilots, various technicians, submariners, etc. Have a smaller amount still of the more combat-oriented jobs like grunts, arty, tankers, etc. The majority of the military is essentially the national guard. Stop fighting silly wars all over the world and make it work this way: When the US goes to fight or bomb anybody, it requires a full declaration of war which does two things: Mobilizes the entire Guard and levvies a 5% or 10% tax on all citizens. I think that would make congress – and the populace – think really hard about going off to fight when literally everybody is going to have to pay their share.

    • Leatherneck556 says:

      A clarifying point on number 4: If we tax consumption, then taxes ARE pretty much all voluntary. You don’t HAVE to buy booze or anything like that. If you want to, you have the freedom to just buy it from your buddy who makes his own rotgut and avoid taxes that way (in truly free society, that is), etc.

      • Ben says:

        Another benefit of a consumption tax, if it ends up being something like a national sales tax on things other than food, is that you keep your ENTIRE paycheck!
        Imagine what you could do with nothing withheld from your paycheck, OR for those self-employed, you get to keep all your company’s revenue.
        And, as noted above, if you can do better for yourself in a barter economy, more power to you.
        Under this arrangement, Uncle Sugar would have to budget for the revenue generated and there would be an incentive for policies that prosper the nation, to raise the discretionary spending of all citizens, instead of the class warfare model of sucking the producers dry to give to the masses that will vote to keep the pimps in office.

        • Mark says:

          A point I had forgotten about with the Fair Tax and you nailed it! I believe that an essential part of rightful liberty is that we are better stewards of our earnings than the fed.gov. If we’re foolish with our earnings we quickly discover our ignorance. If we are frugal with our earnings living within our means we soon see the fruit of our labor to incentify our ambition toward a goal.

    • Max Velocity says:

      Very good. Me like.

  8. Comrade X says:

    Saw a great documentary last night; “UnFair: IRS?”

    Pretty much what it documents is that the IRS is our version of the Gestapo and the only way to rid our self of the IRS is by eliminating the income tax and going to a “Fair tax” which is a form of national sales tax on consumption.

    I very much support getting rid of the IRS and I like the idea of having taxes tries to consumption which means I set my on tax rate by what I choose to consume. Medical and food could be excluded.

    But think about a world without the IRS!

  9. B-Dog says:

    A Constitutionally capped one time consumption tax (real (estate) property, all food, water, and income are non-taxable) is the only fair tax because:

    • It is voluntary. Only when you choose to consume do you pay any tax.
    • It is self-scaling. Those who consume more, pay more; those who consume less, pay less.
    • It gives no greater benefit to one consumer over another.
    • It removes a great bureaucracy and millions of bureaucrats from all levels of government.
    • No tax filing is required by individuals.
    • It eliminates tens of thousands of pages of existing tyrannical laws

  10. Sarah says:

    First-time commenter here. Being Type 1 diabetic, I would nominate medications & medical supplies (possibly emergency medical care: ER, EMS, that sort of thing) for tax exemption, along with food and basic utilities: water, power, sewer – NOT “basic cable!” 🙂 Necessary to live = tax exempt. Otherwise, general enthusiastic agreement with Max’s post and overall comment stream.

  11. Pineslayer says:

    Good ideas here and here…


    There has to be a better way.

  12. perioikoi says:

    After reading the series Max has been writing on rightfully liberty and most recently his latest on taxes I was inspired to write an essay length exploration not just on taxes but on the systemic limitations that exist under our current systems of governance and resources management. The resulting essay barrows from many disciplines and ideologies both past and present but ultimately proposes a new system that tries to break free from the inherent limitations of our current attempts at equitable governance and resource management.

    Given its length I posted the essay under a new topic in the rightful liberty forum:


  13. Will says:

    Funny you should say “pay your taxes by filling potholes” on the weekends. During the Depression my Grandfather paid his County Property Taxes by hauling gravel with his team of horses and wagon to build new roads in the county.

    Many local farmers who were “cash poor” did the same- and the roads- which transported THEIR produce to the market got built. This was of course before the county had much of a “roads department” of its own. It worked well for everyone- taxes were paid and kept low and the roads were built.

  14. Jim Klein says:

    “It would be nice if we could make tax voluntary, but of course no one would pay it,”

    Why is this? Wouldn’t you? Do you walk out of a restaurant without paying when you can?

    I think of course people would pay it, IF they wanted it. That’s what “want” means. Sure some wouldn’t, but so what? Either get rid of ’em or move on anyway, but move on.

    The larger contradiction is this—“Because bottom line, Rightful Liberty says you can do what you want.”

    Right…absent obstruction of others, natch. So it either means what it says or it doesn’t. Once you start adding on “except…,” well, you can figure out where that goes. Or look around.

    So the primary decision is basic and simple—Rightful Liberty or not?

    Trumping all of this BTW, is this—“Perhaps if you don’t pay tax, you have another obligation.”

    Perhaps if you choose that obligation. No matter how we word it, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNCHOSEN OBLIGATION.

    Any person can readily verify this fact by reviewing their own. Not one person will discover one obligation that they believe themselves to have, that they didn’t choose.

    FWIW that’s the little secret that resolves nearly all derivative issues. That’s why as soon as looters figured out what’s what, they took the denial of that simple fact as the Key to the Mint. That’s why it’s pounded into everyone’s heads from the time they’re toddlers, that their world is just chock full of obligations that someone else chose.

    In basic principle, that’s the whole scam right there.

    • Max Velocity says:

      Rightful Liberty is the overriding principle. It means what it means, no compromise.
      Much of the tax discussion is very much just that, a discussion of options and which ones match up with Rightful Liberty.
      For example, your point on obligations: my point was merely that there could be options to contribute in other ways rather than by paying cash. Work for example. If you opt for neither, you are in another category of not taking part.
      I however do like these ideas that tax should merely be a consumption tax, not on real essentials, which makes it truly voluntary. You opt out on the black market if you still want those goods!

  15. libertatis says:

    A “small, fair” tax is like giving a mugger Just a Little.

    You’re still being robbed at gunpoint.

    If government wants to provide “services”, it must do it like everyone else–VOLUNTARILY.

    I gladly pay UPS to deliver packages; gladly pay tolls on private toll roads; gladly pay for guns and ammunition for self-defense.

    The minute we concede the principle that it is not acceptable to rob people at gunpoint, the game is lost.

    Ironically the MOST FREE governments become the MOST TYRANNICAL, because the fantastic wealth generated by freedom becomes the most desirable target for thieving government psychopaths.

    The is no such thing as a “fair” robbery. Taxation is theft.

    We have to stop conceding the principle, and start instead designing a Liberty-minded system that does NOT allow government to steal at gunpoint.

    • Max Velocity says:

      I simply don’t agree that all taxation is by definition theft. That comes from an anarchist point of view, and Righful Liberty is only properly implemented in a Constitutional Republic, where fair laws define the limits of harm to others as they define the limits to Rightful Liberty. Preventing harm to others etc.
      Taxation is at the point of a gun, if it is at the point of a gun, as our current tax system is. However, if a free people agree on what they consider a fair system of taxation, then it is the will of the people, and not theft. Given all the other caveats discussed in the post and comments.
      Distrust of ALL government is not helpful. It is paranoid. The key is to keep government small, constitutional, and under the people’s control.

      • perioikoi says:

        While I accept that any large scale society under the monetary system needs revenue to address “The Common Good” that still does not change the inherent criminality behind the removal of one’s money or property through force or intimidation. The position that taxes are not inherently theft is correct because technically it’s robbery due to the intimidation/force needed to make people pay those taxes. Robbery by definition is “The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation”. Now if a person refuses to pay taxes inevitably government men apply force or threats of force to retrieve those taxes and/or seize property, that’s robbery.

        • Max Velocity says:

          Under the Current system you are correct. The point is to find an equitable way to raise money for limited government. Consumption tax seems like a contender.

        • SHL says:

          If by taxation you mean “compulsory contribution” then it is theft. That it is backed up by a majority who favors it merely takes it from the realm of the sole stick-up man to the mob. Period.

          Anarchy per se is something of a boogeyman. There are many aspects of our lives that can and should be “anarchic” in the sense that they can and should be anarchic, that is, without governance.

          The central question is twofold: How small (not how large) can government be in order to fulfill whatever roles are essential to it, and, how is “the consent of the governed” to be derived?

          For me, the answers are simple. Government should be as small as possible and constantly driven toward zero in an asymptotic way. For the “consent of the governed” to be legitimate, it must be unanimous.

          We can talk about the necessity of taxation, the size of the government and the legitimacy of the electoral mandate, but in the end we’re talking about nothing more than the necessity of theft, the size of the criminal gang and the legitimacy of the mob that supports it. If these evils are indeed mandatory, it behooves every decent person to constantly seek to minimize them.

          It is estimated that there are over 300,000 laws and regulations in force at the Federal level alone.

          Aim for zero.

          • Max Velocity says:

            What’s this? A sudden anarchists convention?
            Go back and read the posts and comments. There is discussion about options, but they are all within rightful liberty, so no one is being forced.
            Just go back and actually read it, for figs sake. Get outside of the box.

  16. Comrade X says:

    No government = no taxation

    Small government = small taxation

    Big government = big taxation

    Methinks the 2nd one is the best one. And so did our founding fathers, that is why they had no income tax and a list of very limited powers for the federal government. We do not live by our constitution today not by how it was written or intended.

    The 9th amendment in our constitution documents our right to Rightful Liberty;

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

    George Washington

    And folks we are feeling the heat of that fire of our out of control government burning down this republic.

  17. Old Army Tanker says:

    Great ideas, but they will never work until we rid ourselves of the central bank. It’s a big monster that stays VERY hungry (interest). Congress would have to coin our own currency, backed by something, to curculate into the economy at no interest. At least it seems that way to me

  18. OldTCS says:

    In order for any semblance of control over a future government, there must be no federal reserve, and no fiat currency. That combo makes us debt slaves from birth.

  19. Lordchamp says:

    Folks, remember this is a series on RIGHTFUL LIBERTY. How can ANY federal tax be considered rightful liberty? Anyone? It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as in NOT in the Constitution.

    Quit believing all the crap you have been taught, go read it, word for word.

    NO it does NOT say they have the right to tax our income. Read the Founders own words in the Federalist Papers and other sources to fully understand what they REALLY meant, not what 9 black robed idiots tell you it means.

    I think the ones that wrote it know better than ANY so called judge.

    America existed until 1913 running the feral government on excise taxes, etc. Absolutely no reason it can’t now if they are only doing what they are supposed to do according to the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

    Fair tax, flat tax, income tax whatever you want to call it is Unconstitutional.

    • Thumper says:

      Lordchamp….”unconstitutional”, woe is me. Tell me as you implore “it’s unconstitutional” how that means a tinker’s damn ?

      Seems to me the individual who has passed himself off as Barack Hussein obama, himself is unconstitutional. Specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 makes obama ineligible to be POTUS. But there he sits. Illegal as can be. Your elected Congress and the appointed weasels in black robes have gladly let him reign there.

      So, PLEASE,for GAWD’s sake….stop writing it’s “unconstitutional”. Until someone who violates the Constitution is arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced(btw….only one appeal) to be hung from the neck until dead, you’re just urinating into the wind.

      The United States Constitution is DEAD. Has been for nearly it’s entire existence.

  20. Lordchamp says:

    I said in my last post to go read the Constitution but if Max will allow I will just show here what I mean by taxation being unconstitutional.

    Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2 reads as follows:

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

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    What follows those two clauses are more ENUMERATED powers that WE the People gave to Congress for how they should use the money they get through taxes. Clauses 3-16 state what the raised funds are allowed to be used for. It’s a very limited list.

    So by the nature of what that list contains, the government could not possibly need the amount of money they take from us though the form of taxation they are currently using, THAT logically makes it unconstitutional and outright theft. If they are taking something they have no need for, and not returning it, what else could it logically be called?

    The black robed idiots have ruled that they can basically tax us for anything they want but according to one of the major contributors to the Constitution, James Madison, in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist Paper #41, he says exactly what is meant by that Article. In essence, he says just what I just did, that the first two clauses are general clauses and the remainder are a “recital of particulars”, in other words, the remainder explains and qualifies the general clause.

    That follows the exact same pattern as the entire Constitution. It is a big list of exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything outside of that list is unconstitutional. Period, not open to interpretation by black robed idiots.

    It’s written in plain English so the common man can understand it and then we also have the Founders own words to even better help us understand.

    ANYTHING outside of that infringes on our rightful liberty.

    • Thumper says:

      Lordchamp….interesting how you beseech the defunct US Constitution to support your tax argument. However, have I missed your argument that obama needs to be in Leavenworth pending trial for conspiring to and violating Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 ?

      You may want to spend some time on my aforementioned Article 2 before you ask others to worry about Article 1.

      Unconstitutional. So what ?

      • Thumper says:

        PS: You and anyone beseeching the United States Constitution must come to understand there is no mechanism to enforce violations of said Constitution. Take Amendment 2….”, shall not be infringed”. How effing difficult is that to understand. Yet it has been infringed more than 30,000 times nation-wide, over the years. Has anyone been criminally punished for violating Amendment 2 ? Has anyone paid with their life, swinging from the gallows ? The answers are a resounding “NO” !

        Until the US Constitution returns with criminal penalties for it’s violation AND until the Constitution is read and interpreted in it’s simplistic as-written form, the Constitution will remain dead.

  21. PJ says:

    “Tax” is a warm and fuzzy euphemism for theft. Doesn’t matter the tax rate or what the tax is used for, even if you like what it is for. It’s still theft.

    If you think taxes can be rightful liberty, then you are saying that theft is rightful, that government threats and violence are rightful. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to maintain such an impossible condition.

    If you still believe in minarchy, then the easiest way to approach it is from a condition of anarchy. It is always trivial to create more government when none exists – just hold an election. It is near impossible to reduce government when you already have too much. Bottom line, even minarchists should advocate anarchy.

    Finally, Panarchy allows both minarchists and anarchists (and even socialists) to live in peace. Let socialists be socialists. Just don’t dragoon the rest of us into it.

  22. PJ says:

    Max, you write, “I personally believe that tax should be at a low rate and only to fund those public services that are not provided through the private sector, and that need some amount of government regulation. Infrastructure is a good example. This allows trade and creates wealth, so it is a good investment in the form of taxes.”

    You should read this book to really understand how those things we naturally think only government can do, can really be done without it. It’s a historical record, not a theoretical discussion:

    Oh and by the way, it is not an “investment” when government does it. Investment is when someone risks his own money on the chance of later profit for himself – not when somebody else’s money is risked with no consultation of their wishes.

    Finally, see what Tocqueville had to say about how America ran in the 1830’s:

    “When a private individual meditates an undertaking, however connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting the co-operation of the government; but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it, courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often less successful than the state might have been in his position; but in the end, the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the government could have done.”
    — Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America [1835-1840]

    “Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds – religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association. I met with several kinds of associations in America, of which I confess I had no previous notion; and I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it. I have since travelled over England, whence the Americans have taken some of their laws and many of their customs; and it seemed to me that the principle of association was by no means so constantly or so adroitly used in that country. The English often perform great things singly; whereas the Americans form associations for the smallest undertakings. It is evident that the former people consider association as a powerful means of action, but the latter seem to regard it as the only means they have of acting.”
    — de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”

  23. Patriot1 says:

    I believe in government, but that is not what we have in this country anymore. What we have is a municipal corporation (as they often call themselves) on the local level masquerading as government, and a Federal Corporation doing the same on the National Level. Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umVj5XQYAi8 to more fully understand what I’m taking about. In the video an Australian trying to import a custom Corvette from the US discovers that there are actually two entities calling itself government in his country. One created by the Australian Constitution, and another listed on the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commissions website as a corporation. It’s mind blowing, and the same thing has happened here!

    • Max Velocity says:

      I really don’t give a toss about all this ‘corporation’ conspiracy theory BS. Even if its true. You are missing the point. Which was what is right under returned constitutional government. The constitution authorizes limited taxes. This current rash of anarchists need to get the fuck out of my rightful liberty discussion. I have no time for it.

  24. Patriot1 says:

    The Grace commission report conducted under the Reagan administration found that the money we pay in income tax is gone before any services from the Federal Corporation (29 USC 3002 Para. 15 (a)) are provided. So where did the money go? The money goes to pay the interest on the bonds given to private international banks for loaning the Government Credit out of thin air. So how do they fund government you ask? They borrow more credit from the international banks. All this when the Constitution says that only the Federal Government (which we do not have, it’s a corporation) has the right to print and coin money and determine the value there of.

    • Lordchamp says:

      Not sure what Constitution you are reading but OUR Constitution is totally about limiting what government can do and therefore keeping the power with the people and the States.

      It is merely a list of powers given to the federal government. That it has been hijacked and now ignored does not change those facts.

      If we merely return to following it as the Founders defined and intended we would not be having this and other discussions.

      It is WE that have failed the Constitution nor the other way around.

      • Lordchamp says:

        Darn it, that was meant for PJ above and I clicked on the wrong reply button. Sorry Patriot1.

      • Thumper says:

        Lordchamp,the Constitution and the founding fathers failed. There is no mechanism to punish the usurpation and bastardizing of that document. Love it, worship as you will. The fact is the document is extremely flawed. And the lack of defined mechanism to enforce the Constitution is what has failed.

        You actually think there was/is/will be honor amongst elected scoundrels ? The only thing that would ever get them comply with maintaining and supporting Freedom and Liberty, would be the threat of a rope around their collective necks. A piece of parchment with nice words and catchy phrases will never give birth to an honorable and honest politician. Thus, the hijack and ignoring of the United States Constitution by those liars and traitors to raised their right hand and swore to defend it.

  25. Mike says:

    Just remember we are looking at this form the angle of today’s corruption.
    State taxes should be just that for the state and each state can decide what is best for it self.
    a return to alodial title for property and common and natural law is a must.
    As to the fedgov they can run on tariffs and duties of imports alone. Direct taxes are illegal under constitutional law any way even today

    • Max Velocity says:

      Exactly. All these corporation conspiracy theorists ate just thinking inside the current box. That wasn’t the point of the post.

  26. Mike says:

    Further Money must be backed by gold and silver at a set rate.
    Say at $1 equals 1/20 an ounce of gold and an equal ratio of silver.
    no more games

  27. Gorgo says:


  28. Redcoat says:

    This is clearly a very emotive subject with several commentators disappearing down the rabbit whole……again!

    To give yourself a reasonable heads-up on this very complex subject, I would recommend reading the Federalist Papers (not the easiest of reads) or some shortened version thereof. The concept of (limited) Federal Government with defined powers over and above the individual State makes for a very plausible case. Particularly with regard to revenue.

    Reverting back to these principles is not only rational, but will guarantee rightful liberty.

    Let history judge how the current perversion of tyranny came about. Letting attorney’s run the House and the lack of term limits may have something to do with it. Balanced budgets for the love of God!!….oops, watch the rabbit whole!

    The goal is to take back our liberty and freedom and stop the thieving/intimidation and corruption.

    Taxation has been used by the progressives to achieve the vast majority of their perverted goals and it is exactly the means I would use to choke the living shit out of these traitors.
    The long abused tax code and IRS has been perverted and broken for many years. It is blatantly obvious that a change is in order. The more radical, the better.

    I’ve been fortunate enough to live in several different countries and the taxation system that seems most fair (God forbid) is based on consumption.

    Excise Duty is collected at points of importation and Consumption Tax is collected at point of sale.
    Close one Government department (IRS) and move onto the next……EPA, FDA, Education….This isn’t bloody rocket science!
    Wake-up America and stop voting for Democrats & Republicans……….they’re one and the same! You’re being played like banjo’s.