Taxes, Consent and the Constitution

[Travis Retriever]

Question.  At the time the US Constitution was written, did 'tax' mean 'voluntary contribution?'

Because if so, this video:  [yt]a7qF0t_2xms[/yt]

is a red herring to the anarchist question of 'consent of the governed.'
So I *don't* have to consent to the constitution and it 'doesn't apply to me, but to those in government' even though it clearly states plain as day:

"Section. 8.

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;" (Emphasis added by me)

I suppose that's correct in the sense that someone being raped doesn't 'have to consent' to a person raping them, but that's kind of what makes it wrong, immoral, and illegitimate in the first place!

Really, Larken Rose hit the nail on the head with this video on the subject (epic motherfucking win video):

[yt]ngpsJKQR_ZE[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

Question.  At the time the US Constitution was written, did 'tax' mean 'voluntary contribution?'

There were no direct taxes at the time. In fact, the Constitution strictly prohibited them. No citizen had to pay money directly to the Federal government.

[Travis Retriever]

There were no direct taxes at the time. In fact, the Constitution strictly prohibited them. No citizen had to pay money directly to the Federal government.

Okay, but let's say I'm a business owner who has to pay excises or a customer who has paid tariffs (or what have you).  What if I didn't pay them because I don't consent to them?  What happens to me if the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land?

Now it could be that that part of the constitution is itself illegitimate if only because--last time I checked--forcing people to pay for a service they might not even use regardless of what it is (expropriating property protector *is* a contradiction in terms. ), and that you yourself are against it (much like how the laws aiding slave owners weren't legal by the Constitution after the 13th Amendment; but even when they were 'legal,' it didn't make them right) but I don't think you mentioned that in any of your videos on it (as far as I know).  With the possible exception of the slavery bit, I mean.  Maybe.

[MrBogosity]

Okay, but let's say I'm a business owner who has to pay excises or a customer who has paid tariffs (or what have you).  What if I didn't pay them because I don't consent to them?  What happens to me if the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land?

You still don't pay directly to the Feds. The states pay the Feds; how they collect it is up to them, as long as what they're doing isn't restricted by the Constitution.

[Travis Retriever]

You still don't pay directly to the Feds. The states pay the Feds; how they collect it is up to them, as long as what they're doing isn't restricted by the Constitution.

So what if I don't want to pay those taxes to the state that I calculate are going to the federal government?

None of your replies have addressed the core of my argument:  The morality and legitimacy of that part of the Constitution I cited.  Just because someone steals on your behalf and gives it to you doesn't make it moral, or legit.  I doubt you'd accept that as an argument for, say, the mafia.  So why for the Constitution if you do?

[MrBogosity]

So what if I don't want to pay those taxes to the state that I calculate are going to the federal government?

Up to that particular state.

None of your replies have addressed the core of my argument:  The morality and legitimacy of that part of the Constitution I cited.  Just because someone steals on your behalf and gives it to you doesn't make it moral, or legit.  I doubt you'd accept that as an argument for, say, the mafia.  So why for the Constitution if you do?

The Constitution doesn't say the state HAS to take it by force. As written, all the state has to do is pay. If they can raise the money voluntarily, so be it.

[Travis Retriever]

Up to that particular state.

Which just defers the question yet again.  If a state I am living in wants to force me to pay them so they can pay the federal government; under the Constitution, would that be legal as far the Constitution is concerned?

Again, you didn't address my argument--the core morality and legitimacy of that clause's enforcement--one bit.  I'm getting really tired of these evasions.  If you are against the states or any body political putting a gun to people's heads and saying they should pay/move/die then just say so.  Don't beat around the bush like this, Shane. I've known you for like, 5 years;  you're better than that. 

The Constitution doesn't say the state HAS to take it by force. As written, all the state has to do is pay. If they can raise the money voluntarily, so be it.

Which brings me back to my original question--the one at the top of this thread's first post.  In your second video on the Constitution, you said it made the best logical sense to interpret the Constitution based on the meaning of the words at the time it was written.  Hence why I ask:  What was the meaning of 'tax' back then?  If it wasn't voluntary, it doesn't matter what else the Constitution said.  Especially considering if the tea taxes for example were voluntary (that the Boston Tea Party protested against), couldn't they have simply opted out the way I opt out of Logitech by not buying their products?  Since they didn't, it leads me to believe the answer is "no, they aren't voluntary and never were, like every other government ever.  Thus, that part of the Constitution, whether 'legal' or not, is immoral and illegitimate." and would have said so right from the start without all the hand-waving.

I don't understand why you can say in one post in fav quotes (the one from The Skeptical Libertarian) about how the anarchist/minarchist debate is a 'semantic' bitchfest when you yourself said in your rebuttal to Steve's "5 Stupid Things about Libertarism" that "We are NOT anarchists!"  And in another post (when talking about libertarian = anarchist or something like that that I brought up in the logical fallacies thread a few years ago IIRC) you said, "If they [Anarchists and Libertarians] are synonymous, then in 1973 why did libertarians form a political party?"

Which goes back to the first block I made in this post.  As I've said before, the question is how you handle dissenters.
What if I think your Constitutional Republic is bogus and don't *want* to pay those taxes (whether they are direct or indirect--I mean, come on) and would rather opt out of it the way I can opt out of Dell by not buying their computers or products?
Leave me be?  Then you're an anarcho capitalist.
Stop me?  By force if necessary even if I'm harming no one?  Then you're a statist.

[MrBogosity]

Which just defers the question yet again.  If a state I am living in wants to force me to pay them so they can pay the federal government; under the Constitution, would that be legal as far the Constitution is concerned?

Remember: the Constitution is a compact among the states. They define and restrict the Federal government, not the other way around.

What if I think your Constitutional Republic is bogus and don't *want* to pay those taxes

Then under the Constitution as it designed this country to be, your quarrel is with your state, not the Republic itself. That's how a republic works.

[Travis Retriever]

Remember: the Constitution is a compact among the states. They define and restrict the Federal government, not the other way around.

The States:  We have to collect this money because we owe it to the Fed
The Federal Government:  We are made up of the states, so you'll have to ask them.

Then under the Constitution as it designed this country to be, your quarrel is with your state, not the Republic itself. That's how a republic works.

>>your quarrel
>>Implying it's just a 'mere' personal grievance and not a severe moral issue like slavery or child prostitution when it is and has always been the latter, and avoided my direct questions to you on the issue.
So more hand-waving...Not sure what makes my questions so hard....especially when you've done little to nothing to address any of them.  And still red herring'd Lysander Spooner in that video. As I said:  just brings the question back to state governments.  Not sure how/why you think this changes the morality of the situation (if it doesn't why'd you bring it up as if it did)...

[MrBogosity]

I never said anything about morality. I'm talking about how the Constitution was designed.

Do you understand the difference between being descriptive and being prescriptive?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Up to that particular state.

The Constitution doesn't say the state HAS to take it by force. As written, all the state has to do is pay. If they can raise the money voluntarily, so be it.

Okay, think I found the kink here.

So they don't have to be taken by force?  Okay.

However, if they want to use force, they have the right?  Then where does this right come from?

[Travis Retriever]

*points to Hawkeye's post*

I never said anything about morality. I'm talking about how the Constitution was designed.

Do you understand the difference between being descriptive and being prescriptive?

Refresh my memory.

But IIRC it went something like:
Descriptive:  how things are, the state exists, slavery is immoral, the state is immoral (read Hawkeye's journal on UPB if you think otherwise--morality =/= prescriptive if used in this fashion.  It's logical consistency in behavior:  http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/Arguing-from-first-principles-morality-321855155 )
Prescriptive:  Whether something is good or bad: "This ice cream sucks, I wish I had vanilla instead of raspberry!"

Just because the state exists, or a law or constitution 'exists' doesn't make it moral or legitimate (Slavery).  Unless you're of the bogus belief that morality is subjective and arbitrary.  Which you don't believe as you've constantly called people "liars" on YouTube like it's going out of style.  So honesty is UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior).  Because it is preferable to dishonesty.

I never understood this idea that morality is subjective and about bogus little things like, "well I dun like prostitution so it's immoral!"  yet doesn't include things that, you know, actually matter, like theft: immoral because you'd be simultaneously affirming and denying property rights.

[Skm1091]

Okay, think I found the kink here.

So they don't have to be taken by force?  Okay.

However, if they want to use force, they have the right?  Then where does this right come from?

This is why me thinks that the only way a government could work is if you put drastic and I mean DRASTIC countermeasures to prevent them from abusing their powers. Note I'm not talking about pieces of papers saying what government can and can not do. I mean like this (see bellow)

https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=2181.0

[MrBogosity]

Okay, think I found the kink here.

So they don't have to be taken by force?  Okay.

However, if they want to use force, they have the right?  Then where does this right come from?

The Constitution does not grant state rights or powers. It has nothing to say on that either way (except when it restricts state powers in various ways, such as Article I Section 10 and the Bill of Rights). Remember, the states existed before the Constitution. They already had their own state Constitutions drawn up. The US Constitution is a compact between these states.

[MrBogosity]

This is why me thinks that the only way a government could work is if you put drastic and I mean DRASTIC countermeasures to prevent them from abusing their powers. Note I'm not talking about pieces of papers saying what government can and can not do. I mean like this (see bellow)

https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=2181.0

That was why they put in the Second Amendment.