Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Constitutionality of a Progressive Tax

Rate this topic


Marc K.

Recommended Posts

Marc K.,

C§1.8 Lists the various valid powers which the Congress shall have. First in that list is the power "to lay and collect taxes ...." Congress shall also have the powers to borrow money, regulate commerce, etc.

All social spending is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to spend on social programs in this list.

A§14.1 Is an injunction against the various states committing certain actions which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had previously prohibited the federal government from committing. The three clauses in the second sentence all mean exactly the same thing, to wit, if the Constitution prohibited the Federal government from doing something, as it violates the rights of its citizens, then the various states are hereby prohibited from doing those things as well. This injunction applies to citizens of the United States only.

The pertinent section of the fourteenth amendment applies to all fifty states and speaks about citizens of the United States, but only insofar as they relate to an injuction against the fifty states. Furthermore, it speaks about individual rights and potential enforcement of law not in keeping with rights - not laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the purpose?????????

To figure out a way to stop it, constitutionally.

And I think you mean coercive taxation is wrong.

Voluntary taxation is moral and needed. (VoS).

BTW RadCap, did you get my email about your post on Environmentalism?

--------------------------

Ahhh HAAAA!!!!!!!

Just as I suspected, social spending is unconstitutional.

Thanks for the clarification y, I think we're on the same page now.

BTW, you can call me Marc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few things:

- If you are seeking to challenge it, you need to actually challenge the constitution itself, for it has philosophic errors which allow for this and other forms of initiation of force by govt.. Furthermore, there currently does not exist a philosophic atmosphere conducive to either a strict constitutional reading, nor an abolishment of taxes. As such, seeking a 'constitutional' challenge to taxation will ultimately fail. The best you could hope for under such conditions is to prove the constitution does not provide for taxation, at which point an amendment would simply be added allowing it. That would not get rid of taxation.

- I used the word taxation quite deliberately. A tax is a financial imposition made by government REGARDLESS of the consent of any particular individual. In other words, all taxation involves the initiation of force. 'Govt funding' is the neutral termonology - because it can include either voluntary or forced financing. Voluntary FINANCING of govt is what is moral and needed (VoS)

- No, I dont recall getting an email from you. If it was about specific sources for the statistics, I only have the books I referenced. You will have to look them up yourself (since it has been a number of years since I compiled them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap,

Let me first say that I have observed your postings in this forum and I find myself in near lockstep with your logic, though it seems you occasionally look for a fight where no conflict exists. I am reluctant to engage you on this issue since it would be like two soldiers fighting over who gets to punch Saddam first. Be that as it may.

Yes, I fell into your eloquently set word trap. I used the word “taxation” inexactly, very similar to the way AR uses it and corrects herself in VoS. My usage has been corrected, thank you. But let that not change the fact that you and I agree on the issue of voluntary government financing. If you didn’t know that already I am stating it explicitly now.

What is the purpose of asking whether taxes are or are not permitted by the constitution of the US?  Whether permitted or prohibited by law, the fact is taxation does occur, is wrong, and needs to be stopped.  End of story.

“Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society -- the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.” -- Ayn Rand, VoS
- If you are seeking to challenge it, you need to actually challenge the constitution itself, for it has philosophic errors which allow for this and other forms of initiation of force by govt..  Furthermore, there currently does not exist a philosophic atmosphere conducive to either a strict constitutional reading, nor an abolishment of taxes.  As such, seeking a 'constitutional' challenge to taxation will ultimately fail.  The best you could hope for under such conditions is to prove the constitution does not provide for taxation, at which point an amendment would simply be added allowing it.  That would not get rid of taxation.

I must respectfully disagree with your opinion on changing taxation via the constitutional tack. I think a majority of the American people are smarter and more principled than most of us give them credit for being. I think a significant proportion would support eliminating certain taxation were they given a principle to follow. An example I gave earlier in this thread is their apparent support to end the estate tax even though it wouldn’t affect them directly. And while many might be skeptical of following the advice of a philosopher who’s name has been besmirched by those who pray at the altar of altruism, they respect and revere the Constitution for good reason. If it could be shown that social spending or progressive taxation was unconstitutional, backed-up by a Supreme Court decision to that effect, I think it would be difficult to amend the constitution in contradiction of that fact. Of course politicians would then use emotional and socialistic arguments to reinstate any tax revenue over which they had lost control. But once the principled eel is out of the bag any effort to return it would be much more difficult. Perhaps taxation would devolve back to the states which would be a much better system as there would be competition among the states to attract people and business via lower taxes.

Cliché coming: the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

“The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: ... [and]that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion.” -- Ayn Rand, VoS

As an aside: I’m sure you are correct about there being errors in the Constitution but I would certainly appreciate you pointing a few of them out to me as I thought most of them had been exercised by about 1870 or so. (Of course the 16th amendment has already been discussed here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc

You begin by saying you were hesitant to engage me in this discussion because you believe I look for a conflict where no conflict exists. I would have to say this is a misunderstanding on your part of the issues discussed in such instances. If you would care to name specific instances, I will be happy to explain the conflict therein.

Additionally, by bringing it up in the context of our discussion, you imply that is occuring in this instance as well. The problem is, we do have a conflict - a rather large one at that (and one you admit exists when you state you 'respectfully' disagree with me). Allow me to explain, using the apt 'cliche' you provide.

You state you are starting on a very long journey (the journey to a voluntarily financed govt). And you are correct, we both agree this is a good and proper destination. We also agree that a first step needs to be taken on that journey. Where we disagree is the direction needed to reach the destination. This is a cricial issue, since it is extremely important to know whether your steps lead you towards or away from your intended goal. For instance, if your destination is to the north, is it not important to know if you are headed north? If I say you are headed south instead, is that not a major conflict?

Well, that is where we stand. As you indicate, we apparently do not disagree over destination - we disagree over the direction to that destination.

To state the conflict explicitly:

- your destination is voluntary government financing. And the road you are taking to this destination is a direct constitutional challenge to taxation and 'social' spending.

- my destination is also voluntary government financing. But I say the road to the destination needs to be the much longer one of philosophic change, first in society and then in the constitution.

What I find strange is that you provide a specific quote from AR which supports my argument in direct and explicit opposition to your own:

"Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society."

In other words, she explicitly states that your 'first step' on your thousand mile journey is the wrong one. She says it is "the last, not the first, reform to advocate." And she says, as I did, that such reform will work "only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established." Until that occurs, it simply "will not work".

I must say, I am at a loss to understand why you provided this quote. It stands in complete opposition to your stated intent. Unless you believe "the basic principles and institutions of a free society" have already been established, voluntary government financing will not work today - as AR clearly states. There is simply no philosophic basis or framework to allow for such a change.

As you state, there may indeed be some sentiment for the elimination of specific taxes. But there is not a "significant portion" of Americans who would support the abolition of all taxes (on consititutional or other grounds). The reason? They believe govt exists to serve collectivist/altruistic ends. While they may argue over which specific ends should be met, they do not disagree on the basic nature of those ends. They do not disagree with altruism. That is one of the things which must change before you can eliminate taxation. And a whole lot of other ideas must be challenged and proper one's accepted in their place before that occurs. That is why the voluntary financing is the last, not first step, on the road to a free society. And that is why I (and AR) say your 'first step' on your thousand mile journey is athe wrong one.

Furthermore, contrary to your suggestion that 'social' spending or progressive taxation may be shown unconstituional, such a demonstration cannot be made. If you read the full text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (which y did not provide), it states:

"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;"

In other words, the constitution allows for the forcible collection of monies or other wealth so it can do three things:

pay the debts of the United States

pay for the defense of the United States

pay for the welfare of the United States

Since 'general welfare' is an ambiguous (and decidedly collectivist) phrase, it can easily be read (and has been read by the courts) to authorize and justify taxation for 'social spending'. Indeed, because it allows for taxation on 'general welfare' grounds, it has also been used as the implicit, legal authorization OF social programs which were not specifically enumerated in the constitution (for, if you allow for collection of wealth for purposes of providing for the general welfare, you must be spending that wealth by some govt means to some govt determined end which supposedly benefits that general welfare).

Thus, as I stated, you cannot make an appeal to the constitution, for it is the source of the problem in these cases. It must be changed. And for it to be changed properly, there needs to be a major philosophic change in the nation. Otherwise you will simply get - again as I said - an amendment which explicitly allows for what you argue is not included in the constitution (which is precicely what happend with the 16th Amendment).

So, while what you seek - the establishment of voluntary govt financing - is a proper goal, you are taking the wrong road to reach it. Such a goal requires the establishment of a proper philosophic base. That requirement cannot be side-stepped. There is no 'short-cut' to that destination. The politics cannot change without a prior change to the ethics, which requires a change to the epistemology/metaphysics. To suggest or to try otherwise is to fall into the trap of libertarianism - to accept the divorce of economics and politics from the rest of philosophy.

--

As to what parts of the consitution are wrong - many clauses of Article 1, Section 8 come to mind. The takings clause of Amendment 5, and of course, obviously Amendment 16. There are others one might argue for or against, but in those instances they are more procedural disagreements as opposed to philosophic errors. As such, I will not mention them here.

--

Finally - to further clarify something: you claim I set a "word-trap" for you. This is the opposite of what actually occured. YOU tried to correct ME when I stated all taxation is wrong. I merely stated your correction was wrong - and explained how it was wrong. How you conclude that a defense AGAINST your claim I committed an error is a trap on my part escapes me.

(Oh - and dammmit I want to puch Saddam first! :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK RadCap here we go again, (this is fun)

We agree on the destination, you say we are headed in different directions. Perhaps this is semantics but I think we are headed in the same direction but perhaps one of us is going over the mountain and one of us is taking the tunnel. Which of us is taking the shorter route will only be determined when one of us reaches his destination, though I'd wager that one's course will not hinder the other's. (I think that analogy is more apt but I could have used yours by saying: even if I head south I'll still end up going north eventually).

In other words, she explicitly states that your 'first step' on your thousand mile journey is the wrong one.  She says it is "the last, not the first, reform to advocate."  And she says, as I did, that such reform will work "only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established."  Until that occurs, it simply "will not work".

I must say, I am at a loss to understand why you provided this quote.  It stands in complete opposition to your stated intent.  Unless you believe "the basic principles and institutions of a free society" have already been established, voluntary government financing will not work today - as AR clearly states.  There is simply no philosophic basis or framework to allow for such a change.

The reason I provided the AR quote was because I thought you were advocating the immediate cessation of all taxation:

Whether permitted or prohibited by law, the fact is taxation does occur, is wrong, and needs to be stopped.  End of story.

Further, I used the AR quote to signal my agreement that voluntary govt financing (vgf) should be the last step. I never said I thought the first step should be vgf rather I stated explicitly:

I think a significant proportion would support eliminating certain taxation
-- emphasis added

I think you acknowledge this here:

As you state, there may indeed be some sentiment for the elimination of specific taxes.

Again, I agree with you that the journey must include a philosophic and cultural change. The question is how to start that discussion? I think many Americans revere our founders (as I do) and appreciate the legacy they left us (however flawed) and I think they would be more disposed to questioning current govt operations if it could be shown that they are in direct contradiction of what the founders intended. Even if it were unsuccessful, the fact of a supreme court challenge to social spending would spark a debate, which is just what we need since the facts and logic are on our side. People might then ask: "why didn't the founders think it was the proper function of govt to provide for the weakest in our society, they were right about so many things". It is the answer to questions like these that could potentially lead to a revolution in thinking and taxation. No shortcuts, just different approaches to teaching philosophy.

I still don't think we are giving the American people enough credit:

But there is not a "significant portion" of Americans who would support the abolition of all taxes (on consititutional or other grounds). The reason? They believe govt exists to serve collectivist/altruistic ends. While they may argue over which specific ends should be met, they do not disagree on the basic nature of those ends. They do not disagree with altruism. That is one of the things which must change before you can eliminate taxation. And a whole lot of other ideas must be challenged and proper one's accepted in their place before that occurs.
I don't think most Americans give philosophy any thought, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad people. Altruism is a sickness of our society but it can be cured I hope you don't think it is fatal. Altruism is a montra, a constant drone which while being tacitly accepted by many is understood and worshiped by few. I doubt people even associate altruism with the word sacrifice anymore. It has lost its meaning. Indeed if you look it up in dictionary.com there are two completely contradictory definitions. (Every time President Bush uses it in reference to our troops it makes me cringe). One encouraging sign of this is the declining attendance (relatively speaking) at church. Even many of those who attend don't practice the dogma religiously.

[i have a funny story about this: I, of course am atheist, but my mother recently went back to church after 40 years. She is a pillar of strength and common sense and likable besides. So very quickly she was asked to be a deacon. She had to read some passage about, I don't know who, the father or mother who was asked by god to sacrifice his child. Well my mother was appalled. She told the group she was leading: "This is silly, would any of you sacrifice your child? I've never heard of anything so outrageous" some were shocked. She then went to the Minister with the same concerns, stomping up and down. He calmed her and said: "It is only a story." I was so surprised to hear "a man of the cloth" acknowledge such a thing.]

Anyway, my point is that most people will make the right decision when given a principle to follow from a source they respect. If they could be shown a different, better, moral way for govt financing I think they could be convinced. And I still think a constitutional amendment would be difficult. Most people would love to have lower taxes.

I am not a constitutional scholar and I don't pretend to be but ... I think the argument can be made that the declaratory phrases at the beginning of Article I section 8 have no bearing on the specific spending enumerated later. Just as the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean that the people have the right to keep and bear arms whether for a well regulated militia or not. Even the preamble could be incorporated to show that we should provide for the common defense but only promote the general welfare. Semantics, I know, but it's something.

And finally, again I agree: I tried to correct you. And I took this:

- I used the word taxation quite deliberately.
to mean that you were laying a trap. I have no way of knowing if your intent was to ensnare me and if you say it wasn't then I'll accept that.

BTW -- would you mind looking at the question I pose in ethics and aesthetics about "Iraq Casualties"?

Thanks,

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First - the term 'deliberate' meant I was not careless or sloppy in my word choice. I am always deliberate in my word choice. In other words, I didnt say 'taxation' when I really meant something else, as you claimed.

Second - you state you thought I was indicating taxes needed to be stopped immediately. Yet the sentence you quote, from which you say you drew that idea makes no reference to time at all. It simply said it must be stopped. Period. However, I *did* make a reference to alot of other things happening first. In fact, I specifically stated that there "CURRENTLY does not exist a philosophic atmosphere conducive to either a strict constitutional reading, nor an abolishment of taxes. As such, seeking a 'constitutional' challenge to taxation will ultimately fail." In other words, I made explicit the fact it could NOT take place first. Therefore, I am at a loss how you drew from those posts that *I* wanted taxes first.

What matters now, though, is that you do understand a lot of work, both philosophically and structurally, needs to be done before voluntary financing can be achieved. What matters is that you do acknowledge it is the last, not first step of proper change.

Third - if you are claiming that your intent all along was not to eliminate taxes, but simply to spark a debate which would first eliminate altruism and everything else which needs to change, and then in the END eliminate taxes, that intent was NOT at all clear from your previous posts. In fact, by *explicitly* stating it was your FIRST step on a long journey, you indicated quite the opposite.

However, now that you have made it clear it is not your first step, and is just A means to spark a debate about altruism, I have to question your means of sparking that debate. In fact there are so many things wrong with it, I CANT address them all here - so I will say just this:

Basically, what you say you seek is the elimination of specific taxes by claiming there is no authorization for them in the constitution. This argument has already been demonstrated false, but I will assume for the moment it is true. In other words, you want to say:

'This individual tax has no authorization' and point to the piece of paper and say 'See - its not in here.'

But the moment you say that, you grant to that piece of paper the power you ultimately seek to deny it. Because the constitution DOES authorize SOME taxes, your argument would be that it CAN authorize a tax, but simply doesnt authorize the SPECIFIC tax in question. Thus in ANY argument you make, you would have to say:

'See - here is valid authorization for THIS specific tax. So IT is ok. But there is NO authorization for this OTHER tax, so it is NOT ok."

And right there, even IF you win your battle (which you wont, because americans ultimately value their social programs more than their tax cuts - for practical AND philosophic reasons - which is another argument altogether) you lose your war, because you grant to your enemies THEIR argument - that taxes are valid (so long as they are written on a particular piece of paper). In other words, you can NEVER logically get to your ultimate destination - the statement that taxes are NOT ok at all - that they are all immoral and must be eliminated. Why? Because you have already said some are ok - and that a constitution has the authority TO authorize them.

Put simply, you would be caught in a contradiction.

No - for you NOT to lose that battle, you CANT just challenge any specific tax. You would ALSO have to challenge the constitution itself (as I FIRST said). And (as I ALSO already said), there is no philosophic basis for doing that now. A TON of other things MUST be changed FIRST.

Those are the things I suggest you try to challenge - not the validity of taxes. Right now, as AR said, such a challenge just wont work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, OK.

Relent, Relent.

Your logic is flawless as usual and I won't challenge it now as I haven't challenged it in the past.

Philosophy -- we agree, now we are just arguing about process so let's keep it short because this is getting tedious.

- I never stated all taxes have to be stopped immediately. I stated some taxes have to be stopped immediately.

- I think there exists a demonstrable atmosphere to eliminate some taxation. That

americans ultimately value their social programs more than their tax cuts
is false. In the past year Alabamans (or maybe it was Miss.) and Ohioans both rejected tax increases, by significant margins (even more so among the poor), even though social programs were going to be cut. Polls show that nearly 70% of people support cutting taxes.

- The argument that the Constitution does not authorize specific taxes has not and can not be demonstrated false, except by the Supreme Court.

Here's how I think it should go:

- Challenge the constitutionality of a certain tax

- Start a debate, not just on the constitutionality of a certain tax but on the morality of taxation in general.

- With reason, natural law, and morality on our side, present the philosophic and economic benefits of voluntary government financing.

- People become interested, seek knowledge, educate themselves, change their thinking.

- Soon not just reason and philosophy but raw economic facts push us towards voluntary government financing.

- We all live happily ever after.

This may be simplistic and rosey but can you really dismiss the process out of hand? I realize that using the Constitution to eliminate all coercive taxation (repetitive, I know) won't work precisely because of the contradictions you point out. But is it not a good way to start the debate? Just start it. Once the debate has started you could say "further, I can show that using the founders philosophy of natural law, all coercive taxation is immoral and outside the proper perview of the government and should be stopped. Isn't this a way, even a good way, to start a discussion? I think it is. I think people can more easily be drawn into a debate about principle by starting with something about which they already know. Then by challenging their principles you cause them to think. If, along the way, certain taxation happens to get eliminated, I'll take everyone's portion who won't accept it because it came first and not last. (Sorry I guess I'm needling you a bit). :)

Now, as I stated before, I agree with you on philosophy so let's not go back and rehash, let's work from here. I suppose if you really don't believe that I do agree with you philosophically you should point that out. But I sincerely think we are only arguing over process though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"- I never stated all taxes have to be stopped immediately. I stated some taxes have to be stopped immediately."

In never stated your claim was otherwise.

"- I think there exists a demonstrable atmosphere to eliminate some taxation."

I already stated this exact thing. My comment which you quote "americans ultimately value their social programs more than their tax cuts" was made in the context of the alternative of no taxes and therefore no spending, vs taxes which therefore allows spending. I am stating, given a choice between losing their ability to spend on social programs at all or losing tax cuts, they will currently choose to lose the cuts and keep the taxes. Thus your example is irrelevant because it does not address the context of my statement.

"- The argument that the Constitution does not authorize specific taxes has not and can not be demonstrated false, except by the Supreme Court."

If no one but the SC can demonstrate the argument as false, then the entire thread is pointless. It asks someone else BESIDES the SC whether or not taxes are constitutional. Assuming you were not asking the question rhetorically (and pointlessly) your primary question contradicts this last statement.

Now, given that you HAVE accepted arguments of others as valid, I must question why you now claim either mine are not valid or all of them are not valid - including the ones you previously accepted.

--

You say:

" I realize that using the Constitution to eliminate all coercive taxation (repetitive, I know) won't work precisely because of the contradictions you point out. But is it not a good way to start the debate? "

In other words, you say you know you cannot eliminate all TAXES because you acknowledge a constitutional challenge presents a CONTRADICTION to the argument you ACTUALLY want to be making. Yet, in spite of this, you ask WHY using a contradiction is not a good way to start a debate.

You cant start a *rational* debate basing YOUR argument on IRRATIONALITY. THATS WHY. And THAT is the VERY error of libertarianism.

Put simply, you cant argue in one breath:

"The constitution allows for a thing."

and then turn around and say:

"Oh - btw - no it doesnt"

If you believe PURPOSEFULLY using a contradiction as YOUR base is valid, then we DEFINITELY have a philosophic difference here - not just a procedural difference (which is what I have said all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap -- a few corrections:

First mine:

The Supreme Court is the only body which may determine, legally, whether the Constitution allows taxation for the purpose of certain, specific spending.

You have not demonstrated false the argument that, the Constitution does not authorize taxation for the purpose of social spending, to my satisfaction. In fact, to the degree that you have demonstrated the argument false, I have demonstrated it true, by presenting a counter argument which is justified by the SC's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

You may have asserted that the Constitution does allow for social spending but you have not proven it by any stretch.

Now yours:

"- I never stated all taxes have to be stopped immediately. I stated some taxes have to be stopped immediately." [-- Marc K.]

In never stated your claim was otherwise.

You state it explicitly here when you use the word “taxation” which you had previously defined as “all taxes”. Also in the last paragraph here you refer to my “first step”, my first step in reference to voluntary government financing, so you are claiming that my first step is the elimination of all coercive taxation.:

To state the conflict explicitly:

- your destination is voluntary government financing. And the road you are taking to this destination is a direct constitutional challenge to taxation and 'social' spending.

- my destination is also voluntary government financing. But I say the road to the destination needs to be the much longer one of philosophic change, first in society and then in the constitution.

What I find strange is that you provide a specific quote from AR which supports my argument in direct and explicit opposition to your own:

"Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society."

In other words, she explicitly states that your 'first step' on your thousand mile journey is the wrong one. She says it is "the last, not the first, reform to advocate."

you state it here by implying that I want an “abolishment of taxes”:

Furthermore, there currently does not exist a philosophic atmosphere conducive to either a strict constitutional reading, nor an abolishment of taxes.

you imply it again here by referring to my “FIRST step”:

Third - if you are claiming that your intent all along was not to eliminate taxes, but simply to spark a debate which would first eliminate altruism and everything else which needs to change, and then in the END eliminate taxes, that intent was NOT at all clear from your previous posts. In fact, by *explicitly* stating it was your FIRST step on a long journey, you indicated quite the opposite.

after I had explicitly stated here that I was only seeking “elimination of certain taxation”:

I think a significant proportion would support eliminating certain taxation were they given a principle to follow. An example I gave earlier in this thread is their apparent support to end the estate tax even though it wouldn’t affect them directly.

Next,

My comment which you quote "americans ultimately value their social programs more than their tax cuts" was made in the context of the alternative of no taxes and therefore no spending, vs taxes which therefore allows spending. I am stating, given a choice between losing their ability to spend on social programs at all or losing tax cuts, they will currently choose to lose the cuts and keep the taxes. Thus your example is irrelevant because it does not address the context of my statement.

Let me quote the entire paragraph so you can see that I did not take you out of context:

'See - here is valid authorization for THIS specific tax. So IT is ok. But there is NO authorization for this OTHER tax, so it is NOT ok."

And right there, even IF you win your battle (which you wont, because americans ultimately value their social programs more than their tax cuts - for practical AND philosophic reasons - which is another argument altogether) you lose your war, because you grant to your enemies THEIR argument - that taxes are valid (so long as they are written on a particular piece of paper). In other words, you can NEVER logically get to your ultimate destination - the statement that taxes are NOT ok at all - that they are all immoral and must be eliminated. Why? Because you have already said some are ok - and that a constitution has the authority TO authorize them.

The “battle” you speak of here is specific “tax cuts” as you stipulated earlier in the same post:

Basically, what you say you seek is the elimination of specific taxes by claiming there is no authorization for them in the constitution. This argument has already been demonstrated false, but I will assume for the moment it is true.
Whereas the “war” you refer to is the complete elimination of all coercive taxation. So you have taken yourself out of context, I have not.

Furthermore, the context of this entire thread was already established before you arrived. At first I was asking about the constitutionality of a progressive tax system (not all taxes, just this specific system). Next I inquired as to the constitutionality of spending on social programs (again, for the purpose of eliminating certain, not all, taxation). The problem arose when you came in and used the word “taxation”, however eloquently, in a different context from that already established. My answer to your first post:

What is the purpose?????????

To figure out a way to stop it, constitutionally.

And I think you mean coercive taxation is wrong.

Voluntary taxation is moral and needed. (VoS).

was an attempt, on my part, to define what was meant by “taxation” and get us on the same page. You should have known, considering the context of the entire thread up to that point, that your usage of “taxation” in this manner was going to cause problems. In fact, knowing how rational you are (as I have acknowledged before) I think you did know it was going to cause problems and that is why I described it as a “trap”. Now, you may come back and say my usage of the word “it” in the above quote did refer to ‘all coercive taxation’ but this is impossible considering the rest of that short post and again it would involve changing the context of everything that came before it. And now the discussion has degraded even further not because of me, as I have consistently used the word taxation since we defined it (in fact to be completely clear I usually used the term “coercive taxation”). Rather it was your continued assertion (as evidenced above) that I meant abolishment of all taxes even after I had specifically and explicitly stated otherwise.

This is all just a bunch of tedious bookkeeping. It is a colossal waste of time and it has stalled what was a fruitful discussion and devolved into a he said, she said tug of war. But I had to defend myself after you ignored half of my last post and instead accused me of inconsistencies of which, in fact, you are guilty. You say:

In other words, you say you know you cannot eliminate all TAXES because you acknowledge a constitutional challenge presents a CONTRADICTION to the argument you ACTUALLY want to be making. Yet, in spite of this, you ask WHY using a contradiction is not a good way to start a debate.

When, in fact, what I did was: acknowledge the contradiction inherent in the argument you, erroneously, claim to be mine, and present an alternative which you ignore. To wit:

- Challenge the constitutionality of a certain tax

- Start a debate, not just on the constitutionality of a certain tax but on the morality of taxation in general.

- With reason, natural law, and morality on our side, present the philosophic and economic benefits of voluntary government financing.

- People become interested, seek knowledge, educate themselves, change their thinking.

- Soon not just reason and philosophy but raw economic facts push us towards voluntary government financing.

- We all live happily ever after.

[...] Once the debate has started you could say “further, I can show that using the founders philosophy of natural law, all coercive taxation is immoral and outside the proper purview of the government and should be stopped.”

Again, use the constitutionality of certain taxation argument as a starting point or, if you like, a jumping off point to explain to people the immorality of coercive taxation and coercion in general. Perhaps a conversation would go something like this:

“so you are saying the constitution allows taxation for this purpose but not for this purpose”

me: “yes, in fact, the constitution does allow taxation for certain purposes. But what I’d like you to think about is why would it be allowed in certain circumstances and not in others. Additionally, I’d like you to think about what the proper function of govt is. Should the govt ever use coercion? If not, then why would we allow it to tax coercively?”

“but who would pay taxes if they didn’t have to?”

me: “If people could be convinced to pay taxes voluntarily wouldn’t this be a much better way to collect them? Wouldn’t our principle of non-coercion be better left intact? Well, in fact, there are ways to get people to voluntarily pay taxes. Let me explain.”

Let me make this easier. Let’s say someone comes up to you and asks: “Is taxation for the purpose of social spending allowed by the Constitution?” (Kind of like what is going on here). How would you answer?

I might answer no, you might answer yes. But would you just end the conversation there or would you go on to explain that just because the Constitution allows for taxation that doesn’t mean that taxation is moral (as you have done here), or that it makes economic sense or even that it squares with the founding father’s philosophy or that it squares with an objective, consistently moral philosophy? If this is how you would answer then perhaps you would allow me the opportunity to do the same, especially after being exposed to the arguments you have presented here.

You see there are two different lines of argumentation here:

1) the constitutionality of certain taxation

2) the morality of all taxation

One does not necessarily have to justify the other. In other words I could argue all day about the constitutionality of certain taxation without conceding: that taxes are moral, or, that the Constitution is my standard of morality. I have not claimed that taxation is moral anywhere here and implying I have done such, by changing contexts and reinterpreting my argument, won’t make it so no matter how many times you do so. Even at the beginning of our conversation I was very careful to distinguish between “coercive taxation” and “voluntary taxation”.

This is the part that really irks me.

If you believe PURPOSEFULLY using a contradiction as YOUR base is valid, then we DEFINITELY have a philosophic difference here - not just a procedural difference (which is what I have said all along.

So by using intellectually dishonest methods like claiming you didn’t say something when you did and saying I took you out of context when I didn’t you now want to accuse me of being philosophically inconsistent using words you put in my mouth. This is very disconcerting. You further inflame the situation by using buzzwords known by objectivists to signal the approach of an irrational person. You have insulted me and you have done so either intentionally or ignorantly. This is no way to have a rational discussion. It is like a teacher attempting to answer a student’s question and then berating the student for asking it. I’m not sure for how much longer the student will respect or listen to the teacher. If you have no desire to teach, that’s fine, you may excuse yourself, though you should have known that that was the intent of this thread which started and proceeded by way of questions.

I’m not sure we can move forward after being so hopelessly mired in innuendo and sloppy mudslinging but let me try by asking a few more questions:

- Would Ayn Rand have applauded the elimination or lowering of certain taxes even if it wasn’t caused by a philosophic change?

- Would Ayn Rand have applauded the elimination of certain taxes which was caused by a philosophic change but which didn’t eliminate taxes altogether? Such as replacing the progressive tax with a flat tax in the recognition of a progressive tax’s unfairness to the good for being good?

- Would Ayn Rand have supported the implementation of voluntary government financing that was caused by something other than a philosophic sea change? Let’s say it was sold to the people on economic grounds or, even worse, let’s say it was sold to the people on the basis that “the rich would actually and finally pay their fair share” (this is a snake oil salesman talking, not me).

-------------------------------------------------

[[This last question reminds me of another concept I wanted to ask about which is related but which definitely belongs in another thread and was sparked by questions about whether we should by goods from China:

- Which is the way to move China toward individual rights and freedom. Does capitalism come first and freedom will follow (which seems to be the course now) or must the Chinese people overthrow the govt first and then implement political and economic freedoms?]]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have written such a tome it is impossible to respond to it without producing an even larger and equally unanswerable post. I have many disagreements with what you have written - both to your ideas and your characterization of my ideas. Please number each of your arguments (in whatever manner you see fit) so that I may respond with the alacrity and brevity due each them, thus allowing my post to be both readable and something you can respond to rationally (if your edit time has run out, you can send me a pm with the appropriate notations, and I can then make the changes for you).

Without such an organization, due to the growing size of the posts, this conversation can not continue on this forum. If such organization is not forthcoming, I can only say: you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...