Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . . (Read 1188 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #30 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 9:06am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 7:44am:
Does your sarcasm indicate that you are fine with our incredibly inhumane prisons which often house people who are guilty of nothing or "guilty" of non-violent crimes such as drug use, tax-evasion, prostitution and gambling?


Not at all, just my understanding that your ranting about how evil everything about America has been right from the outset is not really helpful.

Here's a good idea-

https://themindunleashed.com/2018/10/pulled-over-police.html

BTW, everything you rail about is a consequence of letting "progressives" illegally alter the Constitution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #31 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 10:54am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 9:06am:
Not at all, just my understanding that your ranting about how evil everything about America has been right from the outset is not really helpful.

Here's a good idea-

https://themindunleashed.com/2018/10/pulled-over-police.htm



Yes, that is a good idea.  Police will likely disagree.  YouTube “recording police” or some such and you will see how they try to intimidate people from the natural and constitutional right to record them.

Quote:
BTW, everything you rail about is a consequence of letting "progressives" illegally alter the Constitution.


Again, illegal taxation started with the Whiskey Tax, but the seeds of all of our taxes are in the constitution itself.  Creating a strong centralized government to rule over the states was bound to wind up this way.
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #32 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 1:40pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 10:54am:
Again, illegal taxation started with the Whiskey Tax, but the seeds of all of our taxes are in the constitution itself.  Creating a strong centralized government to rule over the states was bound to wind up this way.
The problem arose by a misinterpretation of what "uniform" means, and it is a tragedy that "progressives" in the Progressive Era created a strong centralized government out of whole cloth.


federalist No. 39: Madison
           "In this relation then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several Stated a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #33 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 2:53pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 1:40pm:
The problem arose by a misinterpretation of what "uniform" means, and it is a tragedy that "progressives" in the Progressive Era created a strong centralized government out of whole cloth.


federalist No. 39: Madison
           "In this relation then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several Stated a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."



I've asked you several times what you think "uniform" means.  If I missed your answer, could you please give it again?

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #34 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:55pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 2:53pm:
I've asked you several times what you think "uniform" means.  If I missed your answer, could you please give it again?

I keep telling you over and over, I use words as if their common meanings were commonly understood.

As far as limitations on the taxing power go, what do you think was meant by the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity?

(I capitalize because it is a Supreme Law of the United States of America.)

I've explained my understanding of uniformity for Indirect taxes numerous times.

Edit: Go ahead, speak up as is your right, so far anyway...


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #35 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 9:49am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:55pm:
I keep telling you over and over, I use words as if their common meanings were commonly understood.

As far as limitations on the taxing power go, what do you think was meant by the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity?

(I capitalize because it is a Supreme Law of the United States of America.)

I've explained my understanding of uniformity for Indirect taxes numerous times.

Edit: Go ahead, speak up as is your right, so far anyway...




I think it was deliberately intended to be vague.  There is no correct answer to what it means.  Any tax can be said to be "uniform" by the kind of sophistry that is always used to present a plan for "morally justified theft."

What if they put a tax on all people named Jeff?  They could say, "well, yes, but everyone named Jeff pays the same so that's uniform."

What if a ten percent tax on salaries, profits or wages means I pay five figures in taxes but you only pay two or three?  Is that uniform?  "Sure," the taxer would say, "because everyone pays the same percent."

Here's an actual argument the federal government used and the USSC accepted to levy a tax that was clearly not uniform.

Quote:
A somewhat notable exception to this limitation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Ptasynski,[37] the Court allowed a tax exemption which was quasi-geographical in nature. In the case, oil produced within a defined geographic region above the Arctic Circle was exempted from a federal excise tax on oil production. The basis for the holding was that Congress had determined the Alaskan oil to be of its own class and exempted it on those grounds, even though the classification of the Alaskan oil was a function of where it was geographically produced.

To understand the nuance of the Court's holding, consider this explanation: Congress decides to implement a uniform tax on all coal mining. The tax so implemented distinguishes between different grades of coal (e.g., anthracite versus bituminous versus lignite) and exempts one of the grades from taxation. Even though the exempted grade could potentially be defined by where it is geographically produced, the tax itself is still geographically uniform.
Shocked

The Whiskey Tax was not uniform either, as I explained in a separate post.  Regardless of the wording of the Slave-holder's Manifesto U.S. Constitution, Congress has always taxed however it chose with no check and balance except the influence of the pull-peddlers. 
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #36 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:04pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 10th, 2018 at 9:49am:
I think it was deliberately intended to be vague.  There is no correct answer to what it means.  Any tax can be said to be "uniform" by the kind of sophistry that is always used to present a plan for "morally justified theft."

What if they put a tax on all people named Jeff?  They could say, "well, yes, but everyone named Jeff pays the same so that's uniform."

What if a ten percent tax on salaries, profits or wages means I pay five figures in taxes but you only pay two or three?  Is that uniform?  "Sure," the taxer would say, "because everyone pays the same percent."

Here's an actual argument the federal government used and the USSC accepted to levy a tax that was clearly not uniform.

Shocked

The Whiskey Tax was not uniform either, as I explained in a separate post.  Regardless of the wording of the Slave-holder's Manifesto U.S. Constitution, Congress has always taxed however it chose with no check and balance except the influence of the pull-peddlers. 
There is a correct meaning for uniform as it was used in the Constitution, and it can be determined from the overall meaning and intent of the Declaration and the Constitution. Equal treatment under the laws was considered fundamental. Laying an excise tax on the output of one man's business and not on the output of another's merely because they produce different things is not equal treatment. It favors one type of enterprise over another and thus one entrepreneur over the other.

The whiskey tax, as I read it and as it was actually enacted, was not uniform between large and small distillers but to my mind the worst lack of uniformity was to apply an excise to one product and not to all products.

Taxes on wages and salaries are Direct in their substance and effect and must be apportioned, which is a different issue entirely.

The S.Ct. has botched both issues, the rule of uniformity almost since the beginning, and the rule of apportionment since at least the Progressive Era.

That's why I agree with this-

Federalist No. 49: Madison
           "As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government, but also whenever one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments or the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?"

And with this-

Federalist No. 28: Hamilton
           "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the execution of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State."

You keep talking as if the USSC is superior to the other branches of government. It is not.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #37 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:07pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:04pm:
There is a correct meaning for uniform as it was used in the Constitution, and it can be determined from the overall meaning and intent of the Declaration and the Constitution. Equal treatment under the laws was considered fundamental. Laying an excise tax on the output of one man's business and not on that of the output of another's merely because they produce different things is not equal treatment. It favors one type of enterprise over another and thus one entrepreneur of the other.

The whiskey tax, as I read it and as it was actually enacted, was not uniform between large and small distillers but to my mind the worst lack of uniformity was to apply an excise to one product and not to all products.

Taxes on wages and salaries are Direct in their substance and effect and must be apportioned, which is a different issue entirely.

The S.Ct. has botched both issues, the rule of uniformity almost since the beginning, and the rule of apportionment since at least the Progressive Era.

That's why I agree with this-

Federalist No. 49: Madison
           "As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government, but also whenever one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments or the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?"

And with this-

Federalist No. 28: Hamilton
           "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the execution of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State."




So when president Washington and his gunvernment men rode out to extract the taxes at gunpoint, were the westerners morally correct to resist?

We know they were strategically correct because the resistance was so successful.  But were they morally wrong to resist the majority's desire to tax them as expressed through their elected representatives and president?


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #38 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:13pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
So when president Washington and his gunvernment men rode out to extract the taxes at gunpoint, were the westerners morally correct to resist?

We know they were strategically correct because the resistance was so successful.  But were they morally wrong to resist the majority's desire to tax them as expressed through their elected representatives and president?


It wasn't "the majority" that wanted to tax whiskey, it was Congress, although they probably had fairly strong support for the tax.

What the farmers should have done was take their complaint to court, that was the legal option.

Is it moral to use armed resistance against every specific instance of the government operating in an illegal fashion? What would be the result if everyone did that?

Here's the best you'll get from me, the government acted both illegally and immorally in enacting the excise tax on whiskey.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Reply #39 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:24pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 10th, 2018 at 1:13pm:
It wasn't "the majority" that wanted to tax whiskey, it was Congress, although they probably had fairly strong support for the tax.

What the farmers should have done was take their complaint to court, that was the legal option.

Is it moral to use armed resistance against every specific instance of the government operating in an illegal fashion? What would be the result if everyone did that?


A government that operated in legal fashion?

So, under your moral compass, morality is entirely about the results? 

Quote:
Here's the best you'll get from me, the government acted both illegally and immorally in enacting the excise tax on whiskey.


Manfully conceded, sir!

Edited to ad:

Quote:
Hamilton exhorted Congress, was that the means to ensure collection -- executive force -- was inherent in the Constitution. Recent popular Hamilton biographies to the contrary, there's no question about Hamilton's looking forward to bringing federal troops against a recalcitrant citizenry -- and seeing it that way requires no resort to lockstep Jeffersonianism, as Kohn again helps clarify. As early as fall of 1792, when resistance to the tax's perfect regressiveness amounted only to noncompliance and a few violent incidents, Hamilton was pressing Washington to define such acts not as crimes committed by individuals but as acts of war carried out by the whole people of a region.



Washington led the army most of the way, then turned back, again emerging nearly blameless, having consigned operations on the ground to the eager Hamilton. Because most of the rebels had fled, hundreds of ordinary citizens were rousted from beds by pumped-up dragoons, marched through the snow to holding pens, detained indefinitely on no charge, harshly interrogated, physically and mentally abused, and made to open their homes to search and their property to seizure -- all without warrants, and on the basis of no evidence. Then, after signing loyalty oaths, the people of the region were subjected to long-term military occupation and policing.

In what is often presented as a last-minute victory for the jury system, the United States could convict only two of the men it force-marched, many barely clothed and shod -- and many still unindicted -- eastward across the mountains in winter and then paraded through shouting crowds in the capital. What gets ignored in that reading is the irrelevance of legal prosecution to the executive's plan. With national unity at stake, legality had never been the point. Victory was.

By resort to sheer force, the first president stabilized federal credit and established national sovereignty at the expense of a militant form of economic populism. It was a founding moment -- one we should wrestle with, if we hope to invoke fundamental American principles in critiquing policies of this or any other executive.


https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/27341
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › If Police Come to Arrest me for a Crime I know I Never Committed . . .
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy