You didn't know that the reason they read your rights before you get arrested is so that you can accumulate some property?
Kinda early in the discussion to play the classic states' rights 10th Amendment card, but I'll bite. You do agree that federal drug laws, laws which prevent funding abortion any federal laws concerning gay marriage all fly in the face of that amendment too, right?
Okay, I see I have to explain it. TRANSLATION: The government can't take my property (money for example) without following the law. That I have a right to property that cannot be taken away. Is this really that difficult a concept? To take it a step further the founding father felt that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Through common law, state law, and the Constitution they protected the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property. Now the federal government is slowly taking all these rights away.
There should be no federal laws regarding drugs, funding of abortion, or gay marriage (there should be no State laws for this one either).
That's a tough leap to make. The Founders certainly did discuss tax policy. The familiar way of raising revenue in 1789 was by tariffs injected into the stream of commerce, and not on the individual income level. But you just can't take the next leap and say that they "didn't believe" in personal income tax. You could say that they were intensely concerned that commerce not be burdened - by taxes or otherwise, but tariffs were at the forefront of their concerns. You could say that they were violently protective of individual liberty. You could say all of that. But you'd have to also acknowledge that knew there was a need for federal government revenue stream AND (this is the important part) they knew that collecting taxes from the states would be problematic, because they'd experienced it. Here's what I think: I think the Founding Fathers absolutely punted on the issue of federal tax collection. I think they knew that it would be a problem down the road. They attached the issue of taxation to the "necessary and proper" clause, and left the issue dangling. What's more, they KNEW that this would be one of the things that people hated most about the Constitution. So they punted. The Civil War had to be paid for, though. They didn't foresee that, I'm sure, but the irony might be that two of the issues they kicked down the road - slavery and taxes - both came to a boil at the same time. We're really left to guess what they would have to say about a personal income tax. But, these were dudes who were pretty big on proportionality. In all things. Representation. Taxation. And so forth. So, IF they conceived of an income tax, and IF they debated it as they debated all things, I don't think a graduated tax wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibilities.
But look - it's not my favorite means of creating revenue either. As with just about every progressive policy, it has the opposite effect of what it intends. I'd love nothing more than for someone to put a national consumption tax on the table, and take the income tax right off. THAT's very Founding Fatherish. But in 2010, if the issue is preservation of individual liberty, I think there are better issues to focus on in the short term.
Tarrifs were clearly the major source of income for the Federal Government in the early goings. The extent to which the Founding Fathers considered a Federal Income Tax is unknown to me. But I do know a considerable amount of thought went into the Constitution and for whatever reason they rejected that idea and went with the State constribution. I'm not clear on one of your points. You say the Founding Fathers were pretty big on proportionality and follow it up by saying a graduated tax wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibilities. Isn't a graduated tax disproportionate? If they were as big on proporitonality as you say wouldn't a flat tax have made a lot more sense?
Sigh. You have a right to not have the government just up and take shit without some legal process. This does NOT create a "right to accumulate" anything. Seriously, come back with something intelligent next time. Please.
I said it "wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibilities," in the sense that they would have considered taxation proportionate with wealth. So, the wealthier paying a great proportion by way of higher rate would certainly have been discussed. The real point, though, is that they purposely chose not to discuss it. Here's the other great thing about our Founding Fathers - they were great readers and plagiarists. If they were to set a tax structure in Constitutional concrete, it would likely be something that had been utilized elsewhere and had withstood the test of time and debate. The income tax wasn't one of those things. You won't find any mention of it in the Constitutional debate, so I do think it's a leap to say they were opposed to it. But that isn't to say that we don't know their thoughts on taxation. We know they saw a need for federal taxation. We KNOW (beyond all doubt) that they knew people would hate this part of the draft more than nearly any other. We know that tariffs in the stream of commerce and taxes on real and personal property were familiar to them. We know that they envisioned parallel local and federal taxes. And we know that they chose to leave the form of federal taxation open for future Congresses. They foresaw problems with over-reliance on one single federal revenue stream, but they also didn't want to predict the needs of future generations. So, they left it open-ended. As I said - they punted. They didn't exclude any options, but they didn't include any favorites either.
The right to acquire property is an inalienable right which the Fifth Amendment says can't be taken away without due process. I therefore, clearly have the right to acquire property. The connection is implicit.
But do you have a right to acquire so much property that you deny someone else the right to acquire property?
Propery ownership by definition excludes others. If something is your property I don't have any right to enjoy it unless there is an easement or any other limitation on your ownership of that property.
Right, but it seems a bit odd that everyone has this "right" but only if you were fortunate enough to get in on it while it was available. First come first serve is fine but prancing around like it's some God given right to be fortunate isn't my cup of tea.
Decent question, because this is the libertarian line in the sand - the maximum personal liberty for everyone up to the point where the exercise of your liberties tramples on the liberties of others. So, Constitutionally, I suppose it's wrong for me to exercise my Second Amendment rights trying to stop some hippie from exercising his First Amendment Rights; except where protecting his First Amendment rights fucks around with my Fifth Amendment rights; but then, protecting my Fifth Amendment rights, the gub'mint can't futz around with his Fourth Amendment rights; We also take the extra step of reading him his own Fifth Amendment rights, and secure all of these wonderful things by providing him with his Sixth Amendment lawyer. Fortunately, though, we can still pump poison through scrawny hippy arm veins without violating their Eighth Amendment rights.
The moral arguement for property ownership is generally that what is acquired by the sweat of one's brow, by right of inheritance, or by being clever enough to get there first entitles you to the property. Any other claims to it are inferior because you earned it somehow. While most of us owe at least part of our success to the support and sacrifices of our parents, it seems at least a bit unfair that someone may never have to work a day in thier life just because mommy and daddy were rich. Also, those blessed with athletic ability, musical talent, or extremely good looks are lavishly rewarded for these traits and the jobs they have seem really easy or extremely well compensated to the rest of us. With all that being said, private property ownership and the rule of law are primarily responsible for the success we have had. If government is empowered to take away private property with impunity nothing is sacred.
I agree with that. I have a hard time looking at someone like my great uncle who is what we call mentally challenged and not feeling like there should be some way to help him out. The guy has worked the same shitty auditing job for almost nothing for 30 years. He went in on weekends, holidays, whatever they told him to do and he was happy to do it. So now he is 60 and got laid off a few months ago and is going to have to decide if he should start using his pretty minuscule life savings to start paying for his health insurance or if he should just keep on trucking along without any insurance. Surely a reasonable society can figure out a way to keep a guy like this in his shitty apartment and get him medical care when he needs it.
This is actually one of the major motivations for the 16th Amendment. Now if the Federal Government would just give up the land they've illegally acquired over the years, there'd be a lot more for the rest of us.
